Loading...
2016/01/26 City Council Agenda Packet,qj)yiNRRT PAR �Y , CALI FORM/ Mission Statement "We Care for Our Residents by Working Together to Build a Better Community for Today and Tomorrow. " City of Rohnert Park ♦ 130 Avram Avenue ♦ Rohnert Park, California 94928 PHONE: (707) 588-2227+ FAX: (707) 794-9248 ♦ WEB: www.rpcity.org ROHNERT PARK CITY COUNCIL Rohnert Park Financing Authority (RPFA) Successor Agency to the Community Development Commission (CDC) JOINT REGULAR MEETING AGENDA Tuesday, January 26, 2016 Open Session: 5:00 p.m. MEETING LOCATION: CITY HALL - COUNCIL CHAMBER 130 Avram Avenue, Rohnert Park, California The Rohnert Park City Council welcomes your attendance, interest and participation at its regular city meetings scheduled on the second and fourth Tuesdays of each month at 5:00 p.m. in the Council Chamber. City Council/RPFA agendas and minutes may be viewed at the City's website: www.rpcity.org. PUBLIC HEARINGS: Council/RPFA may discuss and/or take action on any or all of the items listed on this agenda. If you challenge decisions of the City Council or the Rohnert Park Financing Authority of the City of Rohnert Park in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at public hearing(s) described in this agenda, or in written correspondence delivered to the City of Rohnert Park at, or prior to the public hearing(s). RIGHT TO APPEAL: Judicial review of any city administrative decision pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure Section 1094.5 may be had only if a petition is filed with the court no later than the deadlines specified in Section 1094.6 of the California Code of Civil Procedure, which generally limits the time within which the decision may be challenged to the 90th day following the date that the decision becomes final. SIMULTANEOUS MEETING COMPENSATION DISCLOSURE (Government Code § 54952.3): Members of the City Council receive no additional compensation as a result of convening this joint meeting of the City Council and the Rohnert Park Financing Authority. PUBLIC COMMENTS: Provides an opportunity for public comment on items not listed on the agenda, or on agenda items if unable to comment at the scheduled time (limited to three minutes per appearance and a 30 minute total time limit, or allocation of time determined by Presiding Officer based on number of speaker cards submitted). PLEASE FILL OUT A SPEAKER CARD PRIOR TO SPEAKING ANNOUNCEMENT: Please turn off all pagers, cellular telephones and all other communication devices upon entering the Council Chamber. Use of these devices causes electrical interference with the sound recording and TV broadcast systems. City of Rohnert Park Joint Regular Meeting Agenda January 26, 2016 for City Council/RPFA/CDC Successor Agency Page 2 of 7 I. CITY COUNCIL/RPFA/SUCCESSOR AGENCY JOINT REGULAR MEETING - CALL TO ORDER/ROLL CALL (Ahanotu _ Callinan Stafford _ Mackenzie _ Belforte PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE 3. PRESENTATIONS A. Mayor's Proclamation: Honoring Public Safety Officer, Dean Becker, On the Occasion of his Retirement B. Mayor's Certificate of Recognition: Honoring Rohnert Park's 'Calendar Girls' for their Generous Contribution Supporting Health & Wellbeing Opportunities for the Community C. Presentation from Kellie Noe, Sonoma County Health Department, on Universal Pre -School 4. DEPARTMENT HEAD BRIEFING A. Report on Annexation of Northwest Specific Plan Area and Regional Transportation Management B. Development Services: Update on Housing Development Projects 5. PUBLIC COMMENTS Persons wishing to address the Council on any Consent Calendar item, Closed Session, or on City business not listed on the Agenda may do so at this time. Each speaker will be allotted three minutes. Those wishing to address the Council on any report item listed on the Agenda should submit a "Speaker Card" to the City Clerk before announcement of that agenda item. 6. CONSENT CALENDAR All items on the Consent Calendar will be considered together by one or more actions) of the City Council and/or the Rohnert Park Financing Authority and Successor Agency to the Community Development Commission, whichever is applicable, unless any Council Member or anyone else interested in a consent calendar item has a question about the item. A. Approval of Minutes for: 1. City Council/RPFA/Successor Agency Joint Regular Meeting, January 12, 2016 B. Acceptance of Reports for: 1. City Bills/Demands for Payment dated January 26, 2016 2. RPFA- Cash Report for Month Ending December 2015 3. Housing Successor Agency- Cash Report for Month Ending December 2015 4. Successor Agency- Cash Report for Month Ending December 2015 5. City- Cash Report for Month Ending November 2015 6. City Councilmembers Quarterly Expense Report (October, November, December) 7. Receive Series 2007R Excess Bond Proceeds Expenditure Report City of Rohnert Park Joint Regular Meeting Agenda January 26, 2016 for City Council/RPFA/CDC Successor Agency Page 3 of 7 C. City Council Resolution(s) for Adoption: 1. 2016-3 Approving the City of Rohnert Park Current Pay Rates and Ranges Revised January 11, 2016 2. 2016-4 Approving the Elimination of the Current .7 FTE Public Safety Office Assistant I in the Records Bureau and Addition of One Full -Time Public Safety Records Clerk in the Public Safety Department 3. 2016-5 Approving the Fourth Amendment To Task Order 2014-02 with Green Valley Consulting Engineers for On -Call Construction Management and Inspection Services and Authorizing the Finance Director to Take Related Actions 4. 2016-6 Approving the Third Amendment to the Consultant Services Agreement with Dudek for Planning and Environmental Consulting Services and Authorizing the Finance Director to Take Related Actions 5. 2016-7 Approving a Public Improvement Agreement for the Southeast Rohnert Park Model Home Access Improvements with Redwood Equities Investments, LLC and Making CEQA Findings 6. 2016-8 Authorizing the City Manager to Execute the First Amendment to an Agreement for Management and Administrative Services with Regional Government Services for Planning Services and Authorizing the Finance Director to Take Related Actions D. Successor Agency Resolution(s) for Adoption: 1. 2016-9 Approving the Annual Recognized Obligation Payment Schedule for July 1, 2016, - June 30, 2017 ("ROPS 16-17"), Pursuant to Section 34177(0) of the California Health and Safety Code E. Authorize the City Manager to Execute the Second Amendment to the Design Professional Services Agreement with Glass Architects for the Callinan Sports & Fitness Center Locker Room Rehabilitation Project (Project Number 2013-05) for a not to exceed amount of $7,250 F. Authorize the City Manager to Execute the First Amendment to the Task Order 2015-02 with GHD, Inc. for the Public Safety Main HVAC System Replacement Project (Project Number 2014-02) for a not to exceed amount of $4,400 G. Authorize the Purchase of Ten (10) Weathermatic Smartlink Irrigation Control Devices from Horizon Distributors Inc. for an Amount not to Exceed $38,500 Council Motion/Vote City of Rohnert Park Joint Regular Meeting Agenda January 26, 2016 for City Council/RPFA/CDC Successor Agency Page 4 of 7 7. CLOSED SESSION A. Recess to Closed Session in Conference Room 2A to Consider: 1. Conference with Real Property Negotiators (Government Code §54956.8) Property: 6750 Commerce Blvd. (APN: 143-380-015); 100 Avram Avenue (APNs: 143-380-022 through 029); and 120 Avram Avenue (APN: 143-061-052) City Negotiator: Darrin Jenkins, City Manager Negotiating Parties: 360 Investment Advisors and Volunteers of America Under Negotiation: Price and Terms 2. Conference with Legal Counsel — Anticipated Litigation - Significant exposure to litigation pursuant to Government Code §54956.9(d)(2): (One Case) B. Reconvene Joint Regular Meeting Open Session in Council Chamber C. Report on Closed Session (Government Code § 54957.1) 8. Discussion and Direction on Sonoma County Waste Management Agency Joint Powers Agreement A. Staff Report B. Public Comment C. Council discussion/direction 9. Consideration of a Ventilation and Air Conditioning Feasibility Study at the Callinan Sports and Fitness Center A. Staff Report B. Public Comments C. Resolution for Adoption: 1. 2016-10 Authorizing and Approving the City Manager to Execute a Task Order with GHD, Inc. for an Amount Not to Exceed $24,353 for a Ventilation and Air Conditioning Feasibility Study at the Callinan Sports and Fitness Center and Authorizing the Finance Director to Increase Appropriation by $24,353 to the Capital Improvement Project 2015-25 the Sports Center Ventilation Feasibility Study Funded by 2007R Tax Allocation Bond Proceeds and any other Transactions Necessary to Fund the Project a. Council motion/discussion/vote 10. PUBLIC HEARING: (NO EARLIER THAN 6PM) Consideration of an Interim Urgency Ordinance Establishing a Temporary Moratorium on Marijuana Cultivation Facilities and Finding the Action Exempt Under CEQA A. Staff Report B. Conduct Public Hearing C. Ordinance for Adoption: 1. 895 An Interim Urgency Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Rohnert Park Establishing a Temporary Moratorium Prohibiting Marijuana Cultivation Facilities Within the City of Rohnert Park Pending Completion of a Comprehensive Update to the City of Rohnert Park Zoning Ordinance Regarding Marijuana Establishments, to Become Effective Immediately and Finding the Action Exempt Under the California Environmental Quality Act City of Rohnert Park Joint Regular Meeting Agenda January 26, 2016 for City Council/RPFA/CDC Successor Agency Page 5 of 7 a. Council motion/discussion/roll call vote (4/5 vote §36937 of the quorum) (Ahanotu _ Callinan Stafford _ Mackenzie _ Belforte 11. PUBLIC HEARING: (NO EARLIER THAN 6PM) Consideration of an Ordinance Amending Chapters 17.02 (General Provisions), 17.04 (Definitions) and 17.06 (Land Use Regulations) of the Zoning Ordinance and Adoption of a New Chapter 8.30 (Marijuana Cultivation, Processing, Delivery, and Dispensaries) of the Municipal Code and Finding the Action Exempt Under the California Environmental Quality Act A. Staff Report B. Conduct Public Hearing C. Ordinance for Introduction: 1. 896 An Ordinance of the City of Rohnert Park, Amending Chapters 17.02 (General Provisions), 17.04 (Definitions), and 17.06 (Land Use Regulations) of the Zoning Ordinance, and Adoption of a New Chapter 8.30 (Marijuana Cultivation, Processing, Delivery, and Dispensaries) of the Municipal Code a. Council motion/discussion/roll call vote (Ahanotu _ Callinan Stafford _ Mackenzie _ Belforte 12. PUBLIC HEARING: (NO EARLIER THAN 6PM) Statement of Costs and Property Lien on 1391 Miramonte Place, Rohnert Park to Recover Nuisance Abatement Costs A. Staff Report B. Conduct Public Hearing C. Resolution for Adoption: 1. 2016-11 Approving a Statement of Costs and Establishing a Lien Against the Vacant Real Property located at 1391 Miramonte Pl, Rohnert Park, CA APN-047-370-015 Pursuant to Rohnert Park Municipal Code Sections 1.24.200, and 1.27.050 and Government Code Section 38773.1 a. Council motion/discussion/vote 13. Sonoma County Mayors' & Councilmembers' Association Matters Consideration of supporting "letters of interest" for appointments to vacancies by the Mayors' and Councilmembers' Association Board of Directors on February 11, 2016 A. Mayors' and Councilmembers' Association Appointments 1. North Bay Division, LOCC, Executive Board Alternate for a two-year term ending February 2018 a. Public Comment b. Council discussion/action B. Mayor's Letter Listing Regional Topics of Significance for Report to the Mayors & Councilmembers Association February 11, 2016 Board Meeting 1. Public Comment 2. Council discussion/action C. Mayor's letter designating an alternate voting representative to attend City Selection Committee or Sonoma County Mayors' and Councilmembers' City of Rohnert Park Joint Regular Meeting Agenda January 26, 2016 for City Council/RPFA/CDC Successor Agency Page 6 of 7 Association meetings 1. Public Comment 14. 2016 City Council Committee Appointments and Liaison Assignments to Various Outside Agency Assignments A. Staff Report B. Public Comment C. Distribution of Mayor's Appointments to Council Committees and Liaison Assignments for the year 2016 D. Council confirmation of Mayor's Appointments to Outside Agencies and Committees a. Council motion/discussion/vote 15. COMMITTEE / LIAISON / OTHER REPORTS This time is set aside to allow Council members serving on Council committees or on regional boards, commissions or committees to present a verbal report on the activities of the respective boards, commissions or committees on which they serve. No action may be taken. 16. COMMUNICATIONS Copies of communications have been provided to Council for review prior to this meeting. Council Members desiring to read or discuss any communication may do so at this time. No action may be taken except to place a particular item on a future agenda for Council consideration. 17. MATTERS FROM/FOR COUNCIL Prior to agenda publication, any Councilmember may place an item on this portion of the agenda. Upon the concurrence of two Councilmembers, the item may be added to a subsequent agenda for deliberation and action. In accordance with the Brown Act, at the City Council meeting, Councilmembers may not add items hereunder, except for brief reports on his or her own activities or brief announcements regarding an event of community interest. A. Council Consideration of Proposed FY 2016-17 Budget Work Session Schedule — April 25 11:00 am to 5:00 pm and April 26 9:00 am to 4:00 pm B. Council Consideration of Proposed Date for Town Hall Meeting — April 6 6:00 pm, April 20 6:00 pm, or April 216:00 pm 18. PUBLIC COMMENTS Persons wishing to address the Council on City business not listed on the Agenda may do so at this time. Each speaker will be allotted three minutes. Those wishing to address the Council on any report item listed on the Agenda should submit a "Speaker Card" to the City Clerk before announcement of that agenda item. 19. ADJOURNMENT NOTE: Time shown for any particular matter on the agenda is an estimate only. Matters may be considered earlier or later than the time indicated depending on the pace at which the meeting proceeds. If City of Rohnert Park Joint Regular Meeting Agenda January 26, 2016 for City Council/RPFA/CDC Successor Agency Page 7 of 7 you wish to speak on an item under discussion by the Council which appears on this agenda, after receiving recognition from the Mayor, please walk to the rostrum and state your name and address for the record. Any item raised by a member of the public which is not on the agenda and may require Council action shall be automatically referred to staff for investigation and disposition which may include placing on a future agenda. If the item is deemed to be an emergency or the need to take action arose after posting of the agenda within the meaning of Government Code Section 54954.2(b), Council is entitled to discuss the matter to determine if it is an emergency item under said Government Code and may take action thereon. DISABLED ACCOMMODATION: If you have a disability which requires an interpreter or other person to assist you while attending this City Council meeting, please contact the City Clerk's Office at (707) 588-2227 at least 72 hours prior to the meeting to ensure arrangements for accommodation by the City. Please notify the City Clerk's Office as soon as possible if you have a visual impairment requiring meeting materials to be produced in another format (Braille, audio -tape, etc.) AGENDA REPORTS & DOCUMENTS: Copies of all staff reports and documents subject to disclosure that relate to each item of business referred to on the agenda are available for public inspection at City Hall located at 130 Avram Avenue, during regular business hours, Monday through Friday from 8:00 am to 5:00 pm. Any writings or documents subject to disclosure that are provided to all, or a majority of all, of the members of the City Council regarding any item on this agenda after the agenda has been distributed will also be made available for inspection at City Hall during regular business hours. CERTIFICATION OF POSTING OF AGENDA I, JoAnne Buergler, City Clerk for the City of Rohnert Park, declare that the foregoing agenda for the January 26, 2016, Joint Regular Meeting of the Rohnert Park City Council/RPFA was posted and available for review on January 21, 2016, at Rohnert Park City Hall, 130 Avram Avenue, Rohnert Park, California 94928. The agenda is also available on the City web site at www.rncity.org, Executed this 21S` day of January, 2016, at Rohnert Park, California. JoAnne M. Buergler, City Clerk r � FJ x, � g °i:11A,i° I •! a!! a**:* -a * 0• a * a a o* a a a R a 04 a a a i a. a a a*•* a•! a • r* i a a'• i s f.0 04 wo �cociaaocation A PROCLAMATION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROHNERT PARK Honoring Public Safety Officer DEAN BECKER On the Occasion of his Retirement V bereao, Dean Becker has retired after nearly 26 years of outstanding service to the City of Rohnert Park where he began working as a public safety officer in 1990; 30bereao, Dean Becker was a valuable addition to the Rohnert Park Department of Public Safety which was evident through his dedicated service to the citizens of Rohnert Park and the advanced training certificates he received; V bereao, during his career he served as a patrol officer, fire engineer, member of the USAR team, D.A.R.E Officer, field training officer, G.I.F.T Instructor, school resource officer, member of the Multiple Agencies Gang Unit, bike and motorcycle patrol, range master, police service aide coordinator, and host of the City's crime prevention show `Street Beat'; VhereaO, he was recognized by the State of California for his assistance with the `Stop, Cite, and Return Truancy Program' and received department recognition for his handling of a mentally disturbed citizen; 30bereao, in 2005 he founded and chaired the Sonoma County Law Enforcement Volunteers Group which provided recognition for the service provided to agencies through volunteerism; and VbereaO, perhaps one of the most memorable undertakings in his career, was his involvement in the Annual RPPSOA Santa Sleigh Program where he brought joy to the children of Rohnert Park every December in his role as Santa Claus. POW, TijerefOre, be it VrOtiaimeb that 1, Gina Belforte, as Mayor and on behalf of the City Council of the City of Rohnert Park, do hereby extend our sincere thanks and appreciation to Dean Becker for his years of excellent service to our community and wish him all the best in his retirement. Oulp aitb R.egularip Prodaimeb this 26"' day of January, 2016. CITY OF ROHNERT PARK Gina Belforte, MAYOR a' '*•eas0Go* s***+woo s**arse *go a0Goa •er��ti�'R' �y,�►•*0006*•as* 04 rf31% �Certfficaecognition44&*a1)t M- , 001110daff ROHNERT PARK'S 'CALENDAR GIRLS' for their Generous Contribution Supporting Health & Wellbeing Opportunities for the Community As Mayor, and on behalf of the City Council of the City of Rohnert Park, I do hereby recognize and honor Rohnert Park's 'Calendar Girls' for their recent fundraising event that raised $5,000 in support of health and human services offered to our community and beyond. This extraordinary group of Rancho Grande Mobile Home Park residents recently created and sold a custom-made and distinctly unique calendar in order to raise funds in support of The Living Room, a non-profit organization that provides essential day -services to at -risk women and children including those that have been battered and abused. We are honored to recognize this amazing group of women and congratulate them on their extraordinary efforts promoting and supporting community health and well-being. Signed this 26* day of January, 2016 By: a 38efforte, fflapor Options for Universal Access to Preschool in Sonoma County Rohnert Park City Council Summary of Phase-in Options 1.Serving all 3- and 4 -year-olds in the highest priority area zip codes 2.Serving all 3- and 4 -year-olds in the highest priority area census tracts 3.Serving all 3- and 4 -year-olds under 300 percent of the federal poverty line 4.Serving all 3- and 4 -year-olds countywide with an 85 percent participation rate 5 -Serving all 3- and 4 -year-olds countywide with a 100 percent participation rate Funding Sources ■ Most of the initiatives studied have a dedicated funding mechanism for preschool. Sales tax Property tax Set-aside Combination of funding sources Pay for Success Bonds State and federal funds as well as private donations 3 A successful universal preschool initiative in the county will require the following: Clearly defining the goals for preschool -age children Establishing a framework for quality • Making the most of existing funding streams Obtaining a dedicated new funding stream for preschool Phasing in the preschool initiative across a period of up to 10 years, beginning in the neighborhoods of greatest unmet need Developing partnerships with business and schools M Cradle to Career believes... Access to quality preschool should be provided for all 3 and 4 year old children with a phase-in period that starts with preschool for the children in highest need. An 8 -hour day, full -year preschool should be provided to families with the option for parents to pay for before and after care. State/ federal funds should be fully maximized and partnerships developed with schools and businesses. Subsidized high quality preschool seats should be provided to all families under 300% of the federal poverty level (FPL). Competitive preschool wages should be provided to promote teacher retention and quality. 5 Potential City Roles Provide long term leases for quality preschool facilities Implement family friendly policies Host a City Council study session Review and adjust permitting fees ■Stewardship e Others? Development Services Update NW Specific Plan N Legend MC-4—A— F-Ir-7F .............. —.0 Wilfred-Dowdell ii Specific Plan La :3b Viiirk 20yr UGB ......... SOI Sphere of Influence FRP CITY LIMIT SPA& PDA NE Specific Plan • ------------ University Ii 1,iC, Specific C Plan nnon Mar Rcific Plan �narnaMountain, SE Village 'j..,nd �Specific Plan Developrnent I 3,000 1.500 0 3,000 Feet ILLI L I__ _ — HINERAUGH CREEK )NOT PART OF DAP} REDWOOD PARK DETENTION ESTATES AND WATER QUALITY BASH (NOT PART OF DAP) UD LLC C) Z UNIVERSITY PARK - - TWIN CREEKS PARK (NOT PART OF DAP) -- OAK VIEW TERRACE 1mv- I A LAN ROHNERT PARK EXPRESSWAY (NOT PART OF DAP) ' LEGEND' DEVELOPMENT AREA PLAN . ■ . ... ■ DEVELOPMENT AREA PLAN BOUNDARY CYPRESS 44'x 70' SFD-119 LOTS VAST OAK WEST 0 100 200 400 MULRFRRY 46 x 85'-164 LOTS r CaliforniaJULY 201a MAGNOLIA 4 -PACK MOTOR COURTS -116 LOTS ohneren. Park, Park SCALE: 1 "=200' N o A T „ Rohnk,. TOTAL: 399 LOTS 09-12-2014 Mdpm A—do KarcWWV195N\PLANN NcVIYVFLUAl hi AKA PIiW\2C14V1 1 VO WIS1 VL'HORTiGOD PmuwG Housing Development Status University District Approved Mulberry University District Approved Cypress University District Approved Magnolia Southeast Phase I March 2016 Approved Third Review Winter/Spring 2016 Approved Third Review Winter/Spring 2016 Approved Third Review Winter/Spring 2016 Spring 2016 First Review Spring 2016 CITY COUNCIL SPEAKER CARD Date: Agenda Item #: 10 Name: - 2S ,_,N Address:—,, TOPIC: C• �r �dca`� i',c�1'� !(i .,r Brief Summary of Comments: See Reverse -> CITY COUNCIL SPEAKER C'AItD Date: 2-w, � Agenda Item #: Name: Address: Phone: TOPIC: fti-. Brief Summary of Comments: 1 �� L0�' CITY COUNCIL SPEAKER CARD Date: lullb Agenda Item #: Name: .n"J tl n D V i q, Address: TOPIC: f lwx, cvwv1)�D,() ; Vk* M,v) Brief Summary of Comments: ou1a live, vJNCYI r MAC-nCOA4&bo J►a�cNl� � � AC), ` t L-A` 7 ea See Reverse -> CITY COUNCIL SPEAKER CARD Date: / 6 -/lo Agenda Item #:� Name:r Address: /, :�? TOPIC: Brief Summary of Comments: o f x"622',-oo* c,7,, ' T C/G,y See Reverse -> See Reverse -> MINUTES OF THE JOINT REGULAR MEETING OF THE CITY OF ROHNERT PARK City Council Rohnert Park Financing Authority Successor Agency to the Community Development Commission Tuesday, January 12, 2016 Rohnert Park City Hall, Council Chamber 130 Avram Avenue, Rohnert Park, California 1. CITY COUNCIL/RPFA/SUCCESSOR AGENCY TO THE CDC JOINT REGULAR MEETING - CALL TO ORDER/ROLL CALL Mayor Belforte called the joint regular meeting to order at 5:00 pm, the notice for which being legally noticed on January 7, 2016. Present: Gina Belforte, Mayor Jake Mackenzie, Vice Mayor Amy O. Ahanotu, Councilmember Joseph T. Callinan, Councilmember Pam Stafford, Councilmember %4;. Absent: None Staff present: City Manager Jenkins, Assistant City Manager Schwartz, City Attorney Marchetta-Kenyon, City Clerk Buergler, Senior Analyst Atkins, Finance Director Howze, Development Services Director Pawson, Director of Public Works and Community Services McArthur, Director of Public Safety Masterson, Planning Manager Beiswenger, and Community Services Manager Austin. 2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE Led by Barbara Colahan. 3. PRESENTATIONS A. Mayor's Certificate of Recognition: Honoring Police Service Aide Mary Thayer for Volunteering in the Community Mayor Belforte read and presented the Certificate to Police Service Aide Mary Thayer. Thayer commented that she appreciates the opportunity to serve the community. 4. DEPARTMENT HEAD BRIEFING None. City of Rohnert Park Joint Regular Meeting Minutes January 12, 2016 for City Council/Rohnert Park Financing Authority/Successor Agency Page 2 of 4 5. PUBLIC COMMENTS None. 6. CONSENT CALENDAR A. Approval of Minutes for: 1. City Council/RPFA/Successor Agency Joint Regular Meeting, December 22, 2015 B. Acceptance of Reports for: 1. City Bills/Demands for Payment dated January 12, 2016 2. RPFA- Cash Report for Month Ending November 2015 3. Housing Successor Agency- Cash Report for Month Ending November 2015 4. Successor Agency- Cash Report for Month Ending November 2015 C. City Council Resolutions for Adoption: 1. 2016-001 Approving the Grant of an Easement to Pacific Gas and Electric Company (PG&E) for the Purpose of Serving The Reserve at Dowdell D. Ordinances for Adoption: 1. No. 894 Approving a First Amendment to the Development Agreement between the City of Rohnert Park and Vast Oak Properties L.P. and University District LLC, regarding the Affordable Housing Plan, in connection with the development of the property located south of Keiser Avenue, west of Petaluma Hill Road, and north of Rohnert Park Expressway (APN 045-262-001 through -004, 047-131-019, and 047- 131-024 and -025) and the property located south of Rohnert Park Expressway, east of J Section, and north of Copeland Creek (APN 047-131-026 and 047-131-027) ACTION: Moved/seconded (Callinan/Ahanotu) to approve the Consent Calendar. Motion carried by the following unanimous 5-0 roll call vote: AYES: Ahanotu, Callinan, Stafford, Mackenzie, and Belforte, NOS: None, ABSTAINS: None, ABSENT: None. 7. CLOSED SESSION A. Mayor Belforte made the closed session announcement pursuant to Government Code §54957.7 and Council recessed to Closed Session at 5:08 pm in Conference Room 2A to Consider: Conference with Real Property Negotiators (Government Code §54956.8) Property: 6750 Commerce Blvd. (APN: 143-380-015); 100 Avram Avenue (APNs: 143-380-022 through 029); and 120 Avram Avenue (APN: 143-061-052) City Negotiator: Darrin Jenkins, City Manager Negotiating Parties: North Bay Homes and Land, Inc. Under Negotiation: Price and Terms B. Reconvened Joint Regular Meeting Open Session in Council Chamber at 5:29 pm C. Report on Closed Session (Government Code § 54957.1) Mayor Belforte reported: no reportable action. City of Rohnert Park Joint Regular Meeting Minutes January 12, 2016 for City Council/Rohnert Park Financing Authority/Successor Agency Page 3 of 4 8. WORK SESSION — Review of Strategic Plan and Goals, 2015 Accomplishments, Best Practices, and 2016 Action Plan Assistant City Manager Schwartz presented the topic. Public Comment: None DIRECTION: By Consensus City Council directed staff to update the Strategic Plan, 2015 Accomplishments, Best Practices, and 2016 Action Plan, including adding an affordable housing workshop, and bring back for Council action. Councilmember Callinan stepped away from dais 6:55 pm and returned 6:57 pm. 9. Consideration of Accepting Grant Funds from the National Recreation and Parks Association (NRPA) for Purchase and Installation of Par Course Equipment and Finding such action exempt from CEQA Community Services Manager Austin presented the item. Recommended Action(s): Adopt a resolution to 1) accept grant funds from National Recreation and Parks Association (NRPA) in the amount of $38,000; 2) authorize the City Manager to execute a memorandum of understanding with NRPA for purchase of Purchase and Installation of Par Course Equipment; 3) authorize an increase in budget appropriations to purchase grant funded items; and 4) find such action exempt from CEQA pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Sections 15301 and 15302. Public Comment: None. ACTION: Moved/seconded (Callinan/Stafford) to adopt Resolution 2016-002 Accepting Grant Funds from and Authorizing the City Manager to Execute a Memorandum of Understanding with the National Recreation and Parks Association (NRPA) for Grant Funds Totaling $38,000 for Purchase and Installation of Par Course/Fitness Trail and Finding Such Action Exempt from CEQA. Motion carried unanimously by the following 5-0 vote: AYES: Ahanotu, Callinan, Stafford, Mackenzie, and Belforte, NOS: None, ABSTAINS: None, ABSENT: None. 10. COMMITTEE / LIAISON/ OTHER REPORTS Russian River Watershed Association (12/10), Councilmember Stafford reported the Association's budget will be increasing. Golf Course Oversight Committee (1/5) Councilmember Callinan reported the Committee received an update on the condition of the course and it was 80% favorable. Sonoma County Transportation Authority (SCTA) (1/11) Vice Mayor Mackenzie reported there is state legislation in the works to increase funding for transportation infrastructure. City of Rohnert Park Joint Regular Meeting Minutes January 12, 2016 for City Council/Rohnert Park Financing Authority/Successor Agency Page 4 of 4 SMART (1/6) Vice Mayor Mackenzie reported Jennifer Welch has been sworn in as SMART's Chief of Police. Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) Vice Mayor Mackenzie reported on the MTC/ABAG Merger Study and Merger Implementation Plan. The consultants are Management Partners and a workshop is scheduled January 22, 2016. Golden Gate Bridge, Highway & Transportation District (12/18) Mayor Belforte reported lane reconfiguration, utilizing the movable median barrier, continues with the goal of improved traffic flow. In an effort to mitigate traffic issues, as - needed closure of the Vista Point is being considered. 11. COMMUNICATIONS Councilmember Callinan announced the Rohnert Park Public Safety Officers Association's Crab Feed is Saturday, January 16, 2016. Councilmember Stafford commented on the Chamber of Commerce's Crab Feed. Councilmember Callinan commented on Commander Mazzanti's retirement dinner. 12. MATTERS FROM/FOR COUNCIL Councilmember Callinan announced he is running for re-election to Rohnert Park City Council. Committee Appointments and Liaison Assignments - Mayor Belforte asked the Councilmembers to let her know where they would like to serve. 13. PUBLIC COMMENTS None. 14. ADJOURNMENT Mayor Belforte adjourned the joint regular meeting at 7:12 pm. JoAnne M. Buergler, City Clerk Gina Belforte, Mayor City of Rohnert Park City of Rohnert Park CITY OF ROHNERT PARK BILLS FOR ACCEPTANCE January 26, 2016 Check Numbers: 229674 -229763 $1,337,665.76 Dated: January 6 - January 19, 2016 TOTAL $1,337,665.76 Accounts Payable Checks for Approval User: gburke Printed: 1/19/2016 - 2:35 PM Check Number Check Date Fund Name 229674 01/07/2016 General Fund 229675 01/07/2016 General Fund 229676 01/07/2016 General Fund 229676 01/07/2016 General Fund 229676 01/07/2016 General Fund 229676 01/07/2016 General Fund 229677 01/07/2016 General Fund 229678 01/07/2016 General Fund 229679 01/07/2016 General Fund 229680 01/07/2016 General Fund 229680 01/07/2016 General Fund 229680 01/07/2016 General Fund 229680 01/07/2016 General Fund 229681 01/07/2016 General Fund Account Name Court Order Payable HSABank Payable Kaiser W/H Payable Kaiser Hlth Ins - Retiree Med Kaiser W/H Payable Kaiser W/H Payable Supp Life W/H Payable PORAC LTD Payable Def Comp Payable-Gw Def Comp Payable-Gw Def Comp Payable-Gw Def Comp Payable-Gw Def Comp Payable-Gw Rpea Dues Page 1 of 11 Vendor Name CA FRANCHISE TAX BOARD Check Total: HSA Bank Check Total: KAISER HEALTH PLAN INC KAISER HEALTH PLAN INC KAISER HEALTH PLAN INC KAISER HEALTH PLAN INC Check Total: LINCOLN NATIONAL LIFE INS CO Check Total: MYERS-STEVENS & CO, INC Check Total: Nationwide Retirement Solutions Check Total: Nationwide Retirement Solutions Nationwide Retirement Solutions Nationwide Retirement Solutions Nationwide Retirement Solutions Check Total: CITY OF ROHNERT PARK Void Amount 484.02 484.02 1,620.00 1,620.00 98,087.40 35,378.09 13,915.58 22,989.89 170,370.96 1,119.80 1,119.80 1,483.50 1,483.50 1,717.90 1,717.90 3,154.84 1,575.00 200.00 400.00 5,329.84 555.00 Check Number Check Date Fund Name Account Name 229682 01/07/2016 General Fund Scope Dues Payable 229683 01/07/2016 General Fund United Way Payable 229684 01/07/2016 General Fund Eye CareNSP/Payables 229684 01/07/2016 General Fund Eye Care - Ret Med 229684 01/07/2016 General Fund Eye Care - Ret Med 229684 01/07/2016 General Fund Eye CareNSP/Payables 229684 01/07/2016 General Fund Eye Care - Ret Med 229684 01/07/2016 General Fund Eye Care - Ret Med 229684 01/07/2016 General Fund Eye Care - Ret Med 229684 01/07/2016 General Fund Eye Care - Ret Med 229685 01/07/2016 General Fund Sports Center/Telephone 229685 01/07/2016 General Fund Ps Main Station /Telephone 229686 01/07/2016 Sewer Utility Fund Sewer/Cell Phone 229686 01/07/2016 Water Utility Fund Water/Cell Phone 229686 01/07/2016 ISF - Information Technology Cellular Phones - IT 229686 01/07/2016 ISF - Fleet Fleet/Cell Phone 229686 01/07/2016 General Fund City Manager /Cellular Phone 229686 01/07/2016 General Fund Dev Svs /Cell Phone 229686 01/07/2016 General Fund HR /Cellular Phone 229686 01/07/2016 General Fund Police / Cell Phone 229686 01/07/2016 General Fund Fire / Cell Phone 229686 01/07/2016 General Fund Publ Works Gen /Cellular Phone 229686 01/07/2016 General Fund Streets & Bikes/Cellular Phon 229686 01/07/2016 General Fund Park Maint /Cellular Phone 229686 01/07/2016 General Fund R.P. Comm. Cntr/Cellular Phone 229686 01/07/2016 General Fund Pac/Admin /Cellular Phone 229686 01/07/2016 General Fund Graton Mitigation/Telephone 229687 01/07/2016 ISF - Fleet 229687 01/07/2016 ISF - Fleet Page 2 of 11 Vendor Name Check Total: SEIU Loca] 1021 Check Total: United Way Check Total: Vision Service Plan - (CA) Vision Service Plan - (CA) Vision Service Plan - (CA) Vision Service Plan - (CA) Vision Service Plan - (CA) Vision Service Plan - (CA) Vision Service Plan - (CA) Vision Service Plan - (CA) Check Total: AT&T AT&T Check Total: AT&T MOBILITY AT&T MOBILITY AT&T MOBILITY AT&T MOBILITY AT&T MOBILITY AT&T MOBILITY AT&T MOBILITY AT&T MOBILITY AT&T MOBILITY AT&T MOBILITY AT&T MOBILITY AT&T MOBILITY AT&T MOBILITY AT&T MOBILITY AT&T MOBILITY MARTIN AVILA MARTIN AVILA Check Total: 011reJ Amount 555.00 1,067.04 1,067.04 93.26 93.26 2,816.38 645.00 3,356.73 479.78 9.52 2.98 509.32 83.44 7,903.15 25.32 111.37 136.69 207.64 280.96 130.28 24.44 53.93 158.76 77.36 877.56 359.02 103.80 152.68 99.76 154.72 24.44 24.44 2,729.79 300.00 150.00 Check Number Check Date Fund Name 229688 229689 229689 229689 229690 229690 229690 229690 229690 229690 229690 229690 229690 229690 229690 229690 229690 229690 229690 229690 229690 229690 229690 229690 229691 229691 229692 229693 01/07/2016 01/07/2016 01/07/2016 01/07/2016 01/07/2016 01/07/2016 01/07/2016 01/07/2016 01/07/2016 01/07/2016 01/07/2016 01/07/2016 01/07/2016 01/07/2016 01/07/2016 01/07/2016 01/07/2016 01/07/2016 01/07/2016 01/07/2016 01/07/2016 01/07/2016 01/07/2016 01/07/2016 01/07/2016 01/07/2016 01/07/2016 01/07/2016 General Fund General Fund General Fund General Fund General Fund General Fund General Fund General Fund General Fund General Fund General Fund General Fund General Fund General Fund General Fund General Fund General Fund General Fund General Fund General Fund General Fund Sewer Utility Fund Water Utility Fund General Fund General Fund General Fund General Fund General Fund Account Name Dues & Subscriptions - SEA Finance /Spec Dept Equ Supplies - FIN Supplies - FIN Pac /Concessions City Manager/Community Promo Supplies - AS Pac /Concessions Pac /Concessions Pac /Concessions Pac /Concessions Supplies - AS Pac /Concessions Police /Spec Dept Equ Faclty Non-Routin Main -PS Main Benecia Pool Bldg/Facilty Senior Ctr /Special Event Supplies - SpC SC/ Concession Purchases Supplies - Park Maint Police/Recruitment/Hiring Gen Supplies - SWR Entr Supplies - WTR Entr Senior Ctr /Special Event P/S Bldg -South /Telephone P/S Bldg -North /Telephone Rec Ref Clearing Strong Motion Fees Cat 1 - DS Page 3 of 11 Vendor Name Check Total: Bay Area Crime & Intelligence Analysts As Check Total: Business Card Business Card Business Card Check Total: CAPITAL ONE COMMERCIAL CAPITAL ONE COMMERCIAL CAPITAL ONE COMMERCIAL CAPITAL ONE COMMERCIAL CAPITAL ONE COMMERCIAL CAPITAL ONE COMMERCIAL CAPITAL ONE COMMERCIAL CAPITAL ONE COMMERCIAL CAPITAL ONE COMMERCIAL CAPITAL ONE COMMERCIAL CAPITAL ONE COMMERCIAL CAPITAL ONE COMMERCIAL CAPITAL ONE COMMERCIAL CAPITAL ONE COMMERCIAL CAPITAL ONE COMMERCIAL CAPITAL ONE COMMERCIAL CAPITAL ONE COMMERCIAL CAPITAL ONE COMMERCIAL CAPITAL ONE COMMERCIAL CAPITAL ONE COMMERCIAL Check Total: Comcast Comcast Check Total: Misha Decastro Check Total: DEPARTMENT OF CONSERVATION Void Amount 450.00 50.00 50.00 265.00 20.00 20.00 305.00 205.68 104.28 14.75 79.82 323.15 341.23 13.99 21.85 45.44 249.36 326.23 52.71 315.36 79.98 297.03 97.85 26.38 39.39 39.38 71.89 2,745.75 6.12 3.27 9.39 400.00 400.00 2.60 Check Number Check Date Fund Name Account Name Vendor Name Void Amount 229693 01/07/2016 General Fund Strong Motion Cat 2 - DS DEPARTMENT OF CONSERVATION 591.45 229693 01/07/2016 General Fund Strong Motion DEPARTMENT OF CONSERVATION -29.70 Check Total: 564.35 229694 01/07/2016 $1 CDA fee- CDA Division of the State Architect 631.20 Check Total: 631.20 229695 01/07/2016 General Fund Rec L1 Liability Ins Clearing HUB International 1,025.00 229695 01/07/2016 General Fund R.P. Comm. Cntr /Rp Community HUB International -222.70 Check Total: 802.30 229696 01/07/2016 General Fund Sports Center /Contractual S Julie McIntyre 235.00 Check Total: 235.00 229697 01/07/2016 General Fund Streets & Bike /Heat/Light/Po Pacific Gas & Electric 9.53 229697 01/07/2016 General Fund Streets & Bike /Heat/Light/Po Pacific Gas & Electric 441.21 229697 01/07/2016 Water Utility Fund Water Emr. /Heat/Light/Po Pacific Gas & Electric 26.47 229697 01/07/2016 General Fund Ps Main Station /Heat/Light/Po Pacific Gas & Electric 10.84 229697 01/07/2016 General Fund P/S Bldg -South /Heat/Light/Po Pacific Gas & Electric 2,592.83 229697 01/07/2016 General Fund Publ Works Gen /Heat/Light/Po Pacific Gas & Electric 65.96 229697 01/07/2016 General Fund Streets & Bike /Heat/Light/Po Pacific Gas & Electric 34,638.32 229697 01/07/2016 General Fund Park Maint /Heat/Light/Po Pacific Gas & Electric 2,771.02 229697 01/07/2016 General Fund Gold Ridge/Heat/Light/Power Pacific Gas & Electric 124.06 229697 01/07/2016 General Fund Senior Ctr /Heat/Light/Pow Pacific Gas & Electric 427.28 229697 01/07/2016 General Fund Benecia Pool /Heat/Light/Po Pacific Gas & Electric 219.40 229697 01/07/2016 General Fund H Pool /Heat/Light/Po Pacific Gas & Electric 84.50 229697 01/07/2016 General Fund Magnolia Pool /Heat/Light/Pow Pacific Gas & Electric 59.41 229697 01/07/2016 General Fund Sports Center /Heat/Light/Po Pacific Gas & Electric 549.67 229697 01/07/2016 General Fund R.P. Comm. Cntr /Heat/Light/Po Pacific Gas & Electric 1,310.97 229697 01/07/2016 General Fund Burt/Ave Rec Cr /Heat/Light/Po Pacific Gas & Electric 106.59 229697 01/07/2016 General Fund Pac /Heat/Light/Po Pacific Gas & Electric 722.70 229697 01/07/2016 General Fund Streets & Bike /Heat/Light/Po Pacific Gas & Electric 3,518.06 229697 01/07/2016 Sewer Utility Fund Sewer Entr. /Heat/Light/Po Pacific Gas & Electric 36.01 229697 01/07/2016 Water Utility Fund Water Entr. /Heat/Light/Po Pacific Gas & Electric 12,483.25 229697 01/07/2016 ISF - Fleet Fleet/Heat/Light/Power Pacific Gas & Electric 728.53 229697 01/07/2016 General Fund City Hall Annex /Heat/Light/Po Pacific Gas & Electric 1,910.01 229697 01/07/2016 General Fund Animal Shelter /Heat/Light/Pow Pacific Gas & Electric 1,853.25 229698 01/07/2016 General Fund POST Training & Travel -Police Page 4 of 11 Check Total: Public Safety Training Consultants 64,689.87 688.00 Check Number Check Date Fund Name 229699 01/07/2016 General Fund 229699 01/07/2016 General Fund 229700 01/07/2016 General Fund 229701 01/07/2016 General Fund 229702 01/07/2016 General Fund 229703 01/07/2016 General Fund 229704 01/07/2016 General Fund 229705 01/13/2016 Water Utility Fund 229706 01/13/2016 General Fund 229706 01/13/2016 General Fund 229707 01/13/2016 General Fund 229708 01/13/2016 General Fund 229708 01/13/2016 General Fund 229708 01/13/2016 ISF - Fleet 229708 01/13/2016 General Fund 229708 01/13/2016 Sewer Utility Fund 229708 01/13/2016 Water Utility Fund 229708 01/13/2016 General Fund 229708 01/13/2016 General Fund 229708 01/13/2016 General Fund 229708 01/13/2016 General Fund Account Name Gold Ridge /Contractual S Gold Ridge /Contractual S R.P. Comm. Cntr /Contractual S Productions/Production Rec Ref Clearing Productions/Production Sports Center /Contractual S Water Entr. /Professional Fire /Uniforms Fire /Uniforms Police /Contractual S Pac /Facility Repa R.P. Comm_ Cntr /Bldg/Facilty Uniforms & Laundry Service-Fle Uniforms & Laundry Service -PW Uniforms & Laundry Service-Swr Uniforms & Laundry Sery - W Uniforms & Laundry Serv-Street JEPA Mtn/Contractual Services Uniforms Laundry Ser - Parks R.P. Comm. Cntr /Bldg/Facilty Page 5 of 11 Vendor Name Check Total: Lajwan Renee Robinson Lajwan Renee Robinson Check Total: Gay Shelton-Ostadi Check Total: TAMS WITMARK INC Check Total: Felix Valencia Check Total: Amy Marie Webber Check Total: Fatima Worden Check Total: AAA Backflow Prevention, Inc. Check Total: All Star Fire Equipment, Inc. All Star Fire Equipment, Inc. Check Total: American Medical Response, Inc Check Total: Aramark Uniform Services Aramark Uniform Services Aramark Uniform Services Aramark Uniform Services Aramark Uniform Services Aramark Uniform Services Aramark Uniform Services Aramark Uniform Services Aramark Uniform Services Aramark Uniform Services Void Amount 688.00 585.00 144.00 729.00 58.50 58.50 200.00 200.00 400.00 400.00 400.00 400.00 247.50 247.50 700.00 700.00 140.47 255.56 396.03 500.00 500.00 19.08 167.64 27.64 30.28 30.68 34.28 12.86 5.50 25.68 167.64 Check Number Check Date Fund Name Account Name Vendor Name Check Total: 229709 01/13/2016 Sewer Utility Fund Uniforms & Laundry Service-Swr B.W.S. Distributors, Inc 229709 01/13/2016 Sewer Utility Fund Uniforms & Laundry Service-Swr B.W.S. Distributors, Inc Check Total: 229710 01/13/2016 General Fund Finance /Contractual S BARTEL ASSOCIATES LLC Check Total: 229711 01/13/2016 General Fund Supplies - Park Maint Buchanan Food Service 229711 01/13/2016 General Fund Ps Main Station /Bldg/Facilty Buchanan Food Service 229711 01/13/2016 General Fund Supplies - Park Maint Buchanan Food Service Check Total: 229712 01/13/2016 General Fund Supplies - Storm Drains Bulk Bag Depot Check Total: 229713 01/13/2016 General Fund Police /Contractual S CA Department of Justice Check Total: 229714 01/13/2016 General Fund SC/ Repairs & Maintenance Cal -Steam Check Total: 229715 01/13/2016 ISF - Information Technology Telephone - IT California Department of Technology Check Total: 229716 01/13/2016 General Fund Self Insured Losses - Police Carl's Body Shop 229716 01/13/2016 General Fund Self Insured Losses - Police Carl's Body Shop 229716 01/13/2016 General Fund Sales Tax Payable Carl's Body Shop 229716 01/13/2016 ISF - Fleet Fleet/Vehicle Repair & Maint Carl's Body Shop 229716 01/13/2016 ISF - Fleet F1eetfVehicle Repair & Maint Carl's Body Shop 229716 01/13/2016 General Fund Sales Tax Payable Carl's Body Shop Check Total: 229717 01/13/2016 ISF - Information Technology Supplies - IT CDW Government Check Total: 229718 01/13/2016 Sewer Utility Fund Sewer Entr. /Laguna Plant/ City of Santa Rosa Check Total: Page 6 of 11 Void Amount 521.28 182.59 88.03 270.62 887.50 887.50 317.44 266.57 507.07 1,091.08 1,320.00 1,320.00 404.00 404.00 30.91 30.91 2,300.00 2,300.00 2,908.06 7.25 -7.25 800.09 2.56 -2.56 3,708.15 173.16 173.16 762,817.64 762,817.64 Check Number Check Date Fund Name 229719 01/13/2016 Casino Public Service 229720 01/13/2016 Water Utility Fund 229720 01/13/2016 Water Utility Fund 229721 01/13/2016 General Fund 229722 01/13/2016 General Fund 229723 01/13/2016 General Fund 229724 01/13/2016 ISF - Fleet 229725 01/13/2016 General Fund 229725 01/13/2016 Casino Public Service 229725 01/13/2016 General Fund 229725 01/13/2016 General Fund 229725 01/13/2016 Casino Public Service 229726 01/13/2016 ISF - Fleet 229726 01/13/2016 General Fund 229726 01/13/2016 General Fund 229727 01/13/2016 General Fund 229728 01/13/2016 General Fund 229729 01/13/2016 General Fund 229729 01/13/2016 General Fund 229729 01/13/2016 General Fund Account Name RPSC/ Contracted Services Water Emr. /Spec Dept Equ Water Emr. /Spec Dept Equ Police /Community Pro Police /Contractual S Supplies - Park Maint Fleet/Contractual Services Streets & Bike /Contractual S RPSC/ Contracted Services JEPA Mtn/Contractual Services Streets & Bike /Contractual S RPSC/ Contracted Services Supplies - Fleet H Pool /Bldg/Facilty Benecia Pool /Bldg/Facilty Developer Refundable Deposits SC/ Repairs & Maintenance Magnolia Pool /Fac Maintenanc Sales Tax Payable Magnolia Pool /Fac Maintenanc Page 7 of 11 Vendor Name Void Conservation Corps North Bay Check Total: Consolidated Electrical Distributors, Inc. Consolidated Electrical Distributors, Inc. Check Total: CREATIVE SERVICES OF NEW ENGLA Check Total: Critical Reach Check Total: D. WALTON SAW, INC. Check Total: DAN'S SUPERIOR AUTO SERVICE Check Total: DC Electric Group Inc. DC Electric Group Inc. DC Electric Group Inc. DC Electric Group Inc. DC Electric Group Inc. Check Total: Eureka Oxygen Co. Eureka Oxygen Co. Eureka Oxygen Co. Check Total: FedEx Check Total: Fishman Supply Company Check Total: Friedman's Friedman's Friedman's Amount 3,055.66 3,055.66 553.54 98.27 651.81 478.95 478.95 565.00 565.00 60.00 60.00 1,400.00 1,400.00 4,663.75 430.50 143.50 8,622.98 138.40 13,999.13 69.80 97.72 195.43 362.95 33.94 33.94 92.46 92.46 0.32 -0.32 69.28 Check Number Check Date Fund Name Account Name Vendor Name Void Amount 229729 01/13/2016 General Fund SC/ Repairs & Maintenance Friedman's 12.54 229729 01/13/2016 General Fund SC/ Repairs & Maintenance Friedman's 0.05 229729 01/13/2016 General Fund Sales Tax Payable Friedman's -0.05 229729 01/13/2016 General Fund Pac /Facility Repa Friedman's 32.09 229729 01/13/2016 General Fund Pac /Facility Repa Friedman's 0.14 229729 01/13/2016 General Fund Sales Tax Payable Friedman's -0.14 229729 01/13/2016 General Fund R.P. Comm. Cntr Bldg/Facilty Friedman's 35.80 229729 01/13/2016 General Fund R.P. Comm. CntrBldg/Facilty Friedman's 0.16 229729 01/13/2016 General Fund Sales Tax Payable Friedman's -0.16 Check Total: 149.71 229730 01/13/2016 General Fund Supplies - AS Frizelle-Enos Company 222.78 229730 01/13/2016 General Fund Supplies - AS Frizelle-Enos Company 2.69 229730 01/13/2016 General Fund Sales Tax Payable Frizelle-Enos Company -2.69 Check Total: 222.78 229731 01/13/2016 ISF - Fleet Fleet/Vehicle Repair & Maint GCR Tires & Service 589.46 Check Total: 589.46 229732 01/13/2016 General Fund SC/ Repairs & Maintenance Grainger, Inc. 31.67 229732 01/13/2016 Water Utility Fund Supplies - WTR Entr Grainger, Inc. 363.84 229732 01/13/2016 Water Utility Fund Water Entr. /Spec Dept Equ Grainger, Inc. 89.18 229732 01/13/2016 Sewer Utility Fund Supplies - SWR Entr Grainger, Inc. -76.43 229732 01/13/2016 Water Utility Fund Water Entr. /Small Tools Grainger, Inc. 19.46 229732 01/13/2016 Water Utility Fund Water Entr. /Spec Dept Equ Grainger, Inc. 15.40 229732 01/13/2016 General Fund Police /Spec Dept Equ Grainger, Inc. 29.92 229732 01/13/2016 Water Utility Fund Supplies - WTR Entr Grainger, Inc. 225.58 229732 01/13/2016 General Fund Supplies - PW Grainger, Inc. 48.73 229732 01/13/2016 General Fund Pac /Facility Repa Grainger, Inc. 1,460.52 229732 01/13/2016 General Fund Benecia Pool Bldg/Facilty Grainger, Inc. 321.69 229732 01/13/2016 General Fund Supplies - Streets & Bike Grainger, Inc. 618.08 229732 01/13/2016 General Fund Supplies - Streets & Bike Grainger, Inc. 395.96 229732 01/13/2016 Sewer Utility Fund Supplies - SWR Entr Grainger, Inc. 152.15 229732 01/13/2016 Sewer Utility Fund Supplies - SWR Entr Grainger, Inc. 22.18 229732 01/13/2016 General Fund H Pool Bldg/Facilty Grainger, Inc. 1.86 229732 01/13/2016 General Fund Supplies - Park Maint Grainger, Inc. 42.63 229732 01/13/2016 General Fund Senior Ctr Bldg/Facilty Grainger, Inc. 66.97 229732 01/13/2016 General Fund R.P. Comm. Cntr Bldg/Facilty Grainger, Inc. 44.86 229732 01/13/2016 General Fund Supplies - Streets & Bike Grainger, Inc. 294.28 Check Total: Page 8 of 11 4,168.53 Check Number Check Date Fund Name Account Name Vendor Name Void Amount 229733 01/13/2016 ISF - Information'Technology Contractual Services Granicus Inc 700.00 229733 01/13/2016 ISF - Information Technology Contractual Services Granicus Inc 100.00 Check Total: 800.00 229734 01/13/2016 Capital Projects Fund University Dist. Specific Plan Green Valley Consulting Engineers 110,428.63 Check Total: 110,428.63 229735 01/13/2016 General Fund Sales Tax Payable John Deere Financial -2.17 229735 01/13/2016 ISF - Fleet Fleet/Vehicle Repair & Maint John Deere Financial 471.44 229735 01/13/2016 ISF - Fleet Fleet/Vehicle Repair & Maint John Deere Financial 2.17 Check Total: 471.44 229736 01/13/2016 General Fund Productions/Marketing North Bay Bohemian 270.00 229736 01/13/2016 General Fund Productions/Marketing North Bay Bohemian 270.00 Check Total: 540.00 229737 01/13/2016 Capital Projects Fund University Dist. Specific Plan The Community Voice 360.00 229737 01/13/2016 Capital Projects Fund University Dist. Specific Plan The Community Voice 192.00 Check Total: 552.00 229738 01/13/2016 Capital Projects Fund Sports Ctr Locker -room Rehab United Site Services 948.36 Check Total: 948.36 229739 01/13/2016 ISF - Fleet Fleet/Telephone AT&T 37.42 Check Total: 37.42 229740 01/13/2016 General Fund City Hall /Bldg/Facilty Business Card 189.31 Check Total: 189.31 229741 01/13/2016 General Fund City Manager/Travel & Meetings BUSINESS CARD 2.65 Check Total: 2.65 229742 01/13/2016 Sewer Utility Fund Sewer Entr. /Dues & Subscr California Water Environment Assoc 81.00 Check Total: 81.00 229743 01/13/2016 General Fund Pac /Concessions Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control 500.00 Check Total: 500.00 229744 01/13/2016 General Fund Theodore Giesige 829.66 Page 9 of 11 Check Number Check Date Fund Name 229745 01/13/2016 General Fund 229746 01/13/2016 General Fund 229747 01/13/2016 General Fund 229748 01/13/2016 General Fund 229749 01/13/2016 General Fund 229749 01/13/2016 General Fund 229749 01/13/2016 General Fund 229749 01/13/2016 General Fund 229749 01/13/2016 Water Utility Fund 229749 01/13/2016 Water Utility Fund 229749 01/13/2016 General Fund 229750 01/13/2016 General Fund 229751 01/13/2016 General Fund 229752 01/13/2016 Water Utility Fund 229753 01/13/2016 General Fund 229754 01/13/2016 General Fund 229755 01/13/2016 ISF - Information Technology 229755 01/13/2016 ISF - Information Technology 229755 01/13/2016 General Fund Account Name Productions/Production Streets & Bike /Heat/Light/Po Streets & Bike /Heat/Light/Po Streets & Bike /Heat/Light/Po Park Maint /Heat/Light/Po System Repair - WTR Entr Water Entr. /Heat/Light/Po Streets & Bike /Heat/Light/Po Water Entr. /Dues & Subscr POST Training & Travel -Police Telephone - IT Cellular Phones - IT City Hall /Cellular Phone Page 10 of 11 Vendor Name Check Total: Joseph Huffaker Check Total: Jomay Skipper Skeoch Check Total: Troy Moore Check Total: JOSEPH D. NETTER Check Total: Pacific Gas & Electric Pacific Gas & Electric Pacific Gas & Electric Pacific Gas & Electric Pacific Gas & Electric Pacific Gas & Electric Pacific Gas & Electric Check Total: Del Patton Check Total: Paul Skanchy Check Total: State Water Resources Control Board Check Total: Adam Strongman Check Total: Walter Taddeucci Check Total: Verizon Wireless Verizon Wireless Verizon Wireless Void Amount 829.66 65.00 65.00 200.00 200.00 65.00 65.00 1,354.18 1,354.18 92.66 49.07 51.36 46.59 121,057.46 174.76 11.87 121,483.77 724.39 724.39 231.26 231.26 70.00 70.00 36.00 36.00 745.27 745.27 144.30 38.01 38.01 Check Number Check Date Fund Name Account Name Vendor Name 229755 01/13/2016 General Fund Dev Svs /Cell Phone Verizon Wireless 229755 01/13/2016 General Fund Dev Svs /Cell Phone Verizon Wireless 229755 01/13/2016 ISF - Information Technology Cellular Phones - IT Verizon Wireless 229755 01/13/2016 General Fund Police / Cell Phone Verizon Wireless 229755 01/13/2016 General Fund Publ Works Gen /Cellular Phone Verizon Wireless 229755 01/13/2016 Sewer Utility Fund Sewer/Cell Phone Verizon Wireless 229755 01/13/2016 Water Utility Fund Water/Cell Phone Verizon Wireless Check Total: 229756 01/15/2016 Water Utility Fund Water Entr. /Accounts Paya Emad Eid 229756 01/15/2016 Water Utility Fund Water Entr. /Accounts Paya. Emad Eid 229756 01/15/2016 Sewer Utility Fund Accounts Payable Emad Eid Check Total: 229757 01/15/2016 Recycled Water Utility Fund Account Payable - RW Evergreen Elementary School Check Total: 229758 01/15/2016 Recycled Water Utility Fund Account Payable - RW John Reed School Check Total: 229759 01/15/2016 Recycled Water Utility Fund Account Payable - RW Lawrence E Jones Middle School Check Total: 229760 01/15/2016 Recycled Water Utility Fund Account Payable - RW Monte Vista Elementary School Check Total: 229761 01/15/2016 Recycled Water Utility Fund Account Payable - RW Rancho Cotate High School Check Total: 229762 01/15/2016 Recycled Water Utility Fund Account Payable - RW Technology Middle School Check Total: 229763 01/15/2016 Recycled Water Utility Fund Account Payable - RW Waldo Rohnert School Check Total: Report Total: AP -Checks for Approval (1/19/2016 - 2:35 PM) Page 11 of 11 Void Amount 10.02 20.04 30.04 20.04 10.02 20.02 40.04 370.54 563.56 135.73 1,350.99 2,050.28 2,051.32 2,051.32 2,803.84 2,803.84 5,015.37 5,015.37 957.73 957.73 5,405.02 5,405.02 6,97354 6,973.54 2,515.22 2,515.22 1,337,665.76 REDEVELOPMENT SUCCESSOR AGENCY OF THE CITY OF ROHNERT PARR CASH REPORT TO: The Chairman and Members of the Community Redevelopment Successor Agency of the City of Rohnert Park Darrin Jenkins, Executive Director CASH BALANCES AS OF DECEMBER 31, 2015 RPTTF Funds (1) Debt Service Special Fund (2001 TARBs) (2) Debt Service Reserve Fund (1999 TABs) (2) Redevelopment Fund (1999 TABs) (3) 2007R Bond Proceeds (4) TOTAL REDEVELOPMENT SUCCESSOR AGENCY CASH (1) Appropriated for debt service payments & ROPS obligations. (2) Required minimum debt service reserves. (3) Tax Allocation Bond Proceeds residual interest. (4) 2007R Bond Proceeds committed for City Projects. FROM: Betsy Howze, Finance Director Prepared By: Lori Newzell DATE: January 07, 2016 $ 724,724.42 49.95 1,755,230.61 69.47 500,000.00 $ 2,980,074.45 CASH DISTRIBUTION AS OF DECEMBER 31, 2015 Checking Accounts: Interest Rate Exchange Bank Checking Account #44042 0.03% Exchange Bank Checking Account #44042 0.03% CASH HELD BY FISCAL AGENTS: Investment Maturity Interest Investment Institution Type Date Rate Par Value Market Value 2001 TARB'S Union Bank -Trustee Tax Allocation Refunding Bonds Special Fund: Blackrock Prov Tfund N/A 0.020% $ 4995 $ 49.95 Note (1) $ 4995 $ 49.95 1999 TAB'S: Union Bank -Trustee 1999 Tax Allocation Bonds Redevelopment Fund: Blackrock Prov Tfund Tress. Note N/A 0.000% $ 6947 $ 69.47 Note (1) Total 1999 Tax Allocation Bonds Redevelopment Fund $ 69.47 $ 69.47 Union Bank -Trustee 1999 Tax Allocation Bonds Reserve Fund: Blackrock Prov Tfund Trees. Note N/A 0.010% $1,755,098.13 $ 1,755,098.13 Note (1) 1999 Tax Allocation Bonds Special Fund: Blackrock Prov Tfund Trees. Note N/A 0010% 132.48 132.48 Note (1) Total 1999 Tax Allocation Bond Fund $1,755,230.61 $ 1,755,230.61 TOTAL REDEVELOPMENT SUCCESSOR AGENCY CASH Investment Yield for DECEMBER 31, 2015 0.011% $ 724,724.42 500,000.00 49.95 69.47 1,755,230.61 $ 2,980,074.45 INVESTMENT POLICY & SUFFICIENT FUNDS DISCLOSURES The investments above are in compliance with the investment policy of the Redevelopment Successor Agency of the City of Rohnert Park as outlined in the City of Rohnert Park City Council Resolution #2006-105, adopted on April 25, 2006. Due to the dissolution of the redevelopment agencies by the State of California the funds to meet the agency's expenditures will by determined by the State Depatment of Finance Note (1) The source of valuation for these investments is their respective monthly Union Bank Trust Statements. - The Par Value and Market Value for these investments are typically the same as interest is paid or wired monthly HOUSING SUCCESSOR AGENCY OF THE CITY OF ROHNERT PARK CASH REPORT TO: The Chairman and Members of the Community Housing Successor Agency of the City of Rohnert Park Darrin Jenkins, Executive Director FROM: Betsy Howze, Finance Director Prepared By: Lori Newzell DATE: January 07, 2016 CASH BALANCES AS OF DECEMBER 31 2015 Low & Moderate Income Housing Housing Fund Bond Proceeds (2007H TABs) Debt Service Fund (2007H TABs) TOTAL HOUSING SUCCESSOR AGENCY CASH $ 2,043,840.32 13,759,713.03 1.40 $ 15,803,554.75 CASH DISTRIBUTION AS OF DECEMBER 31, 2015 Checking Accounts: Interest Rate Exchange Bank Checking Ac#44042 0.030% 2007H TAB'S Union Bank -Trustee 2007H Redevelopment Project Fund (Housing) Tax Allocation Bonds: Blackrock Prov Tfund Trees. Note N/A 0.010% $ 13,759,713.03 2007H Tax Allocation Bonds Special Fund: Blackrock Prov Tfund Treas. Note N/A 0.000% 1.40 TOTAL HOUSING SUCCESSOR AGENCY CASH $13,759,713.03 Note (1) 1.40 Note (1) $ 13,759,714.43 $13,759,714.43 Investment Yield for DECEMBER 31, 2015 0.013% $ 2,043,840.32 13,759,714.43 $15,803,554.75 INVESTMENT POLICY & SUFFICIENT FUNDS DISCLOSURES The investments above are in compliance with the investment policy of the Housing Successor Agency of the City of Rohnert Park as outlined in the City of Rohnert Park City Council Resolution #2006-105, adopted on April 25, 2006. The duns to meet the agency's expenditures will be determined by the State Department of Finance. Note (1) The source of valuation for these investments is their respective monthly statements. The Par Value and Market Value for these investments are typically the same as interest is paid or wired monthly. ROHNERT PARI{ FINANCING AUTHORITY CASH REPORT TO: The Chairman and Board Members of the Rohnert Park Financing Authority Darrin Jenkins, Executive Director fn.. FROM: Betsy Howze, Finance Director Prepared By: Lori Newzell DATE: January 07, 2016 CASH BALANCES AS OF DECEMBER 31, 2015 2003 Lease Revenue Refunding Bonds: Lease Revenue Refunding Bonds -Revenue Fund Lease Revenue Refunding Bonds -Project Fund 2005 Sewer System R.C.O.P.'s Funds: Certificate Payment Fund 89,857.50 0.16 3.97 TOTAL ROHNERT PARK FINANCING AUTHORITY CASH $ 89,861.63 CASH DISTRIBUTION AS OF DECEMBER 31, 2015 CASH HELD BY FISCAL AGENTS: Maturity Interest Source of Investment Institution Date Rate Par Value Market Value Valuation 2003 Lease Revenue Refunding Bonds: Lease Rev Refdg Bds-Revenue Fund: Blackrock Prov Tfund N/A 0.010% $ 89,857.50 $ 89,857.50 Note (1) Lease Rev Refdg Bds-Project Fund: Blackrock Prov Tfund N/A 0.000% 0.16 0.16 Note (1) Total $ 89,857.66 $ 89,857.66 $ 89,857.66 2005 Sewer System RCOP's Funds: Certificate Payment Fund: Blackrock Prov Tfund N/A 0.000% $ 3.97 $ 3.97 Note (1) $ 3.97 $ 3.97 3.97 TOTAL ROHNERT PARK FINANCING AUTHORITY CASH $ 89,861.63 Investment Yield for DECEMBER 31, 2015 0.010% INVESTMENT POLICY & SUFFICIENT FUNDS DISCLOSURES The investments above are in compliance with the investment policy of the City of Rohnert Park as outlined in the City of Rohnert Park City Council Resolution #2006-105, adopted on April 25, 2006. Note (1) The source of valuation for this investment is the month end Union Bank Trust Statements. The Par Value and Market Value are typically the same as interest is credited and paid monthly. •^^�x" •� City of Rohnert Park h, Cash Report As of November 30, 2015 a,1V hP1 To: The Honorable Mayor & Members of the City Council From: Betsy Howze, Finance Director Darrin Jenkins, City Manager Prepared By: Lori Newzell Summary of General Fund Cash Total General Fund Cash Restricted (External) Assigned Subtotal (not available to spend) Unassigned Restricted Detail: Refundable Deposits Housing Program Reserve for Senior Center Donations Assigned Detail: Operating Reserve Contingency Reserve Insured Losses Reserve Retirement Reserve Enterprise Fund Cash Water Utility Operations Fund Water Capital Fund Water Bond Proceeds Sewer Utility Operations Fund Sewer Capital Fund JEPA Deposit - Wastewater Recycled Water Operation Funds Recycled Water Capital Fund Garbage Utility Operations Fund Total Enterprise Fund Cash Internal Service Fund Cash Information Technology Fund Vehicle/Equipment Replacement Fund Fleet Services Fund ISF-Infrastructure Total Internal Service Fund Cash Special Revenue Funds Gas Tax Funds: Sec. 2107 Maint/Const Sec. 2107.5 Eng/Admin Graton Special Enforcement Activity Graton Mitigation Fund Casino Public Safety Capital Contribution Problem Gambling MOU 3.2 Fund Casino Waterway MOU 3.3 Fund Casino Public Service MOU 3.4.2 Fund Casino Supplemental MOU 3.4 Fund Casino Vehicle Contribution $ 1,086,021.35 5,961,571.59 $ 932,999.01 80,196.00 72,826.34 $ 1,086,021.35 $ 2,488,214.00 1,244,107.00 973,267.59 1,255,983.00 $ 5,961,571.59 Page 1 of 3 $ 6,282,977.81 7,047,592.94 $ (764,615.13) $ 4,318,469.46 375,912.00 134,806.61 10,878,696.80 (332,497.44) 500,814.66 75,850.84 682,688.94 $ 16,634,741.87 $ 171,182.75 528,990.93 113,738.95 716,000.00 $ 1,529,912.63 1,979, 753.35 6,070.31 344,091.33 (13,319.47) 937,500.00 41,288.59 74,103.26 1,910,892.81 3,162,557.99 205,000.00 City of Rohnert Park Cash Report (Continued) As of November 30, 2015 Special Revenue Funds - (Continued) Alcohol Beverage Sales Ordinance #70 Fund 76,064.88 Vehicle Abatement Fund 344,112.43 Traffic Safety Fund 252,305.96 General Plan Maintenance Fee Revenue Fund 485,841.69 Spay and Neuter Fee Special Revenue Fund 47,378.84 Federal Asset Forfeiture Special Revenue Fund 25,862.19 State Asset Forfeiture Special Revenue Fund 338,589.76 PAC Capital Facilities Fund 48,354.22 Sports Center Facility Cap Reserve 53,875.53 Per Acre For Development Fee Fund 483,238.92 Sewer Capacity Charge Fund 1,366.15 Refuse Road Impact Fee Fund 768,626.28 Measure M Streets Fund 563,735.80 Traffic Signals Fund 1,507,282.17 Explorer Program Fund 8,545.75 Cal Disability Act Fund 8,499.59 Capital Outlay Fund 203,026.22 Public Facilities Finance Admin Fund 732,600.06 Public Facilities Finance Fee Fund 4,358,844.80 SLESF Fund 185,477.72 DIVCA AB2987/PEG Fees Fund 409,927.88 Traffic Congestion Relief Fund 216,835.16 6.6.2 -Wilfred JEPA Fund 457,202.69 Prop M Fire Assessment 114,013.80 Rent Appeals Board Fund 93,054.66 Copeland Creek Drainage Fund 53,850.19 Total Special Revenue Funds $ 20,486,451.51 Capital Project Funds City Capital Projects $ 926,046.63 Wilfred Dowdell Specific Plan Mitigation Program State Seized Assets 13,024.24 2007 R Bond Proceeds 0.60 3,981,928.86 1999 TAB Bond Proceeds Total Cash All City Funds 627,545.62 Total Capital Projects Funds $ 5,548,545.35 Permanent Funds Performing Arts Center Donations $ 685,914.00 Dorothy Spreckels Endowment Fund (1) 500,000.00 Total Permanent Fund $ 1,185,914.00 Trust & Agency Funds Rohnert Park Foundation $ 6,715.00 Federal Seized Assets 452,569.95 State Seized Assets 1,269,735.79 Cash with Fiscal Agent (2002C CSCDA Wastewater Rev Bonds) 0.60 Total Trust & Agency Funds $ 1,729,021.34 Total Cash All City Funds $ 53,397,564.51 (1) Per the 1st amendment to the Dorothy Spreckels 1999 Trust, Section 3 4 1; $500,000 is "to be held as an endowment fund. The income of the fund (but no part of the principal or appreciation thereof, realized or unrealized) shall be used for the general charitable purposes of the City of Rohnert Park's Dorothy Rohnert Spreckels Preforming Arts Center." Page 2 of 3 CITY OF ROHNERT PARK -SCHEDULE OF INVESTMENTS AS OF NOVEMBER 30, 2015 Note (1) Investments in Medium Tenn Notes, Certificates of Deposits, checking and savings accounts. Note (2) Petty Cash kept in cash drawers at each City cash collection site. Note (3) These are funds invested in the Local Agency Investment Fund, State of California. Current Market Value and Par Value are typically equal. Interest is received quarterly Note (4) These are funds invested in the Sonoma County Investment Pool. Current Market Value and Par Value are typically equal. Interest is received quarterly. Note (5) These funds are being held by Union Bank of California. Note (6) These funds are held as a deposit from Graton Tribe for Wilfred Widening project. Note (7) These funds are held as a deposit per section 6.1.1 of the Graton Wastewater JEPA. POOLED INVESTMENT SUMMARY BY TYPE November 30, 2015 Investment Type # of Invmnts Maturity Avg. YTM Par Value Investment Investment Valuation Bank Name Type Date % Int._ $ 10,771,659.79 Par Value Market Value Source Exchange Bk Recreation Checking Ckg N/A 0.030% $ 9,634.25 $ 9,634.25 Note (1) Exchange Bk Operating Checking Ckg N/A 0.030% Managed Pools(LAIF/SCIP) 10,762,025.54 10,762,025.54 Note (1) Total Business Checking Accounts 39,452,055 1 0.030% $ 10,771,659.79 $ 10,771,659.79 134,807.21 134,807.21 1 Dedicated Portfolios 2 Petty Cash Cash NIA 0.000% $ 3,626.00 $ 3,62600 Note (2) WFS Synovus Bank CD 08115/16 0800% $ 249,000.00 $ 249,588.14 Note (1) WFS Comenity Capital Bank CD 08118116 0.800% 250,000.00 250,583.75 Note (1) WFS Ally Bank CD 08/22/16 0.900% 248,000.00 248,791.86 Note (1) WFS Discover Bank CD 08122/16 0.900% 248,000.00 248,791.86 Note (1) WFS GE Capital Bank CD 08122116 0.850% 248,000 00 248,682.74 Note (1) WFS Goldman Sachs Bank CD 08122116 0.800% 249,000.00 249,575 94 Note (1) WFS Park Natl Bank CD 08/22116 0.850% 250,000.00 250,686.50 Note (1) WFS Peoples United Bank CD 08122116 0.850% 246,000.00 248,682.74 Note (1) WFS Merrick Bank CD 08129116 0850% 250,000.00 250,675.50 Note (1) WFS Bank Leumi USA NY CD 09/12116 0.800% 248,000.00 248,527.50 Note (1) Total CD Investments 0.640% $ 2,486,000.00 $ 2,494,586.53 State of Calif.-LAIF Pooled N/A 0.374% $ 7,334,001.96 $ 7,334,001.96 Note (3) So. Co. Investmt. Pool Pooled NIA 0667% 32,118.053.32 32,118,053.32 Note (4) Total Managed Pools 0.521% $ 39,452,055.28 $ 39,452,055.28 Subtotal 0.465% $ 52,715,341.07 $ 52,721,927.60 2002C WIWW Revenue Bonds Inst Pmt Acct. 0.010% $ - $ - Note (5) 2005A CSCDA W/W Rev Bonds -Clearing A/C 0.010% 0.60 0.60 Note (5) 2005A CSCDA W/W Rev Bonds- Interest Fund 0.010% - - Note (5) 2005A CSCDA W/W Rev Bonds -Principal Fd. 0.010% Note (5) 2005A CSCDA W/W Rev Bonds Inst Pmt Acct. 0.010% - - Note (5) 2005A CSCDA W/W Rev Bonds -Project Acct. 0.010% 134,806.61 134,806.61 Note (5) Total Revenue Bonds 0.010% $ 134,807.21 $ 134,607.21 Wilfred Widening Construction Dep M.M. N/A 0.050% $ 46,601 57 $ 46,601.57 Note (6) JEPA Deposit Ckg N/A 0.070% 500,814.66 500,814.66 Note (7) Total Dedicated Portfolios 0.060% $ 547,416.23 $ 547,416.23 Totals $ 53,397,564.51 $ 53,404,151.04 Note (1) Investments in Medium Tenn Notes, Certificates of Deposits, checking and savings accounts. Note (2) Petty Cash kept in cash drawers at each City cash collection site. Note (3) These are funds invested in the Local Agency Investment Fund, State of California. Current Market Value and Par Value are typically equal. Interest is received quarterly Note (4) These are funds invested in the Sonoma County Investment Pool. Current Market Value and Par Value are typically equal. Interest is received quarterly. Note (5) These funds are being held by Union Bank of California. Note (6) These funds are held as a deposit from Graton Tribe for Wilfred Widening project. Note (7) These funds are held as a deposit per section 6.1.1 of the Graton Wastewater JEPA. POOLED INVESTMENT SUMMARY BY TYPE November 30, 2015 Investment Type # of Invmnts % of Portfolio Avg. YTM Par Value Market Value Average )ays Until_ Maturity Business Checking 2 20.17% 0.030% $ 10,771,659.79 $ 10,771,659.79 1 Petty Cash 1 0.01% 0.000% 3,626 3,626 0 CDs -Banks 10 4.66% 0.000% 2,488,000 2,494,587 268 Managed Pools(LAIF/SCIP) 2 73.88% 0.521% 39,452,055 39,452,055 1 Cash with Trustee 2 0.25% 0.010% 134,807.21 134,807.21 1 Dedicated Portfolios 2 1.03% 0.060% 547,416 23 547,416.23 1 19 100.00% $ 53,397,564.51 $ 53,404,151.04 Page 3 of 3 City of Rohnert Park Council Members Quarterly Expense 2nd Quarter Oct. 2015 - Dec. 2015 Account Event Description Check Date Amount $35.00 City Representation 6601 Sonoma Co. Mayors & Council Members Dinner 10/01/15 $35.00 $0.00 City Representation 6602 Noon Times Luncheon 10/15/15 $25.00 Stafford 6606 . Spirit of Sonoma Awards Luncheon 11/25/15 $85.00 Noon Times Luncheon 12/30/15 $25.00 $135.00 Mackenzie 6611 Sonoma Co. Mayors & Council Members Dinner 10/01/15 $35.00 $ 80.00 Fall Econonic Forecast Breakfast & Conversation 11/13/15 $115.00 Belforte 6612 Sonoma Co. Mayors & Council Members Dinner 10/01/15 $35.00 $ 80.00 Fall Econonic Forecast Breakfast & Conversation 11/13/15 $115.00 Callinan 6613 Sonoma Co. Mayors & Council Members Dinner 10/01/15 $35.00 $35.00 Spirit of Sonoma Awards Luncheon Ahanotu 6614 p 11/25/15 $85.00 $85.00 Total $520.00 City of Rohnert Park Council Members Expense Report by Quarter Fiscal Year 15/16 Remaining Account Quarter 1 Quarter 2 Quarter 3 Quarter 4 YTD Total Budget Budget City representation 6601 Jul -Dec $ - $ 35.00 $ - $ - $ 35.00 $ 450.00 $ 415.00 City Representation 6602 Jan - Jun $ $ _ $ _ $ - $ 450.00 $ 450.00 Stafford 6606 50.00 135.00 - - 185.00 1,000.00 815.00 Mackenzie 6611 25.00 115.00 - - 140.00 1,000.00 860.00 Belforte 6612 100.00 115.00 - - 215.00 1,000.00 785.00 Callinan 6613 50.00 40.00 35.00 - 85.00 - - 85.00 - 125.00 1,000.00 1,000.00 915.00 875.00 Ahanotu 6614 Total $ 265.00 $ 520.00 $ - $ - $ 785.00 $ 5,900.00 $ 5,115.00 Meeting Date: Department: Submitted By: Prepared By: Agenda Title: ITEM NO. 6137 Mission Statement "We Care for Our Residents by Working Together to Build a Better Community for Today and Tomorrow." CITY OF ROHNERT PARK CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT January 26, 2016 Public Works and Community Services John McArthur, Director of Public Works & Community Services Terrie Zwillinger, Project Coordinator Receive Series 2007R Excess Bond Proceeds Expenditure Report RECOMMENDED ACTION: Staff recommends that the City Council as Successor Agency to the Community Development Commission receive the attached report of 2007R Excess Bond proceeds expenditures for the period of July 2015 through December 2015. BACKGROUND: Since receiving the Finding of Completion, the City, Successor Agency and Oversight Board (OSB) have taken the following actions relating to the use of the remaining redevelopment bond proceeds: 1) On February 11, 2014, the City Council approved the use of $5.7 million in bond proceeds for multiple facility improvement projects within the former Redevelopment Area (RDA). On April 9, 2014, the project list was approved by the OSB and later approved by the State Department of Finance. 2) On February 10, 2015, City Council approved the use of an additional $627,546 in uncommitted bond proceeds from the 1999 Tax Allocation Bonds (TABS) that will be used as contingency funds for projects that have already been approved. ANALYSIS: The total amount of bond proceeds currently allocated to the bond project list is approximately $6.3 million. Since approving the Excess Bond Proceeds Agreement (Agreement), several of the public facility improvement projects have been initiated. Section 5 of the Agreement requires that the City provide the Successor Agency and Oversight Board with a bi-annual written statement identifying the amount of Series 2007R Excess Bond Proceeds expended in the January through June and July through December six-month periods. The attached report details expenditures of excess bond proceeds on public improvements for the six-month period of July 2015 through December 2015, in addition to the previously expended funds. [Version 2 - 12/18/2015] ITEM NO. 6137 STRATEGIC PLAN ALIGNMENT: This item follows Strategic Plan Item D.2 by improving infrastructure. The bi-annual report is a requirement of the 2007R Excess Bond Fund Agreement. OPTIONS CONSIDERED This report is required per the 2007R Excess Bond Proceeds agreement. Department Head Approval Date: January 11, 2016 Finance Director Approval Date: January 12, 2016 City Attorney Approval Date: N/A City Manager Approval Date: January 15, 2016 Attachments (list in packet assembly order): 1. 2007R Excess Bond Proceeds Bi -Annual Report 2. Bond Public Improvement List [Version 2 - 12/18/2015] 2 ATTACHMENT 2OO7R Excess Bond Proceeds Expenditure Report - July 2015 through December 2015 Project Name Types of Expenses I Project Budget I Previous Expenditures Jul -Dec 2015 Total I Remaining Balance Benicia Pool Renovation Project No. 2014-06 ( PROJECT COMPLETE) Rehab of pool including replacement of pool decking, pool plaster, building roofs, restroom fixtures, diving board, expanded picnic area, new ADA restroom DesignI Construction Management Construction 1 1 $53,515.731 1 $27,357.001 1 $338,086.76 $36,520.27 $74,208.00 $872,349.24 Sub-totall $1,402,037.001 $418,959.491 $983,077.51 $0.00 Sports Center Locker Room Retrofit Project No. 2013-05 Remodel of both women's and men's locker rooms including replacement of lockers, fixtures, floors, and upgraded showers Design Constructability Review Construction Management Construction $66,689.53 $4,977.00 $2,765.92 $221,676.71 Sub -total $825,489.00 $71,666.53 $224,442.63 $529,379.84 Public Safety Main HVAC Replacement Project No. 2014-02 Replacement of HVAC system including new chiller and boiler,Construction controlsystem, VAVs Designi Management Construction $36,766.59 $2,000.50 $8,639.88 $167,785.01 Sub-totall $657,301.001 $36,766.59 $178,425.39 $442,109.02 A -Park Restroom Renovation Project No. 2015-04 Rehabilitation of the restroom building, including replacement of fixtures and security features Design Construction Management Construction Sub -total $138,442.00 $138,442.00 PAC HVAC Replacement (4 units) Project No. 2015-05 Replacement of 4 HVAC units Design Construction Management Construction Sub-totall $474,126.001 1 1 $474,126.00 Community Center Roof Replacement Project No. 2015-06 Replacement of roof Design Construction Management Construction Sub-totall $239,400.001 1 1 $239,400.00 Senior Center Roof Replacement Replacement of roof Design Construction Management Construction Sub -total $234,000.00 $234,000.00 Senior Center Restroom Renovation Renovation of restroom, including new fixtures, flooring, ADA upgrades Design Construction Management Construction Sub-totall $109,200.001 1 $109,200.00 PAC Roof Replacement Projct No. 2015-08 Replacement of roof Design Construction Management Construction Sub -total $1,207,640.00 $1,207,640.00 Library Parking Lot Paving and Landscaping Overlay of library parking and associated landscaping Design Construction Management Construction Sub-totall $234,900.001 1 1 $234,900.00 Community Center Parking Lot Overlay Project No. 2014-07 Overlay of parking lot Construction I 1 1 $282,964.77 Sub-totall $800,000.001 $0.001 $282,964.771 $517,035.23 TOTAL 1 $6,322,535.00 $527,392.61 $1,668,910.30 $4,126,232.09 **Note: L -Park Restroom Renovation Project was removed by the City Council on November 10, 2015 Page 1 ATTACHMENT 2 Bond Public Improvement List Available 2007R TAB Funds = $5.7 million 1999 TAB Funds = $622,535 TOTAL $ 6,322,535.00 Project Estimated Cost ($ ) Construction Contingency ($) Total Construction M Design, Environmental, Legal, Construction Management ($) March 2015 Project Total ($) January 2016 Revised Total ($) B -Pool Renovation and New Restroom (Project Complete) 700,000 140,000 840,000 277,200 1,378,816 1,402,037 Sports Center Locker Rooms Retrofit 255,000 51,000 306,000 100,655 406,655 825,489 Public Safety Main HVAC Replacement 280,000 70,200 702,000 231,660 446,880 657,301 A -Park Restroom Renovation 220,000 44,000 264,000 87,120 169,403 138,442 L -Park Restroom Renovation 85,000 17,000 102,000 33,660 55,761 - PAC HVAC Replacement (4 units) 350,000 70,000 420,000 42,000 462,000 474,126 Community Center Roof Replacement 150,000 30,000 180,000 59,400 239,400 239,400 Senior Center Roof Replacment 150,000 30,000 180,000 54,000 234,000 234,000 Senior Center Restroom Renovation 70,000 14,000 84,000 25,200 109,200 109,200 PAC Roof Replacement 800,000 160,000 960,000 316,800 1,276,800 1,207,640 Library Parking Lot Paving and Landscaping 145,000 29,000 174,000 60,900 234,900 234,900 Community Center Parking Lot Overlay 820,000 164,000 984,000 324,720 1,308,720 800,000 Total Bond Funds 6,322,535 6,322,535 **Note: L Park Restroom Renovation Project was removed from the Bond Project List per City Council direction on November 10, 2015 Version 12 January 12, 2016 01;N T Mission Statement "We Care for Our Residents by Working Together to Build a Better Community for Today and Tomorrow." Catr�vnr�t" CITY OF ROHNERT PARK CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT Meeting Date: January 26, 2016 Department: Human Resources Submitted By: Victoria Perrault, Human Resources Director Prepared By: Tracy Rankin, Human Resources Analyst ITEM NO. 6C1 Agenda Title: Consideration and Adoption of Resolution Approving the City of Rohnert Park Current Pay Rates and Ranges revised January 11, 2016 RECOMMENDED ACTION: Approve the attached resolution approving the City of Rohnert Park Current Pay Rates and Ranges revised January 11, 2016. BACKGROUND: Council approved the City of Rohnert Park Current Pay Rates and Ranges document dated December 8, 2015 on December 22, 2015, pursuant to Resolution No. 2015-191. Since that date, the following position and salary changes have been approved and/or require updating: Descriptionn Approval Resolution No. 2015-190 Senior Payroll/Fiscal Specialist New position; add to pay rates and ranges dated 12/22/15 Confidential Unit New Range 78 -CF $4,552 - $5,534 Monthly Technical Services Commander Position eliminated; Resolution No. 2015-173 remove from pay rates dated 10/27/15 and ranges PT Animal Shelter Assistant Existing position; N/A - Correction correction to job title ANALYSIS: California Public Employees' Retirement Law at Section 570.5 of the California Code of Regulations Title 2 requires the City Pay Rates and Ranges document published on the City's internet site to be approved, in its entirety, by the City Council each time a modification is made. Attached as Exhibit A to this staff report is the updated City of Rohnert Park Current Pay Rates and Ranges revised January 11, 2016 that incorporates the changes listed above. Staff recommends that the Council adopt the updated Pay Rates and Ranges by resolution. [Version 2 - 12/18/2015] 1 ITEM NO. 6C1 STRATEGIC PLAN ALIGNMENT: This is not applicable. OPTIONS CONSIDERED: This is not applicable. FISCAL IMPACT/FUNDING SOURCE: There is no fiscal impact. Department Head Approval Date: N/A Finance Director Approval Date: N/A City Attorney Approval Date: N/A City Manager Approval Date: 01/15/16 Attachments (list in packet assembly order): 1. Resolution Approving the City of Rohnert Park Current Pay Rates and Ranges revised January 11, 2016 2. Exhibit "A" City of Rohnert Park Current Pay Rates and Ranges revised January 11, 2016 [Version 2 - 12/18/2015] 2 RESOLUTION NO. 2016-003 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROHNERT PARK APPROVING THE CITY OF ROHNERT PARK CURRENT PAY RATES AND RANGES REVISED JANUARY 11, 2016 WHEREAS, the California Public Employees' Retirement Law, at Section 570.5 of the California Code of Regulations Title 2, requires the City of Rohnert Park to publish the City's Current Pay Rates and Ranges on the City's internet site and the City Council to approve the Pay Rates and Ranges in its entirety each time a modification is made; and WHEREAS, the City Council previously approved the City Pay Rates and Ranges document dated December 8, 2015 on December 22, 2015 pursuant to Resolution No. 2015-191 and several positions have been subsequently approved and/or require updating; and WHEREAS, staff recommends that the City Council adopt the updated City Pay Rates and Ranges document revised January 11, 2016 attached hereto as Exhibit A. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Rohnert Park that it does hereby approve the City of Rohnert Park Current Pay Rates and Ranges revised January 11, 2016 attached hereto as Exhibit "A" and incorporated by this reference. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Manager is hereby directed to execute documents pertaining to same for and on behalf of the City of Rohnert Park. DULY AND REGULARLY ADOPTED this 26th day of January, 2016. CITY OF ROHNERT PARK Gina Belforte, Mayor ATTEST: JoAnne M. Buergler, City Clerk Attachment: Exhibit "A" AHANOTU: CALLINAN: STAFFORD: MACKENZIE: BELFORTE: AYES: ( ) NOES: ( ) ABSENT:( ) ABSTAIN: ( ) Exhibit A oERT L I F 0 R N 1 62, CITY OF ROHNERT PARK CURRENT PAY RATES & RANGES Revised January 11, 2016 (� CITY OF ROHNERT PARK - PAY RATES AND RANGES Management Unit (Unrepresented) N/R CLASS STEP Hourly Biweekly Monthly Annually City Council (COUN) N/A $98,280 2 $189.77 $411.16 $8,599 N/R CLASS STEP Hourly Biweekly Monthly Annually City Manager (CMGR) N/A $9,480 $113,760 5 $15,750 $189,000 (By Employment Contract) $119,448 RANGE 105 CLASS STEP Hourly Biweekly Monthly Annually Director of Public Safety (SDIR) N/A $13,864 $166,366 (By Employment Contract) RANGE 103 CLASS STEP Hourly Biweekly Monthly Annually Assistant City Manager (ACM) M 1 $61.48 $4,918.62 $10,657 $127,884 (By Employment Contract) 2 $64.56 $5,164.62 $11,190 $134,280 3 $67.79 $5,423.08 $11,750 $141,000 4 $71.18 $5,694.00 $12,337 $148,044 5 $74.73 $5,978.77 $12,954 $155,448 RANGE 100 CLASS STEP Hourly Biweekly Monthly Annually Director of Development Services (DODS) M 1 $53.94 $4,315.38 $9,350 $112,200 Director of Public Works and Community 2 $56.64 $4,530.92 $9,817 $117,804 Services (PWCS) 3 $59.47 $4,757.54 $10,308 $123,696 4 $62.44 $4,995.23 $10,823 $129,876 5 $65.56 $5,244.92 $11,364 $136,368 RANGE 98 CLASS STEP Hourly Biweekly Monthly Annually City Engineer (CENG) M 1 $51.96 $4,157.08 $9,007 $108,084 Finance Director/City Treasurer (FDIR) 2 $54.56 $4,364.77 $9,457 $113,484 Human Resources Director (HRDIR) 3 $57.29 $4,583.08 $9,930 $119,160 4 $60.16 $4,812.46 $10,427 $125,124 5 $63.16 $5,052.92 $10,948 $131,376 RANGE 94 CLASS STEP Hourly Biweekly Monthly Annually City Clerk (CCLERK) M 1 $42.85 $3,427.85 $7,427 $89,124 Deputy City Engineer (DCENG) 2 $44.99 $3,599.08 $7,798 $93,576 Planning Manager (PLMG) 3 $47.24 $3,779.08 $8,188 $98,256 Teehnaeal f..v. iees !"..mmandeF (TC'! -MDR) 4 $49.60 $3,967.85 $8,597 $103,164 5 $52.08 $4,166.31 $9,027 $108,324 Rohnert Park Public Safety Managers' Association (RPPSMA) RANGE 95 CLASS STEP Hourly Biweekly Monthly Annually P.S. Commander (PSCMDR) P 1 $47.25 $3,780.00 $8,190 $98,280 2 $49.61 $3,968.77 $8,599 $103,188 3 $52.09 $4,167.23 $9,029 $108,348 4 $54.69 $4,375.38 $9,480 $113,760 5 $57.43 $4,594.15 $9,954 $119,448 CITY OF ROHNERT PARK - PAY RATES AND RANGES Confidential Unit (Unrepresented) RANGE 70 -CF CLASS STEP Hourly Biweekly Monthly Annually Human Resources Technician Trainee (HRTT) X 1 $17.35 $1,387.85 $3,007 $36,084 2 $18.21 $1,457.08 $3,157 $37,884 3 $19.13 $1,530.00 $3,315 $39,780 4 $20.08 $1,606.62 $3,481 $41,772 5 $21.09 $1,686.92 $3,655 $43,860 RANGE 72 -CF CLASS STEP Hourly Biweekly Monthly Annually Human Resources Technician (HRT) X 1 $22.68 $1,814.77 $3,932 $47,184 2 $23.82 $1,905.69 $4,129 $49,548 3 $25.01 $2,000.77 $4,335 $52,020 4 $26.26 $2,100.92 $4,552 $54,624 5 $27.58 $2,206.15 $4,780 $57,360 RANGE 74 -CF CLASS STEP Hourly Biweekly Monthly Annually Administrative Assistant - Confidential (AACU) X 1 $23.74 $1,899.23 $4,115 $49,380 2 $24.93 $1,994.31 $4,321 $51,852 3 $26.18 $2,094.00 $4,537 $54,444 4 $27.48 $2,198.77 $4,764 $57,168 5 $28.86 $2,308.62 $5,002 $60,024 RANGE 76 -CF CLASS STEP Hourly Biweekly Monthly Annually Payroll/Fiscal Specialist (PFS) X 1 $25.02 $2,001.23 $4,336 $52,032 2 $26.27 $2,101.38 $4,553 $54,636 3 $27.58 $2,206.62 $4,781 $57,372 4 $28.96 $2,316.92 $5,020 $60,240 5 $30.41 $2,432.77 $5,271 $63,252 RANGE 78 -CF CLASS STEP Hourly Biweekly Monthly Annually Senior Payroll/Fiscal Specialist (SPFS) X 1 $26.26 $2,100.92 $4,552 $54,624 2 $27.58 $2,206.15 $4,780 $57,360 3 $28.96 $2,316.46 $5,019 $60,228 4 $30.40 $2,432.31 $5,270 $63,240 5 $31.93 $2,554.15 $5,534 $66,408 RANGE 80 -CF CLASS STEP Hourly Biweekly Monthly Annually Executive Assistant to the City Manager X 1 $28.26 $2,261.08 $4,899 $58,788 (EACM) 2 $29.68 $2,374.15 $5,144 $61,728 3 $31.16 $2,492.77 $5,401 $64,812 4 $32.72 $2,617.38 $5,671 $68,052 5 $34.36 $2,748.46 $5,955 $71,460 RANGE 84 -CF CLASS STEP Hourly Biweekly Monthly Annually Human Resources Analyst (HRA) X 1 $31.16 $2,492.77 $5,401 $64,812 2 $32.72 $2,617.38 $5,671 $68,052 3 $34.36 $2,748.46 $5,955 $71,460 4 $36.08 $2,886.00 $6,253 $75,036 5 $37.88 $3,030.46 $6,566 $78,792 RANGE 88 -CF CLASS STEP Hourly Biweekly Monthly Annually Accounting Services Supervisor (ASSP) X 1 $34.34 $2,747.08 $5,952 $71,424 2 $36.06 $2,884.62 $6,250 $75,000 3 $37.86 $3,028.62 $6,562 $78,744 4 $39.75 $3,180.00 $6,890 $82,680 5 $41.73 $3,338.77 $7,234 $86,808 CITY OF ROHNERT PARK - PAY RATES AND RANGES Confidential Unit (Unrepresented) RANGE 92 -CF CLASS STEP Hourly Biweekly Monthly Annually Supervising Accountant (SUPAC) X 1 $36.03 $2,882.77 $6,246 $74,952 2 $37.83 $3,026.77 $6,558 $78,696 3 $39.73 $3,178.15 $6,886 $82,632 4 $41.71 $3,336.92 $7,230 $86,760 5 $43.80 $3,504.00 $7,592 $91,104 RANGE 94 -CF CLASS STEP Hourly Biweekly Monthly Annually Senior Analyst (SRAN) X 1 $38.41 $3,072.46 $6,657 $79,884 2 $40.33 $3,226.15 $6,990 $83,880 3 $42.35 $3,387.69 $7,340 $88,080 4 $44.46 $3,557.08 $7,707 $92,484 5 $46.69 $3,735.23 $8,093 $97,116 CITY OF ROHNERT PARK - PAY RATES AND RANGES Rohnert Park Employees' Association (RPEA) RANGE 61 CLASS STEP Hourly Biweekly Monthly Annually Office Assistant I (OA1) X 1 $17.35 $1,387.85 $3,007 $36,084 2 $18.21 $1,457.08 $3,157 $37,884 3 $19.13 $1,530.00 $3,315 $39,780 4 $20.08 $1,606.62 $3,481 $41,772 5 $21.09 $1,686.92 $3,655 $43,860 RANGE 63 CLASS STEP Hourly Biweekly Monthly Annually Animal Health Technician (AHT) X 1 $18.21 $1,457.08 $3,157 $37,884 2 $19.13 $1,530.00 $3,315 $39,780 3 $20.08 $1,606.62 $3,481 $41,772 4 $21.09 $1,686.92 $3,655 $43,860 5 $22.14 $1,771.38 $3,838 $46,056 RANGE 64 CLASS STEP Hourly Biweekly Monthly Annually Community Services Program Coordinator (CSPC) X 1 $18.60 $1,488.00 $3,224 $38,688 Public Safety Records Clerk (PSRC) 2 $19.53 $1,562.31 $3,385 $40,620 3 $20.50 $1,640.31 $3,554 $42,648 4 $21.53 $1,722.46 $3,732 $44,784 5 $22.61 $1,808.77 $3,919 $47,028 RANGE 66 CLASS STEP Hourly Biweekly Monthly Annually Accounting Specialist 1/11- Level I (ASP1) X 1 $19.53 $1,562.31 $3,385 $40,620 2 $20.50 $1,640.31 $3,554 $42,648 3 $21.53 $1,722.46 $3,732 $44,784 4 $22.61 $1,808.77 $3,919 $47,028 5 $23.74 $1,899.23 $4,115 $49,380 RANGE 68 CLASS STEP Hourly Biweekly Monthly Annually Secretary I (SEC1) X 1 $20.50 $1,640.31 $3,554 $42,648 2 $21.53 $1,722.46 $3,732 $44,784 3 $22.61 $1,808.77 $3,919 $47,028 4 $23.74 $1,899.23 $4,115 $49,380 5 $24.93 $1,994.31 $4,321 $51,852 RANGE 70 CLASS STEP Hourly Biweekly Monthly Annually Accounting Specialist 1/11- Level II (ASP2) X 1 $21.53 $1,722.46 $3,732 $44,784 Technical Director (TECH) 2 $22.61 $1,808.77 $3,919 $47,028 3 $23.74 $1,899.23 $4,115 $49,380 4 $24.93 $1,994.31 $4,321 $51,852 5 $26.18 $2,094.00 $4,537 $54,444 RANGE 74 CLASS STEP Hourly Biweekly Monthly Annually Administrative Assistant (AABS) X 1 $23.74 $1,899.23 $4,115 $49,380 Community Development Assistant (SEC5) 2 $24.93 $1,994.31 $4,321 $51,852 Community Services Specialist (CSSP) 3 $26.18 $2,094.00 $4,537 $54,444 Information Systems Technician I (IST1) 4 $27.48 $2,198.77 $4,764 $57,168 5 $28.86 $2,308.62 $5,002 $60,024 RANGE 76 CLASS STEP Hourly Biweekly Monthly Annually Property Technician (PRPT) X 1 $25.02 $2,001.23 $4,336 $52,032 2 $26.27 $2,101.38 $4,553 $54,636 3 $27.58 $2,206.62 $4,781 $57,372 4 $28.96 $2,316.92 $5,020 $60,240 5 $30.41 $2,432.77 $5,271 $63,252 CITY OF ROHNERT PARK - PAY RATES AND RANGES Rohnert Park Employees' Association (RPEA) RANGE 78 CLASS STEP Hourly Biweekly Monthly Annually Information Systems Technician II (IST2) X 1 $26.18 $2,094.00 $4,537 $54,444 $5,141 2 $27.49 $2,198.92 $4,764 $57,172 $2,491.38 3 $28.86 $2,308.77 $5,002 $60,028 $32.70 4 $30.30 $2,424.00 $5,252 $63,024 4 5 $31.82 $2,545.38 $5,515 $66,180 RANGE 81 CLASS STEP Hourly Biweekly Monthly Annually Animal Shelter Supervisor (ALSS) X 1 $28.25 $2,260.15 $4,897 $58,764 Code Compliance Officer (CCO) 2 $29.67 $2,373.23 $5,142 $61,704 Community Services Supervisor (CSSV) 3 $31.15 $2,491.85 $5,399 $64,788 Crime Analyst (CRA) 4 $32.71 $2,616.46 $5,669 $68,028 PT Fire Inspector (PTFI) 5 $34.34 $2,747.08 $5,952 $71,424 Purchasing Agent (PAGT) Records Supervisor (RCSU) Theatre Manager (THMG) RANGE 83 CLASS STEP Hourly Biweekly Monthly Annually Public Works Inspector (PWIN) X 1 $29.66 $2,372.77 $5,141 $61,692 Senior Engineering Technician (SRET) 2 $31.14 $2,491.38 $5,398 $64,776 3 $32.70 $2,616.00 $5,668 $68,016 4 $34.33 $2,746.62 $5,951 $71,412 5 $36.05 $2,884.15 $6,249 $74,988 RANGE 85 CLASS STEP Hourly Biweekly Monthly Annually Environmental Coordinator (EVC) X 1 $31.15 $2,491.85 $5,399 $64,788 Project Coordinator (PJC) 2 $32.71 $2,616.46 $5,669 $68,028 3 $34.34 $2,747.08 $5,952 $71,424 4 $36.06 $2,884.62 $6,250 $75,000 5 $37.86 $3,028.62 $6,562 $78,744 RANGE 87 CLASS STEP Hourly Biweekly Monthly Annually Accountant (ACCT) X 1 $32.71 $2,616.46 $5,669 $68,028 Management Analyst (MANA) 2 $34.34 $2,747.08 $5,952 $71,424 3 $36.06 $2,884.62 $6,250 $75,000 4 $37.86 $3,028.62 $6,562 $78,744 5 $39.75 $3,180.00 $6,890 $82,680 RANGE 89 CLASS STEP Hourly Biweekly Monthly Annually Information Systems Operations Manager (ISOM) X 1 $34.34 $2,747.08 $5,952 $71,424 2 $36.06 $2,884.62 $6,250 $75,000 3 $37.86 $3,028.62 $6,562 $78,744 4 $39.75 $3,180.00 $6,890 $82,680 5 $41.73 $3,338.77 $7,234 $86,808 RANGE 92 CLASS STEP Hourly Biweekly Monthly Annually Community Services Manager (CSMG) X 1 $36.03 $2,882.77 $6,246 $74,952 Planner III (PLNR3) 2 $37.83 $3,026.77 $6,558 $78,696 3 $39.73 $3,178.15 $6,886 $82,632 4 $41.71 $3,336.92 $7,230 $86,760 5 $43.80 $3,504.00 $7,592 $91,104 RANGE 94 Building Official (BDBO) CITY OF ROHNERT PARK - PAY RATES AND RANGES Rohnert Park Employees' Association (RPEA) CLASS STEP Hourly X 1 $38.76 2 $40.70 3 $42.74 4 $44.87 5 $47.12 Biweekly Monthly Annually $3,101.08 $6,719 $80,628 $3,256.15 $7,055 $84,660 $3,419.08 $7,408 $88,896 $3,589.85 $7,778 $93,336 $3,769.38 $8,167 $98,004 CITY OF ROHNERT PARK - PAY RATES AND RANGES Service Employees' International Union (SEIU - Local 1021) - Maintenance Workers RANGE 52W STEP Hourly Biweekly Monthly Annually Maintenance Worker Trainee (MWT) 1 $14.60 $1,167.69 $2,530 $30,360 2 $15.33 $1,226.31 $2,657 $31,884 3 $16.10 $1,287.69 $2,790 $33,480 4 $16.90 $1,352.31 $2,930 $35,160 5 $17.75 $1,420.15 $3,077 $36,924 RANGE 60W STEP Hourly Biweekly Monthly Annually Landscape Maintenance Worker (LMW) 1 $17.35 $1,387.85 $3,007 $36,084 2 $18.21 $1,457.08 $3,157 $37,884 3 $19.13 $1,530.00 $3,315 $39,780 4 $20.08 $1,606.62 $3,481 $41,772 5 $21.09 $1,686.92 $3,655 $43,860 RANGE 64W STEP Hourly Biweekly Monthly Annually Meter Technician (PWMT) 1 $19.00 $1,520.31 $3,294 $39,528 2 $19.96 $1,596.46 $3,459 $41,508 3 $20.95 $1,676.31 $3,632 $43,584 4 $22.00 $1,760.31 $3,814 $45,768 5 $23.11 $1,848.46 $4,005 $48,060 RANGE 70W STEP Hourly Biweekly Monthly Annually Maintenance Worker I (MW1) 1 $23.25 $1,860.00 $4,030 $48,360 2 $24.42 $1,953.23 $4,232 $50,784 3 $25.64 $2,051.08 $4,444 $53,328 4 $26.92 $2,153.54 $4,666 $55,992 5 $28.26 $2,261.08 $4,899 $58,788 RANGE 74W STEP Hourly Biweekly Monthly Annually Fleet Mechanic (FMEC) 1 $25.66 $2,052.92 $4,448 $53,376 Maintenance Worker 11 (MW2) 2 $26.94 $2,155.38 $4,670 $56,040 3 $28.29 $2,262.92 $4,903 $58,836 4 $29.70 $2,376.00 $5,148 $61,776 5 $31.18 $2,494.62 $5,405 $64,860 *6 $32.73 $2,618.38 $5,673 $68,078 RANGE 78W STEP Hourly Biweekly Monthly Annually Electrician (ELEC) 1 $28.21 $2,256.46 $4,889 $58,668 2 $29.61 $2,369.08 $5,133 $61,596 3 $31.10 $2,487.69 $5,390 $64,680 4 $32.65 $2,611.85 $5,659 $67,908 5 $34.28 $2,742.46 $5,942 $71,304 RANGE 79W STEP Hourly Biweekly Monthly Annually Arborist (ARB) 1 $28.92 $2,313.69 $5,013 $60,156 Fleet Services Supervisor (FSS) 2 $30.37 $2,429.54 $5,264 $63,168 Supervising Maintenance Worker (SMW) 3 $31.89 $2,550.92 $5,527 $66,324 4 $33.48 $2,678.31 $5,803 $69,636 5 $35.15 $2,812.15 $6,093 $73,116 RANGE 83W STEP Hourly Biweekly Monthly Annually General Services Supervisor (GSSR) 1 $31.88 $2,550.00 $5,525 $66,300 Utilities Services Supervisor (PWUSS) 2 $33.47 $2,677.38 $5,801 $69,612 3 $35.14 $2,811.23 $6,091 $73,092 4 $36.90 $2,952.00 $6,396 $76,752 5 $38.75 $3,099.69 $6,716 $80,592 *Inactive salary step; acting pay previously incorporated into base salary CITY OF ROHNERT PARK - PAY RATES AND RANGES Rohnert Park Public Safety Officers' Association (RPPSOA) RANGE 68 CLASS STEP Hourly Biweekly Monthly Annually Public Safety Dispatcher (PSD) XD 1 $24.43 $1,954.62 $4,235 $50,820 2 $25.65 $2,052.00 $4,446 $53,352 3 $26.92 $2,153.54 $4,666 $55,992 4 $28.25 $2,260.15 $4,897 $58,764 5 $29.65 $2,372.31 $5,140 $61,680 PT Public Safety Dispatcher (PTD) - Hourly 1 $23.21 2 $24.37 3 $25.57 4 $26.84 5 $28.17 *6 $29.58 RANGE 69 CLASS STEP Hourly Biweekly Monthly Annually Community Services Officer (CSO) S -CSO 1 $22.40 $1,791.69 $3,882 $46,584 2 $23.52 $1,881.23 $4,076 $48,912 3 $24.68 $1,974.46 $4,278 $51,336 4 $25.90 $2,072.31 $4,490 $53,880 5 $27.19 $2,175.15 $4,713 $56,554 RANGE 81 CLASS STEP Hourly Biweekly Monthly Annually Public Safety Officer Trainee (PSOT) S 1 $24.72 $1,977.23 $4,284 $51,408 RANGE 83 CLASS STEP Hourly Biweekly Monthly Annually Public Safety Communications Supervisor XD 1 $32.42 $2,593.38 $5,619 $67,428 (PSCS) 2 $34.03 $2,722.62 $5,899 $70,788 3 $35.72 $2,857.85 $6,192 $74,304 4 $37.49 $2,999.08 $6,498 $77,976 5 $39.35 $3,148.15 $6,821 $81,852 RANGE 83.5 CLASS STEP Hourly Biweekly Monthly Annually New -hire Public Safety Officer (NEWB) S 1 $28.52 $2,281.38 $4,943 $59,316 2 $29.93 $2,394.46 $5,188 $62,256 RANGE 83.75 CLASS STEP **Hourly Biweekly Monthly Annually New -hire Fire Public Safety Officer S 1 $19.75 $2,096.42 $4,542 $54,507 (NEWF) 2 $20.73 $2,200.31 $4,767 $57,208 RANGE 84 CLASS STEP Hourly Biweekly Monthly Annually Public Safety Officer (PSO) S 1 $31.42 $2,513.54 $5,446 $65,352 2 $32.98 $2,638.62 $5,717 $68,604 3 $34.62 $2,769.23 $6,000 $72,000 4 $36.33 $2,906.31 $6,297 $75,564 5 $38.13 $3,050.31 $6,609 $79,308 RANGE 86 CLASS STEP **Hourly Biweekly Monthly Annually Fire Assignment Public Safety Officer S 1 $21.76 $2,309.81 $5,005 $60,055 (FPSO) 2 $22.84 $2,424.69 $5,254 $63,042 3 $23.97 $2,544.69 $5,514 $66,162 4 $25.16 $2,670.65 $5,786 $69,437 5 $26.41 $2,803.00 $6,073 $72,878 `Inactive salary step; only applies to existing employees affected by prior pay reduction/restoration *`Hourly rate based on 2,760 hours annually CITY OF ROHNERT PARK - PAY RATES AND RANGES Rohnert Park Public Safety Officers' Association (RPPSOA) RANGE 89 CLASS STEP Hourly Biweekly Monthly Annually Fire Marshal (PSFM) 5 1 $36.68 $2,934.00 $6,357 $76,284 Public Safety Sergeant (PSGT) 2 $38.49 $3,079.38 $6,672 $80,064 3 $40.40 $3,232.15 $7,003 $84,036 4 $42.41 $3,392.77 $7,351 $88,212 5 $44.50 $3,560.31 $7,714 $92,568 RANGE 91 CLASS STEP "Hourly Biweekly Monthly Annually Fire Assignment Sergeant (FSGT) S 1 $25.40 $2,696.12 $5,842 $70,099 2 $26.66 $2,829.69 $6,131 $73,572 3 $27.98 $2,970.08 $6,435 $77,222 4 $29.37 $3,117.69 $6,755 $81,060 5 $30.82 $3,271.65 $7,089 $85,063 `Inactive salary step; only applies to existing employees affected by prior pay reduction/restoration *`Hourly rate based on 2,760 hours annually CITY OF ROHNERT PARK - PAY RATES AND RANGES Miscellaneous Part -Time (MISPT2) - Community Services Department RANGE 38 STEP Hourly PT Community Services Leader (PTCSL) 1 $10.00 PT Facility Attendant (PTFA) 2 $10.26 PT Lifeguard/Cashier (PTLC) 3 $10.77 PT Pool Cashier (PTPC) 4 $11.31 5 $11.88 RANGE 41 STEP Hourly PT Instructor/Lifeguard (PTIL) 1 $10.44 2 $10.96 3 $11.51 4 $12.08 5 $12.69 RANGE 43 STEP Hourly PT Senior Community Services Leader (PTSCSL) 1 $10.76 2 $11.30 3 $11.87 4 $12.46 5 $13.08 RANGE 45 STEP Hourly PT Senior Lifeguard (PTSRL) 1 $11.58 PT Sports Center Coordinator (PTSC) 2 $12.16 3 $12.77 4 $13.41 5 $14.08 RANGE 53 STEP Hourly PT Pool Manager (PTPMGR) 1 $12.46 2 $13.08 3 $13.73 4 $14.42 5 $15.14 RANGE 59 STEP Hourly PT Community Services Coordinator (PTCSC) 1 $13.73 2 $14.42 3 $15.14 4 $15.90 5 $16.70 CITY OF ROHNERT PARK - PAY RATES AND RANGES Miscellaneous Part -Time Hourly Positions Administrative/Office Hourly PT Administrative Assistant (PTAA) $10.50 - $28.50 PT Office Assistant (PT01) $10.00 - $19.00 PT Information Systems Assistant (PTIS) $20.00 - $25.00 PT Technical Advisor (PTTA) $14.25 - $47.50 Temporary Management Analyst (TMAN) $25.00 - $40.00 PT Administrative Intern (PTAI) $10.00 - $19.00 Community Services Hourly PT Custodian (PTC) $11.40 - $14.00 Performing Arts Center Hourly PT Box Office Assistant (PTBA) $10.45 - $11.40 PT Assistant Box Office Manager (PTHBM) $10.00 - $12.00 PT Arts Center House Manager (PTHM) $10.00 - $12.00 PT Theater Technician (PTTT) $10.00 - $13.30 Public Safety Hourly PT Animal Shelter Assistant (ASA) $11.40 - $14.25 PT Community Services Leader (PTCSL) $10.00 - $11.88 Public Works Hourly Seasonal Maintenance Assistant (SMA) $11.40 - $14.00 Stipends by Unit Public Safety Amount/Percentage Euthanasia Certification 7% CITY OF ROHNERT PARK - PAY RATES AND RANGES Pensionable Stipends by Unit All Units Amount/Percentage Acting Pay 5%-10% *Longevity 2%-10% By Employment Contract Amount/Percentage POST Certification Pay (Director of Public Safety) - Executive 10% Confidential Amount/Percentage Bilingual $100/month Educational Incentive - BA/BS, MA/MS $50/month Rohnert Park Employees' Association (RPEA) Amount/Percentage Bilingual $100/month Educational Incentive - MA/MS $50/month Rohnert Park Public Safety Managers' Association (RPPSMA) Amount/Percentage POST Certification Pay (Commanders) - Supervisory 7.0% POST Certification Pay (Commanders) - Management 8.5% Rohnert Park Public Safety Officers' Association (RPPSOA) Amount/Percentage Acting Supervisor/Watch Commander 5%-10% Acting Lieutenant 10%-15% Bilingual 2.5% Canine Handler 3.0% Detective 5.0% Educational - AA/AS (Sergeant, PSO, CSO) 1.8% Educational - AA/AS (Dispatcher, Comm Sup) 2.4% Educational - BA/BS (Sergeant, PSO, CSO) 2.8% Educational - BA/BS (Dispatcher, Comm Sup) 3.6% EMT 2.0% Field Training Officer 5.0% Non -Sworn Training Officer 5.0% Fire Specialty 2.0% Fire Engineer 2.5% Fire Captain 4.0% *Fire Marshal 15.0% PSO Captain 3.0% Master Officer 5.0% Motorcycle Duty 3.0% **Intermediate POST Certification 4.5% **Advanced POST Certification 7.0% **POST Supervisory Certification (Sergeant) 9.0% POST Field Evidence Tech Certification (CSO) 2.5% Property Technician (CSO) 5.0% Shift Differential 5.0% Special/Extra Assignments 5.0% ***Uniform Allowance $240/year Service Employees' International Union (SEIU) Amount/Percentage Certification and License Program - Level 1 2.6% Certification and License Program - Level II 4.5% Certification and License Program - Level 111 6.0% Educational Incentive Pay - Level I $75/month Educational Incentive Pay - Level 11 $100/month Educational Incentive Pay - Level III $135/month *Inactive stipend; closed to new hires **Only one POST stipend paid per employee ***Only pensionable for classic PERS members .ppH N.xT �AR� �z Mission Statement "We Care for Our Residents by Working Together to Build a Better Community for Today and Tomorrow." CITY OF ROHNERT PARK CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT Meeting Date: January 26, 2016 Department: Department of Public Safety Submitted By: Brian Masterson, Director of Public Safety Prepared By: Patrick Strouse, Public Safety Commander ITEM NO. 6C2 Agenda Title: Consideration of a Resolution Authorizing and Approving the Elimination of the current Part -Time Public Safety Office Assistant I Position (.7FTE) in the Records Bureau and addition of one Full -Time Public Safety Records Clerk in the Records Bureau. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Adopt a Resolution authorizing and approving the elimination of the current Part -Time Public Safety Office Assistant I Position (.7 FTE) in the Records Bureau to be replaced by a Full -Time Records Clerk Position. BACKGROUND: The Records Bureau is currently staffed as follows: • One (1) Records Supervisor • Two (2) Full Time Records Clerks (One Vacant) • One (1) Part -Time Office Assistant I (.7 FTE) • Two (2) Part -Time Office Assistant I (One Vacant - .5 FTE) The current variation of job titles, descriptions, expectations, and compensation in the Records Bureau has existed for many years and has become inefficient. Having different job titles and job responsibilities makes it very difficult to conduct cross training and this can create operational problems in the Records Bureau. There is no back up for the different job titles and responsibilities. When one employee is off for approved vacation or an employee resigns, it becomes difficult to complete the job tasks with another Records employee who has a different job title and different pay range. By having one job title and assigned tasks, we can better cross train all the Records Clerks which will make them more knowledgeable about the various tasks in the Records Bureau. Our plan for the Records Bureau is to have each line level employee be classified as a Records Clerk so the job descriptions, expectations, and compensation are the same and easily understood. This will allow the Records Supervisor to rotate the assignments of the records staff as needed for development without any obstacles such as working out of class and additional compensation issues. ITEM NO. 6C2 ANALYSIS: Our Records Bureau is directly impacted by the written reports and citations produced by all of our Public Safety Officers, which include follow-up work to allied agencies such as the District Attorney's (DA's) office or additional front counter and telephone contacts with involved members of our community. Since 2013 our city has seen its crime rates increase. As the city's population expands with new development and we begin to fill our vacant officer positions and bring on our Community Orientated Problem Solving (COPS) Unit, the workload in the Records Bureau is expected to continue to increase as it has in last two years. As an example, below we have listed a comparison of the amount of Incident Reports from all of 2013 to 2015: 2013-4258 2014-4085 2015-5511 With an increase in criminal activity in our City and eventually being fully staffed or close to it, we expect the 2016 numbers to be significantly higher resulting in an increased workload for the Records Bureau. The Incident Reports are just one example of an increased work load. The amount of citations, vehicle releases, Public Record Act requests, citizen interactions with staff are all expected to increase as the city grows with new residents. STRATEGIC PLAN ALIGNMENT: Goal C: Ensure the effective delivery of public services. Strategies: Emphasize high quality customer service. This recommended change from a Part -Time Office Assistant to a full time Public Safety Records Clerk fits the City's strategic plan by ensuring the delivery of service to our community. Having knowledgeable, cross trained employees will allow for good customer service even if one of the Records Bureau employees is off. Making this decision today will help with the increased workload in the near future and will allow succession planning as eligible employees retire. OPTIONS CONSIDERED: Option 1: Staff strongly recommends that we eliminate the Part -Time Office Assistant and add a Full -Time Public Safety Records Clerk. Recommended: This option improves the Records Bureau in efficiency and keeps up with an increased workload. Option 2: Converting the .7 FTE Part -Time Office Assistant I position to a Full -Time Office Assistant I is a possibility. Not recommended: This solution does not address the issues with inefficiency, job duties, employee development, cross training, and equal compensation within the Records Bureau. This solution is fiscally cheaper, however perpetuates the existing staffing model concerns. ITEM NO. 6C2 FISCAL IMPACT/FUNDING SOURCE: The approximate fiscal impact of converting our current .7 FTE Part -Time Office Assistant I to a Full -Time Records Clerk is listed below: Position Salary Benefits Total PT Office Assistant $ 27,664 $ 9,312 $ 36,976 FT Records Clerk (Step 5) $ 47,028 $ 34,020 $ 81,048 Annual Difference $ 19,394 $ 24,708 $ 44,072 The funding source for additional cost would come from the Casino Mitigation fund and would necessitate an increase in the Public Safety Budget. The increase in records workload corresponds to increased development such as the Graton Casino Project. Use of Mitigation funds to increase Public Safety Services is reasonable. Department Head Approval Date: 1-4-16 Finance Director Approval Date: 1-4-16 City Attorney Approval Date: 1-4-16 City Manager Approval Date: 1-12-16 Attachments (list in packet assembly order): 1. Office Assistant I Job Description 2. Public Safety Records Clerk Job Description 3. Resolution 3 City of Rohnert Park - Class Specification Bulletin 9 tiNERT •S LiFOR I% CITY OF ROHNERT PARK Revision Date: Mar 30, 2015 Office Assistant I Bargaining Unit: Rohnert Park Employee Association SALARY RANGE $3,007.00 - $3,655.00 Monthly $36,084.00 - $43,860.00 Annually Page 1 of 3 Class Code: OA1 DESCRIPTION: DEFINITION Performs a variety of general office tasks within an assigned department; performs other duties as required. DISTINGUISHING CHARACTERISTICS The Office Assistant I class is the entry level position in providing general office support to one or more City departments or programs. Incumbents are expected to perform basic office support functions. Incumbents have considerable public contact and provide information regarding City operations and policies. The activities of the position differ from the Office Assistant II in which incumbents function with more independence and possess more detailed knowledge of City and Department policies and procedures. SUPERVISION RECEIVED/EXERCISED Supervision may be provided by a variety of supervisory and management positions based on the assigned department. After an initial period of employment because of the general nature of the position's routine activities, close supervision should not be required nor expected. ESSENTIAL 306 FUNCTIONS. These duties are a representative sample; position assignments may vary. • Performs a wide variety of general office duties • Provides customer service, greets public, responds to questions, provides information in person, over the phone and via email * Performs data entry; types memos, letters, reports • Enters financial information into various spreadsheets and reports • Gathers and compiles information for a variety of reports and records • Photocopies, faxes, handles incoming, outgoing and inter -office mail • Files and maintains records • Provides information on City fees • Assists department staff with projects and programs • May collect fees and make collections -related calls • May attend meetings, take notes and transcribe minutes and prepare meeting agendas • May be required to learn and utilize specific department software programs • May collect money and/or payments and record/post the information, make deposits • May perform purchasing -related tasks in department where assigned such as tracking and ordering office supplies • May perform errands for the department where assigned http://agency.govermuentjobs.comlrohnertparkldefault.cfm?action=specbulletin&C1assSpec... 1/4/2016 City of Rohnert Park - Class Specification Bulletin Page 2 of 3 • May be assigned as a Disaster Service Worker in the event of a disaster or emergency • Performs related duties as assigned CITY EMPLOYEES ARE EXPECTED TO: • Provide outstanding and friendly customer service • Create and maintain a respectful and collaborative working environment • Communicate honestly and behave in a manner that is ethical, legal and fiscally responsible • Demonstrate care for the organization, customers and coworkers • Practice and encourage initiative and innovation to improve the workplace QUALIFICATIONS AND REQUIREMENTS" EXPERIENCE/EDUCATION Sufficient experience and education to successfully perform the duties of an Office Assistant I. A typical way of obtaining the required qualifications is to possess: • Education equivalent to a high school diploma; and • 2 years of experience, paid or unpaid, performing general office tasks. College -level coursework in a related field is desirable. LICENSE • Possession of a valid California Class C Driver's License and a good driving record. SPECIAL REQUIREMENTS: • Per California State Law, smoking is not permitted inside City facilities/vehicles or within 20 feet of main entrances, exits, and operable windows. • May be required to work evenings, weekends and holidays, depending on department where assigned. KNOWLEDGE OF: • Modern office practices, methods and procedures • Proper English grammar, vocabulary, spelling and punctuation • Basic mathematics • Basic accounting • Statistical recordkeeping ■ Customer service techniques • Basic filing and file management systems • Computer software programs • Office equipment • Receptionist and telephone techniques SKILL TO: • Type accurately at a minimum speed of 40 net w.p.m. • Enter numbers quickly and accurately on a calculator and/or computer keyboard ABILITY TO: • Perform a variety of office duties in support of assigned department • Learn to apply the policies and procedures of the department where assigned • Speak English at a level necessary to communicate information clearly • Write English in a clear and readable manner • Understand and carry out oral and written instructions • Maintain confidentiality http://agency. govemmentj obs.comlrohnertparkldefault.cfm?action=specbulletin&ClassSpec... 1/4/2016 City of Rohnert Park - Class Specification Bulletin Page 3 of 3 • Learn and utilize new technology, including specialized computer programs • Operate office equipment, including but not limited to computers, phone systems, calculators, faxes, collating machines, mail machines, radios, pagers, photocopiers • Post financial and other information to a variety of reports and files • Maintain files and recordkeeping systems • Meet work deadlines • Establish and maintain cooperative working relationships • Deal effectively and courteously with others WORKING CONDITIONS: Employees are regularly required to sit, use a computer keyboard and mouse, use fingers and hands, reach with hands and arms, talk and hear, stand, walk, and stoop or crouch. Employees occasionally lift and/or move up to 25 pounds. Specific vision abilities required by this job include close vision, distance vision, color vision, peripheral vision, depth perception, and ability to adjust focus. Requires the ability to work in an office environment where the noise level is usually moderate. May be required to work in an environment where there are interruptions and work deadlines to meet. http://agency. governmentj obs.com/rohnertpark/default.cfm?action=specbulletin&ClassSpec... 1/4/2016 • City of Rohnert Park - Class Specification Bulletin 19 �v vj N 61j T 4 jLIFORK� CITY OF ROHNERT PARK Established Date: Apr 22, 1997 Revision Date: Mar 10, 2009 Public Safety 62 Records clerk Bargaining Unit: Rohnert Park Employee Association SALARY RANGE $18.60 - $22.61 Hourly $3,224.00 - $3,919.00 Monthly Page 1 of 2 Class Code: PSRC DESCRIPTION: DEFINITION Performs a variety of activities involved in the preparation, screening, routing, filing, and distribution of public safety reports and records; performs other duties as required. DISTINGUISHING CHARACTERISTICS The Public Safety Records Clerk is an experienced working level position responsible for the preparation, screening, routing, filing, and proper distribution of police and other public safety related reports. This position is distinguished from the Public Safety Records Supervisor which has on-going supervisory responsibility for several positions within the Records Bureau. SUPERVISION RECEIVED/ EXERCISED General supervision is provided by the Public Safety Records Supervisor. Incumbents may provide training in records functions to other employees when assigned. ESSENTIAL ]OR FUNCTIONS: • Sorts, reviews, and screens police reports for completeness before forwarding to the District Attorney, defendants, victims, and other government agencies • Files and retrieves all reports and records for the Public Safety Department • Responds to requests for records and ascertains others' right of access to police record information prior to release • Maintains control of records for tracking of case files • Researches a variety of information from Department records • Maintains current information on laws and regulations affecting the maintenance of police records • Assures the accuracy and completeness of records • Categorizes statistics according to a variety of guidelines and criteria • Processes documents related to the towing and impounding of vehicles and the subsequent release of vehicles • Types and data enters a variety of information into police records systems • Maintains detail tracking reports of all cases • Provides backup for office duties • Answers incoming telephone calls for the Records Bureau http://agency.governmentj obs.comlrohnertparkldefault.cfm?action=specbulletin&ClassSp... 12/11/2015 City of Rohnert Park - Class Specification Bulletin • Responds to a variety of requests for information concerning Public Safety Department functions and policies • Operates a variety of office equipment Page 2 of 2 OTHER DUTIES May oversee filing performed by other staff; processes finger print cards; processes documents related to Department background checks; processes delayed notification to repossessed vehicles; orders office supplies for the Department; maintains an audio library; destroys documents in compliance with applicable laws and procedures; may perform receptionist duties at the Department's front counter. QUALIFICATIONS AND REQUIREMENTS: EXPERIENCE/ EDUCATION: Sufficient experience and education to successfully perform the duties of the Public Safety Records Clerk. A typical way of obtaining the required qualifications is to pos-sess two years of work experience processing and preparing reports and documents in a public safety agency. KNOWLEDGE OF: • Laws, rules, and regulations governing the maintenance and release of information from police records • Operations, policies, procedures, and functions of the Public Safety Department • Methodologies used in maintaining and reporting crime statistics • Basic understanding of law enforcement terminology • Correct English usage, spelling, grammar, and punctuation • Modern office practices and procedures • Proper telephone techniques and procedures ABILITY TO: • Maintain responsibility for the preparation, updating, and release of information from police records • Interpret and apply laws and regulations governing the maintenance of police records • Train other personnel in record keeping methods and procedures • Research and compile statistical information • Perform a variety of complex office assistance and administrative report work • Maintain courteous and tactful, but firm relationship with the public and representatives of other agencies • Establish and maintain cooperative working relationships YW RKING_COISEDITIONS: Position requires prolonged sitting, standing, walking, reaching, twisting, turning, kneeling, bending, squatting, and stooping in the performance of daily activities. The position also requires grasping, repetitive hand movement, and fine coordination in preparing correspondence, reports and data entry, using a computer key board. Additionally, the position requires near vision in reading reports and other documents and using the computer, and hearing is required when providing phone and counter service. The need to lift, drag, and push files and computer reports weighing up to 25 pounds also is required. http://agency.govermnentj obs.comlrohnertparkldefault.cfm?action=specbulletin&ClassSp... 12/11/2015 RESOLUTION NO. 2016-004 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROHNERT PARK APPROVING THE ELIMINATION OF THE CURRENT .7 FTE PUBLIC SAFETY OFFICE ASSISTANT I IN THE RECORDS BUREAU AND ADDITION OF ONE FULL- TIME PUBLIC SAFETY RECORDS CLERK IN THE PUBLIC SAFETY DEPARTMENT WHEREAS; staff has evaluated the current workload of the Records Bureau and there is a need to increase the part time Public Safety Office Assistant to a Full -Time Public Safety Records Clerk position. Having all personnel assigned to the Records Bureau with the same job title and duties will improve and ensure the delivery of services to the public. Cross training and having back-up in key positions within the Records Bureau will improve efficiencies in the Records Bureau when someone is on vacation or extended leave. WHEREAS, staff recommends approval of the Full -Time Public Safety Records Clerk job description and, NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Rohnert Park that it does hereby authorize and approve the elimination of the current .7 FTE Part -Time Public Safety Office Assistant I in the Records Bureau and approve the addition of one Full - Time Public Safety Records Clerk, with the pay range 64. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the position allocated in the FY 2015-16 budget shall be changed from Part -Time Public Safety Office Assistant to Full Time Public Safety Clerk. DULY AND REGULARLY ADOPTED this 26th day of January, 2016. CITY OF ROHNERT PARK Gina Belforte, Mayor ATTEST: JoAnne M. Buergler, City Clerk AHANOTU: CALLINAN: STAFFORD: MACKENZIE: BELFORTE: AYES: ( ) NOES: ( ) ABSENT: ( ) ABSTAIN: ( 01;N T Mission Statement "We Care for Our Residents by Working Together to Build a Better Community for Today and Tomorrow." Catr�vnr�t" CITY OF ROHNERT PARK CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT Meeting Date: January 26, 2016 Department: Development Services Submitted By: Mary Grace Pawson, Director of Development Services Prepared By: Mary Grace Pawson, Director of Development Services ITEM NO. 6C3 Agenda Title: Approving the Fourth Amendment to Task Order 2014-02 with Green Valley Consulting Engineers for On -Call Construction Management and Inspection Services and Authorizing the Finance Director to Take Related Actions RECOMMENDED ACTION: Adopt a Resolution Approving the Fourth Amendment to Task Order 2014-02 with Green Valley Consulting Engineers for On -Call Construction Management and Inspection Services and Authorizing the Finance Director to Take Related Actions. BACKGROUND: The City entered into a Master Agreement with Green Valley Consulting Engineers for Design Professional Services on January 26, 2011, pursuant to City Council Resolution No. 2011-07 adopted on January 25, 2011. The Master Agreement retained Green Valley for construction management and inspection work, among other things, and requires separate Task Orders be authorized for specific projects, such as the proposed project. The City approved Task Order No. 2014-02 on August 8, 2014 with Green Valley Consulting Engineers for On -Call Construction Management and Inspection Services for University District Sheet Grading Phase 2 (City Permit BDGR2014-00001) for an amount not to exceed $48,935.00, which was approved by the City Manager under the Purchasing Policy. The City Council has subsequently approved three amendments to this Task Order in order to provide for ongoing inspection of the significant construction work taking place at the University District Project. At this point, Task Order No. 2014-02, as amended, has reached its funding limit of approximately $1,025,000. However construction work at the University District development will continue to move at a very rapid pace. The developer is working to complete its onsite civil work, including all utilities, curbs, gutters, streets and streetlights. This work involves four contractors and multiple construction crews. Beginning in the spring of 2016, the developer will commence construction on the widening of Rohnert Park Expressway and the new Twin Creeks Park in accordance with its Development Agreement and Improvement Agreements approved by the City Council. Based on the bond estimates provided by the developer, there is approximately $20 million in active or planned construction work taking place on the site. City staff does not have the resources to perform the inspection work for the University District project, especially since the work is proceeding on multiple fronts and offsite work will begin in the spring of 2016. The Development Agreement for the University District Specific Plan Area provides the City with the authority to recover its costs, including the costs of outside consultants [Version 2 - 12/18/2015] ITEM NO. 6C3 when they are necessary. Because of this, the City can use consultants, like Green Valley, to augment our staff resources without having adverse impacts on the City's General Fund. ANALYSIS: Because of the volume of construction taking place during the summer of 2015, engineering staff issued a request for proposals for construction management and inspection services to all engineering consultants with Master Agreements with the City. Staff's goal was to select the most qualified team for each of the various construction projects. Green Valley provided a response to this request and because of their extensive experience with the University District development was considered the most qualified to continue to provide these services for the University District Project. The firm has been able to effectively represent the City's interest while working with the developer to undertake its work in a reasonably coordinated fashion. In addition, Green Valley has not worked for the developer and has no conflicts of interest and its hourly rates particularly for inspection services are very competitive. The University District Developer will be constructing both onsite and offsite improvements and may have as many as six contractors employed at any time. City staff is recommending that the construction management team include a construction manager and up to two full-time inspectors together with an allowance for overtime work because the Developer has consistently requested six day work weeks, as weather allows. The estimated value of this construction is approximately $20 million. The current value of the construction management contract is $1,023,935. Staff is recommending a Task Order amendment in an amount not to exceed $500,000 to allow for uncertainties related to staffing construction projects. This will bring the total value of Green Valley's Task Order to $1,523,935, or approximately 7.5% of the costs of construction, which is reasonable. These costs are covered by developer reimbursements. STRATEGIC PLAN ALIGNMENT: This action is consistent with Strategic Plan Goal D — Continue to Develop a Vibrant Community. This action will allow the Development Services Department to continue to provide timely service to applicants. OPTIONS CONSIDERED: 1. Amend the Task Order with Green Valley Consultants (recommended option). This option allows staff to retain continuity of construction management and inspection services and project understanding and will allow resources to remain available as work proceeds. 2. Award the construction management and inspection services to another firm. This option is not recommended because staff has solicited proposals and Green Valley is the most qualified to continue with this work. FISCAL IMPACT/FUNDING SOURCE: The fiscal impact of the proposed action is $500,000. The expenses incurred under the amended Task Order will be reimbursed by the Developer, Brookfield Homes, per the Reimbursement Agreement for the University District Specific Plan. The requested action authorizes the Finance Director to increase budgeted revenue and appropriations as necessary to match the funding received from the University District developer to costs incurred under this contract. Department Head Approval Date: 01/06/16 Finance Director Approval Date: 01/08/16 City Attorney Approval Date: 01/08/16 [Version 2 - 12/18/2015] 2 ITEM NO. 6C3 City Manager Approval Date: 01/12/16 Attachments (list in packet assembly order): Attachment 1 - Task Order No. 2014-02 and First, Second and Third Amendments 2. Resolution Authorizing and Approving the Fourth Amendment to Task Order 2014-02 with Green Valley Consulting Engineers for On -Call Inspection Services 3. Exhibit A to Resolution — Fourth Amendment to Task Order 2014-02 with Green Valley Consulting Engineers for On -Call Inspection Services [Version 2 - 12/18/2015] CITY TR 2014-071 TASK ORDER NO. 2014-02 CITY OF ROHNERT PARK AND GREEN VALLEY AUTHORIZATION TO PROVIDE ON-CALL CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT AND INSPECTION SERVICES FOR UNIVERSITY DISTRICT SHEET GRADING PHASE 2 (CITY PROJECT BDGR2014-00001) SECTION 1— PURPOSE The purpose of this Task Order is to authorize and direct GREEN VALLEY CONSULTING ENGINEERS to proceed with the work specified in Section 2 below in accordance with the provisions of the MASTER AGREEMENT between the City of Rohnert Park ("City") and GREEN VALLEY CONSULTING ENGINEERS ("Consultant") hereto dated January 26, 2011. SECTION 2 — SCOPE OF WORK The items authorized by this Task Order are: Construction Management & Inspection Services for University District Sheet Grading Phase 2 (City Project BDGR 2014 -00001): • Receive and process requests for inspection services • Provide construction and maintenance observations associated with work performed within City limits. • Check engineering plans and specifications and provide construction management, administration, and observation for City projects designed by others. • Provide construction control administration, encroachment application, sidewalk permits and other miscellaneous inspection as directed by City. SECTION 3 — COMPENSATION AND PAYMENT Compensation shall be as provided in the MASTER AGREEMENT between the parties hereto referenced in SECTION 1 above. The total cost for services as set forth in SECTION 2 shall be actual costs (time and materials) based on Consultants' standard labor charges in accordance with the provisions of the MASTER AGREEMENT and as shown in Attachment "A" for an amount not -to - exceed $48,935.00. SECTION 4 — TIME OF PERFORMANCE The work described in SECTION 2 shall be completed by December 31, 2014, or as extended by the City Manager. SECTION 5 — ITEMS AND CONDITIONS All items and conditions contained in the MASTER AGREEMENT for professional services between City and Consultant are incorporated by reference. 61- Approved this T day of August, 2014. CITY OF ROHNERT PARK */14 Darrin Jen ens, City Manager (bate) Per Purchasing Policy 441.1.5 adopted by Resolution 2012-22. Attest: IL-, m "(d, Anne M. Buergler ity Clerk GREEN VALLEY CONSULTING ENGINEERS Elizabeth fWllis, President (Date) CITY OF ROHNERT PARK WORK Exhibit "A" On -Call I ngmdion Services P I Green Task Information Task Task Information Project Manager/PE • onstruction ConstructionConstruction Admin Inspector II Assistant coed Costs Total Total Costs Hours Remarks $165 $155 $125 $75 1 PLyject h7an ement 22 1 16 38 $4,830 2 Daily Field Inspection & Documentation 16 300 8 324 $40,580 1 Inspector Vehicle $3,325 $3,325 Based on $95/Dav for 35 days for inspector's vehicle Reimbursible Expenses(photos, copies. etc $200 $200 Total Hours 22 16 300 1 24 - Project Total $3,630 $2,480 $37,500 1 $1,800 $3,525 $48,935.00 TOTAL NOT -TO -EXCEED COST Based on Full time inspection, Monday through Friday at 8 hours per day c:guserswda9rwppflva4L�av ..eilWVndowsiT mporaryhterretF7es%Cwtert.0uaoddKOOBCCEL%nspedionfee V3112014 AMENDMENT 1 TO TASK ORDER NO. 2014-02 CITY OF ROHNERT PARK AND GREEN VALLEY CONSULTING ENGINEERS AUTHORIZATION TO PROVIDE ON-CALL CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT AND INSPECTION SERVICES FOR UNIVERSITY DISTRICT DEVLOPMENT (CITY PERMITS BDGR 2014-00001, 00003, 00004 AND ENPI 2014-0001, 00002, 00003) This First Amendment to Task Order No. 2014-02 ("First Amendment") between the City of Rohnert Park ("City") and GREEN VALLEY CONSULTING ENGINEERS ("Consultant") for certain additional inspection services is entered into as of the aV_ day of 0 r:\ -o , 2014 ("Effective Date") by and between City and Consultant on the following terms and conditions: SECTION 1— RECITALS On January 26, 2011, City and Consultant entered into a MASTER AGREEMENT for professional services authorized through Resolution 2011-07. The purpose of the MASTER AGREEMENT is to provide the City with access to qualified municipal engineering service providers to augment staff resources as needed. On April 8, 2014, the City Council of the City of Rohnert Park approved a number of resolutions related to the University District development and the developer has begun construction work including onsite grading and the installation of off-site utility and roadway improvements. On August 9, 2014, the City entered into Task Order No. 2014-02 with Consultant, under the MASTER AGREEMENT, for $48,935, to provide for on-call construction management and inspection services for the University District development through the end of October 2014, when initial construction activity was planned to be complete. The University District development has secured approvals for additional construction activity that will continue into 2015 and Consultant is uniquely qualified to continue to provide inspection services because of its history and familiarity with the project and its design. SECTION 2 — SCOPE OF WORK Consultant shall provide daily inspection services for the University District development including observation of on-site grading and the installation of public utilities in conformance with applicable law and approved plans and permits, as directed by City. Inspection services shall include: observation of construction and maintenance activities; preparation of reports on activities; provision of notice to City of changes, potential claims, and claims; coordination and meetings with developer, City and other responsible and interested parties, and other activities as deemed necessary by the City to confirm that the work is being completed in accordance with the approved plans and permits. Consultant shall promptly furnish, without additional charge, all facilities, labor, and material reasonably needed for performing such safe and convenient inspections as may be required. SECTION 3 — COMPENSATION AND PAYMENT The Consultant shall provide the work described in SECTION 2 on a time and materials basis for an amount not to exceed $100,000.00, as outlined in Exhibit "A". Total compensation under Task Order 2014-02, with this first Amendment shall, not exceed $148,935.00. Payment provisions shall be in accordance with the MASTER AGREEMENT for professional services between City and Consultant. SECTION 4 — TIME OF PERFORMANCE The work described in SECTION 2 shall be completed during Fiscal Year 2014/15 or as may be extended in writing by the City Engineer or his/her designee. SECTION 5 — AGREEMENT IN EFFECT Except as expressly modified by this First Amendment, all terms and conditions contained in (a) the MASTER AGREEMENT and (b) Task Order No. 2014-02 shall remain in full force and effect and binding on the parties. SECTION 6 — COUNTERPART SIGNATURES This First Amendment may be signed in multiple counterparts, which when signed by all parties, shall constitute a binding amendment. SECTION 7 — EFFECTIVE DATE. This First Amendment shall not become effective until the date it has been formally approved by the City Council and executed by the appropriate authorities of the City and Consultant. Approved this 28th day of October, 2014 CITY OF RO N T PARK Darrin Jenki , City Manager Per Resolution No ,'-coq-1, Q adopted by the Rohnert Park City Council at its meeting of October 28, 2014. A test: iClerk GREEN VALLEY CONSULTING ENGINEERS � -�Q� -�A �® l iP" l Elizabeth Ellis, Presiden !!/ I Exhibit "A" I C1'I'v OF ROHNERTPARK WORK ESTIMATE On -Call inspection Services II Greeny 11e- Task Information 'Task '['ask Information Project Nianager/PF. .onstructmn Inspector Construction Inspector Tl Admin. Assistant Direct Costs Total Total Costs Hours Remarks 5165 S155 $125 S75 1 Project Management 0 $0 2 Daily Field Inspection & Documentation 736 736 $92,000 Inspector vehicle $8,000 $8,000 Rased on $951Day for 84 days for inspector's vehicle Reimbursihle Expenses (photos, copies, etc.) 50 Total hours 0 0 736 0Project Total SO $0 $92,000 $01 $8,000 1 $100,000.00 TOTAL NOT -TO -EXCEED COST Based on Full time inspection, Mondav through Fridav at 8 hours per day C.'.UsersWde lemet F,!,,l onte t.0utbokeHFJNV7W4'' and 21 inspection lee 1012014 AMENDMENT 2 TO TASK ORDER NO. 2014-02 CITY OF ROHNERT PARK AND GREEN VALLEY CONSULTING ENGINEERS AUTHORIZATION OF ADDI"I'IONAL ON-CAI.,L CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT AND INSPECTION SERVICES FOR THE UNIVERSITY DISTRICT DEVELOPMENT SECTION 1 — PURPOSE The purpose of this Task Order is to authorize and direct Green Valley Consulting Engineers (Consultant) to proceed with the work specified in Section 2 below in accordance with the provisions of the MASTER AGREEMENT between the City of Rohnert Park ("City") and ("Consultant") dated January 26, 2011. SECTION 2 — SCOPE OF WORK The additional items authorized by this Task Order include construction management and daily inspection services for the University District development including observation of on and off site grading, installation of public utilities and installation of surface street, park and landscape improvements in conformance with applicable law and approved plans and permits, as directed by City. Inspection services shall include: observation of construction and maintenance activities; preparation of reports on activities; provision of notice to City of changes, potential claims, and claims; coordination and meetings with developer, City and other responsible and interested parties, and other activities as deemed necessary by the City to confirm that the work is being completed in accordance with the approved plans and permits. Consultant shall promptly furnish, without additional charge, all facilities, labor, and material reasonably needed for performing such safe and convenient inspections as may be required. SECTION 3 — COMPENSATION AND PAYMENT Compensation shall be as provided in the MASTER AGREEMENT between the parties hereto referenced in SECTION 1 above. The additional cost for the additional services as set forth in SECTION 2 shall be actual costs (time and materials) based on Consultants' standard labor charges in accordance with the provisions of the MAS'T'ER. AGRI=;EMENT and as shown in. Exhibit "A" for an amount not -to -exceed $375,000. Total compensation under this Task Order with this Amendment shall not exceed $523,935. SECTION 4 — TIME OF PERFORMANCE The work described in SECTION 2 shall be completed by December 31, 2015 as extended by the City Engineer or his/her designee. SECTION 5 — ITEMS AND CONDITIONS All items and conditions contained in the MASTER AGREEMENT for professional services between City and Consultant are incorporated by reference. Approved this 14`x' day of April, 2015. CITY OF ROHNERT PARK Darrin Jenkins, City Manager Per Resolution No. 2415-0(a adopted by the Rohnert Park City Council at its meeting Of April 14, 2015. ATTEST: en e -M BuerP'lr, City Cle k Approved as to Attorney GREEN VALLEY CONSULTING ENGINEERS Is? "j f /jam Elizabethb Ellis, President (Date) r CITY OF ROHNERT PARK Exhibit On -Call Inspection Services G a e i" aV-a N>� GORS: iTVG C2:41Y [i Y.Sn Task Information Task Task Information Const. Manager/PE Project Mang ' Construction Inspector II Admin. Assistant Direct Costs Total Hours Total Costs Remarks $197 $185 $125 $75 1 Project/Construction Management 640 40 680 $129,080 CM at approx. 4 hr/day for 8 months 2 Dail. Field Inspection & Documentation 100 1600 1,700 $218,500 Full-time inspection for 8 months Inspector Vehicle $8,000 $8,000 Based on $95/Day for 84 days for inspector's vehicle Reimbursible Expenses (photos. copies, etc.) $0 Total Hours 1 640 100 1,600 40 - Project Total $126,080 I $18,500 $200.000 1 $3,000 $8,000 $355,580.00 TOTAL NOT -TO -EXCEED COST Based on Full time inspection, Mondav throueh Fridav at 8 hours per day Z:'ldGF'_ANAData Files - C .y Counci ,2015`4.-14-15\Green Vailey O.n.-Cail 2nd AmendmentNG03A_Amend 2 for Task Order 2014-02 Green Valley -JO Exhibit A Estimated Fee 351!20t5 THIRD AMENDMENT TO TASK ORDER NO. 2014-02 WITH GREEN VALLEY CONSULTING ENGINEERS FOR ON-CALL CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT AND INSPECTION SERVICES FOR UNIVERSITY DISTRICT DEVELOPMENT SECTION 1— PURPOSE The purpose of this Third Amendment is to authorize and direct Green Valley Consulting Engineers (Consultant) to proceed with the work specified in SECTION 2 below in accordance with the provisions of the MASTER AGREEMENT between the City of Rohnert Park ("City") and ("Consultant") dated January 26, 2011. SECTION 2 — SCOPE OF WORK The additional items authorized by this Third Amendment include construction management and daily inspection services for the University District development including observation of on and off site grading, installation of public utilities and installation of surface street, park and landscape improvements in conformance with applicable law and approved plans and permits, as directed by City. Inspection services shall include: observation of construction and maintenance activities; preparation of reports on activities; provision of notice to City of changes, potential claims, and claims; coordination and meetings with developer, City and other responsible and interested parties, and other activities as deemed necessary by the City to confirm that the work is being completed in accordance with the approved plans and permits. Consultant shall promptly furnish, without additional charge, all facilities, labor, and material reasonably needed for performing such safe and convenient inspections as may be required. SECTION 3 — COMPENSATION AND PAYMENT Compensation shall be as provided in the MASTER AGREEMENT between the parties hereto referenced in SECTION 1 above. The additional cost for the additional services as set forth in SECTION 2 shall be actual costs (time and materials) based on Consultants' standard labor charges in accordance with the provisions of the MASTER AGREEMENT and as shown in Exhibit "A" for an amount not -to -exceed $500,000. Total compensation under Task Order No. 201.4-02 with this Third Amendment shall not exceed $1,023,935. SECTION 4 — TIME OF PERFORMANCE The work described in SECTION 2 shall be completed by March 31, 2016 unless extended in writing by the City Engineer or his/her designee. 1 of 3 SECTION 5 — ITEMS AND CONDITIONS All items and conditions contained in the MASTER AGREEMENT for professional services between City and Consultant are incorporated by reference. Approved this 8`" day of September, 2015. CITY OF ROHNERT PARK Darrin Jenkins, dty Manager Per Resolution No. 2015-4 adopted by the Rohnert Park City Council at its meeting of September 8, 2015. ATTEST: J nr�64 Buergler, City Cler 2 of 3 GREEN VALLEY CONSULTING ENGINEERS fp"'Akix Z-Z-6ks Eliz th L. Ellis, President (Date) EXHIBIT A TO AMENDMENT #3 TO TASK ORDER NO. 2014-02 CITY OF ROHNERT PARK WORK ESTIMATE On-CalI I ngmdion Services ree Task Information Task Task Information Const. Manager/PE Project Mang Construction Inspector II - OT Construction Inspector II Admin. Assistant Direct Costs Total Total Costs Hours Remarks $197 $185 $155 $125 $75 1 Pro'ectlConstruction Management 380 1 60 440 $79.360 CM at approx. 4 hr/day for 5 months 2 Daily Field Inspection & Documentation 60 250 2800 3,110 5361,100 3.5 Full-time inspectors for 5 months Inspector Vehicle $19,000 $19.000 Based on S95/Day for 100 days for inspector's vehicle for 2 vehicles Reimbursible Expenses(photos, copies, etc. 5p Total Hours 380 60 250 1 2,800 1 60 Project Total $74,860 1 $11,100 S38,750 1 $350,000 1 $4,500 1 519.000 $498,210.00 TOTAL NOT -TO -EXCEED COST Based on Full time inspection, Monday through Friday at 8 hours per day 3 of 3 RESOLUTION NO. 2016-005 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROHNERT PARK APPROVING THE FOURTH AMENDMENT TO TASK ORDER 2014-02 WITH GREEN VALLEY CONSULTING ENGINEERS FOR ON-CALL CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT AND INSPECTION SERVICES AND AUTHORIZING THE FINANCE DIRECTOR TO TAKE RELATED ACTIONS WHEREAS, the City entered into a Master Agreement with Green Valley Consulting Engineers for Design Professional Services on January 26, 2011 pursuant to City Council Resolution No. 2011-07 adopted on January 25, 2011; and WHEREAS, the City entered into a Task Order No. 2014-02 with Green Valley Consulting Engineers for On -Call Construction Management and Inspection Services for University District Sheet Grading Phase 2 (City Permit BDGR2014-00001) for an amount not to exceed $48,935.00, pursuant to City Purchasing Policy 441.1.5 adopted by City Council Resolution No. 2012-22; and WHEREAS, on October 28, 2014, the City Council adopted Resolution 2014-130 approving the First Amendment to Task Order No. 2014-02 with Green Valley Consulting Engineers for On -Call Construction Management and Inspection Services at the University District development for $100,000, bringing the total Task Order value to $148,935.00; and WHEREAS, on April 14, 2015, the City Council adopted Resolution 2015-062 approving the Second Amendment to Task Order No. 2014-02 with Green Valley Consulting Engineers for On -Call Construction Management and Inspection Services at the University District development for $375,000, bringing the total Task Order value to $523,935.00; and WHEREAS, on September 8, 2015, the City Council adopted Resolution 2015-144 approving the Third Amendment to Task Order No. 2014-02 with Green Valley Consulting Engineers for On -Call Construction Management and Inspection Services at the University District development for $500,000, bringing the total Task Order value to $1,023,935.00; and WHEREAS, the funding limits of Task Order No. 2014-02, as amended, are being approached; and WHEREAS, the University District development is proceeding with additional public improvements, all of which require city management, inspection and acceptance; and WHEREAS, the City has requested statements of qualifications from construction management and inspection firms and determined that Green Valley Consulting Engineers is most qualified to continue providing service because of its project understanding and continuity; and WHEREAS, staff requested and has received a proposal from Green Valley Consulting Engineers for continued construction management and inspection services; and WHEREAS, the City Council considered the amendment of Task Order No 2014-02 at its duly noticed regular meeting of January 26, 2016. 2016-005 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Rohnert Park that it does hereby authorize and approve the Fourth Amendment to Task Order No. 2014- 02 by and between Green Valley Consulting Engineers, a California Corporation, and the City of Rohnert Park, a municipal corporation, for On -Call Construction Management and Inspection Services for the University District Development ("Fourth Amendment"). BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Manager is hereby authorized and directed to take all actions to effectuate this Fourth Amendment for and on behalf of the City of Rohnert Park, including execution, if necessary, in substantially similar form to the Fourth Amendment attached hereto and incorporated by this reference as Exhibit "A," subject to minor modifications by the City Manager or City Attorney. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that upon receipt of developer reimbursements, the Finance Director is authorized to make appropriations and increase budgeted revenue as necessary to cover the costs of the contract amendment. DULY AND REGULARLY ADOPTED this 26th day of January 2016. CITY OF ROHNERT PARK Gina Belforte, Mayor ATTEST: JoAnne M. Buergler, City Clerk Attachment: Exhibit "A" AHANOTU: CALLINAN: STAFFORD: MACKENZIE: BELFORTE: AYES: ( ) NOES: ( ) ABSENT:( ) ABSTAIN: ( ) (2) 2016-005 EXHIBIT A TO RESOLUTION FOURTH AMENDMENT TO TASK ORDER NO. 2014-02 WITH GREEN VALLEY CONSULTING ENGINEERS FOR ON-CALL CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT AND INSPECTION SERVICES FOR UNIVERSITY DISTRICT DEVELOPMENT SECTION 1— PURPOSE The purpose of this Fourth Amendment is to authorize and direct Green Valley Consulting Engineers (Consultant) to proceed with the work specified in SECTION 2 below in accordance with the provisions of the MASTER AGREEMENT between the City of Rohnert Park ("City") and ("Consultant") dated January 26, 2011. SECTION 2 — SCOPE OF WORK The additional items authorized by this Fourth Amendment include construction management and daily inspection services for the University District development including observation of on and off site grading, installation of public utilities and installation of surface street, park and landscape improvements in conformance with applicable law and approved plans and permits, as directed by City. Construction management and inspection services shall include: observation of construction and maintenance activities; preparation of reports on activities; provision of notice to City of changes, potential claims, and claims; coordination and meetings with developer, City and other responsible and interested parties, and other activities as deemed necessary by the City to confirm that the work is being completed in accordance with the approved plans and permits. Consultant shall promptly furnish, without additional charge, all facilities, labor, and material reasonably needed for performing such safe and convenient inspections as may be required. SECTION 3 — COMPENSATION AND PAYMENT Compensation shall be as provided in the MASTER AGREEMENT between the parties hereto referenced in SECTION 1 above. The additional cost for the additional services as set forth in SECTION 2 shall be actual costs (time and materials) based on Consultants' standard labor charges in accordance with the provisions of the MASTER AGREEMENT and as shown in Exhibit "A" for an amount not -to -exceed $500,000. Total compensation under Task Order No. 2014-02 with this Fourth Amendment shall not exceed $1,523,935. SECTION 4 — TIME OF PERFORMANCE The work described in SECTION 2 shall be completed by July 31, 2016 unless extended in writing by the City Engineer or his/her designee. SECTION 5 — ITEMS AND CONDITIONS All items and conditions contained in the MASTER AGREEMENT for professional services between City and Consultant are incorporated by reference. Approved this 26th day of January, 2016. CITY OF ROHNERT PARK Darrin Jenkins, City Manager Per Resolution No. 2016- adopted by the Rohnert Park City Council at its meeting of January 26, 2016. ATTEST: JoAnn M Buergler, City Clerk GREEN VALLEY CONSULTING ENGINEERS Elizabeth L. Ellis, President (Date) Based on Full time inspection, Monday through Friday at 8 hours per day M:\00_Agendas - City Council\01-26-2016\6c3 G03A_Green Valley Amend 4 Exhibit A.xlsx 1/20/2016 WORK CITY OF ROHNERT PARK -Nov. 18, 2015 EXHIBIT "A" On-Call I ng3edion Services G ree nV a I l ey ro> ��_ �� £H� �E£•� RP !.i inj Y'Pcl^vd , C:0[01 11,1%onv, Task Information Task Task Information Const. Manager/PE Project Mang Construction Construction Inspector II - Inspector II Admin. Assistant Direct Costs Total Total Hours Costs Remarks $197 $185 $155 $125 $75 1 Project/Construction Management 350 60 410 $73,450 CM at approx. 4 hr/day for 4 months 2 Daily Field Inspection & Documentation 80 100 2250 2,430 $296,050 3.5 Full-time inspectors for 4 months Inspector Vehicle $15,500 $15,500 Based on $95/Day for 80 days for inspector's vehicle for 2 vehicles Reimbursible Expenses(photos, copies, etc.) $0 Total Hours 350 80 1 100 2,250 1 60 Project Total $68,950 $14,800 1 $15,500 $281,250 1 $4,500 $15,500 $400,500.00 TOTAL NOT-TO-EXCEED COST Based on Full time inspection, Monday through Friday at 8 hours per day M:\00_Agendas - City Council\01-26-2016\6c3 G03A_Green Valley Amend 4 Exhibit A.xlsx 1/20/2016 01;N T Mission Statement "We Care for Our Residents by Working Together to Build a Better Community for Today and Tomorrow." Catr�vnr�t" CITY OF ROHNERT PARK CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT Meeting Date: January 26, 2016 Department: Development Services Submitted By: Mary Grace Pawson, Director of Development Services Prepared By: Mary Grace Pawson, Director of Development Services ITEM NO. 6C4 Agenda Title: Approving the Third Amendment to Consultant Services Agreement with Dudek for Planning and Environmental Consulting Services and Authorizing the Finance Director to Take Related Actions RECOMMENDED ACTION: Adopt a Resolution approving the Third Amendment to Consulting Services Agreement with Dudek for Planning and Environmental Consulting Services and Authorizing the Finance Director to Take Related Actions. BACKGROUND: In August 2014, the City of Rohnert Park entered into a consultant services agreement with Dudek ("Agreement"), an environmental and planning consulting firm, to provide services for processing of long-range planning project applications and entitlements. This agreement was amended in December 2014 and May 2015. This agreement has allowed staff to access the resources necessary to process major long-range planning proposals including work on the University District, Southeast and Northwest Specific Plan Areas. Work is continuing in the University District, and Southeast and applicants in the Sonoma Mountain Village Planned Development Area, Stadium Lands Planned Development Area and Central Rohnert Park Planned Development Areas are also expressing interest in moving forward. Dudek remains uniquely familiar with each of these specific plans and planned developments and can offer continuous, efficient service to both City staff and the applicants. Staff is proposing entering into a Third Amendment with Dudek as we anticipate concurrent processing of environmental documents and entitlements in the University District and Southeast Specific Plans Areas and the Sonoma Mountain Village, Stadium Lands and Central Rohnert Park Planned Development Areas within the next year. ANALYSIS: Long-range planning is the process of reviewing, analyzing and entitling projects with a long-range planning horizon. Examples include specific plans such as Southeast, University District, Northwest, and Northeast Specific Plan, and planned developments such as Sonoma Mountain Village, the Priority Development Area Plan, Rohnert Crossings and general plan related entitlements. The ability to accelerate City work efforts on development projects means earlier creation of jobs, earlier demand for supplies and materials from our local suppliers, and ultimately more tax revenue for the City. Dudek has been providing focused long-range and current contract planning and environmental services to the City on development projects and the specific plans. This work load, combined with the current staffing levels in the Development Services Department, creates a need for additional planning resources to meet the City's goals for economic development. This Third ITEM NO. 6C4 Amendment to the Agreement authorizes the continuation of this contract planning and environmental services work in order to avoid disruption in entitlement processing and implementation. Staff has managed Dudek's assignments so that their work is focused only on projects where the City has a reimbursement agreement with the applicants so that there will be no impact on the General Fund. STRATEGIC PLAN ALIGNMENT: This action is consistent with Strategic Plan Goal D — Continue to Develop a Vibrant Community. This action will allow the Development Services Department to continue to provide timely service to applicants. OPTIONS CONSIDERED: None. Dudek's familiarity and involvement with ongoing development projects in the City makes the amendment of their contract the most efficient option for continuing to process the active specific plans and planned developments. FISCAL IMPACT/FUNDING SOURCE: The fiscal impact of this action is $145,000. The funding source is development deposit accounts or reimbursement agreements. These are costs fully reimbursed by developers and applicants in compliance with City's cost recovery policy at no cost to City and would be charged to the respective developments and projects. The requested action authorizes the Finance Director to increase budgeted revenue and appropriations as necessary to match the funding received from developers and applicants and costs incurred under this contract. Department Head Approval Date: 01/07/16 Finance Director Approval Date: 01/08/16 City Attorney Approval Date: 01/08/16 City Manager Approval Date: 01/12/16 Attachments (list in packet assembly order): 1. Resolution Approving the Third Amendment to Consulting Services Agreement with Dudek for Planning and Environmental Consulting Services and Authorizing the Finance Director to Take Related Actions 2. Exhibit "A" Third Amendment to Consultant Services Agreement with Dudek N RESOLUTION NO. 2016-006 RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF ROHNERT PARK APPROVING THE THIRD AMENDMENT TO THE CONSULTANT SERVICES AGREEMENT WITH DUDEK FOR PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES AND AUTHORIZING THE FINANCE DIRECTOR TO TAKE RELATED ACTIONS WHEREAS, the City currently requires services in connection with the development and community viability; and WHEREAS, the City of Rohnert Park Municipal Code Title 3 Chapter 3.04 provides that the City's purchasing functions shall be governed by the city's purchasing policy; and WHEREAS, consistent with City of Rohnert Park Purchasing Policy Section 7.2, Consultant meets the requirements for Sole Source purchasing as they perform a "complex and unique function" because they provide specialized planning services; and WHEREAS, on August 26, 2014, City and Dudek ("Consultant") entered into that certain agreement entitled "Consultant Services Agreement" ("Agreement") to provide general planning and environmental services which was amended on December 9, 2014 and May 26, 2015; and WHEREAS, Consultant is currently providing high-quality, cost-effective planning services through staff who are uniquely familiar with the City's projects and requirements; and WHEREAS, City and Consultant now desire to enter into a Third Amendment to the Agreement to provide for additional work for continued general planning and environmental services; and WHEREAS, the cost of Consultant's services, including those contemplated under this amendment are reimbursable to the City under deposit accounts and reimbursement agreements established with various project applicants. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROHNERT PARK AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. Recitals. That the above recitations are true and correct and material to this Resolution. Section 2. Environmental Clearance. That the adoption of this Resolution and accompanying Amendment is exempt from review under the California Environmental Quality Act because the activity in question is not a project as defined under CEQA Guidelines Section 15378 in that there is no potential that the activity will result in either a direct physical change in the environment or a reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment. Section 3. Agreement. That the Third Amendment to the Agreement between Dudek and the City of Rohnert Park is hereby authorized and approved in an amount not to exceed an additional one hundred forty-five thousand dollars ($145,000.00). Section 4. Authorization. That the City Manager is hereby authorized and directed to take all actions to effectuate the Third Amendment to the Agreement for and on behalf of the City of Rohnert Park, including execution if necessary, in substantially similar form to the Third 2016-006 Amendment attached hereto and incorporated by this reference as Exhibit "A," subject to minor modifications by the City Manager or City Attorney. That the Finance Director is hereby authorized to increase budgeted revenue and appropriations from applicant deposits and reimbursements as necessary to fund the contract services. DULY AND REGULARLY ADOPTED this 26 day of January, 2016. CITY OF ROHNERT PARK Gina Belforte, Mayor ATTEST: JoAnne M. Buergler, City Clerk Attachment: Exhibit "A" AHANOTU: CALLINAN: STAFFORD: MACKENZIE: AYES: ( ) NOES: ( ) ABSENT:( ) ABSTAIN: 2 2016-006 BELFORTE: EXHIBIT "A" THIRD AMENDMENT TO THE CONSULTANT SERVICES AGREEMENT WITH DUDEK FOR FOR PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES This Third Amendment to Consultant Services Agreement between the City of Rohnert Park ("City") and Dudek ("Consultant") for additional services ("Third Amendment") is entered into as of the day of , 2016, ("Effective Date"), by and between City and Consultant. RECITALS A. City and Consultant entered into that certain agreement entitled "Consultant Services Agreement" ("Agreement") to provide planning and environmental consulting services; B. City and Consultant now desire to enter into this Third Amendment to provide for additional work as described below. AGREEMENT NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the following mutual promises, the parties hereby amend the Agreement as follows: 1. Scope of Services. In addition to the services provided under the Agreement, Consultant shall provide additional services, including but not limited to, the preparation of necessary reports and documents with additional meetings as is more particularly described in Attachment 1, which is attached hereto and incorporated by this reference. 2. Compensation. Consultant shall perform the services described in this Third Amendment for a total not -to -exceed amount of $145,000 thus increasing the total cost of the Agreement as amended to $580,000. 3. Agreement in Effect. Except as amended by this Third Amendment, the Agreement and all of its amendments shall remain in full force and effect. 4. Counterpart Signatures. This Third Amendment may be signed in multiple counterparts which, when signed by all parties, shall constitute a binding agreement. IN WITNESS THEREOF, the parties have executed this Third Amendment as of the date first written above. 2016-006 CITY OF ROHNERT PARK: By: / Darrin Jenkins, City Manager (Date) Per Resolution No. 2016- adopted by the Rohnert Park City Council at its meeting of January 26, 2015. ATTEST: City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: City Attorney DUDEK: By: Name: (Date) Title: By: Name: 4 2016-006 (Date) Attachment 1 SCOPE OF WORK May 2015 A. Development Review Planning Services Consultant will provide contract staffing services to assist the City of Rohnert Park staff with the project management and entitlement processing tasks for development projects under review at the City. Service covered under this section is for service that is reimbursed by private development and applicants under the City's cost recovery program. Tasks to be performed shall be specifically requested by City before and work is initiated and may include: Environmental Document Preparation and Management Provide oversight and direction to project applicants and environmental consultants throughout completion of the EIR process, serving as primary contact between the City, the applicant and EIR consultant. Review and comment on the environmental documents on behalf of the Planning Division. Compile all EIR review comments completed by the various City departments and assist with the interdepartmental coordination of EIR-related comments as needed. Oversight and management of the EIR preparation; ensure routing of submittals to the appropriate departments and agencies; and provide EIR status/schedule updates. Ensure departmental files provide a legally -adequate EIR administrative record. Complete or review environmental documentation to ensure compliance with CEQA and other state regulations. 2. Application Review and Coordination Assist staff in ongoing processing and management of the applications; update and organize all project files; review and comment on all project submittals; and be responsible for scheduling regular meetings on an individual and group basis between City staff, applicant and other agencies as needed to ensure steady progress of the application processing. This would include communication and coordination with each of the City departments and agencies in a manner that will provide consistent responses and direction to the project applicant. 3. Development Agreement Provide support to City staff with Development Agreement negotiations and completion of draft DAs. 4. Sta ff &port Preparation Prepare staff reports for Park and Recreation Commission, Planning Commission and City Council hearing, resolutions, conditions of approval and findings, as directed by the Development Service Director. 5. Public Hearing Preparation Prepare public presentation materials, including staff reports and exhibits for the Commission and Council hearings. 6. Annexation Prepare annexation applications and coordinate process through LAFCO. 2016-006 7. Proiect Implementation Review and provide input on all supporting plans, programs and actions to ensure that the project is consistent with City policies and environmental mitigation requirements. Coordinate update of Specific Plan, General Plan Diagram and Zoning Map to reflect final decision on development projects. 8. Other Work As directed. B. Biological Resources Studies, Permitting and Services Consultant will provide biological services to assist the City of Rohnert Park staff with the project management and entitlement processing tasks for development projects under review at the City. Service covered under this section is for service that will be reimbursed by private development and applicants under the City's cost recovery program. Tasks to be performed shall be specifically requested by City before and work is initiated and may include: Biological Resources Assessments Review background information (soils, aerial photos, topographic maps, other environmental documents). Obtain report from the California Natural Diversity Data Base for special status species occurrences in the region. Perform query of the California Native Plant Society database for rare plants with potential to occur in the project area. Obtain a database report from the USFWS for special -status species with potential to occur in the project area and critical habitat. Conduct field survey of site to inventory vegetation types and wildlife habitat. Prepare a list of observed plants and animals. Prepare exhibits including habitat maps, species occurrence data, critical habitat, and ground photos. Identify the location of any special status species populations. Prepare Biological Resources Assessment report documenting results of research and field survey(s). 2. Special -status Plant and Animal Surveys Biologists will survey the site for the occurrence of special -status species according to applicable regulatory guidance for surveys within the Santa Rosa Plain Conservation Strategy Area. Prepare a list of species observed and field map locations of any rare plant populations or special -status animal species observed. Prepare exhibits to identify the locations of species mapped during the field survey. Incorporate the results of the survey into survey report include recommendations for appropriate mitigation strategies for any species identified. 3. Wetland Delineations and Verifications Wetland delineations will be conducted to the standards established by the San Francisco District Corps office. Obtain and evaluate background data, such as aerial photographs, soils maps, and other pertinent information. Conduct a wetland delineation according to the Corps' 1987 manual using the three parameter method described in the manual. Create a wetland delineation map showing the features identified as waters of the United States during the delineation site visit. Prepare a Wetland Delineation Report for submission to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Work with the Corps to finalize verification of the Wetland Delineation map. 4. Resource Agency Consultation and Permittin Resource specialists will work on behalf of the City with applicable state and federal agencies to consult regarding Clean Water 6 2016-006 Act, Endangered Species Act and other regulations to obtain information and permits, as needed. 5. Other Work As directed. 2016-006 Meeting Date: Department: Submitted By: Prepared By: ITEM NO. 6C5 Mission Statement "We Care for Our Residents by Working Together to Build a Better Community for Today and Tomorrow." CITY OF ROHNERT PARK CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT January 26, 2016 Development Services Mary Grace Pawson, Director of Development Services Mary Grace Pawson, Director of Development Services Agenda Title: Approving a Public Improvement Agreement for the Southeast Rohnert Park Model Home Access Improvements with Redwood Equities Investments, LLC and Making CEQA Findings RECOMMENDED ACTION: Adopt a Resolution Approving a Public Improvement Agreement for Southeast Rohnert Park Model Home Access Improvements with Redwood Equities Investments, LLC and Making CEQA Findings BACKGROUND: The City has approved a Tentative Map and entered into a Development Agreement with Redwood Equities Investments, LLC ("Developer") to facilitate the orderly development of the area known as the Southeast Rohnert Park Specific Plan Area. Both the Conditions of Approval for the Tentative Map and the Development Agreement direct the construction of public infrastructure so that it will be coordinated with and available to serve new residential and commercial development planned within the Specific Plan Area. ANALYSIS: The Developer has prepared a Final Map and submitted it to the City for review. The map is under review. The Map includes the required street right-of-way dedications, park land dedication, water tank site dedication, and easement dedications in favor of the City. The Developer is also taking the actions necessary to satisfy its remaining Conditions of Approval and Development Agreement requirements. The construction of public infrastructure is required to satisfy the Development Agreement and the Conditions of Approval. Required infrastructure includes: • All in -tract improvements within the first final map area, including streets, storm drainage, water, sewer, recycled water, joint trench and streetlighting, in -tract landscaping, Valley House Drive and Bodway Avenue sidewalk and landscape improvements, and a stormwater basin. • A 360,000 gallon water tank which will serve the development. • The 5.8 acre Willowglen Park. [Version 2 - 12/18/2015] ITEM NO. 6C5 The Developer proposes to move forward with construction of a portion of the improvements in advance of filing the map. The improvements will include construction of a street loop consisting of Waterside Lane, Watson Drive from Waterside Way to Wisdom Lane, and Wisdom Lane, with access from Bodway Avenue, together with in -tract utilities under those streets and offsite utility improvements in Bodway Avenue (See Attachment 1). Construction of the improvements at this time will provide all-weather access and water for fire suppression to the proposed model homes sites, allowing model home construction to proceed in the spring of 2016. The remaining improvements on the Conditions of Approval will be completed after the model home improvements have been constructed. The Developer is committing to complete the construction of these model home access improvements through a Improvement Agreement and has posted the necessary performance and labor and materials bond with the City. The proposed Public Improvement Agreement For Model Home Access Improvements is in the same form that has been previously approved by Council. Like the other Improvement Agreements, this Agreement outlines in more detail than specified in the Conditions of Approval or the Development Agreement, the Developer's duty to install the improvements to City standards and protect them until acceptance; the City's rights for inspection and cost recovery; the process by which new improvements will be inspected by the City; requirements to pay prevailing wage; requirements for bonds, insurance and indemnity and the City's remedies against breach or default by the Developer. The Agreement also specifies that the Developer will be required to post performance and labor and material bonds, for the full constructed value. ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS: The proposed Public Improvement Agreement will authorize and provide for the construction of a number of infrastructure improvements that will serve the development. These improvements were included in the Project Description Section of the Draft Environmental Impact Report (Draft EIR dated December 2005) for the Southeast Rohnert Park Specific Plan. These improvements are necessary to serve the planned development. Because the improvements were included in the Project Description, the analysis in the Draft EIR included an analysis of the construction and operation of these improvements and mitigation measures were developed to minimize any impacts. The Draft EIR identified six temporary construction impacts that are associated with the development of the site, including the construction of infrastructure improvements. All of these impacts are less than significant or can be reduced to a less than significant level with standard construction mitigation that will be incorporated into the approved plans required by the Public Improvement Agreement. The description of the required infrastructure improvements necessary to serve the development was not substantially changed by the Final EIR (October 2010). Because the proposed improvements were included in the Project Description considered in the Southeast Specific Plan EIR, and their impacts were analyzed and mitigated to a less than significant level, no further CEQA analysis is required. The City will use its plan approval process to ensure that mitigations [Version 2 - 12/18/2015] 2 ITEM NO. 6C5 to control construction noise, dust, hazards and biological impacts are included as part of the work. STRATEGIC PLAN ALIGNMENT: This action is consistent with Strategic Plan Goal D- Continue to Develop a Vibrant Community. By working with the Developer to develop an Improvement Agreement, City Staff is reflecting the City of Rohnert Park's willingness to collaborate with the Developer. The goal to continue developing a vibrant community is also reflected by supporting the implementation of the South East Specific Plan. OPTIONS CONSIDERED: Currently there is one option recommended by the Staff: 1. The recommended action is to Authorize and Approve the Public Improvement Agreement for the Southeast Rohnert Park Model Home Access Improvements with Redwood Equities Investments, LLC. This action allows Council to approve the major details of the business arrangement between the City and the Developer moving forward, while retaining some flexibility in the timing of construction. FISCAL IMPACT/FUNDING SOURCE: There is no fiscal impact associated with executing the Improvement agreement. Improvements will be constructed and paid for by the Developer. The Developer agrees to pay the City the cost for all inspections, administration, and testing services furnished by the City with this Agreement. After acceptance of the improvements, the City will incur ongoing maintenance costs which will be funded from the Community Facilities District (which includes an annual maintenance assessment on properties within the development) in accordance with the Development Agreement. Department Head Approval Date: 1/11/2016 Finance Director Approval Date: N/A City Manager Approval Date: 1/12/2016 City Attorney Approval Date: 1/11/2016 Attachments 1. Improvements covered by the Agreement 2. Resolution Authorizing and Approving a Public Improvement Agreement for the Southeast Rohnert Park Model Home Access Improvements with Redwood Equities Investments, LLC and Making CEQA Findings 3. Resolution Exhibit A — Southeast RP Public Improvement Agreement [Version 2 - 12/18/2015] 0 TO N G 71 1 SSMH #4 SDCB#26 12"W iff] offivilA`� 8" SS STUB SSMH #6 0 FH vi PARCEL D I � w SDMH #25-1/ 25 I v I 1 .I I I18"SD SDCB#17 8" SS STUB I SSMH #7 2" RWL STU;BO RWL �I NI N1 I I I I I I I FH PARCEL E 12" wL STUB 4" WL STUB I I I� N cn I L I I I I I I SSMH #8� I I I I I -- i WATSON DRIVE 8"SS 12"W i AC PAVEMENT AREA MODEL HOME LOTS MODEL HOME TEMP. PARKING AREA SDMH #26 SDAD#17 15"SD —SDCB#16 SDMH#16 0 D z rel H #17 FH -SSMH #9 PUBLIC PARK SITE 8"w --SDMH -- I SDMH 48"SDE SSMH #11---- SDMH #2----_. SDAD#-� SDMH 12"W SSMH #2 SSMH #1 8"SS � 8"SS SDMH 22 `� 3o"SOT° EX. WALL STREET I SDCB#23 — D y Z—� SDMH#21 c) C7 N D r m rn D WY "A" I SDCB#2 SSMH #10 I D WY „B„ I SDMH #24 T--SDMH #1 SDMH#10 WYATT WAY 36"SD C �z fTl ui N 5"w SSMH #13 co D WATSON DRIVE MODEL HOME ACCESS, UTILITY, AND STORM DRAIN SYSTEM MAP SCALE: 1"=60' C7 D _ Z N O s TIE INTO n EX 8" WL O r m 0 NO. R M TIE INTO EX 60"0 SSMH m 0 60 120 SCALE: 111-60, lir4w,T1P�C01,P D i w c a 24 SD 8"SS ',I 8"SS ado O m J Q M > U 7i ool TIE INTO` co W m0 W EX. SDCB Z� U Z r m v FH / N----------- SDCB#25 � 00 ---CCB#24 FH � oma" co Z C� I( N V'— v W UN w m� 0 I o U N m� \ Ln X / C4 Z J IL N _m W -CUSTOM SD W z NI� .� CUSTOM SD � OUTLET #1 I Y W U QIL I— 'L Q W w Z OUTLET #2 < C40 nm 0 = W w 8" SS STUB PARCEL C I 4'IIRWL STUB I ao 0 5 N w m 0 U SSMH #5 JOB NO. ,� SHEET NO. OF 1 SHEETS 411RR STUB 2" RWL STUB------ TUB 12" WL STUB 12" I 4" WL STUBI N I SDPI #1 12" WL STUB` � I SDPI#2 I I 4., WL S B�, 1 vi I 2 RWL Sll B \ I n v SDCB#15 No SDMH #15--*' WIk �� \�— \\XW / _ _ _ CP_ a 15"SD STUB BIO -CLEAN BIO -CLEAN NSBB #1 8" SS STUB SSMH #6 0 FH vi PARCEL D I � w SDMH #25-1/ 25 I v I 1 .I I I18"SD SDCB#17 8" SS STUB I SSMH #7 2" RWL STU;BO RWL �I NI N1 I I I I I I I FH PARCEL E 12" wL STUB 4" WL STUB I I I� N cn I L I I I I I I SSMH #8� I I I I I -- i WATSON DRIVE 8"SS 12"W i AC PAVEMENT AREA MODEL HOME LOTS MODEL HOME TEMP. PARKING AREA SDMH #26 SDAD#17 15"SD —SDCB#16 SDMH#16 0 D z rel H #17 FH -SSMH #9 PUBLIC PARK SITE 8"w --SDMH -- I SDMH 48"SDE SSMH #11---- SDMH #2----_. SDAD#-� SDMH 12"W SSMH #2 SSMH #1 8"SS � 8"SS SDMH 22 `� 3o"SOT° EX. WALL STREET I SDCB#23 — D y Z—� SDMH#21 c) C7 N D r m rn D WY "A" I SDCB#2 SSMH #10 I D WY „B„ I SDMH #24 T--SDMH #1 SDMH#10 WYATT WAY 36"SD C �z fTl ui N 5"w SSMH #13 co D WATSON DRIVE MODEL HOME ACCESS, UTILITY, AND STORM DRAIN SYSTEM MAP SCALE: 1"=60' C7 D _ Z N O s TIE INTO n EX 8" WL O r m 0 NO. R M TIE INTO EX 60"0 SSMH m 0 60 120 SCALE: 111-60, lir4w,T1P�C01,P D i w c a W Q 0 ENGINEER *b i P� F.SS A ado O m J Q M > U 7i o V O Z O�� , b ��Ptkr 3�SI93� Q co W m0 W Z� U Z r J co) Z It N O0 V co Z C� C V'— Q, W UN J_ m� 0 ' O �n O U N m� �0 r� o0 C4 Z J IL Q Q _m W W z Z 0 �_ = J J � Qa Y W U QIL I— 'L Q W w Z W 2 < C40 nm 0 = W w 0 0 5 N w m 0 U 0 JOB NO. 11-114 SHEET NO. OF 1 SHEETS RESOLUTION NO. 2016-007 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROHNERT PARK AUTHORIZING AND APPROVING A PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT AGREEMENT FOR THE SOUTHEAST ROHNERT PARK MODEL HOME ACCESS IMPROVEMENTS WITH REDWOOD EQUITIES INVESTMENTS, LLC AND MAKING CEQA FINDINGS WHEREAS, on December 7, 2010, the City Council of the City of Rohnert adopted Resolution No 2010-134 approving the Final Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the Southeast Rohnert Park Specific Plan Area including a draft EIR, a recirculated draft EIR, response to comments, changes, clarifications, and corrections to the draft EIR and recirculated draft EIR and appendices (together the "2010 EIR"); and WHEREAS, on November 25, 2014, the City Council of the City of Rohnert Park adopted Resolution 2014-166 approving the Tentative Map for the Southeast Rohnert Park Specific Plan, prepared by Civil Design Consultants dated August 2014 (the "Tentative Map"), subject to certain conditions of approval ("Conditions"); and WHEREAS, on December 9, 2014, the City Council of the City of Rohnert Park adopted Ordinance No. 882, approving a Development Agreement ("Development Agreement") between the City of Rohnert Park and Redwood Equities Investments, LLC ("Developer"); and WHEREAS, the Developer intends to file the final map for Phase 1 for the Southeast Rohnert Park Property, consisting of 107 single-family residential lots; and WHEREAS, the Conditions include the requirement for Developer to construct the following improvements in conjunction with the first final map filed for the Southeast Rohnert Park Property: 1. All in -tract improvements within the first final map area, including streets, storm drainage, water, sewer, recycled water, joint trench and streetlighting, Valley House Drive and Bodway Avenue sidewalk and landscaping, in -tract landscaping, and stormwater basin. 2. The 5.8 acre Willowglen Park. Construction of a 360,000 - gallon Water Storage Tank within the site. WHEREAS, the Developer desires to construct a portion of the in -tract improvements in advance of filing the Phase 1 final map, in order to complete access and utility improvements needed for model home construction, which include construction of a street loop consisting of Waterside Lane, Watson Drive from Waterside Way to Wisdom Lane, and Wisdom Lane, with access from Bodway Avenue, together with in -tract utilities under those streets and offsite utility improvement in Bodway Avenue; and WHEREAS, the Developer has submitted plans and specifications for the modular home improvements under the conditions of approval ("Improvement Plans") which have been reviewed by the City Engineer and determined to be technically accurate and in conformance with the Conditions of Approval; and WHEREAS, the Developer has posted performance and labor and materials bonds in the amount of One Million, Eight Hundred Nine Thousands, Four Hundred Forty -Eight Dollars and No Cents ($1,809,448.00) to cover the cost of the model home access improvements. WHEREAS, the City and Developer desire to enter into a Public Improvement Agreement for the proposed model home access improvement construction to more thoroughly define the terms and conditions of the construction and dedication obligations under the conditions of approval; and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Rohnert Park that it does hereby authorize and approve the Public Improvement Agreement with Redwood Equities Investments LLC (Exhibit A). BE IT FUTHER RESOLVED that based on the evidence presented at the duly noticed public meeting of January 26, 2016, the City Council of the City of Rohnert Park finds that the public improvements and activities were adequately described and mitigated in the Southeast Rohnert Park Specific Plan Final EIR, and that no other CEQA analysis is warranted. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Manager is hereby authorized and directed to execute the Public Improvement Agreement with Redwood Equities Investments LLC in substantially similar form to the agreement attached hereto and incorporated by this reference as Exhibit A subject to minor modification by the City Manager and City Attorney. DULY AND REGULARLY ADOPTED this 26th day of January, 2016. CITY OF ROHNERT PARK Gina Belforte, Mayor ATTEST: JoAnne M. Buergler, City Clerk Attachment: Exhibit A AHANOTU: CALLINAN: STAFFORD: MACKENZIE: BELFORTE: AYES: ( ) NOES: ( ) ABSENT:( ) ABSTAIN: ( ) (2) 2016-007 RECORDING REQUESTED BY AND WHEN RECORDED MAIL To: City of Rohnert Park 130 Avram Avenue Rohnert Park, California 94928-2486 Attention: City Clerk Exhibit A to Resolution (Space Above This Line for Recorder's Use Only) Exempt from recording fee per Gov. Code § 27383. PUBLIC IMPROVEMENT AGREEMENT CITY OF ROHNERT PARK Southeast Rohnert Park Specific Plan Model Home Access Improvement This Public Improvement Agreement (the "Agreement") is made and entered into on this day of 2016 (the "Effective Date") by and between Redwood Equities Investments, LLC, ("Developer"), and the CITY OF ROHNERT PARK, a California municipal corporation ("City"). City and Developer are sometimes referred to hereinafter individually as "Party" and collectively as "Parties". RECITALS A. The Southeast Rohnert Park Specific Plan consists of an 80 -acre site located north of Valley House Drive, west of Petaluma Hill Road, south of the Canon Manor Specific Plan Area, and east of Bodway Avenue identified by Sonoma County Assessor as parcel number 047-111-030, illustrated in Exhibit A, attached hereto and incorporated by this reference. B. On November 25, 2014, the City Council of the City of Rohnert Park adopted Resolution No. 2014-166, approving the Tentative Map for Southeast Rohnert Park, File No. PLSD2014-0008, subject to certain conditions of approval (the "Conditions"). C. Developer intends to file the final map for Phase 1 consisting of 107 single-family residential lots. D. The Conditions include the requirement for Developer to construct the following improvements in conjunction with the first final map filed for the University District Vast Oak Property: 1. All in -tract improvements within the first final map area, including streets, storm drainage, water, sewer, recycled water, joint trench and streetlighting, Valley House Drive and Bodway Avenue sidewalk and landscaping, in -tract landscaping, and stormwater basin. 2. Willowglen Park A 360,000 - gallon Water Storage Tank within Phase 1. E. Developer desires to construct a portion of the improvements, providing access to model homes, in advance of the Phase I final map being approved and recorded. The improvements consist of a street loop including Waterside Way, Watson Way, and Wisdom Lane, along with storm drain, water, recycled water, and sanitary sewer lines (the "Improvements"). F. Developer has submitted plans, specifications and drawings for the Modular Home Access Improvements (the "Improvement Plans"), as well as plans, specifications, and drawings for the remaining condition items, which collectively cover the remaining improvements required for filing the first final map: • Southeast Rohnert Park, Phase 1, WDID #149C358481, October 2015, prepared by Civil Design Consultants, Inc., , 49 Sheets (Sheets 1 thru 49), and approved by the City Engineer on , 2016. 0 Model Home Access Improvement Agreement, October 2015, prepared by Civil Design Consultants, Inc., and approved by the City Engineer on , 2016. AGREEMENT NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the faithful performance of the terms and conditions set forth in this Agreement, the parties hereto agree as follows: 1. Incorporation of Recitals. The foregoing Recitals are true and correct and, together with the Project Approvals and the requirements of Chapter 16.16 of the RPMC, are hereby incorporated into and form a material part of this Agreement Purpose and Effective Date 3.1 Purpose. The purpose of this Agreement is to guarantee completion of the Improvements and ensure satisfactory performance by Developer of Developer's obligations to satisfy the Conditions for the Project. 3.2 Effective Date. The Effective Date of this Agreement shall be as set forth above. 4. Property Subject to Agreement. The property which is the subject of this Agreement is located in the City of Rohnert Park, Sonoma County, California, and is described in Exhibit A, attached hereto. 5. Improvements 5.1 Duty to Install Improvements. Developer will design, construct, install and complete, or cause to be constructed, installed and completed, at the Developer's sole cost and expense, the Improvements, in accordance with the Improvement Plans (defined in Recital F above) and to the satisfaction of the City Engineer, in his/ her reasonable discretion. Developer will also supply all labor and materials therefore, all in strict accordance with the terms and conditions of this Agreement. The construction, installation and completion of the Improvements including all labor and materials furnished in connection therewith are hereinafter referred to collectively as the "Work." City shall not be responsible or liable for the maintenance or care of the Improvements until City formally approves and accepts them in accordance with its policies and procedures. City shall exercise no control over the Improvements until approved and accepted. Any use by any person of the Improvements, or any 2 portion thereof, shall be at the sole and exclusive risk of the Developer at all times prior to City's acceptance of the Improvements. Developer shall maintain all the Improvements in a state of good repair until they are completed by Developer and approved and accepted by City. Maintenance shall include, but shall not be limited to, repair of pavement, curbs, gutters, sidewalks, signals, parkways, water mains, and sewers; maintaining all landscaping in a vigorous and thriving condition reasonably acceptable to City; removal of debris from sewers and storm drains; and sweeping, repairing, and maintaining in good and safe condition all streets and street improvements. It shall be Developer's responsibility to initiate all maintenance work, but if it shall fail to do so, it shall promptly perform such maintenance work when notified to do so by City. If Developer fails to properly prosecute its maintenance obligation under this section, City may do all work necessary for such maintenance and the cost thereof shall be the responsibility of Developer and its surety under this Agreement. Prior to undertaking said maintenance work, City agrees to notify Developer in writing of the deficiencies and the actions required to be taken by the Developer to cure the deficiencies. Developer shall have thirty (30) days from the date of the notice within which to correct, remedy or cure the deficiency. If the written notification states that the problem is urgent and relates to the public health and safety, then the Developer shall have twenty-four (24) hours to correct, remedy or cure the deficiency. City shall not be responsible or liable for any damages or injury of any nature in any way related to or caused by the Improvements or their condition prior to acceptance. 5.2. Completion Date. Developer will complete the Work within one year of the Effective Date or as required by the Conditions of Approval for the University District Vast Oak Property. , whichever is sooner. All Work will be completed in a good and workmanlike manner in accordance with accepted design and construction practices. This completion date may be extended by the City in its sole and absolute discretion at the request of Developer, which request shall be accompanied by a written assurance acceptable to the City Attorney that the securities required by Section 6 shall remain enforceable throughout the term of the extension. 5.3. Estimated Cost of Work. The estimated cost of the Work is as follows: One Million, Eight Hundred and Nine Thousand, Four Hundred and Forty -Eight Dollars and No Cents ($1,809, 448.00). Notwithstanding this estimate, Developer hereby acknowledges and agrees that (a) the actual costs to complete the Work may significantly exceed this estimate, (b) this estimate in no way limits Developer's financial obligation, and (c) that Developer is obligated to complete the Work at its own cost, expense, and liability. 5.4. Modifications to the Plans. Approval of this Agreement by City does not release Developer of its responsibility to correct mistakes, errors or omissions in the Improvement Plans. If, at any time, in the opinion of the City Engineer, in his/her reasonable discretion, the Improvement Plans are deemed inadequate in any respect Developer agrees to make such modifications, changes or revisions as necessary in order to complete the Work in a good and workmanlike manner in accordance with accepted design and construction standards. 5.5. Foreman or Superintendent. Developer shall give personal attention to the Work. A competent foreman or superintendent, satisfactory to the City Engineer, in his/her reasonable discretion, with authority to act for and on behalf of Developer, shall be named in writing by Developer prior to commencement of the Work, shall be present on the Property during the performance of the Work. Any change in the superintendent will require advance notification to the City Engineer and concurrence of the City Engineer and the Engineer of Record for the Improvement Plans. All 5.6. Encroachment Permits. Developer shall obtain, at its sole cost and expense, any encroachment permits required by the City in order to perform the Work. 5.7. Inspection: All of the Improvements shall be constructed and installed to the satisfaction of the City Engineer, in his or her reasonable discretion. City and its authorized agents shall, at all times during the construction of the Improvements, have free access to the Improvements and shall be allowed to examine and inspect the Improvements and all material used and to be used in the Improvements to confirm compliance with City Plans and Specifications. 5.8. Commencement of Construction and Inspection. Developer and its contractor or subcontractors shall not commence construction of the Improvements until Developer has received written authorization from City to proceed. Written authorization shall be in the form of signed approved plans along with permit issuance, including any encroachment permit required to carry on construction activities in the City's right-of-way as described in Section 5.6. All work performed on the Improvements shall be done in strict compliance with the City approved plans, specifications and the contract documents and in a good and workmanlike manner. All work performed by Developer, its contractor or agents to construct the Improvements shall be subject to inspection by City. All fees and costs to construct the Improvements shall be borne solely by Developer (including the applicable Inspection Fee in accordance with the City's adopted Engineering Fee Schedule). Inspection by City or its employees or agents shall not relieve Developer of its liability for design defects or improper or inadequate workmanship. 5.9. City's Inspection, Administration and Testing Costs. Developer shall pay to City the actual cost for all inspection, administration and testing services furnished by City in connection with this Agreement, including those performed by consultants under contract with the City (the "City Costs"). City agrees not to double charge Developer (through the imposition of both a processing fee and a consultant charge) for any individual monitoring, inspection, testing or evaluation service. In addition, City agrees to limit its use of outside consultants to those reasonably necessary or desirable, as determined by the City Manager or his designee in his reasonable discretion, to accomplish the requisite inspection, administration and monitoring. The estimated cost for the inspection, administration and testing services is Twenty -Seven Thousand, One Hundred Forty Two Dollars and No Cents ($27,142.00) (the "Estimated Cost"). Concurrently with the execution of this Agreement, Developer shall deposit an amount equal to the Estimated Cost with City for the payment of the City Costs. In the event that the Estimated Cost is insufficient to cover the actual City Costs incurred, Developer shall, upon notice in writing by the City Engineer, deposit such additional amount as may be required to pay the City Costs. Any amount of the Estimated Cost, initial deposit or additional amounts deposited remaining after payment of all City Costs will be returned to Developer. City may, at its discretion, deposit such funds in an interest-bearing account and retain any and all interest earned. 5.10. NoWaiverbyEi . Inspecting of the work and/or materials, or approval of work and/or materials, or a statement by an officer, agent or employee of the City indicating the work complies with this Agreement, or acceptance of all or any portion of the work and/or materials, or payments thereof, or any combination of all of these acts shall not relieve Developer or its obligation to fulfill this Agreement; nor is the City by these acts prohibited from bringing an action for damages arising from the failure to comply with this Agreement. 5.11. Erosion Control. Pursuant to Rohnert Park Municipal Code Chapter 15.52, Developer shall be responsible for the control of erosion on the Property and shall prevent its entry into the storm drainage system. FA, 5.12. Prevailing Wages. The work of the Improvements do not constitute a "public work" as defined in the California Labor Code, section 1771, et seq ("Labor Code Regulations") because the work is not being paid for in whole or in part out of public funds. City and Developer acknowledge that the construction of the Improvements is not subject to the payment of prevailing wages. Further, Developer agrees to defend, indemnify and hold City, its elected officials, officers, employees, and agents free and harmless from any and all claims, damages, suits or actions arising out of or incident to Developer's obligations under this section and the payment of prevailing wages. 5.13. Contractor Licenses. All work performed on the Improvements shall be done only by contractors licensed in the State of California and qualified to perform the type of work required and comply with the City's Business License Ordinance. 5.14. Repair of Work Damaged During Construction. Developer agrees to repair or have repaired in a timely manner at its sole cost and expense all public roads, streets, or other public or private property damaged as a result of or incidental to the Work or in connection with the development of the Property or to pay to the property owner of any damaged road, street or property the full cost of such repair. In addition, Developer shall obtain the written acceptance of such repair or payment from any owner whose private property was repaired by Developer or to whom Developer has paid the full cost of such repair in accordance with this Section 5.14. City shall be under no obligation whatsoever to accept the Work completed under this Agreement until such time as all repairs have been completed or have been paid for and written acceptances have been provided to the City Engineer, except as otherwise provided in section 5.18.1 5.15. Payments. Developer agrees that it will pay, when due, all those furnishing labor or materials in connection with the Work. Developer further agrees that pursuant to Government Code section 66499.7, the Labor and Materials Bond provided by Developer in accordance with Section 6.1.2 of this Agreement shall not be released if any mechanics liens or stop notices are outstanding, unless said liens are released by bond in compliance with Civil Code section 3143. 5.16. Liability for Work Prior to Formal Acceptance. Until the City Council has formally accepted the Improvements, Developer shall be solely responsible for all damage to the work, regardless of cause, and for all damages or injuries to any person or property at the work site, except damage or injury due to the sole negligence of City, or its employees. Developer shall replace or repair any portion of the Improvements that have been destroyed or damaged prior to final acceptance of completed work by the City Council or the City Engineer. Any such repair or replacement shall be to the satisfaction and subject to the approval of the City Engineer. Developer shall repair to the satisfaction of the City Engineer any damage to the utilities systems, concrete work, street paving or other public improvements that may occur in connection with the Improvements work. 5.17. Completion of Work. After Developer (a) completes the Work in accordance with the Improvement Plans and the terms and conditions of this Agreement, (b) repairs any road, street, or private or public property damaged as a result of the Work or pays the full cost of such repair to the owner whose property was damaged and (c) obtains the written acceptance of such repair or payment from any owner whose private property was repaired by Developer or to whom Developer paid the full cost of such repair, Developer will provide City with a written notice of completion, together with copies of all written acceptances. 6i 5.18. Final Acceptance. 5.18.1 Notice of Completion. Within thirty (30) days of receipt of Developer's written notification pursuant to Section 5.17 above, City Engineer shall inspect the Work and repairs and review the written acceptances, if any, and send Developer a written notice stating whether the Work and repair are complete to the satisfaction of the City Engineer, in his/her reasonable discretion, and whether the written acceptances have been provided. If the Work and repair are, in the opinion of the City Engineer, not complete and satisfactory, and/or written acceptances have not been provided, the City Engineer will list the deficiencies that must be corrected to find the Work and repair complete and satisfactory. Upon satisfactory completion of the Work and repair and submittal of written acceptances, the City Engineer will send Developer a written notice of satisfactory completion. The requirement for written acceptances may be waived by the City Engineer, in his/her reasonable discretion, if Developer has made commercially reasonable efforts to obtain such acceptances. City Engineer's failure to respond to Developer's written notification within thirty (30) days will not be deemed a breach or default under this Agreement. 5.18.2 Acceptance of Improvements. After sending Developer a written notice of satisfactory completion pursuant to Section 5.18.1, the City Engineer will recommend acceptance of the Improvements, or a portion thereof, to the City Council. In conjunction with such recommendation, the City Engineer will recommend the acceptance of the offers of dedication shown on the final map for the Property. The acceptance of the Improvements, offers of dedication and right-of-way and easements, if any, shall be by resolution. Upon adoption of such resolution, the City Engineer shall record a notice of acceptance, in a form to be approved by the City Attorney, in the Official Records of Sonoma County. 5.19. Warranty Period; Repair and Reconstruction. Without limiting the foregoing, Developer expressly warrants and guarantees all work performed under this Agreement and all materials used in the Work for a period of one (1) year after the date of recordation of the notice of acceptance of the improvements in accordance with Section 5.18. If, within this one (1) year period, any Improvement or part of any Improvement installed or constructed, or caused to be installed or constructed by Developer, or any of the work done under this Agreement, fails to fulfill any of the requirements of the Improvement Plans or this Agreement, Developer shall, without delay and without cost to City, repair, replace or reconstruct any defective or otherwise unsatisfactory part or parts of the Work or Improvement to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. Should Developer fail to act promptly, by failing to repair, replace or reconstruct work thirty (30) days after notification by City, or in accordance with this requirement, or should the exigencies of the situation require repairs, replacements or reconstruction to be made before Developer can be notified, City may, at its option, make the necessary repairs, replacements or perform the necessary reconstruction and Developer shall pay to the City upon demand the actual cost of such repairs, replacements or reconstruction. 5.20. Record Drawings. Upon completion of the Improvements and prior to final acceptance by the City Council, Developer shall deliver to City one electronic file, in a format specified by the City Engineer, and one mylar copy of "as -built" drawings. These drawings shall be in a form acceptable to the City Engineer, shall be certified by an engineer licensed by the State of California as to accuracy and completeness, and shall reflect the Improvements as actually constructed, with any and all changes incorporated therein. Developer shall be solely responsible and liable for ensuring the completeness and accuracy of the record drawings. 5.21. Ownership of Improvements. From and after acceptance of the Improvements by formal action of the City Council, ownership of the Improvements shall be vested exclusively in City. C: 6. Securi1y. 6.1 Performance, Labor and Materials and Warranty Security. In accordance with Sections 16.16.060 through 16.16.070 of the Rohnert Park Municipal Code, Developer will furnish and deliver to City, within the times set forth below, the following surety bonds, each of which must be issued by a surety company duly and regularly authorized to do general surety business in the State of California, or an irrevocable assignment of funds or letter of credit as may be acceptable to the City Attorney. 6.1.1 Performance Security. Developer shall furnish and deliver performance security concurrently with the execution of this Agreement, which must meet the requirements of Government Code Section 66499. 1, if applicable, and Rohnert Park Municipal Code Section 16.16.070 and be acceptable to the City Attorney, in the following amount: One Million, Eight Hundred and Nine Thousand, Four Hundred and Forty Eight Dollars and No Cents ($1,809,448.00). The security shall be conditioned upon the faithful performance of this Agreement with respect to the Work and shall be released by the City effective upon the date of recordation of the notice of acceptance of the improvements as described in Section 5.18.2 and Developer's delivery of the Warranty Security described in Section 6.1.3. 6.1.2 Labor and Materials Security. Developer shall furnish and deliver labor and materials security concurrently with the execution of this Agreement which security must meet the requirements of Government Code Section 66499.2, if applicable, and Rohnert Park Municipal Code Section 16.16.070 and be acceptable to the City Attorney, in the following amount: One Million, Eight Hundred and Nine Thousand, Four Hundred and Forty Eight Dollars and No Cents ($1,809,448.00). The security shall secure payment to the contractor(s) and subcontractor(s) performing the Work and to all persons furnishing labor, materials or equipment to them. The City shall retain each security until both (i) the City accepts the Work in accordance with Section 5.18 above and (ii) the statute of limitations to file an action under Civil Code section 3114 et seq. has expired. After said date, the security may be reduced by the City Engineer to an amount not less than the total amount claimed by all claimants for whom claims of lien have been recorded and notice given in writing to the City Council. The balance of the security shall be retained until the final settlement of all such claims and obligations. If no such claims have been recorded, the security shall be released in full by the City Engineer. 6.1.3. Warranty Security. Developer shall furnish and deliver warranty security in the amount specified in section 16.16.070 c. of the Rohnert Park Municipal Code., upon acceptance of the Improvements and prior to release of the Performance Security, in the following amount: Two Hundred Seventy -One Thousand, Four Hundred Seventeen Dollars and No Cents ($271,417.00) The security shall be in a form acceptable to the City Attorney and shall guarantee and warranty the Work for a period of one (1) year following the date of recordation of the notice of acceptance of the improvements against any defective work or labor done, or defective materials furnished. 6.2. Additional Security. If either upon execution of this Agreement or during the course of performance the City considers that it is necessary to have Developer post additional security, the City may require either a cash deposit or a surety bond guaranteeing performance in a form and signed by sureties satisfactory to it. The condition of the security shall be that if Developer fails to perform its obligation under this Agreement, the City may in the case of a cash bond act for it using the proceeds or in the case of a surety bond require the sureties to perform the obligations of the Agreement. 7 Indemnity and Insurance. 7.1 Indemnification. Developer agrees to indemnify, defend and hold the City, its elective and appointed boards, commissions, officers, agents, employees and consultants, harmless from and against any and all claims, liabilities, losses, damages or injuries of any kind (collectively, "Claims") arising out of Developer's, or Developer's contractors', subcontractors', agents' or employees', acts, omissions, or operations under this Agreement, including, but not limited to, the performance of the Work, whether such acts, omissions, or operations are by Developer or any of Developer's contractors, subcontractors, agents or employees, except to the extent such Claims are caused by the sole negligence or willful misconduct of the City. This indemnification includes, without limitation, the payment of all penalties, fines, judgments, awards, decrees, attorneys' fees, and related costs or expenses, and the reimbursement of City, its elected officials, officers, employees, and/or agents for all legal expenses and costs incurred by each of them. The aforementioned indemnity shall apply regardless of whether or not City has prepared, supplied or approved plans and/or specifications for the Work or Improvements and regardless of whether any insurance required under this Agreement is applicable to any Claims. The City does not and shall not waive any of its rights under this indemnity provision because of its acceptance of the bonds or insurance required under the provisions of this Agreement. Developer's obligation to indemnify City shall survive the expiration or termination of this Agreement. 7.2. Insurance. Developer shall maintain Commercial General Liability Insurance protecting the City from incidents as to bodily injury liability and property damage liability that may occur as a result of the Work and additional repairs. Developer shall provide certificate(s) of insurance and endorsements to City before any Work commences. The insurance policy shall contain, or be endorsed to contain, the following provisions: (1) The City, its officers, elected officials, employees, consultants, agents and volunteers are to be covered as additional insured's as respects to liability arising out of activities performed by or on behalf of Developer. The coverage shall contain no special limitations on the scope of protection afforded to the City, its officers, elected officials, employees, consultants, agents and volunteers. (2) The amounts of public liability and property damage coverage shall not be less than $3,000,000 (Three Million Dollars) per occurrence for bodily injury, personal injury and property damage. (3) The insurance shall be maintained in full force until the work has been completed to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. (4) The insurance policy shall provide for 30 days' notice of cancellation to the City. The policy shall not be cancelled earlier than nor the amount of coverage be reduced earlier than 30 days after the City receives notice from the insurer of the intent of cancellation or reduction. (5) Any failure to comply with the reporting provisions of the policy shall not affect the coverage provided to the City, its officers, elected officials, employees, consultants, agents and volunteers. E:� (6) Developer's insurance coverage shall be primary insurance as respects the City, its officers, elected officials, employees, consultants, agents and volunteers. Any insurance or self-insurance maintained by the City, its officers, elected officials, employees, consultants, agents and volunteers shall be in excess of Developer's insurance and shall not contribute to it. (7) Any deductibles or self-insured retentions must be declared to and approved by City. At the option of City, either: (a) the insurer shall reduce or eliminate such deductibles or self-insured retentions as respects City, its elected officials, officers, employees, agents, and volunteers; or (b) Developer and its contractors shall provide a financial guarantee satisfactory to City guaranteeing payment of losses and related investigation costs, claims, and administrative and defense expenses. (8) Developer and Developer's insurance company agree to waive all rights of subrogation against City, its officers, elected officials, employees, agents and volunteers for losses paid under Developer's workers' compensation insurance policy which arise from the work performed by Developer. In the event that Developer's insurance is cancelled, Developer shall provide replacement coverage or all work must cease as of the cancellation date until replacement insurance coverage is provided. 7.3. Workers' Compensation Insurance. Developer shall provide, or cause to be provided, Workers' Compensation insurance as required by law, and shall cause its contractors and their subcontractors, agents and representatives to also maintain Workers' Compensation insurance as required by law. No Work shall commence until such Workers' Compensation insurance is obtained and in full force and effect. 7.4. Other Insurance Requirements. Developer shall: (1) Prior to taking any actions under this Agreement, furnish City with properly executed certificates of insurance which shall clearly evidence all insurance required in this section and provide that such insurance shall not be canceled, allowed to expire or be materially reduced in coverage except on thirty (30) days prior written notice to City. (2) Provide to City certified copies of endorsements and policies if requested by City, and properly executed certificates of insurance evidencing the insurance required herein. (3) Replace or require the replacement of certificates, policies and endorsements for any insurance required herein expiring prior to completion and acceptance of the Improvements. (4) Maintain all insurance required herein from the time of execution of this Agreement until the acceptance of the Improvements. (5) Place all insurance required herein with insurers licensed to do business in California. 6t 8. Breach of Agreement; Opportunity to Cure; Remedies. 8.1. Notice of Breach and Default. The occurrence of any of the following constitutes a breach and default of this Agreement: (1) Developer refuses or fails to complete the Work within the time set forth herein or abandons the Work. (2) Developer assigns the Agreement without the prior written consent of City. (3) Developer is adjudged bankrupt or makes a general assignment for the benefit of creditors, or a receiver is appointed in the event of Developer's insolvency. (4) Developer or Developer's contractors, subcontractors, agents or employees, fail to comply with any terms or conditions of this Agreement. (5) Any delay in the construction of any portion of the Work or repairs, which in the reasonable opinion of the City Engineer, endangers public or private property. The City may serve written notice of breach and default upon Developer and the financial institution holding the security. 8.2. Breach of Agreement; Performance by Ci1y. If the City gives Developer notice, under Section 8. 1, of breach and default of this Agreement, the City may proceed to complete the Work by contract or other method the City considers advisable, at the sole expense of Developer. Developer, immediately upon demand, shall pay the costs and charges related to the Work and any subsequent repairs. City, without liability for doing so, may take possession of and utilize in completing the Work and repairs, if any, such materials and other property belonging to Developer as may be on or about the Property and necessary for completion of the work. In the event of default, the financial institution holding the security shall be liable to City to pay the face amount of the bonds, as specified under Section 6. 8.3. Remedies. City may bring legal action to compel performance of this Agreement and recover the costs of completing the Work and/or repairs, if any, including City's administrative and legal costs. Developer agrees that if legal action is brought by City under this section of the Agreement, Developer shall pay all of the costs of suit; reasonable attorney fees, arbitration costs and such other costs as may be determined by the court or arbitrator. No failure on the part of City to exercise any right or remedy hereunder shall operate as a waiver of any other right or remedy that City may have hereunder. Miscellaneous. 9.1 Compliance with Laws. Developer shall fully comply with all federal, state and local laws, ordinances and regulations in the performance of this Agreement. Developer shall, at its own cost and expense, obtain all necessary permits and licenses for the Work, give all necessary notices, pay all fees and taxes required by law and make any and all deposits legally required by those public utilities that will serve the development on the Property. Copies and/or proof of payment of said permits, licenses, notices, fee and tax payments and deposits shall be furnished to the City Engineer upon request. 9.2. Notices. Formal written notices, demands, correspondence and communications between City and Developer shall be sufficiently given if. (a) personally delivered; or (b) dispatched by Rol next day delivery by a reputable carrier such as Federal Express to the offices of City and Developer indicated below, provided that a receipt for delivery is provided; or (c) if dispatched by first class mail, postage prepaid, to the offices of City and Developer indicated below. Such written notices, demands, correspondence and communications may be sent in the same manner to such persons and addresses as either party may from time -to -time designate by next day delivery or by mail as provided in this section. City: City of Rohnert Park 130 Avram Avenue Rohnert Park, CA 94928 Attn: City Manager with a copy to: City of Rohnert Park 130 Avram Avenue Rohnert Park, CA 94928 Attn: City Attorney Developer: Redwood Equities Investments, LLC 100 B Street, Suite 210 Santa Rosa, CA 95401 With a copy to: Attn. Attn. Notices delivered by deposit in the United States mail as provided above shall be deemed to have been served two (2) business days after the date of deposit if addressed to an address within the State of California, and three (3) business days if addressed to an address within the United States but outside the State of California. 11.3 Attorney. Should any legal action or arbitration be brought by either party because of breach of this Agreement or to enforce any provision of this Agreement, the prevailing party shall be entitled to all costs of suit; reasonable attorney fees, arbitration costs and such other costs as may be determined by the court or arbitrator. 11.4. Entire Agreement. The terms and conditions of this Agreement constitute the entire agreement between City and Developer with respect to the matters addressed in this Agreement. This Agreement may not be altered, amended or modified without the written consent of both parties hereto. 11.5. Runs with the Land; Recordation. This Agreement pertains to and shall run with the Property. Upon execution, this Agreement shall be recorded in the Official Records of Sonoma County. 11.6. Transfers; Assignments. Developer may assign its obligations under this Agreement to successor owner(s) of the Site with the prior written approval of the City. In connection 11 with any such assignment, Developer and its assignee shall execute and deliver to City a written assignment and assumption agreement in a form acceptable to the City Attorney. 11.7. Time is of the Essence. Time is of the essence of this Agreement and of each and every term and condition hereof. 11.8. Severability. If any provision of this Agreement is held, to any extent, invalid, the remainder of this Agreement shall not be affected, except as necessarily required by the invalid provision, and shall remain in full force and effect. 11.9. Waiver or Modification. Any waiver or modification of the provisions of this Agreement must be in writing and signed by the authorized representative(s) of each Party. 11.10. Relationship of the Parties. Neither Developer nor Developer's contractors, subcontractors, agents, officers, or employees are agents, partners, joint venturers or employees of City and the Developer's relationship to the City, if any, arising herefrom is strictly that of an independent contractor. Developer's contractors and subcontractors are exclusively and solely under the control and dominion of Developer. Further, there are no intended third party beneficiaries of any right or obligation assumed by the Parties. 11.11. Binding Upon Heirs, Successors and Assigns. The terms, covenants and conditions of this Agreement shall be binding upon all heirs, successors and assigns of the parties hereto; provided, however, that this Agreement shall not be binding upon a purchaser or transferee of any portion of the Property unless this Agreement has been assigned pursuant to Section 9.6, in which event this Agreement shall remain binding upon Developer. 11.12. Governing Law; Venue. This Agreement shall be construed and enforced in accordance with the laws of the State of California, without reference to choice of law provisions. Any legal actions under this Agreement shall be brought only in the Superior Court of the County of Sonoma, State of California. 11.14. Counterparts. This Agreement may be executed in multiple counterparts, each of which shall be deemed to be an original. 11.15. Interpretation. This Agreement shall be construed according to its fair meaning, and not strictly for or against any party.. No presumptions or rules of interpretation based upon the identity of the party preparing or drafting the Agreement, or any part thereof, shall apply to the interpretation of this Agreement. 11.16. Headings. Section headings in this Agreement are for convenience only and are not intended to be used in interpreting or construing the terms, covenants or conditions contained in this Agreement. 11.17. Authori1y. Each party executing this Agreement on behalf of a party represents and warrants that such person is duly and validly authorized to do so on behalf of the entity it purports to bind and if such party is a partnership, corporation or trustee, that such partnership, corporation or trustee has full right and authority to enter into this Agreement and perform all of its obligations hereunder. 12 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, City and Developer have executed this Agreement as of the Effective Date. "CITY" CITY OF ROHNERT PARK, a California municipal corporation Dated: City Manager Per Resolution No. 20 - adopted by the Rohnert Park City Council at its meeting of January 26, 2016. [signature must be notarized] ATTEST: City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: City Attorney 13 Dated: 14 "DEVELOPER" Redwood Equities Investments, Inc. By: Name: Title: [signature must be notarized] SITE DATA LCT DETAILS NET SITE AREA 79.53 ACRES RE RURAL ESTATE GROSS PROJECT DENSITY EXISTING ZONING 597 UNITS/ACRE DA -87-2, SR -VM (COUNTr) LOTS (366-394) PROPOSED ZONING SP -SPECIFIC PLAN - EX PI7 SMALLEST 17,056 SfP��OEL�QOEL AA LD LOW DENSITY LARGEST 46,043 SF PUBLIC PARK SITE (DEDICATED TO THE CITY OF ROHNERT PARK) LOTS (1-56, 150-171, 241-254, 330-365) -_ AVERAGE 20,766 SF B -CEL B MDC SMALLEST 5,000 SF PUBLIC WATER TANK SITE (DEDICATED TO THE CITY OF ROHNERT PARK) SE MEDIUM DENSITY - CONVENTIONAL LOTS (57-149, 172-240, 255-329) 10 HOMES LOTS (395-439) 111111$£ a looms UNIT TYPES UNIT TYPE LOTS_ UNITS � N u 41AI11CIA tw _`261P 1Y � .APER TOT e1tLM1 PARCEL DETAILS - EX PI7 SMALLEST 17,056 SfP��OEL�QOEL AA 7.10 AC LARGEST 46,043 SF PUBLIC PARK SITE (DEDICATED TO THE CITY OF ROHNERT PARK) P2 -_ AVERAGE 20,766 SF B -CEL B 0.26 AC SMALLEST 5,000 SF PUBLIC WATER TANK SITE (DEDICATED TO THE CITY OF ROHNERT PARK) Pb LARGEST 8,907 SF PARrU--Q 153 AC AVERAGE 5,543 SF PARCEL DESIGNAT€D FOR COMMERCIAL (10,000 SF), RETAIL W 20 AND OFFICE USE TO BE PRIVATELY OWNED) a SMALLEST 1,892 SF PARCELD.. .. 1,75 AC LARGEST 7,471 SF RENTAL UNIT PROJECT (TO BE PRIVATELY OWNED) f AVERAGE 3,798 SF PA9CEL E .,, 3..06 AC 44 MONLY OWNED PARCEL MAINTAINED BY HOA (10 BE COMMONLY CMCE 41 SMALLEST1,066 SF LARGEST 1,180 SF OWNED BY THE OWNERS OF LOTS 395-439) 45 AVERAGE 1,139 SF • - TO BE DEDICATED TO TCOUNTY OF SONOMA TO BCE, F HE 0.53 AC SEE LOT AREA TABLE FOR INDIVIDUAL LOT SIZES NO - Ti -1, COMMON DRIVE AISLE SHALL BE MAINAINED BY EITHER A SPECIAL TAX DISTRICT, SPECIAL MAINTENENCE ASSOCIATION, OR HOA. f i` . P< �� C x a looms UNIT TYPES UNIT TYPE LOTS_ UNITS � N u 41AI11CIA tw _`261P 1Y � .APER TOT e1tLM1 RE RURAL ESTATE - EX PI7 1 1 7 Ol' :AREA LOT P2 7 7 LOS IJ9EA LOT Pb 7 7 TQi ABG RE BIBIOTIL W 20 CY a AAER LOT 14RSA 7pT AREA f LOW DENSITY P2 44 44 1m 41 111N P3 45 45 •41n 1n ED BIBTCTMU ]2B 20 141 um SRM SE-MEDIUM DENSITY - MOTOR COURT PR 244 Yd 201 ],551 _Lal 221 04 25 2.1 261 11" 69xgm uffmTA19 9a # S 4.101 119 -4- ml UN 64] ( SE -MEDIUM DENSITY - ZIPPER LOT$ P2 43 43 W ` P744 Z2. 45 4/ 0.6p n Rill M to IN t 151 PI IV 71716 U$ 1 SE -MEDIUM DENSITY - DUETS 3,851 14 144 jqp Try j8@b11. SUBTOTAL, 26 27 262 5,000 TOTAL SINCL AMILY A'H S.- .1112 12N Nm 7Ap TOTAL Duels 1819 2B 20 Jaz Il - 8,11111 394 904 3 5,200 23 5,056 4} 33'11 IS RENTAL UNITS M 0-36 - 4sn J ie MU (MIXED USE TOTAL) ICA 45 01 5.000 ' ' PROJECT TOTAL, AM 476 1,10 243 COAMSICJAL U61Ii iDAM BF 203 4,21] 3 4y, 3,796 U3 3,41/ 343 4L.ru 424k1 PARKING 301 11.68] Tei ,L 423 4 5.200 5,880 44 5200 BI X.4]A e< Q 104 GARAGE SPACES RURAL ESTATE 79 4141 TW A 1M LOW DENSITY 256 iml At LL. 37/ MEDIUM DENSITY TOWNHOMES 445 90 A09P MI 1.092 204 HEN UNITS 36 4,161 324 SOB2 344 OFF-STREET TOWNHCMES 20Z 0.007 No 111 W 4 aq$ @Q (} x01 RENTAL UNITS 30 B z Q]Q 25 ON -STREET 639 E,253 69 1 B! TOTAL PARKING SPACES 1,604 3,9]5 125 �5(JJJ �s g 14'7 PARKING SPACES PER UNIT 3.38 40M IN 15P1 AN 3bT/ Ri 4m 3444 6.711 IN Off-STREET 7p 1,186 � 305 ],860 525 COMMERCIAL / RETAIL 47 9,060 365 N ME PARKING SPACES PER 300 SF I.36 1.100 154 5.200 26 % 0.139 56 kill 8B I,B92 105 3,320 126 3.186 148 3.188 100 6,x00 L.V 1 EOT A7LE:A A'4P9CM ,UTI ANSA 1 K=LC ALL AREAS 101 APG T ARE IN SWARE FEET AREA LO] AkER WT .APER TOT e1tLM1 LOT LOT gREA Ol' :AREA LOT AREA AREA LOS IJ9EA LOT AIaEA LGT IAEA. TQi ABG iO1 AREA LdT 4REA LOT AAER LOT 14RSA 7pT AREA lOT hNEA 1 416q n 1m 41 111N N 8173 /1 •41n 1n 3q8 ISI 76)11 141 um 161 0,178 101 3,530 201 ],551 _Lal 221 MIN 311 E.67B 261 11" 261 ATM dor 4.101 119 3,901 ml UN 64] AOM A 17.403 461 I.1m 411 ` R.2Tl0 Z2. ,{1116/ 4/ 0.6p n Rill M ].140 IN 8411 151 ITN IV 71716 162 5,000 W 3,851 SO2 350] 222 416T 212 5,000 262 5,000 282 S.- .1112 12N 32t 7Ap 312 1819 341 IAOoe Jaz IPNa - I,0% 422 3 5,200 23 5,056 4} 33'11 IS A41Y M AAAO IN 4sn 41] 4.1/1 ICA 4140 163 5.000 - 3,9]0 361 3530 223 1,10 243 5,000 203 4,21] 4,161 303 3,796 U3 3,41/ 343 4L.ru 345 [1060 301 11.68] Tei 1.1N 423 4 5.200 5,880 44 5200 BI X.4]A e< RN1 104 AW 10 4141 TW 4144 1M 91000 IH iml At Rn1 37/ ACY ,111 A09P MI 1.092 204 4,181 4,161 324 SOB2 344 5.351 384 0.007 No 240/7 x01 1A1! 451. B 9.200 25 5b5e 43 E,253 69 7.;610 B! 449] 105 3,9]5 125 14'7 11M 110 40M IN 15P1 AN 3bT/ Ri 4m 3444 6.711 IN 4,00 7p 1,186 � 305 ],860 525 1,608 319 9,060 365 E.I. ME 34,151 463 1.100 154 5.200 26 % 0.139 56 kill 8B I,B92 105 3,320 126 3.186 148 3.188 100 6,x00 I0e 3.530 ON 334 1,011 AN INN 2n ILM in 17n 101 1113 >26 1'1000 116 5,050 ME 16,]39 ME 20,560 F'.f 1,1)6 ON k17 1 ARR 31 A✓� 4T ■Be 0i ylA4 B] 1,692 14'7 1,802 121 let 141 4,61 1e] 5.000 e] 180 J,B51 0] A131 b2 4?A 24] 4743 3A7 4,TA pl 410}. Lll 3]PJ VI 9.4]7 541. 0.Wo 36] 17160 187 20 621 40) 1.100 42] 5.700 N {ION S/ /yi N A405 M •714x1 ICI Y,`OP 128 161 140 3,53] IBB 5,000 3,610 2 4,294 220 4,10] 248 9802 206 3,110 2BB 1.9N 100 4A53 ]75 LN 146 0.470 SN 16.621 388 20,592 TOB I.tSBM 8740 1N {101 m LTN 149 9.431 101 5,000 In 2,039 200 3482 229 4.158 249 5.000 269 37 0 2BB .796 ]OS 4334 Io 1M4 310 400 Jn 1L3P dell NA63 409 4-014 420 1200 6200 JD S.B9B 50 0.392 M 1/41 w A4S0 116 Ant 11p A)N Y74 4f A) TTM_ GYg6 110 -)�0_j0 5µY 3,615 2!0 4,115 250 5,000 210 3 290 5,305 JIO 1, Bfi J%1 6,116 dp0 6.(4'J� 110 X4010 790 74M7 410 /.IN 63p 6,092 6.110 71 1.'AO 91 111 &W TJI 41n 101 Op00 111 k^Y4A EOY #4A tIX Row S:1 A8K 8l1 2] 4.161 B1 6p10 311 331 5.000 151 5,050 ]T jlL�i MA Yil1 4i1 I'm UI 12 5,200 32 E.I. 52 .17 721110M2 1,447 112 3,012 112 4,373 IM UN 112 4.51] IB2 3w1 11/ Rb37 311 Am 121 o" 7" 49/1 172 AIV 312 4,234 x12 5.000 392 5,050 "'No ]92 220%0 IIS NIM N 1 1:10 0 17 B,%J m %A 4 w 6,1]5 )] 411] 9] J,B51 111 33 1 4M 153 IAN 173 7A51 IBJ 3,651 117 )ABA 313. AM m 1n0 SO AIM 1n .170/ 111 4711 AH 9,000 3JJ 9,050 1)J 14N7 393 11,421 413 1,1130 131 A,17A 14 Lma 74 JI 61 /.IPO 74 Ago. 94 1.- 114 3,912 134 3,725 154 sam 1141990 194 3,530 214 SAM 414 3,434 301 410 114 LTn m 4101 M4 3TM 334 TAN 304 14101 391 1],126 414 110811 434 1,175 U 41N 70 Iytn N. 6113 T! 3,n0 N 3401 Iti; 134 1,339 t% 4000 175 ROOT IBS 3,50] 211E 1,196 239 3,423 MIL 275 k_ 013 Alp 310 RAN SA5 AOW 0.&Q 917 IT.iYR 7W 1,1)5 415 1,159 435 1.180 10 LM SE km 64. IAN P! Lnl O6 ,Left In 1047 156 061 M Now 116 3031 196 3,651 218 41161 2.18 7431 2% V16 216 A4wICI 4,161 310 o" 110 0401 364 sums ME 1FM6 AI ISN 111 LOBO 438 1,06E 17 000 37 11174 57 Aop 12 RON 01 AW 111 CAN 1.37 Lm 107 4000 1'11 ]A3P 107 35n 511 3514 3,5]5 257 4351 2T) STA 7n' 4.161 517 41N 317 1143 341 4070 321 'P.M 7n UM 411 1,100 1,159 10 Rin 3.110 % too A 7364 IN 3ACIA IN ;711 130. 47M 050 40N IM .. S5EI 1.10 1116 1]t ms$ S56 AOM 117 SSM 9w 3.796 AI/ X310 AI 3440 aw 'x000 4)1 mwo 110 L." 410 LIN 4M Lm 10 8606 JB 3114 59 SN] TO 141P n 3611 111 4W 190 ►N! 460 6.000 110 A91w In 3490 51/ 4rM 230 34]1 26P ].011 T]T 34W Det 3,)Be 3,100 339 WO' 9m 108! m '1]307 3.. ).9w 40 Lon 411 Lm m 4,40w a0 41n 60 ka3 N ;661 IN 93✓A4 11p 4Ne /i0 42p ICO -/,[u Ip 33N IID 1?JO 330 i/4a 140 44N m6 6.313 3w 41ei ]tb 4;1e4 31d 4311 x0 3000 140 4N0 len IT,ji] ,m LIFJ 400 Lop VJ pMM 0�m JOB N0, 11-114 SHEEP NO 3 Meeting Date: Department: Submitted By: Prepared By: Agenda Title: ITEM NO. 6C6 Mission Statement "We Care for Our Residents by Working Together to Build a Better Community for Today and Tomorrow." CITY OF ROHNERT PARK CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT January 26, 2015 Development Services Mary Grace Pawson, Director of Development Services Mary Grace Pawson, Director of Development Services First Amendment to an Agreement for Management and Administrative Services with Regional Government Services for Planning Services RECOMMENDED ACTION: Adopt a Resolution Approving the First Amendment to an Agreement for Management and Administrative Services with Regional Government Services for Planning Services and authorizing the Finance Director to Take Related Actions. BACKGROUND: In June of 2014, the City entered into an agreement with Regional Government Services (RGS) to provide staff augmentation services to the Development Services Department. RGS is a Joint Powers Authority formed by California local government agencies to provide a ready source of staffing and consulting services for California local governments. The City entered into this agreement because changes to the Public Employees Retirement System (PERS) limited the City's ability to retain retired part-time employees for staff augmentation services. RGS provides staff augmentation services to a myriad of cities, counties and other governmental agencies throughout the state of California. The City of Rohnert Park has used the services of RGS for consultant services in other departments in the past and the contract was a sole -source award to RGS because the staff members they provided to the City brought unique familiarity with the City's projects and processes that could not be matched by other outside firms. In addition, the RGS's rates for staff are highly competitive. Currently RGS is providing staff services to fill the position of Technical Advisor (Planning). The contract with RGS is nearing its limit and staff is seeking an amendment to the contract to allow work to continue. ANALYSIS: The City continues to experience interest in residential and commercial development, necessitating support in the Planning Division. Currently the Technical Advisor provides service for 20 to 30 hours per week at an average cost of $4,000 to $5,000 month. The Technical Advisor is providing lead planning work on the following projects Amy's Kitchen Drive-Thru Restaurant Oxford Suites Sportsman's Warehouse Fiori Estates The Reserve at Dowdell America's Tire Stadium Lands Lot I Small Site Plan and Architectural Review. The availability of the Technical Advisor allows the Department to provide timely processing of smaller site development applications without compromising work on larger Specific Plan Area [Version 2 - 12/18/2015] ITEM NO. 6C6 and Planned Development Projects. In addition, because of the recent approval of the first phase Final Maps in the University District Specific Plan Area, the Department will processing the review of up to 175 plot plans for residential development in the next 2 to 3 years. This processing requires planning division review for compliance with the project's conditions of approval and represents a new workload for the Department. As described above, the Technical Advisor provided by RGS has unique familiarity with the City that justifies the ongoing relationship. STRATEGIC PLAN ALIGNMENT: This action is consistent with Strategic Plan Goal D — Continue to Develop a Vibrant Community. This action will allow the Development Services Department to continue to provide timely service to applicants. OPTIONS CONSIDERED: Recommended Option: Staff recommends approval of the first amendment to the Agreement for Management and Administrative Services with Regional Government Services for Planning Services Agreement with Regional Governmental Services because it will provide efficient and consistent service from the experienced Technical Advisor (Planning) currently doing this work for the City. 2. Staff considered providing these planning services with existing City staff but Development Services currently does not have the staff available to do this additional work. The consistent demand for service from the Technical Advisor (Planning) is evidence of the need for additional staff support. 3. Staff considered providing these planning services with another consulting firm but RGS's rates for service are more competitive and the staff person they are providing has unique familiarity and deep experience with the City. FISCAL IMPACT/FUNDING SOURCE: The fiscal impact of the recommended amendment is $120,000. Development Services has expended an average of $4,500 per month on the RGS contract. The cost of this service is generally recovered through the Planning Division's Fee Schedule, which support the Department's cost recovery efforts. The proposed budget for the amendment is intended to fund up to two years of service and, if approved, will be budgeted in the Department's operational budget for Fiscal Year 2016-17. The requested action authorizes the Finance Director to increase budgeted revenue and appropriations as necessary to match the funding received from developers and applicants and costs incurred under this contract. Department Head Approval Date: 01/06/16 Finance Director Approval Date: 01/15/16 City Attorney Approval Date: 01/08/16 City Manager Approval Date: 01/15/16 Attachments (list in packet assembly order): 1. Resolution Authorizing the City Manager to Execute the First Amendment to an Agreement for Management and Administrative Services with Regional Government Services for Planning and Code Compliance Services. 2. First Amendment to the Agreement for Management and Administrative Services with Regional Government Services for Planning and Code Compliance Services. [Version 2 - 12/18/2015] 2 RESOLUTION NO. 2016-008 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROHNERT PARK APPROVING THE FIRST AMENDMENT TO AN AGREEMENT FOR MANAGEMENT AND ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES WITH REGIONAL GOVERNMENT SERVICES FOR PLANNING SERVICES AND AUTHORIZING THE FINANCE DIRECTOR TO TAKE RELATED ACTIONS WHEREAS, the City currently requires services in connection with the development and community viability; and WHEREAS, the City of Rohnert Park Municipal Code Title 3 Chapter 3.04 provides that the City's purchasing functions shall be governed by the City's purchasing policy; and WHEREAS, Regional Government Services is currently providing high-quality, cost- effective planning services through a Technical Advisor (Planning) who is uniquely familiar with the City's projects and requirements; and WHEREAS, consistent with City of Rohnert Park Purchasing Policy Section 7.2, Consultant meets the requirements for Sole Source purchasing as they perform a "complex and unique function" because they provide specialized planning services; and WHEREAS, staff recommends Regional Government Services to perform these services based on their professional skills, qualifications and unique experience with the City; and WHEREAS, the value of the first amendment is $120,000 bringing the total not to exceed value of the contract to $245,000. WHEREAS, the City Council considered the first amendment to the agreement with Regional Government Services at a duly noticed regular meeting on January 26, 2015. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Rohnert Park that it does hereby authorize and approve the first amendment to the agreement with Regional Government Services in substantially similar form to Exhibit A which is attached hereto and incorporated by this reference (the "Amendment") subject to minor modification by the City Manager or City Attorney. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Manager is hereby authorized and directed to execute documents pertaining to same for and on behalf of the City of Rohnert Park, including the Agreement. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Finance Director is hereby authorized to increase budgeted revenue and appropriations from applicant deposits and reimbursements as necessary to fund the contract services. DULY AND REGULARLY ADOPTED this 26 day of January, 2016. CITY OF ROHNERT PARK Gina Belforte, Mayor ATTEST: JoAnne M. Buergler, City Clerk Attachment: Exhibit A AHANOTU: CALLINAN: STAFFORD: MACKENZIE: BELFORTE: AYES: ( ) NOES: ( ) ABSENT:( ) ABSTAIN: ( ) (2) 2016-008 egion Government Service A California Public Agency AMENDMENT NO. 1 TO AGREEMENT FOR MANAGEMENT AND ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES FOR CONTINUATION OF SERVICES This document constitutes the Continuation of Services Amendment No. 1 entered into as of the 26th day of January , 2016, to the Management and Administrative Services Agreement entered into as of the 24th day of June, 2014 by and between the City of Rohnert Park hereinafter called "Agency", and Regional Government Services Authority, hereinafter called "RGS". RECITALS This Continuation of Services Amendment is entered into with reference to the following facts and circumstances: A. Agency desires to amend the provisions of the Management and Administrative Services Agreement to extend the services of the Planning Program Coordinator. B. RGS is desirous of these changes as well. AMENDMENT NO. 1 Based upon the foregoing Recitals, Agency and RGS agree to the terms of continued services of the Planning Program Coordinator as set forth in Exhibit A, which is attached hereto and incorporated by this reference. The terms set forth in Exhibit A supersede all negotiations or previous agreements between the parties with respect to all or any part of the transaction discussed in this Amendment. C. Except as expressly amended herein, all other terms and conditions of the Agreement shall remain in full force and effect and binding upon the parties. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this Continuation of Services Amendment to be executed on the date first above written by their respective officers duly authorized in that behalf. Signatures on the Next Page RGS provides quality, innovative, cost-effective services exclusively to public agencies. Main 650.587.7300 Fax 650.587.7311 P.O. Box 1350 Carmel Valley, CA 93924 www.rgs.ca.gov Dated: Darrin W. Jenkins, City Manager Authorized by City Council Resolution 2016-_ approved on January 26, 2016 ATTEST: JoAnne Buergler, City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM Michelle Marchetta Kenyon, City Attorney Dated: Richard H. Averett, Executive Director EXHIBIT A Services of the Planning Program Coordinator shall be extended to January 31, 2018 or until the cost for services reach $245,000 unless terminated pursuant to the provisions of Section 2, Term of Agreement and Termination, of the original Management and Administrative Services Agreement dated June 24, 2014. Hourly rate for the services of Planning Program Coordinator shall be sixty-eight dollars ($68) per hour effective February 1, 2016. The not -to -exceed amount for services shall be increased by one hundred, twenty thousand dollars ($120,000) to provide funding for the extended term. The total not -to -exceed for services provided under the Original Agreement and the Amendment shall not exceed two hundred, forty-five thousand dollars ($245,000). ROHNERT rA�� ` Mission Statement '� 6s "We Care for Our Residents by Working Together to Build a Better Communityfor Today and Tomorrow." CALI PO KS" CITY OF ROHNERT PARK CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT Meeting Date: January 26, 2016 Department: Finance Submitted By: Betsy Howze, Finance Director Prepared By: Betsy Howze, Finance Director ITEM NO. 6D 1 Agenda Title: Approval of the Annual Recognized Obligation Payment Schedule (ROPS) 16-17 of the Successor Agency to the former Community Development Commission of the City of Rohnert Park RECOMMENDED ACTION: Consider and adopt the attached Resolution approving the Annual ROPS 16-17 (Recognized Obligation Payment Schedule for the period July 1, 2016 to June 30, 2017) of the Successor Agency to the former Community Development Commission of the City of Rohnert Park. BACKGROUND: Health & Safety Code Section 34177 (o) requires successor agencies to submit the Recognized Obligation Payment Schedule (ROPS) to the State Department of Finance (DOF). The ROPS 16-17 must be submitted to the Sonoma County Auditor -Controller -Treasurer -Tax Collector, State Controller's Office and Department of Finance no later than February 1, 2016 after approval by the Oversight Board which is scheduled for January 27, 2016. ANAT,VCIC- The attached ROPS 16-17 addresses $5,414,045 in enforceable obligations to be paid from Redevelopment Property Tax Trust Funds ("RPTTF"). The enforceable obligations include bond debt payments and the administrative cost allowance for the period July 1, 2016 to June 30, 2017. As previously reported, with the receipt of the Notice of Completion on April 26, 2013, the Successor Agency is eligible to include previously unallowable items beginning with the ROPS 14-15B. These include 1) repayment of a loan the City made to the former Community Development Commission and 2) expenditure of the proceeds of bonds issued prior to December 31, 2010 for infrastructure projects, which was directed in Resolution 2014-109 by Council on September 9, 2014. The first annual City loan repayment in the amount of $298,505 was received in the ROPS 14- 15B period, and the second annual payment in the amount of $598,209 was received in the proposed ROPS 15-16B period. Based on the calculation comparing the residual balances of 1 ITEM NO. 6D I ROPS 14-15 and ROPS 15-16, the City is not eligible to receive a loan repayment for the ROPS 16-17 period. Since it is a rolling calculation, the City will prepare the calculation again next ROPS period to see if funds are available to make a City loan repayment. As reported in February 2015, we have identified $10,055,725 in bond proceeds that were loaned to the Public Facility Finance Fee Fund to build the Eastside Trunk Sewer Project. These funds will be repaid to the Successor Agency with developer fees as funds become available. For the ROPS 15-16B period, $500,000 was repaid to the Successor Agency for capital improvements within the project area, and we are including $500,000 for the ROPS 16-17. Staff recommends that the Successor Agency consider and adopt the attached Resolution approving the ROPS 16-17. If approved, the ROPS 16-17 will be submitted to the Oversight Board for approval. STRATEGIC PLAN ALIGNMENT: This item follows the Fiscal Responsibility value in the Strategic Plan by complying with mandated programs and utilizing all resources efficiently and effectively. Department Head Approval Date: January 19, 2016 City Attorney Approval Date: January 20, 2016 City Manager Approval Date: January 20, 2016 Attachments (list in packet assembly order): 1. Resolution 2. Exhibit A to Resolution: ROPS 16-17 W RESOLUTION NO. 2016-009 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROHNERT PARK AS SUCCESSOR AGENCY TO THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF ROHNERT PARK APPROVING THE ANNUAL RECOGNIZED OBLIGATION PAYMENT SCHEDULE FOR JULY 19 2016 — JUNE 30, 2017 ("ROPS 16-17"), PURSUANT TO SECTION 34177 (o) OF THE CALIFORNIA HEALTH AND SAFETY CODE WHEREAS, in accordance with Section 341710) of the California Community Redevelopment Law (Health & Safety Code § 33000 et seq.) ("CRL"), the City Council of the City of Rohnert Park ("City" or "City Council," as applicable) is the Successor Agency to the former Community Development Commission of the City of Rohnert Park ("Commission"), and is responsible for, among other things, winding down the dissolved Commission's affairs, continuing to meet the Commission's enforceable obligations, overseeing completion of redevelopment projects and disposing of the assets and properties of the Commission, all as directed by the oversight board created pursuant to Section 34179 of the CRL ("Oversight Board"); WHEREAS, Section 34177 (o) of the Health and Safety Code requires the City of Rohnert Park as the successor agency to submit to the State Department of Finance ("DOF"), the State Controller, and the Sonoma County Auditor -Controller Treasurer -Tax Collector ("County Auditor") for review, Recognized Obligation Payment Schedules ("ROPS") in the manner provided by the Department of Finance; WHEREAS, on June 27, 2012, the Governor signed into law, AB 1484 ("Redevelopment Budget Trailer Bill") to make technical and substantive amendments to AB 26 ("Dissolution Act") concerning issues including but not limited to, enforceable obligations and successor agency administrative costs; WHEREAS, pursuant to AB 1484, the ROPS for the period of July 1, 2016 to June 30, 2017 ("ROPS 16-17") shall be submitted to the Sonoma County Auditor -Controller Treasurer - Tax Collector, the State Controller's Office, and Department of Finance no later than February 1, 2016 after approval by the Oversight Board. WHEREAS, successor agency staff have prepared the attached ROPS as required pursuant to Health and Safety Code Section 34177 (o) NOW, THEREFORE, CITY OF ROHNERT PARK FOR THE SUCCESSOR AGENCY OF THE CITY OF ROHNERT PARK DOES RESOLVE AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. The Recognized Obligation Payment Schedule for the period July 1, 2016 to June 30, 2017 ("ROPS 16-17") in the form attached to this resolution and incorporated herein by reference is hereby approved. Section 2. The staff of the Successor Agency is hereby directed to submit the ROPS to DOF, the State Controller, and the Sonoma County Auditor -Controller Treasurer -Tax Collector and post the ROPS on the Successor Agency's website in accordance with Health and Safety Code Section 34177(1)(2)(C), and to cooperate with DOF to the extent necessary to obtain DOF's acceptance of the ROPS, including, if necessary, making modifications to the ROPS determined by the City Manager to be reasonable and financially feasible to meet its legally required financial obligations. DULY AND REGULARLY ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Rohnert Park as Successor Agency to the Community Development Commission of the City of Rohnert Park this 26th day of January 2016. DULY AND REGULARLY ADOPTED this 26th day of January, 2016. CITY OF ROHNERT PARK Gina Belforte, Mayor ATTEST: JoAnne Buergler, City Clerk Attachments: ROPS 16-17 AHANOTU: CALLINAN: STAFFORD: MACKENZIE BELFORTE: AYES: ( ) NOES: ( ) ABSENT:( ) ABSTAIN: ( ) 2016-009 Successor Agency: County: Recognized Obligation Payment Schedule (ROPS 16-17) - Summary Filed for the July 1, 2016 through June 30, 2017 Period Rohnert Park Sonoma Current Period Requested Funding for Enforceable Obligations (ROPS Detail) Enforceable Obligations Funded with Non -Redevelopment Property Tax Trust Fund (RPTTF) Funding A Sources (B+C+D): B Bond Proceeds Funding C Reserve Balance Funding D Other Funding E Enforceable Obligations Funded with RPTTF Funding (F+G): F Non -Administrative Costs G Administrative Costs H Current Period Enforceable Obligations (A+E): Certification of Oversight Board Chairman: Pursuant to Section 34177 (o) of the Health and Safety code, I hereby certify that the above is a true and accurate Recognized Obligation Payment Schedule for the above named successor agency. /s/ Name Signature ROPS 16-17 16-17A Total 16-17B Total Total $ 2,238,331 $ 3,175,714 $ 5,414,045 2,113,331 3,050,714 5,164,045 125,000 125,000 250,000 $ 2,238,331 $ 3,175,714 $ 5,414,045 Title Date Rohnert Park Recognized Obligation Payment Schedule (ROPS 16-17) - ROPS Detail July 1, 2016 through June 30, 2017 (Report Amounts in Whole Dollars) A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P O R S T U V W Item # Project Name/Debt Obligation Obligation Type Contract/Agreement Execution Date Contract/Agreement Termination Date Payee Description/Project Scope 16-17A Non-Redevelopment Property Tax Trust Fund Non-RPTTF Total Outstanding ROPS 16-17 Project Area I Debtor Obligation Retired Total I Band Proceeds Reserve Balance Other Funds RPTTF Nan-Admin Admin 16-17A Total 16-17B Non-Redevelopment Property Tax Trust Fund Non-RPTTF Bond Proceeds Reserve Balance Other Funds RPTTF Non-Admin Admin 16-17B Total $ 98,700,314 $ 5,414,045 $ - $ - $ - $ 2,113,331 $ 125,000 $ 2,238,331 $ - $ - $ - $ 3,050,714 $ 125,000 $ 3,175,714 1 1999 Tax Allocation Bonds Bonds Issued On or Before 1/27/1999 8/1/2035 Union Bank Bonds issue to fund non-housing 30.300,000 N $ 395.000 $ 395,000 $ 395,000 212001 Tax Allocation Bonds Bonds Issued On or Before 12/31/10 9/25/2001 8/1/2020 Union Bank Bonds refunding issue 5,255,331 N $ 969,338 $ - 969,338 $ 969,338 3 2007R Tax Allocation Bonds Bonds Issued On or Before 12/31/10 3/28/2007 8/1/2037 Union Bank Bonds issue for non-housing projects 34,191,222 N $ 1,733,970 1,280,085 $ 1,280,085 453,885 $ 453,885 4 2007H Tax Allocation Bonds Bonds Issued On or Before 12/31/10 3/28/2007 2/1/2038 Union Bank Bonds issue to fund housing projects 22,167,167 N $ 1,061,482 742,391 $ 742,391 319,091 $ 319,091 5 2003 LRl 90% Paid by CDC Bonds Issued On or Before 12/31/10 7/17/2003 7/1/2025 Union Bank Lease Revenue Refunding Bonds 4,809,159 N $ 496,800 83,400 $ 83,400 413,400 $ 413,400 6 Administrative Allowance Admin Costs 1/1/2014 6/30/2014 City of Rohnert Park Support costs (e.g., Executive Director, CFO, Legal, etc.) 2011-02) 250,000 N $ 250,000 125,000 $ 125,000 125,000 $ 125,000 32 City General Fund Loan City/County Loans On or Before 6/27/11 6/15/2000 1/2/2036 City of Rohnert Park Loan made by City of Rohnert Park General Fund 1,219,980 N $ $ $ 35 Agreement with the City of Rohnert Park regarding expenditure of excess bond proceeds Bonds Issued On or Before 12/31/10 9/24/2015 6/30/2016 City of Rohnert Park Transfer of bond proceeds that will be spent in a future ROPS period 500,000 N $ 500,000 $ - 500,000 $ 500,000 36 Sale of RSA assets per Long Range Property Dispositions Property Mangement Plan 6/26/2014 6/30/2017 Terra Realty Advisors Professional servcies realted to the sale of RSA property 2,427 N $ 2,427 2,427 $ 2,427 $ 37 Sale of RSA assets per Long Range Property Mangement Plan Property Dispositions 8/30/2010 6/30/2017 Burke Williams Sorensen Legal services related to the sale of RSA property 5,028 N $ 5,028 5,028 $ 5,028 $ - 38 N $ $ $ 39 N $ $ $ 40 N $ $ $ 41 N $ $ $ 42 N $ $ $ 43 Y $ $ $ 44 Y $ $ $ 45 Y $ $ $ 46 Y $ $ $ 47 Y $ $ $ 48 Y $ $ $ 49 Y $ $ $ 50 Y $ $ $ 51 Y $ $ $ 52 Y $ $ $ 53 Y $ $ $ 541 Y $ $ $ 55 Y $ $ $ 56 Y $ $ $ 57 Y $ $ $ 58 Y $ $ $ 59 Y $ $ $ 60 Y $ $ $ 61 Y $ $ $ 62 Y $ $ $ 631 Y I $ $ $ 64 Y $ $ $ 65 Y $ $ $ 66 Y $ $ $ 67 Y $ $ $ 68 Y $ $ $ 69 Y $ $ $ 70 Y $ $ $ 71 Y $ $ $ 721 Y I $ $ $ 73 Y $ $ $ 74 Y $ $ $ 75 Y $ $ $ 76 Y $ $ $ 77 Y $ $ $ 78 Y $ $ $ 79 Y $ $ $ 80 Y $ $ $ 811 Y I $ $ $ 82 Y $ $ $ 83 Y $ $ $ 84 Y $ $ $ 85 Y $ $ $ 86 Y $ $ $ 87 Y $ $ $ 88 Y $ $ $ 89 Y $ $ $ 901 Y I $ $ $ 91 Y $ $ $ 92 Y $ $ $ 93 Y $ $ $ 94 Y $ $ $ 95 Y $ $ $ 96 1 1 1 1 1 Y $ $ $ 97 Y $ $ $ 98 Y $ $ $ 99 Y $ $ $ 100 Y $ $ $ Rohnert Park Recognized Obligation Payment Schedule (ROPS 16-17) - Report of Cash Balances (Report Amounts in Whole Dollars) Pursuant to Health and Safety Code section 34177 (o), Redevelopment Property Tax Trust Fund (RPTTF) maybe listed as a source of payment on the ROPS, but only to the extent no other funding source is available or when payment from property tax revenues is required by an enforceable obligation. For tips on how to complete the Report of Cash Balances Form, see CASH BALANCE TIPS SHEET A B C D E I F G H I Fund Sources Bond Proceeds Reserve Balance Other RPTTF Prior ROPS Prior ROPS period balances RPTTF Bonds issued on and DDR RPTTF distributed as Rent, Non -Admin or before Bonds issued on balances reserve for future grants, and Cash Balance Information by ROPS Period 12/31/10 or after 01/01/11 retained period(s) interest, etc. Admin I Comments ROPS 15-16A Actuals (07101/15 - 12131/15) 1 Beginning Available Cash Balance (Actual 07/01/15) Column G contains an $3,730 increase due to activity in June 2015 posted after ROPS was 2,384,667 146,998 4,696 18,010 (114,077) completed 2 Revenue/Income (Actual 12/31/15) RPTTF amounts should tie to the ROPS 15-16A distribution from the Column C: 500,000 is repayment of loan of County Auditor -Controller during June 2015 2007R Bond proceeds; $13.26+69.47-2 rounding is interest earnings on bond proceeds; $113 is interest earnings DS Reserve; Column G $509,753 is proceeds from sale of land subject to revenue sharing agreement; + $9,989 sale of land in accordance with Long TermPropery Management Plan+768.39 interest earnings+ 500,194 1 523,163 1 2,051,336 2652.25 correction of Terra Realty fees. 3 Expenditures for ROPS 15-16A Enforceable Obligations (Actual 12/31/15) Column C: includes the $41 final transfer of 629,667 37,606 14,280 2,051,336 bond proceeds interest 4 Retention of Available Cash Balance (Actual 12/31/15) RPTTF amount retained should only include the amounts distributed as reserve for future period(s) 1,755,098 5 ROPS 15-16A RPTTF Balances Remaining No entry required 6 Ending Actual Available Cash Balance C to G = (1 + 2 - 3 - 4), H = (1 +2-3-4-5) j $ 500,096 $ - $ 109,392 $ 4,696 $ 526,893 $ (114,077) ROPS 15-16B Estimate 01/01/16 - 06/30/16 7 Beginning Available Cash Balance (Actual 01/01/16) (C, D, E, G = 4 + 6, F = H4 + F4 + F6, and H = 5 + 6) $ 2,255,194 $ - $ 109,392 $ 4,696 $ 526,893 $ (114,077) 8 Revenue/Income (Estimate 06/30/16) RPTTF amounts should tie to the ROPS 15-16B distribution from the County Auditor -Controller during January 2016 3,247,233 9 Expenditures for ROPS 15-16B Enforceable Obligations (Estimate 06/30/16) Column G amount is proceeds from sale of property for which long range property management plan required revenue-sharing agreement. However, sale made pursuant to Section 34191.5(c)(2)(B) instead of Section 34191.5(c)(2)(A). Successor Agency prepared to transfer Column G amount to taxing entities either under revenue-sharing agreement or directly to County Auditor. Awaiting direction from DOF as per conversation with Jonathan 500,000 509,753 1 3,247,233 Cox @ DOF 10 Retention of Available Cash Balance (Estimate 06/30/16) RPTTF amount retained should only include the amounts distributed as reserve for future period(s) 1,755,098 11 Ending Estimated Available Cash Balance (7 + 8 - 9 -10) $ 96 $ - $ 109,392 $ 4,696 $ 17,140 $ (114,077) Rohnert Park Recognized Obligation Payment Schedule (ROPS 16-17) - Notes July 1, 2016 through June 30, 2017 Item # Notes/Comments 32 Per calculation template provided by DOF, funds are not avaialbe to pay for the loan to the City. Would like DOF to confirm. Rohnert Park Recognized Obligation Payment Schedule (ROPS 16-17) - Notes July 1, 2016 through June 30, 2017 Item # I Notes/Comments 01;N T Mission Statement "We Care for Our Residents by Working Together to Build a Better Community for Today and Tomorrow." Catr�vnr�t" CITY OF ROHNERT PARK CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT Meeting Date: January 26, 2016 Department: Public Works and Community Services Submitted By: Terrie Zwillinger, Project Coordinator Prepared By: Terrie Zwillinger, Project Coordinator Agenda Title: Callinan Sports & Fitness Center Locker Room Rehabilitation Project ITEM NO. 6E RECOMMENDED ACTION: Authorize the City Manager to Execute the Second Amendment to the Design Professional Services Agreement with Glass Architects for the Callinan Sports & Fitness Center Locker Room Rehabilitation Project (Project Number 2013-05) for a not to exceed amount of $7,250. BACKGROUND: On October 8, 2013 the City entered into an agreement with Glass Architects as approved by Council Resolution 2013-139 in the amount of $38,415. The original agreement was for design professional services for the Callinan Sports and Fitness Center Locker Room Rehabilitation Project. The original project scope included rehabilitation and replacement of only the most critical and mandated needs of the men's and women's locker rooms due to limited construction funding of $180,000 available from the Capital Outlay Fund. In 2014, a new funding source of 2007R TAB Bond funding became available. With the additional funding, staff was able to expand the scope of the project to include air conditioning and ventilation, lighting, new tile, replacement counters and plumbing fixtures, additional vanities and foyer options to meet accessibility requirements. On September 9, 2014 the City Council approved Resolution 2014-107 authorizing the First Amendment to the agreement in the amount of $35,000. ANALYSIS: The project is currently under construction. During this phase, there have been several tasks provided by Glass Architects that were outside the contracted scope anticipated under the Construction Administration phase, including review of city -requested alternative interior finishes, unforeseen conditions related to deteriorated framing, and review of alternate locker choices. Additionally, Glass Architects has been requested to attend additional weekly contractor meetings. The additional services would be added to the original scope of services as identified in the Design Professional Services Agreement dated October 8, 2013 and the First Amendment approved by City Council on September 9, 2014. The additional services cost is $7,250 for a [Version 2 - 12/18/2015] ITEM NO. 6E total contract value of $80,665. The amendment is within the project budget, as outlined below in Table 1. Table 1: Sports Center Locker Room Remodel Project - Budget Breakdown Construction Contract + 15% contingency $654,522.50 Design Engineer Costs and Amendment No. 1 73,415.00 Design Engineer Costs - Amendment No. 2 7,250.00 CM/Inspection 56,096.00 Temporary Showers 16,539.24 Print and mailers 1,732.87 Constructability Review 4,985.00 $824,540.61 STRATEGIC PLAN ALIGNMENT: This item follows the Strategic Plan Item D.2 by improving infrastructure. The amendment is 9% of the total contract value. OPTIONS CONSIDERED: 1. Recommended Option: Staff recommends amending the Design Professional Services Agreement with Glass Architects for the Callinan Sports and Fitness Center Locker Room Rehabilitation Project in an amount not to exceed $7,250. 2. Alternative: Staff also considered not changing the scope of Glass Architect's contract, and did not recommend this option because their review of alternatives to the lockers and tile was imperative to making a decision whether to upgrade these items or not. FISCAL IMPACT/FUNDING SOURCE: This project is funded through the 2007R TAB Bonds. There are sufficient funds available for the Amendment in the Bond funds. Department Head Approval Date: January 4, 2016 Finance Director Approval Date: January 12, 2016 City Attorney Approval Date: January 8, 2016 City Manager Approval Date: January 15, 2016 Attachments (list in packet assembly order): 1. Amendment No. 2 to Design Professional Services Agreement with Glass Architect [Version 2 - 12/18/2015] 2 ATTACHMENT 1 SECOND AMENDMENT TO THE CONSULTANT SERVICES AGREEMENT WITH GLASS ARCHITECTS FOR CALLINAN SPORTS & FITNESS CENTER LOCKER ROOM REHABALITATION PROJECT This Second Amendment to the Agreement between the City of Rohnert Park ("City") and Glass Architects ("Consultant") for additional services ("Second Amendment") is entered into as of the day of 2016, ("Effective Date"), by and between City and Consultant. RECITALS A. City and Consultant are parties to that certain Agreement entitled "Design Professional Services Agreement (Callinan Sports & Fitness Center Locker Room Rehabilitation Project)" dated October 8, 2013, and authorized through Resolution No. 2013-139 approved by the City Council on October 8, for the amount of $38,415. B. On September 9, 2014, the City Council approved Resolution No. 2014-107 authorizing the First Amendment to the Agreement for an additional amount of $35,000 thereby increasing the total cost of the design services to $73,415. C. City and Consultant now desire to enter into this Second Amendment to provide for additional work as described below. AGREEMENT NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the following mutual promises, the parties hereby amend the Agreement as follows: Scope of Services. In addition to the services provided under the Agreement and subsequent Amendment, Consultant shall provide additional services as described in the attached Exhibit A. 2. Compensation. Consultant shall perform the services described in this Second Amendment for a total not -to -exceed amount of $7,250. 3. Agreement in Effect. Except as amended by this Second Amendment and the First Amendment, the Agreement shall remain in full force and effect. 4. Counterpart Signatures. This Second Amendment may be signed in multiple counterparts which, when signed by all parties, shall constitute a binding agreement. Updated: 2010-06-21 M\00_Agendas- City Council\01-26-2016\6eSCO2_Attach l._GIassAmend No 2 TC-12292015.docx ATTACHMENT 1 IN WITNESS THEREOF, the parties have executed this Second Amendment as of the date first written above. CITY OF ROHNERT PARK: By: / Darrin Jenkins, City Manager (Date) Per Minute Order adopted by the Rohnert Park City Council at its meeting of ATTEST: City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: City Attorney 2 GLASS ARCHITECTS: By: Name: Title: By: Name: Title: M\00_Agendas- City Council\01-26-2016\6eSCO2_Attach l._GIassAmend No 2 TC-12292015.docx (Date) (Date) Updated: 2010-06-21 December 28, 2015 Terrie Zwillinger, Project Coordinator Department of Public Works City of Rohnert Park 600 Enterprise Drive Rohnert Park, CA 94928 Re: Cal linan Sports Center —Locker Renovation Request for Additional Services Dear Terrie: (L4ii ARCHITECTS Thank you for the opportunity to present this request for additional services related to the Callinan Sports Center — Locker Renovation project. There have been several tasks provided in excess of our original proposal and scope of work anticipated during the CA phase - interior finishes, deteriorated framing, locker choices and extended construction duration. Following is a detailed description of the services provided and corresponding additional fees being requested. 1. Interior finishes: New floor and wall tile selections were suggested to replace those previously selected and specified in the Contract. We reworked select details and interior elevations for review by the Owner and Contractor; we suggested other room finishes to complement the new tile choices (paint, solid surface, toilet partitions, and shower partitions). Time Impact: 16 hrs. Cost Impact: $2,320 2. Deteriorated wood framing: We studied on-site conditions; because of the unexpected level of wood deterioration, we reworked details to restore conditions for use by the Contractor. Time Impact: 6 hrs. Cost Impact: $870 3. Lockers: We were asked to rethink the specified laminate plastic lockers because of moisture conditions. We contacted and visited other facilities to view their lockers with many years of use. We researched both laminate plastic and phenolic locker systems for moisture tolerance and abuse resistance and reported our findings to the team for the purpose of decision-making. Time Impact: 8 hrs. Cost Impact: $1,160 4. Extended construction duration: The construction period is extended well beyond the anticipated January 2016 completion date because of the reconsideration of finishes, lockers and plumbing fixtures and their respective lead times. If we continue to attend weekly site meetings and research options, we might assume 4 hours per week x 12 weeks = 48 hour time commitment. We suggest attending only meetings for key items such as tile layout and punch list. Time Impact: Not to Exceed 20 hrs. Cost Impact: $2,900 Cumulative Impacts (Totals) Additional Time: 50 hrs. Additional Cost: Not to Exceed $7,250 We appreciate your consideration of this request. Please let me know if you have any questions or comments. Sincerely, GLASS ARCHITECTS David Zaro GLASS ARCHITECTS • 200 E Street • Santa Rosa, California 95404 • TEL (707) 544 3920 • FAX (707) 544 2514 Meeting Date: Department: Submitted By: Prepared By: Agenda Title: ITEM NO. 6F Mission Statement "We Care for Our Residents by Working Together to Build a Better Community for Today and Tomorrow." CITY OF ROHNERT PARK CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT January 26, 2016 Public Works and Community Services Terrie Zwillinger, Project Coordinator Terrie Zwillinger, Project Coordinator Public Safety Main HVAC System Replacement Project Task Order Amendment RECOMMENDED ACTION: Authorize the City Manager to Execute the First Amendment to the Task Order 2015-02 with GHD, Inc. for the Public Safety Main HVAC System Replacement Project (Project Number 2014-02) for a not -to -exceed amount of $4,400. BACKGROUND: On March 24, 2015 the City entered into a Task Order Agreement with GHD, Inc., as approved by Council Resolution 2015-0149 in the amount of $39,495. Task Order No. 2015-02 is under the Master Agreement between GHD, Inc. and the City for design professional services, which includes engineering services, dated February 8, 2011. The original Task Order was for engineering design services and engineering services during construction of the Public Safety Main HVAC System Replacement Project. ANALYSIS: The project is currently under construction. During this phase, several tasks have been added that are outside the contracted scope anticipated under the Construction Administration phase. These tasks include additional team meetings with the contractor, additional site visits to review installation of equipment by project manager and structural engineer, and detail sketches and calculations of installation of equipment. The additional services would be added to the original scope of services as identified in the Task Order No. 2015-02 dated March 24, 2015. The additional services cost is $4,400 for a total contract value of $43,895. The amendment is within the project budget, as outlined below in Table 1. [Version 2 - 12/18/2015] ITEM NO. 6F Table 1: Public Safety Main HVAC System Replacement Project - Budget Breakdown Construction Contract + 10% contingency $891,739.20 Design Engineer Costs 39,495.00 Design Engineer Costs - Amendment No. 1 4,400 CM/Inspection 29,400.00 PG&E Rebate (13,745.15) Prints 109.90 City Facility Lighting Upgrade 314,541.36 PG&E Loan (608,644.00) $657,296.31 STRATEGIC PLAN ALIGNMENT: This item follows the Strategic Plan Item D.2 by improving infrastructure. The amendment is 11 % of the total GHD Task Order contract value. OPTIONS CONSIDERED: 1. Recommended Option: Staff recommends amending the Task Order 2015-02 Agreement with GHD, Inc. for the Public Safety Main HVAC System Replacement Project in an amount not to exceed $4,400.00. 2. Alternative: Staff also considered not changing the scope of GHD, Inc.'s contract, and did not recommend this option because their additional attendance at team and site meetings, in addition to additional sketches and calculations are imperative to the efficiency of the construction schedule. FISCAL IMPACT/FUNDING SOURCE: This project is funded through the 2007R TAB Bonds. There are funds available for the Task Order Amendment in the Bond funds Department Head Approval Date: January 4, 2016 Finance Director Approval Date: January 12, 2016 City Attorney Approval Date: January 8, 2016 City Manager Approval Date: January 15, 2016 Attachments (list in packet assembly order): 1. Amendment No. 2 to Design Professional Services Agreement with Glass Architect [Version 2 - 12/18/2015] 2 ATTACHMENT 1 AMENDMENT 1 TO TASK ORDER NO. 2015-02 CITY OF ROHNERT PARK AND GHD, INC. AUTHORIZATION OF ADDITIONAL CONSTRUCTION ENGINEERING SERVICES FOR THE PUBLIC SAFETY MAIN HVAC REPLACEMENT PROJECT, PROJECT NO. 2014-02 SECTION 1— PURPOSE The purpose of this Task Order is to authorize and direct GHD, Inc to proceed with the work specified in Section 2 below in accordance with the provisions of the MASTER AGREEMENT between the City of Rohnert Park ("City") and GHD, Inc. ("Consultant") dated February 8, 2011. SECTION 2 — SCOPE OF WORK The additional items authorized by this Task Order are presented in Exhibit "A". SECTION 3 — COMPENSATION AND PAYMENT Compensation shall be as provided in the MASTER AGREEMENT between the parties hereto referenced in SECTION 1 above. The additional cost for the additional services as set forth in SECTION 2 shall be actual costs (time and materials) based on Consultants' standard labor charges in accordance with the provisions of the MASTER AGREEMENT and as shown in Exhibit `B" for an amount not -to -exceed Four Thousand, Four Hundred dollars ($4,400) Total compensation under this Task Order with this Amendment shall not exceed Forty- three Thousand, Eight Thousand Ninety-five dollars (43,895). SECTION 4 — TIME OF PERFORMANCE The work described in SECTION 2 shall be completed during Fiscal Year 2015-16 or as extended by the City Engineer or his designee. SECTION 5 — ITEMS AND CONDITIONS All items and conditions contained in the MASTER AGREEMENT for professional services between City and Consultant are incorporated by reference. Approved this day of , 2016. Page 1 ATTACHMENT 1 CITY OF ROHNERT PARK GHD, Inc Darrin Jenkins, City Manager (Date) NAME / TITLE (Date) Per Resolution No. 20 - adopted by the Rohnert Park City Council at its meeting Of ,20 ATTEST: City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: City Attorney Page 2 pmq December 18, 2015 Terrie Zwillinger Project Coordinator, Department of Public Works City of Rohnert Park 600 Enterprise Drive Rohnert Park, CA 94928 Dear Terrie RE: Mechanical, Electrical, and Structural Engineering Services Addendum #1 Proposal - City of Rohnert Park Public Safety Building HVAC Equipment and Controls Replacement Project, 500 City Hall Drive, Rohnert Park, CA GHD Inc. (GHD) is pleased to submit this proposal for additional professional engineering services for the proposed project. This proposal is per our conversation on December 17, 2015 and under the terms and conditions of the original agreement dated March 25, 2015. Additional Engineering Services The additional engineering scope of work includes the following elements: • Attend two (2) meetings during construction by project manager • Attend one (1) site visit during construction to review installation of equipment by project manager • Attend one (1) site visit during construction to review installation of equipment by structural engineer • Provide detail sketches as needed for installation of equipment • Provide calculations as needed for installation of equipment Engineering Fee Summary GHD is pleased to propose the following time and materials not to exceed fee broken down as follows: Addendum No. 1 Total Construction Administration $4,400 TOTAL $4,400 Original fees $35,495 TOTAL $35,495 PROPOSED PROJECT TOTALS Yours sincerely, GHD fnc. Terry Wong, PE,tL)�'P Project Manager 707.523.1010 GHD Inc. 2235 Mercury Way Suite 150 Santa Rosa CA 95407 USA T 1 707 523 1010 F 1 707 527 8679 E santarosa@ghd.com W www.ghd.com $39,895 ,�,044NERT pAR,( .� Mission Statement x. "We Care for Our Residents by Working Together to Build a Better Community for Today and Tomorrow." CALIFa RN}� CITY OF ROHNERT PARK CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT Meeting Date: January 26, 2016 Department: Public Works and Community Services Submitted By: John McArthur, Director of Public Works and Community Services Prepared By: Marc Bautista, Environmental Coordinator ITEM NO. 6G Agenda Title: Authorize the Purchase Of Ten (10) Weathermatic Smartlink Irrigation Control Devices from Horizon Distributors Inc. for an Amount not to Exceed $38,500 RECOMMENDED ACTION: Authorize the City Manager to purchase ten (10) Weathermatic Smartlink Irrigation Controllers from Horizon Distributors Inc. for an amount not to exceed $38,500. BACKGROUND: On April 28, 2015, the City Council adopted an interim emergency ordinance that allows the City to comply with the State's most recent drought mandates, including Governor Brown's April 1, 2015 Executive Order calling for enhanced water conservation efforts. These State mandates include implementing specific water conservation measures that focus on reducing outdoor water use including limiting irrigation to three days per week, and no irrigation when there is measurable rain. Current Irrigation System Currently, the City uses conventional irrigation controllers to irrigate turf and landscaping in its parks, street medians and facilities. The existing irrigation controllers irrigate at set times and durations and must be manually adjusted by Public Works landscape staff. In order to balance the need for healthy landscape and efficient water use, Public Works staff frequently adjusts irrigation schedules by visiting each controller site and manually adjusting irrigation start times, sprinkler duration, and irrigation days (schedules). In the best of circumstances, this practice is very labor intensive, and due to the number of controllers, even minor adjustments cannot be performed in a timely manner. The burden on labor and the need to make timely adjustments was amplified this past year with the State's stringent irrigation system mandates. Most notably, Public Works staff had a very difficult challenge of rapidly turning irrigation systems off and following measurable rain events and then immediately turning the same systems back on in order to prevent over -drying due to late spring heat. In these instances, additional staff that would normally perform other parks or streets maintenance duties was reassigned from other essential duties to facilitate these mandated adjustments. 1 ITEM NO. 6G Country Club Drive There are four battery powered irrigation controllers on Country Club Drive (one on each island). Although there is power in the vicinity, the four irrigation controllers were never connected to a permanent source of power and rely solely on a battery powered system. These controllers are particularly problematic in that the irrigation controllers default to open (or on) when the batteries die. Unless a Public Works employee happened to be on site in these circumstances, concerned citizens have notified the City that the irrigation system was running when it shouldn't. For these reasons, the current battery powered controllers present a significant compliance challenge with the State's recent irrigation system mandates. ANALYSIS: Staff has identified a need to replace several existing outdated and unreliable irrigation controllers with new state-of-the-art smart controllers. The new controllers would greatly improve irrigation system efficiency and reliability which would significantly reduce the current labor burden and enhance the City's ongoing water conservation efforts. Staff is proposing to convert irrigation controllers in parks that use potable water or groundwater including Caterpillar Park, Golis Park, Gold Ridge Complex, Ladybug Park, and Honeybee Park (groundwater). Staff is also proposing to replace the existing irrigation controllers on Country Club Drive between Eleanor Drive and Hinebaugh Creek. The above mentioned facilities represent approximately 22 acres of grass/turf. Smart irrigation controllers use real-time local weather data through an internet connection to create a customized watering schedule which optimizes efficient water use. Installation of smart irrigation controllers would save water and reduce the current labor burden related to programing multiple controllers throughout the City. Specific benefits of smart controllers include: • Automatically adjusting to weather changes, increase/decrease in rainfall or temperature fluctuations; • Automatic shut off when flow is too high, such as when a leak is present; • Water use auditing functions; and • Remote operation. After the initial phase of smart controller upgrades, and should actual water and labor savings be realized as anticipated, staff would propose to install additional smart controllers at the remaining City parks and facilities. Staff has evaluated several different smart irrigation controller systems and is recommending the Weathermatic Smartlink (SmartLink) irrigation system. Staff's evaluation included consideration of cost; performance specifications; and most importantly, discussions and feedback from other nearby agencies that currently utilize smart irrigation controllers. Staff has determined that the SmartLink package would cost effectively meet the City's current and future irrigation requirements. The SmartLink system offers all of the benefits of smart controllers listed above and additionally provides advanced auditing functions such as real time water use reports for each facility and automatic alerts should water use exceed established parameters or if excessive flow is detected. ITEM NO. 6G Staff solicited informal bids from all known regional commercial irrigation suppliers. The following table summarizes informal bids results: Bidder Total Bid Horizon Distributors $33,439 Water Savers Irrigation $39,317 Wyatt Irrigation No response The following table details cost per facility based on Horizon Distributors informal bid: Facility Number of controllers Equipment Cost Subscription fee for 5 -year data plan* Total Cost Caterpillar Park 1 $2,025 $1,278 $3,303 Honeybee Park 1 $2,149 $1,278 $3,427 Gold Ridge 1 $2,149 $1,278 $3,427 Ladybug Park 1 $2,149 $1,278 $3,427 Golis Park 2 $4,090 $2,556 $6,646 Country Club Drive 4 $8,101 $5,112 $13,213 Total Cost 10 $20,663 $12,780 $33,443 *Subscription fee includes access to web -based weather information and remote access and control capability. The total bid of $33,439 does not include miscellaneous plumbing and electrical parts. These items could not be included as a bid item because specific plumbing and electrical equipment is unknown at this time but will become clear once installation works starts. Staff is recommending including an additional 15% for the purchase of miscellaneous plumbing and electrical parts bringing the total purchase amount not to exceed $38,500. It is anticipated that City staff would perform installation of the new irrigation controllers with the exception of Country Club Drive. The four new controllers on Country Club Drive would be wired to a power source as opposed to the existing unreliable battery powered controllers. Due to additional electrical work and installation complexity, staff anticipates outsourcing this work to a qualified contractor. The contracted work would be performed under a separate agreement bringing the total project cost to approximately $60,000. ITEM NO. 6G OPTIONS CONSIDERED: 1. Replace proposed conventional irrigation controllers at all City facilities including parks, building grounds, medians and other City owned turf areas by using the proposed phased approach. This methodology would include replacement of the conventional irrigation controllers at City facilities that use potable and groundwater water and would provide the opportunity to achieve immediate water conservation benefits while evaluating the new controllers prior to launching a full citywide replacement. This option is recommended. 2. Continue to use conventional irrigation controllers at City facilities and only replace controllers as needed. The existing irrigation controllers are inefficient, unreliable, and are very labor intensive. This option is not recommended. STRATEGIC PLAN ALIGNMENT This project is consistent with Strategic Plan Goal C4 - Integrate Technology into Operations. FISCAL IMPACT/FUNDING SOURCE: Staff is proposing to fund this project from the 2015-16 Streets and Parks Operating Budgets. The proposed irrigation controller upgrade project was not included in the current budget; however, due to salary and other year to date savings, there are sufficient funds available in the current fiscal year to pay for the purchase and installation of the irrigation controllers. The installation of smart irrigation controllers would reduce water use and lower water usage costs on street medians and parks. The manufacturer claims that water use could be reduced by as much 50%. Staff will evaluate the effectiveness of the new controllers in this initial phase and use this information in determining the best course of action for potential future irrigation controller upgrades. After the initial five year subscription period, future data subscription cost will be about $2,600/year for the 10 irrigation controllers. This additional cost would be included in future Streets and Parks operating budgets. Department Head Approval Date: January 5, 2016 Finance Director Approval Date: January 6, 2016 City Attorney Approval Date: January 6, 2016 City Manager Approval Date: January 12, 2016 Meeting Date: Department: Submitted By: Prepared By: Agenda Title: ITEM NO. 8 Mission Statement "We Care for Our Residents by Working Together to Build a Better Community for Today and Tomorrow." CITY OF ROHNERT PARK CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT January 26, 2016 Administration Don Schwartz, Assistant City Manager Don Schwartz, Assistant City Manager Sonoma County Waste Management Agency JPA — Discussion and Direction RECOMMENDED ACTION: Provide direction on the authority and administration of Sonoma County Waste Management Agency (SCWMA) programs and the potential extension of the Agency. BACKGROUND: The SCWMA Board of Directors has requested that each City provide feedback on its preference for the future authority and administration of compost, household hazardous waste (HEW), education, planning and reporting functions. The SCWMA is comprised of the nine incorporated cities and the unincorporated areas of Sonoma County. The SCWMA's responsibilities include authority and administration of the composting program, HHW program, solid waste education, and solid waste planning and reporting on a regional basis. The SCWMA Joint Powers Authority (JPA) agreement expires on February 11, 2017. Failure to extend, renew, or replace this agreement by that date will result in the dissolution of the SCWMA. The dissolution would result in direct costs to each SCWMA member ranging from $20,000 to $170,000 for one-time costs and $5,000 to $15,000 annual reporting costs. When SCWMA members discussed issues regarding the future of SCWMA programs in 2015, all members acknowledged the benefits of having regional programs including cost efficiencies through economies of scale, consistent regional messaging, and reducing liability to members. However, consensus was not achieved on the initial options of whether 1) the SCWMA or 2) the County would perform those regional programs. Subsequently, it has become apparent that the reporting functions must be completed either by individual cities or through a JPA. Thus, the County cannot serve as the regional authority for all responsibilities of the Agency. Responses from all Cities and the County are summarized in Attachment A. The County proposed forming a new JPA affiliated with the Regional Climate Protection Authority/Sonoma County Transportation Authority (RCPA/SCTA) for planning, education, and reporting functions. If an RCPA-affiliated JPA is selected, it is envisioned that these functions would be administered by the RCPA and the composting and HHW programs would be ITEM NO. 8 administered by the County and/or Republic Services, likely requiring additional agreements between the cities and the County or Republic for the commitment of green waste flow and for funding the HHW collection and disposal program. The RCPA approach would likely require following the RCPA governance structure, including allowing only elected officials on the Board and using the RCPA's rules for budget approval and other matters. Another option would be to retain the existing SCWMA model with its full scope of responsibilities. Consensus was not reached among SCWMA members about the potential parameters of a future SCWMA (unanimous vote, Board of Directors composition, term, authority for SCWMA programs, etc.). Thus, the Agency Board has identified two options and is seeking feedback on the issues. The first is to continue with a stand-alone, full -scope regional Agency. The second is to create a new JPA affiliated with SCTA/RCPA. Attachment B provides details on the options. We do not anticipate a significant cost difference between the two options. The Agency Board has also asked all jurisdictions to agree to extend the current Agency for one year (until February, 2018), if one of the options is not approved by June 30, 2016. The extension is to address several factors: a. The Agency's selection of a compost site is subject to litigation that may take a long time to resolve, well beyond 2018. b. Some believe that the current Board should address issues related to construction of a new compost facility. c. Agency staff has indicated that it needs seven months' notice to transition responsibilities to another body, primarily due to contracts that will need to be amended or terminated. Thus, the Agency has recommended a resolution that authorizes the City Manager to approve extending the JPA for one additional year if a new JPA has not been approved by June 30, 2016. Attachment C is a model resolution. ANALYSIS: The SCWMA Board of Directors has requested the City to provide feedback on issues described in Attachment C. The fundamental question is whether the City prefers a stand-alone Agency similar to the current model, or a new Agency affiliated with SCTA/RCPA. Staff recommends: That the City indicate a preference for a new Agency affiliated with SCTA/RCPA. This would eliminate a stand-alone Agency. In the long -run, once the current legal issues are resolved and a new site constructed, the issues addressed by the Agency should be of a routine nature and require minimal involvement from its Board. The affiliated Agency would manage planning, reporting, and education. It could consider County -wide policy issues. Each City would contract with the County or Republic (the landfill operator) to manage compost and household hazardous waste. 2. Should the RCPA/SCTA option not prove viable, staff recommends a variation on the scope of a stand-alone Agency. Rather than having the Agency responsible for all of its current programs, the revised Waste Management Agency would manage only reporting, planning, and education; each jurisdiction would contract for compost and household hazardous waste services outside of the JPA. 2 ITEM NO. 8 As this option has not been on the table, if the Council approves this alternative, staff will notify other cities and the County of Rohnert Park's preference and may engage those with an interest in this approach in discussions to create an Agency with a reduced scope. In the case of any stand-alone Agency, staff recommends that the City retain its prior positions on the components of a JPA, including allowing each jurisdiction to decide on what programs it participates in, and who it appoints to the Agency Board. 3. Staff does not recommend extending the current JPA for another year. Discussions on the future of the Agency have been going on for at least two years, and staff believes that with a concerted effort, a resolution can be found without an extension. ALIGNMENT WITH STRATEGIC PLAN: The recommended approach of creating an Agency affiliated with RCPA/SCTA, and the alternative suggestion of a stand-alone Agency with a reduced scope, support the Strategic Plan's value of fiscal responsibility. These approaches will, in the long -run, require the fewest resources for the City to comply with state requirements and particularly the time required to support the current model. OPTIONS CONSIDERED: Recommended Option: Staff recommends pursuing the option of a JPA affiliated with RCPA/SCTA because it creates the most efficient governance structure for managing the Waste Management Agency's programs of compost, household hazardous waste, planning, education, and reporting. Alternative 1: Staff also considered a stand-alone Agency with a reduced scope as a viable alternative. The reduced scope would have the City rather than the Agency handling contracts for compost and household hazardous waste. While somewhat less efficient than the approach of affiliating with RCPA/SCTA, this model is more efficient than the current full -scope Agency. 2. Alternative 2: Staff also considered continuing the current full -scope Agency, and did not recommend this option because, in the long run, it will be less efficient than either of the other options requiring more time for the Agency's representatives. FISCAL IMPACT/FUNDING SOURCE: There is no direct fiscal impact from the different options. Department Head Approval Date: N/A Finance Director Approval Date: N/A City Attorney Approval Date: N/A City Manager Approval Date: January 15, 2016 Attachments (list in packet assembly order): Attachment A — Matrix Describing SCWMA- and RCPA-Affiliated JPA Options Attachment B — Summary of Previous Matrix Responses Attachment C — Resolution Extending the SCWMA By One Year — Not Recommended Attachment A Attribute SCWMA Affiliated JPA RCPA Affiliated JPA The JPA agreement would provide authority The JPA agreement would provide authority for all programs for which members agree to for all programs for which members agree to include. include. Staff recommended that the JPA Authority for Compost, provide the RCPA authority to perform the Household Hazardous education, planning, reporting, and solid Waste, Education, waste policymaking. Cities would retain Planning, and Reporting authority for compost and household Programs hazardous waste, and contract with the County and/or its contractor for these services. Ability to adopt countywide The RCPA has historically developed model Existing Policymaking policy/ordinances currently exists. Practice ordinances. Authority has been to allow jurisdictions the option to adopt these ordinances. Options: (1) include authority to adopt Options: (1) include authority to adopt County -wide ordinances in the future JPA County -wide ordinances in the future JPA agreement on all SCWMA programs, agreement including education, planning, Future Policymaking including compost, HHW, education, and reporting and excluding compost and Authority planning, and reporting, or (2) do not retain HHW, or (2) do not retain this authority and this authority and only consider model only consider model ordinances in the ordinances in the future. future. The JPA can allow opting -out of programs. The JPA can allow opting -out of programs. Most members indicated an interest in Most members indicated an interest in Ability to Opt Out of having this option, as long as core programs having this option, as long as core programs Programs were defined and remaining members are were defined and remaining members are made whole in the event of members opting made whole in the event of members opting out. out. 10 member Board of Directors. One vote RCPA Board is composed of 3 County per jurisdiction. Board members are elected Supervisors and 1 Council Member from Existing Board officials or staff, as determined by member each member city. Board members are Representation governing boards. elected officials, not staff. Attachment A Attribute SCWMA Affiliated JPA RCPA Affiliated JPA Options include: (1) elected officials only or While the JPA would have the same options (2) elected officials or city staff, at discretion as those with a stand-alone Agency, RCPA of each jurisdiction. staff recommend retaining its existing Board for the new JPA to avoid receiving The number of Board members per direction from different Boards and to jurisdiction would be a provision of the JPA make administering the JPA efficient. Future Board agreement. It is assumed this Board would Representation retain the existing number of members. Most SCWMA members indicated a preference for each jurisdisction to have the ability to appoint a staff or elected to the JPA Board of Directors. Budget approval, capital expenditure over 2/3 vote on the annual budget approval. All Existing Voting $50,000, and major program expansions other votes are majority. Requirements require unanimous vote. All other votes are majority. JPA agreement will describe voting While the JPA would have the same options requirements. as those with a stand-alone Agency, RCPA staff recommend utilization of the existing Most members preferred to require a RCPA voting requirements. supermajority vote on budget approval and Potential Future Voting expenditures greater than $250,000. Requirements There were weaker majorities for the issues of purchase of real property, incurring debt greater than $250,000, adopting additional core programs, and future amendments of the JPA. JPA can have limited term or no termination JPA can have limited term or no termination date. There was no majority preference date. There was no majority preference from Agency members on this issue when from Agency members on this issue when asked previously. asked previously. Duration of JPA RCPA staff recommends that the term of the JPA be tied to the term of the RCPA, currently set for expiration in December 2019, and as modified by future legislation. Attachment A Attribute SCWMA Affiliated JPA RCPA Affiliated JPA Salary and overhead costs are expected to Salary and overhead costs are expected to be very similar to existing conditions. be very similar to existing conditions. Participation in a regional planning program Participation in a regional planning program avoids one-time costs of performing base avoids one-time costs of performing base year and Integrated Waste Management year and Integrated Waste Management Financial Considerations Plan modifications, which have been Plan modifications, which have been estimated to be $20,000 - $170,000 per estimated to be $20,000 - $170,000 per juridiction. Avoided Annual Report juridiction. Avoided Annual Report preparation and filing costs are estimated to preparation and filing costs are estimated to be $5,000 - $15,000 per year, per be $5,000 - $15,000 per year, per jurisdiction. jurisdiction. Options for administration include (1) Each City and the County would be managing contracts for these services responsible for making arrangements with directly with private contractors, (2) service providers for composting and HHW managing contracts for these services with services. For a regional compost program to the County, which would sub -contract with continue Cities and the County would need Republic. to commit their franchised yard debris and Administration of wood waste flow to the regional compost Compost and HHW facility. Programs For regional HHW services to continue, staff believes a portion of the current $4.85/ton surcharge on garbage and compost feedstock could be redirected to the County/Republic to cover the costs of this program. State requirements for members to educate State requirements for members to educate commercial and residential customers about commercial and residential customers about solid and hazardous waste could be solid and hazardous waste could be performed by this agency if included in the performed by this agency if included in the Administration of Solid JPA agreement. Existing programs such as JPA agreement. Existing programs such as Waste Educational the Recycling Guide, Eco -Desk, Beverage the Recycling Guide, Eco -Desk, Beverage Programs Container Recycling, and Mandatory Container Recycling, and Mandatory Commercial and Organics Recycling would Commercial and Organics Recycling would continue to be administered by staff. continue to be administered by staff. State requirements to prepare or maintain State requirements to prepare or maintain an integrated waste mananagement plan an integrated waste mananagement plan and to prepare and submit an annual report and to prepare and submit an annual report Administration of about solid waste issues to CalRecycle would about solid waste issues to CalRecycle would Planning and Reporting be performed by this agency if included in be performed by this agency if included in Programs the JPA agreement. One annual report the JPA agreement. One annual report would be submitted for all members. would be submitted for all members. Attachment A Attribute SCWMA Affiliated JPA RCPA Affiliated JPA Liability to Members The JPA structure reduces liability to individual members. The JPA structure reduces liability to individual members. Staffing services could be provided by any Staff merged into SCTA/RCPA agency member agency, independent agency such structure. SCWMA Executive Director as the SCWMA itself, or private contracting functions shared by RCPA Executive Director Staffing service. The County has indicated the and Deputy Director/Program Manager, current staffing model (County providing with details to be determined. staffing service) would need to change. SCWMA term expires February 2017. The SCWMA term expires February 2017. The SCWMA Board and staff recommend SCWMA Board and staff recommend creating option for a one-year extension of creating option for a one-year extension of Timing the existing JPA agreement to resolve the existing JPA agreement to resolve existing litigation and bring the new existing litigation and bring the new compost site permitting to resolution. compost site permitting to resolution. Attachment R Summary of Previous Matrix Responses Note: * next to an entry indicates show stopper or must have. 1. Regional program for composting? Yes = 9, No = 1 Cloverdale Cotati Healdsburg Petaluma Rohnert Park Yes* Yes Yes* No* Yes Santa Rosa Sebastopol Sonoma County Windsor Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 2. Regional program for HHW? Yes = 10 Cloverdale Cotati Healdsburg Petaluma Rohnert Park Yes Yes Yes* Yes Yes Santa Rosa Sebastopol Sonoma County Windsor Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 3. Regional program for Education? Yes = 10 Cloverdale Cotati Healdsburg Petaluma Rohnert Park Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Santa Rosa Sebastopol Sonoma County Windsor Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 4. Regional program for Planning and Reporting? Yes = 10 Cloverdale Cotati Healdsburg Petaluma Rohnert Park Yes* Yes* Yes* Yes Yes Santa Rosa Sebastopol Sonoma County Windsor Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes 5. What entity performs composting operations? Need more information = 5, Agency = 2, County = 2, direct outhaul = 1 Cloverdale Cotati Healdsburg Petaluma Rohnert Park Agency* Need more information County* Direct outhaul County Santa Rosa Sebastopol Sonoma County Windsor Need more information Need more information Agency Need more information Need more information 6. What entity performs HHW? Agency = 5, County = 3, need more information = 2 Cloverdale Cotati Healdsburg Petaluma Rohnert Park Agency Agency County County County Santa Rosa Sebastopol Sonoma County Windsor Need more information Agency Agency Need more information Agency Attachment R 7. What entity performs Education? Agency = 5, County = 3, need more information = 2 Cloverdale Cotati Healdsburg Petaluma Rohnert Park Agency Agency* County County County Santa Rosa Sebastopol Sonoma County Windsor Need more information Agency Agency Need more information Agency 8. What entity performs Planning and Reporting? Agency = 5, County = 3, need more information = 2 Cloverdale Cotati Healdsburg Petaluma Rohnert Park Agency* Agency* County County County Santa Rosa Sebastopol Sonoma County Windsor Need more information Agency Agency Need more information Agency 9. If there is a preference to renew the Agency, what would its term be? No fixed term = 3, 20 years = 1, 25 years = 3, need more information = 2, did not respond = 1. Cloverdale Cotati Healdsburg Petaluma Rohnert Park No fixed term* No fixed term Need more 20 year minimum 25 years, with Santa Rosa Sebastopol information County review at 10 years Santa Rosa Sebastopol Sonoma County Windsor Need more 25 years 25 years Did not respond 2/4 members information indicated no fixed term 10. Ability to opt out of regional programs? Yes, as long as core programs are defined and the regional program is made whole by those opting out = 8, no opt out of core programs = 1, did not respond =1 Cloverdale Cotati Healdsburg Petaluma Rohnert Park Yes Yes Yes Yes* Yes Santa Rosa Sebastopol Sonoma County Windsor Yes Not from core programs Yes Did not respond Yes 11. Unanimous vote required on budget approval, capital expenditure > $50,000, and major program expansion? No = 5, Yes = 1, Yes for major program expansions only = 3, did not respond = 1 Cloverdale Cotati Healdsburg Petaluma Rohnert Park No* No* Yes, program expansions* Yes Yes, program expansions only Santa Rosa Sebastopol Sonoma County Windsor Yes, program expansions only No No Did not respond No Attachment R 12. Supermajority vote on purchase of real property? Yes = 6, No, must be unanimous = 3, did not respond = 1 Cloverdale Cotati Healdsburg Petaluma Rohnert Park Yes* Yes No, unanimous* No, unanimous Yes Santa Rosa Sebastopol Sonoma County Windsor No, unanimous Yes Yes Did not respond Yes 13. Supermajority vote to incur debt > $250,000? Yes = 7, No, must be unanimous = 2, did not respond =1 Cloverdale Cotati Healdsburg Petaluma Rohnert Park Yes* Yes No, unanimous* No, unanimous* Yes Santa Rosa Sebastopol Sonoma County Windsor Yes, unless related to a unanimous vote issue Yes Yes Did not respond Yes 14. Supermajority vote to adopt annual budget? Yes = 7, No = 2, did not respond = 1 Cloverdale Cotati Healdsburg Petaluma Rohnert Park Yes* Yes Yes No, unanimous* No, majority vote Santa Rosa Sebastopol Sonoma County Windsor Yes, unless related to a unanimous vote issue Yes Yes Did not respond Yes 15. Supermajority vote to adopt additional core programs? Yes = 5, No, jurisdictional or unanimous vote required = 4, did not respond = 1 Cloverdale Cotati Healdsburg Petaluma Rohnert Park Yes* Yes No, unanimous vote* No, unanimous vote* No, jurisdictional vote* Santa Rosa Sebastopol Sonoma County Windsor No, unanimous vote Yes Yes Did not respond Yes 16. Supermajority vote for expenditures greater than $250,000? Yes = 8, No, unanimous vote = 1, did not respond = 1 Cloverdale Cotati Healdsburg Petaluma Rohnert Park Yes* Yes Yes No, unanimous, Yes but supermajority could be for less than $50,000* Santa Rosa Sebastopol Sonoma County Windsor Yes, unless debt Yes Yes Did not respond Yes from unanimous vote item Attachment R 17. Supermajority vote for amendments of new JPA agreement? No, unanimous or jurisdictional vote = 5, Yes = 4, did not respond = 1 Cloverdale Cotati Healdsburg Petaluma Rohnert Park Yes* Yes No, unanimous vote* No, unanimous vote* No, jurisdictional vote* Santa Rosa Sebastopol Sonoma County Windsor No, unanimous vote No, jurisdictional vote Yes Did not respond Yes 18. What comprises a supermajority? 7/10 vote = 4, 8/10 vote = 3, 3/4 = 1, Other = 1, did not respond = Cloverdale Cotati Healdsburg Petaluma Rohnert Park 7/10 7/10 8/10 Other 3/4 Santa Rosa Sebastopol Sonoma County Windsor 7/10 7/10 8/10 Did not respond 8/10 19. Would you prefer a Board with staff and elected officials? Membership decided by each jurisdiction = 7, elected official only= 2, did not respond = 1 Cloverdale Cotati Healdsburg Petaluma Rohnert Park Elected* Elected Member choice* Member choice* Member choice* Santa Rosa Sebastopol Sonoma County Windsor Member choice Member choice Member choice Did not respond Member choice 20. Would you prefer tiered governance? Yes = 4, No = 3, need more information = 2, did not respond = Cloverdale Cotati Healdsburg Petaluma Rohnert Park Yes* Yes Need more information No* No Santa Rosa Sebastopol Sonoma County Windsor Need more information Yes Yes Did not respond No AttnrhmPnt r RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO AGREE TO EXTEND THE TERM OF THE AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITIES OF SONOMA COUNTY AND SONOMA COUNTY FOR A JOINT POWERS AGENCY TO DEAL WITH WASTE MANAGEMENT ISSUES BY ONE YEAR WHEREAS, the City of (the "City") is a party to that certain Agreement Between the Cities of Sonoma County and Sonoma County for a Joint Powers Agency to Deal With Waste Management Issues, as amended on January 24, 1996 by the First Amendment to the Agreement, and on March 27, 2014 by the Second Amendment to the Agreement (collectively, the "Agreement"); and WHEREAS, the Agreement created the Sonoma County Waste Management Agency (the "Agency") as a separate public entity in accordance with the requirements of Government Code section 6500 et seq., to provide service to the Sonoma County region on four primary programs; (1) household hazardous waste; (2) wood waste; (3) yard waste that otherwise would go to a landfill; and (4) education about the Agency's programs (collectively, the "Agency Programs"); and WHEREAS, the Agency further serves as a Regional Agency designated by the California Department of Resources Recycling and Recovery in compliance with Public Resources Code section 40975 for purposes of implementing, monitoring and reporting programs to meet the goals established by the Integrated Waste Management Act of 1989 on behalf of the member Cities and County (a "Regional Agency"); and WHEREAS, the Agreement has a term of twenty-five (25) years, which term expires on February 11, 2017, which term may be extended from year to year by mutual agreement of the member Cities and County; and WHEREAS, the expiration of the Agreement would result in the dissolution of the Agency; and WHEREAS, the Board of the Agency is engaged in discussion regarding the future of the Agency and the Agency Programs, including whether to recommend to the member Cities and County to enter into a new or amended joint exercise of powers agreement to continue the Agency Programs and its service as a Regional Agency, or to address the Agency Programs in another manner, including transitioning the Agency Programs to one or more other agencies and potentially establishing a new agency to serve as a Regional Agency for the member Cities and County; and WHEREAS, the City supports a regional approach to the Agency Programs, but recognizes that the member Cities and County may require additional time beyond the expiration of the term of the Agreement to negotiate the terms of a new joint exercise of powers agreement 38066.00000\22010203.1 or agree upon an entity or entities to take over responsibility for the current Agency programs; and WHEREAS, in the event such additional time is needed to determine the future of the Agency, the City is willing to extend the term of the Agreement for one (1) year from the current date of expiration; and WHEREAS, the Agency has indicated that in the event all of the member Cities and County have not agreed upon and designated one or more successor agencies to assume responsibility for all of the Agency Programs and serve as a Regional Agency for the member Cities and County, or elected to withdraw from the Agency, on or before July 1, 2016, the Agency will require an additional year to either develop a plan for the continuation of the Agency Programs, or efficiently transition the Agency's operations to other agencies and/or the member Cities and County; NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of that in the event that the City and the other member Cities and County have not all agreed upon and designated one or more successor agencies to assume responsibility for the Agency Programs and to serve as a Regional Agency for the member Cities and County, or elected to withdraw from the Agency, on or before July 1, 2016, the City agrees to extend the term of the Agreement by one (1) year from its current expiration date. Upon such extension, the new expiration date for the Agreement shall be February 11, 2018. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Manager is hereby authorized and directed to execute and deliver any and all documents necessary to carry out such extension in accordance with this Resolution. PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED this day of , 201_. Mayor ATTEST: City Clerk 38066.00000\22010203. 12 Consideration of Sonoma County Waste Management AgencyJoint Powers Agreement Rohnert Park January 26, 2016 Agency Roles Responsible for implementing AB 939 waste diversion requirements Regional authority for and operation of: Compost Household Hazardous Waste (HHW) Education Planning and Reporting Agency Operations Historically, Compost and H HW at County landfill Multiple parties: County, Republic, Agency, Agency Contractors Education, Planning, and Reporting County -wide 2015 Compost operation closed due to lawsuit County landfill chosen for future compost site Further litigation underway Sti1 :1 Agency Governance JPA expires February, 2017 Renewal discussions for 2+ years Making progress and ready for direction Interest by some in extending JPA Compost site in litigation Belief that current Board best to construct new site Potential need to `wind down' if JPA not replaced by .lune, 2016 Sti1 :1 Governance: Three Options in order of Preference 1. Add new JPA to RCPA/SCTA 2. "Lite" Version of Current Agency 3. Renew Existing Full -Service Agency Sti1 :1 Option 1 H. RCPA/SCTA/WMA No role in compost/HHW Cities contract with County/Republic Simplifies authority and administration Administratively Current RCPA/S voting, budget, (Mostly?) same simple CTA structure for etc. Board Option 2: Agency "Lite" Retain independent Agency No role in compost/HHW Cities contract with County/Republic Simplifies authority and operations Option 3-.- Full -Service Agency Retains independent Agency Retain authority over compost and HHW Operations could be contracted to County/Republic, or another party Governance Recommendations Governance: First Choice: RCPA/SCTA Model; equal representation on Board Second Choice: Agency "Lite" Third Choice: Full Service Agency Extension Recommendation Do not extend Agency Build on momentum New Board capable of addressing issues Delay implementation if needed to address litigation W ITEM NO. 9 Mission Statement ICJ "We Care for Our Residents by Working Together to Build a Better Communityfor Today and Tomorrow." CITY OF ROHNERT PARK CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT Meeting Date: January 26, 2016 Department: Public Works and Community Services Submitted By: John McArthur, Director of Public Works & Community Services Agenda Title: Consideration of a Ventilation and Air Conditioning Feasibility Study at the Callinan Sports and Fitness Center RECOMMENDED ACTION: Adopt the Resolutions to: 1. Appropriate 2007R Tax Allocation Bond (TAB) Proceeds to the City's Capital Improvement Project 2015-25 2. Authorize the City Manager to execute a Task Order with GHD, Inc. for an amount not to exceed $24,353 for a ventilation and air conditioning feasibility study at the Callinan Sports and Fitness Center. BACKGROUND: The Callinan Sports and Fitness Center (Sports Center) patrons and contract class instructors have complained to staff about excessively warm temperatures in the facility. These complaints are much more frequent during warmer summer months, particularly during heat waves spanning multiple days. The Sports Center ventilation system does not actually have air conditioning and relies solely on outside air to cool the facility. In normal operation, a maximum amount of outside air is pulled in at night when the air temperature is coolest and as the outside air temperature in the day increases, outside air flow is minimized into the building. The "stored" cool air from the previous night is recirculated throughout the building to keep the inside temperature as cool as possible. The number of complaints spiked this past summer due to a mechanical failure in the ventilation system that occurred amidst a major and prolonged heat wave. ANALYSIS: City Council has directed staff to explore options for possible long-term Sports Center ventilation system improvements. Staff has identified four possible air cooling systems for consideration; however, feasibility and accurate cost estimates of each option are unknown at this time. The proposed engineering feasibility study would determine estimated cost and viability of the following options: 1 ITEM NO. 9 1. Six (6) ground -mounted condensing units for cooling in each zone. This option would provide individual cooling and heating for each of the six Sports Center heating and ventilation zones. 2. Single cooling system to operate system as one zone. This option would provide a single control unit for cooling and the existing six heating and ventilation zones would function as one zone. 3. Partial mechanical cooling for peak demand (heat) periods. This option would provide building cooling capacity only for peak heat periods. 4. Indirect evaporative cooling (IDEC). This option would use a water evaporation process to cool recirculated air flow. Evaporative cooling differs from typical air conditioning systems which use vapor -compression or absorption refrigeration cycles. Depending on the option selected, other facility considerations and possible improvements would accompany the project including building structural modifications related to additional equipment, electric supply upgrade to power new equipment, ventilation control system upgrade, and miscellaneous building mechanical modifications to incorporate new equipment. STRATEGIC PLAN ALIGNMENT: This project is consistent with Strategic Plan Goal D2 — Improve Transportation and Infrastructure. OPTIONS CONSIDERED 1. Recommended Option: Approve the Task Order with GHD, Inc. to perform a Sports Center heating and ventilation system feasibility study. Staff has determined that GHD, Inc. has the desired knowledge, expertise and ability to perform the work at a competitive and reasonable price. GHD, Inc. has a Master Agreement with the City (February 8, 2011) that provides the City the mechanism to issue Task Orders under the Master Agreement for the needed services. 2. The City does not have electrical, mechanical or structural engineers on staff to evaluate and provide cost estimates for the above mentioned ventilation improvement options. Specialized engineering services would be needed to proceed with this evaluation. Staff does not recommend performing this study with internal resources. 3. Another option is to better monitor the equipment for failures and respond more quickly to customer complaints that the existing system is not performing properly. Staff does not recommend this option because even when the system is operating properly, the building can get very warm due to no building ventilation cooling capability. FISCAL IMPACT/FUNDING SOURCE: The Sports Center Ventilation and Air Conditioning Feasibility Study was added to the City's Capital Improvement Program as project 2015-25. Staff is proposing to fund this feasibility study and possible future construction work from excess 2007R TAB Bonds Proceeds. W ITEM NO. 9 Department Head Approval Date: December 21, 2015 Finance Director Approval Date: December 23, 2015 City Attorney Approval Date: N/A City Manager Approval Date: December 28, 2015 Attachments: 1. Resolution 2. Attachment A: Task Order 2015-09 3. Attachment B: GHD, Inc. Scope of Services RESOLUTION NO. 2016-010 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROHNERT PARK AUTHORIZING AND APPROVING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE A TASK ORDER WITH GHD, INC. FOR AN AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED $24,353 FOR A VENTILATION AND AIR CONDITIONING FEASIBILITY STUDY AT THE CALLINAN SPORTS AND FITNESS CENTER AND AUTHORIZING THE FINANCE DIRECTOR TO INCREASE APPROPRIATION BY $24,353 TO THE CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT 2015-25 THE SPORTS CENTER VENTILLATION FEASIBILITY STUDY FUNDED BY 2007R TAX ALLOCATION BOND PROCEEDS AND ANY OTHER TRANSACTIONS NECESSARY TO FUND THE PROJECT WHEREAS, on September 22, 2015, the City Council of the City of Rohnert Park ("City") approved a list of proposed public improvements to be funded from bonds proceeds ("Proposed Public Improvements"); and WHEREAS, on September 24, 2015 the Oversight Board, by adoption of Resolution No. 2015-04, found that the Proposed Public Improvements are consistent with the Bonds covenants and directed the staff of the Successor Agency to include all or a portion of the expenditures from the Excess Bond Proceeds for the Proposed Public Improvements on the ROPS for the January -June 2016 (ROPS 15-16B) period; and WHEREAS, on September 24, 2015, the Oversight Board approved and authorized the execution of the Agreement Regarding Expenditure of Excess Bond Proceeds ("Bond Agreement") for expenditure of excess bond proceeds directed by successor Agency staff to include the Bond Agreement on the ROPS for the January -June 2016 (ROPS 15-16B); and WHEREAS, on November 5, 2015, the Department of Finance approved the Bond Agreement; and WHEREAS, the excess bond proceeds have been transferred to City fund 325 and must be appropriated to the City of Rohnert Park Capital Improvement Project 2015-25 Sports Center Ventilation Feasibility Study account number 310-1525-400-9901; and WHEREAS, Staff has determined that GHD, Inc. has the desired knowledge, expertise and ability to perform the work at a competitive and reasonable price; and WHEREAS, GHD, Inc. has a Master Agreement with the City (February 8, 2011) that provides the City the mechanism to issue Task Orders under the Master Agreement for the needed services. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Rohnert Park that it hereby authorizes and approves the City Manager, to execute a Task Order with GHD, Inc. for an amount not to exceed $24,353 for a ventilation and air conditioning feasibility study at the Callinan Sports and Fitness Center. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Rohnert Park that it hereby authorize and approve the Director of Finance, or her designee, to appropriate $24,353 of excess bond proceeds to the Capital Improvements Project 2015-25 Sports Center Ventilation Feasibility Study account number 310-1525-400-9901 and any other transaction necessary to fund the project. DULY AND REGULARLY ADOPTED this 26th day of January, 2016. CITY OF ROHNERT PARK Gina Belforte, Mayor ATTEST: JoAnne M. Buergler, City Clerk AHANOTU: CALLINAN: STAFFORD: MACKENZIE: BELFORTE: AYES: ( ) NOES: ( ) ABSENT:( ) ABSTAIN: ( ) (2) 2016-010 ATTACHMENT A TASK ORDER NO. 2015-09 CITY OF ROHNERT PARK AND GHD Inc. AUTHORIZATION TO PROVIDE VENTILATION AND AIR CONDITIONING FEASIBILITY STUDY AT THE CALLINAN SPORTS AND FITNESS CENTER SECTION 1— PURPOSE The purpose of this Task Order is to authorize and direct GHD Inc. to proceed with the work specified in Section 2 below in accordance with the provisions of the MASTER AGREEMENT between the City of Rohnert Park ("City") and GHD Inc. ("Consultant") dated February 8, 2011 and authorized by Resolution No. 2011-06 ("Master Agreement"). SECTION 2 — SCOPE OF WORK The items authorized by this Task Order are presented in Attachment "1" - Scope of Services, which is attached hereto and incorporated by this reference. k1X4 WINI 91WO[IlIM`iT. — _[I]L'K-1 0117\'/1/1D10" Compensation shall be as provided in the Master Agreement between the parties hereto referenced in SECTION 1 above. The total cost for services as set forth in SECTION 3 shall be actual costs (time and materials) based on Consultants' standard labor charges in accordance with the provisions of the Master Agreement and as shown in Attachment "1" for an amount not -to -exceed $24,353. SECTION 4 — TIME OF PERFORMANCE The work described in SECTION 2 shall be completed by May 31, 2016, or as extended in writing by the City Manager. SECTION 5 — ITEMS AND CONDITIONS All terms and conditions contained in the Master Agreement are incorporated by reference. Approved this 24th day of November, 2015. CITY OF ROHNERT PARK GHD Inc. Darrin Jenkins, City Manager (Date) Name / Title (Date) Per Minute Order approved by the Rohnert Park City Council at its meeting of 11/24/2015. PMR ATTACHMENT B SCOPE OF SERVICES 12 October 2015 Terrie Zwillinger RE: Project Coordinator, Department of Mechanical, Electrical, and Structural Engineering Services Proposal — City of Rohnert Park Community and Recreation Center Air Conditioning Public Works Feasibility Study Project Revision A, 5405 Snyder Lane, Rohnert Park, CA City of Rohnert Park 600 Enterprise Drive Rohnert Park, CA 94928 Dear Terrie GHD Inc. (GHD) is pleased to submit this proposal for professional mechanical, electrical, and structural engineering services for the proposed project. This proposal is per our site visit on June 25, 2015 and your email on October 8, 2015. Project Understanding This proposal is provided with the following understanding of the project's existing construction and its use related to mechanical and electrical systems. o Project Site — The project site is located at 5405 Snyder Lane, Rohnert Park, CA o Building Architecture — The building is single story. i Mechanical Systems — Heating is provided by a 625 MBH natural gas input boiler and one (1) heating hot water pump in a mechanical room. Air distribution is by one (1) variable speed air handler and seven fan coil units with reheat coils, ductwork and registers. One of the fan coil units also has a direct expansion (DX) coil served by a nominal 3 ton cooling capacity ground mounted condensing unit. There are also exhaust fans. o Controls — The building has an existing energy management system (EMS) manufactured by Invensys, which controls the mechanical systems. 0 Plumbing System — The existing building is served by domestic cold and hot water, sanitary sewer and vent, and a natural gas piping system. o Normal Power Systems — The normal power system includes supply at 208Y/120Volts. i Emergency Power Systems — There is no emergency power system on site. It is not anticipated that this project will require emergency power. Professional Engineering Services Based on the above understanding of the project intent, we propose to provide the following professional mechanical, electrical, and structural engineering services: Mechanical Engineering Services The mechanical engineering scope includes the following elements: GHD Inc. 2235 Mercury Way Suite 150 Santa Rosa CA 95407 USA T 1 707 523 1010 F 1 707 527 8679 E santarosa@ghd.com W www.ghd.com PMR • Provide an analysis for two options for the addition of mechanical cooling to the existing air handler and six (6) fan coil units. • Provide an analysis for the option of minimal or partial mechanical cooling to the building. Provide an analysis for the option of using indirect evaporative cooling (IDEC). • Provide engineer's opinion of probable construction and design cost for each option. The work performed will be as described below: 1. Draft Submittal Phase - This phase will be prepared to include the following: 0 Initial site visit with City of Rohnert Park personnel to review field conditions against "as built" documents. P Determine options for mechanical cooling addition. o Engineer's opinion of probable construction and design costs. o Draft analysis provided to City of Rohnert Park Public Works Department. 2. Final Submittal Phase — Based on approval of Draft Submittal Phase and any minor adjustments authorized by the City, this phase will be prepared to include the following: o Final analysis incorporating City of Rohnert Park Public Works Department comments. Electrical Engineering Services The electrical engineering scope of design includes the following elements: • Analysis of the modifications to the existing power systems to accommodate the mechanical cooling options. • Provide engineer's opinion of probable construction and design cost for each option. The work performed will be as described below: 1. Draft Submittal Phase - This phase will be prepared to include the following: o Initial site visit with City of Rohnert Park personnel to review field conditions against "as built" documents. P Determine impact to the electrical power systems based on mechanical cooling options. Adequacy of load capacity as well as spare physical space will be examined. o Engineer's opinion of probable construction and design costs. P Draft analysis provided to City of Rohnert Park Public Works Department. 2. Final Submittal Phase — Based on approval of Draft Submittal Phase and any minor adjustments authorized by the City, this phase will be prepared to include the following: 0 Final analysis incorporating City of Rohnert Park Public Works Department comments. Structural Engineering Services The structural engineering scope of work includes the following elements: • Analysis of the modifications to the existing structural systems to accommodate the mechanical cooling options. • Provide engineer's opinion of probable construction and design cost for each option. Draft Submittal Phase - This phase will be prepared to include the following: 0 Determine impact to structural systems based on mechanical cooling options. o Engineer's opinion of probable construction and design costs. 0 Draft analysis provided to City of Rohnert Park Public Works Department. GHD Inc. 2235 Mercury Way Suite 150 Santa Rosa CA 95407 USA T 1 707 523 1010 F 1 707 527 8679 E santarosa@ghd.com W www.ghd.com PWR 2. Final Submittal Phase — Based on approval of Draft Submittal Phase and any minor adjustments authorized by the City, this phase will be prepared to include the following: P Final analysis incorporating City of Rohnert Park Public Works Department comments. Information to be provided by Owner As -built record information of any previous construction. Assumptions made regarding accuracy of as-builts with existing conditions may not be practical to verify. In providing services, we will perform in a manner consistent with that degree of care and skill ordinarily exercised by members of the same profession currently practicing under similar circumstances. General Assumptions This proposal is based on the following assumptions: Existing building utility systems have adequate capacity to accommodate mechanical cooling addition options. General Exclusions This proposal is based on the following exclusions: • Scope of services for this project does not include any services related in any way to asbestos and/or toxic materials. • Strengthening and or retrofitting of existing structural elements to support new equipment are not included in this scope of work. • Fire sprinkler design is not included. • Fire alarm design is not included. • Meetings and site visits other than those indicated above are not included. Additive or deductive alternate schemes are not included. Phasing of construction is not included. Permit fees are not included. • Commissioning services are not included. Power system modifications to accommodate load disaggregation are not included. Deliverables 1. One (1) copy Draft analysis and one (1) copy in pdf format. Draft report shall consists of the following: o Options, Engineer's Opinion of Construction and Design Costs, and Recommendations. 2. Six (6) copies Final analysis and one (1) copy in pdf format. Final report shall consists of the following: o Options, Engineer's Opinion of Construction and Design Costs, and Recommendations. Schedule o Site investigation will be within 5 working days from receiving executed agreement. P Draft Design Submittal to be provided within 30 working days from receiving executed agreement. o Final Submittal to be provided within 10 working days after receipt of Owner comments on the Draft Submittal. GHD Inc. 2235 Mercury Way Suite 150 Santa Rosa CA 95407 USA T 1 707 523 1010 F 1 707 527 8679 E santarosa@ghd.com W www.ghd.com PWR Engineering Fee GHD is pleased to propose the following time and material not to exceed fee broken down as follows: Mechanical Electrical Structural Totals Draft Submittal Phase $10,640 $6,338 $1,660 $18,638 Final Submittal Phase $3,014 $2,037 $ 664 $ 5,715 TOTALS $ 13,654 $8,375 $2,324 $24,353 Due to the advantage of in-house coordination, the fees indicated are for a combined package as defined in scope, including mechanical, electrical, and structural engineering documents. Fees for additional coordination and documentation would be required to separate discipline packages. Services not included in this proposal will be provided on a time -and -materials basis or by a negotiated fee. We welcome the opportunity to work with you on this interesting project and are excited about the prospect. Should you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact us. Yours Sincerely GHD Inc Terry Wong, PE, LEED AP Project Manager (707) 523-1010 GHD Inc. 2235 Mercury Way Suite 150 Santa Rosa CA 95407 USA T 1 707 523 1010 F 1 707 527 8679 E santarosa@ghd.com W www.ghd.com 4 Hallinan Sports & Fitness Center Air Conditioning Feasibility Study Gallivan Sports & Fitness Center Opened in 1986 Ventilation Control System Upgraded in 2005 - Energy Management System Many components are original Hew the System Works Night Operation: air intake open, cool air enters the building, warm air exits 0 - OPEN Hew the System Works Day Operation: recirculation of stored cool a i r captured at night 'tea Air 0 QED System Weaknesses Prolonged Heat Waves Thermostat Operations cool mornings can create warm evenings Control System is unreliable Adding Air Conditioning would: Provide improved cooling capability Be a significant capital cost (varies by alternatives) Increase operating costs Sti1 :1 Proposed Feasibility Study Air Cooling System Alternatives: Multiple -zone air conditioning units Single -zone air conditioning Partial mechanical cooling Indirect evaporative cooling Next Steps Complete Feasibility Study Determine capital and operating cost Bring recommendation to City Council for direction ,�_pHNERT PgRK «► Mission Statement "We Care for Our Residents by Working Together to Build a Better Community for Today and Tomorrow." C/LIFD RN IP CITY OF ROHNERT PARK CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT Meeting Date: January 26, 2016 Department: Development Services Submitted By: Jeffrey S. Beiswenger, AICP, Planning Manager Prepared By: Stephen A. McEwen, Deputy City Attorney ITEM NO. 10 Agenda Title: Consideration of an Interim Urgency Ordinance Establishing a Temporary Moratorium on Marijuana Cultivation Facilities RECOMMENDED ACTION: Adopt an interim urgency ordinance of the City Council of the City of Rohnert Park establishing a temporary moratorium on marijuana cultivation facilities within the City of Rohnert Park pending completion of a comprehensive update to the City of Rohnert Park Zoning Ordinance regarding marijuana establishments, to become effective immediately and finding the action exempt under the California Environmental Quality Act. BACKGROUND: The California State Legislature has recently created a broad state regulatory and licensing system that governs various aspects of the medical marijuana industry through Assembly Bills 243 and 266 and Senate Bill 643, which became law on October 9, 2016. Of particular note, AB 243 created Health and Safety Code section 11362.777(c)(4), which provides that if a city or county does not have a land use ordinance or regulation prohibiting marijuana cultivation, either expressly or otherwise under principles of permissive zoning or chooses not to implement a regulatory scheme, then commencing March 1, 2016, the state Department of Food and Agriculture shall become the sole licensing authority for cultivation applicants in that jurisdiction. Article 59 is silent as to marijuana cultivation. This proposed interim ordinance would respond to these recent changes in state regulation of marijuana by imposing a temporary moratorium on marijuana cultivation facilities within all zoning districts in the City. In order to meet the compacted March 1St deadline, ensure that the City maintains local control over marijuana cultivation facilities, and protect the public health, safety, and welfare by prohibiting marijuana cultivation facilities, this Ordinance must take effect immediately pursuant to Government Code section 65858(b). ANALYSIS: On September 11, 2015, the California Legislature passed Assembly Bills 243 and 266 and Senate Bill 643. These bills create a broad state regulatory and licensing system governing the cultivation, testing, and distribution of marijuana, the manufacturing of marijuana products, and physician recommendations for medical marijuana. The new laws also recognize a range of marijuana businesses referred to as "commercial cannabis activities," including cultivation businesses, marijuana product manufacturers, marijuana distributors and transporters, marijuana ITEM NO. 10 testing laboratories, and dispensaries, and provide immunity to marijuana businesses operating with both a state license and a local permit. Governor Brown signed the three bills on October 9, 2015. Under the new legislation, state licenses and local permits will be required for all facets of the marijuana industry: • AB 243 establishes the Department of Food and Agriculture (DFA) as the licensing and regulatory authority for medical marijuana cultivation. Any person who wishes to engage in commercial cultivation of medical marijuana must obtain a state license from the DFA and comply with local permitting requirements. AB 243 also requires (1) the DFA to work with other state agencies to develop environmental protection standards, (2) the Department of Pesticide Regulation to establish medical marijuana pesticide standards, and (3) the Department of Public Health to create standards for labeling of marijuana edibles. 9 AB 266 creates the Bureau of Medical Marijuana Regulation within the Department of Consumer Affairs (DCA) to develop regulations and issue state licenses for medical marijuana dispensaries, distributors, and transporters. AB 266 designates the Department of Public Health as the licensing and regulatory authority for manufacturers of marijuana products and medical marijuana testing laboratories. Like AB 243, AB 266 requires all state marijuana license applicants to comply with local permitting requirements. • SB 643 establishes standards for physicians that recommend medical marijuana, including discipline for physicians who recommend excessive amounts. SB 643 also creates standards for state license applications and enforcement. Taken together, the new legislation creates the Medical Marijuana Safety and Regulation Act (MMRSA). The new legislation preserves local control over marijuana facilities and land uses, including the authority to prohibit dispensaries and other marijuana businesses completely. There is, however, one provision in the new legislation that requires Rohnert Park's immediate consideration. Health and Safety Code section 11362.777(c)(4), which is part of AB 243, provides that if a city or county does not have a land use regulation or ordinance prohibiting marijuana cultivation, either expressly or otherwise under principles of permissive zoning, or chooses not to implement a regulatory scheme, then commencing March 1, 2016, the state Department of Food and Agriculture will become the sole licensing authority for cultivation applicants in that jurisdiction. If Rohnert Park does not act to implement a land use regulation or ordinance prohibiting marijuana cultivation on that timeline, it may not be able to regulate or control cultivation sites operating with a state license. In light of the March I st deadline and the applicable notice requirements for public hearings, Rohnert Park has had very little time to consider and adopt a regular Zoning Ordinance amendment regarding marijuana cultivation. Assemblyman Jim Wood, the author of AB 243, has stated that the March 1 st deadline was left in the final version of AB 243 inadvertently and has introduced legislation (AB 21) to delete it. The passage of AB 21, however, is not certain at this point and has generated opposition from certain marijuana advocates. Staff therefore recommends that Council proceed as if the March 1 st deadline will remain in effect. For Rohnert Park, as with many other cities, it is not feasible to have a regular ordinance regarding marijuana cultivation adopted and take effect before March 1 st given the timing of ITEM NO. 10 planning commission and city council meetings and the complexity of the issues involved. Instead, Rohnert Park can protect itself from ceding control of marijuana cultivation to the state by adopting this interim ordinance to place a moratorium on marijuana cultivation facilities, while concurrently planning a Zoning Ordinance amendment that will implement marijuana regulation on a permanent basis. That Zoning Ordinance amendment is expected to be adopted, but not yet effective, before March 1 st. Many California cities have experienced negative secondary effects from marijuana businesses, including cultivation facilities and distribution facilities, as demonstrated by the attached 2009 white paper from the California Police Chiefs Association, the 2014 memorandum from the Santa Clara County District Attorney, and various news stories from throughout the state. These negative impacts have included unsafe construction and electrical wiring, noxious fumes and odors, and increased crime in and around marijuana establishments. Staff expects similar negative secondary impacts to radiate from cultivation facilities and commercial cannabis activities, including marijuana deliveries, newly licensed under the MMRSA. The potential loss of local control over marijuana cultivation land uses and the potential expansion of commercial cannabis activities, including marijuana deliveries, will hinder Rohnert Park's ability to protect the public health, safety, and welfare from these deleterious secondary effects of marijuana businesses. The law provides that a city may regulate or prohibit marijuana cultivation expressly or otherwise under principles of permissive zoning. For cities, such as Rohnert Park, that do not have express code provisions regarding marijuana cultivation, the question of whether marijuana cultivation is prohibited under principles of permissive zoning is a potential source of costly litigation. In City of Corona v. Naulls (2008) 166 Cal.AppAth 418, 431-433, the issue of whether Corona's zoning code was permissive was disputed. Although the trial court and appellate court resolved the matter in favor of Corona, the city was required to present evidence on the issue. While staff believes that Rohnert Park prohibits marijuana cultivation under the principles of permissive zoning because that use is not explicitly permitted in any zoning district, an express prohibition of marijuana cultivation in all zoning districts protects the City from litigation over the issue of whether the City's Zoning Ordinance is in fact permissive. Furthermore, an express prohibition on marijuana cultivation will benefit the public by providing clear guidelines regarding the scope of prohibited conduct and minimize the potential for confusion regarding the City's policies. As a result of the impending March 1, 2016 deadline, the potential public health, safety, and welfare consequences of not having a marijuana cultivation regulation or ordinance in place by March 1 st, the potential for unnecessary and costly litigation involving the interpretation of Health and Safety Code section 11362.777(c)(4) and its application to the City and the need to avoid the negative secondary effects of marijuana cultivation sites, it is necessary that Rohnert Park's interim ordinance become effective immediately. PROPOSED MORATORIUM TERMS The proposed interim urgency ordinance would prohibit the establishment or operation of marijuana cultivation facilities throughout the City. The ordinance defines "marijuana cultivation facility" as "any business, facility, use, establishment, property, or location where the cultivation of marijuana occurs." The ordinance would also prohibit the issuance of any permits or licenses for a marijuana cultivation facility. The prohibition against marijuana cultivation, however, shall not apply to a qualified patient so long as the patient grows no more than three (3) ITEM NO. 10 mature marijuana plants and does not sell, distribute, or provide the marijuana to any other person, and the property on which the cultivation occurs has no more than fifty (50) square feet devoted to marijuana cultivation by any qualified patient or combination of qualified patients. CONCLUSION AND NEXT STEPS: An interim urgency ordinance is necessary to ensure that the City has a land use regulation or ordinance prohibiting marijuana cultivation in effect before March 1 st. The proposed urgency ordinance will go into effect immediately and will remain effective for 45 days unless extended. Staff has begun an review of the City's policies and regulations regarding marijuana —related land use, activities, and businesses in light of the new state legislation and is proposing revisions to the Zoning Code to close potential "loop holes" in the code. These revisions have been reviewed and recommended by the Planning Commission and an ordinance including these recommended revisions is scheduled for introduction by the City Council on January 26, 2016 and adoption on February 9, 2016. The ordinance would become effective thirty days later, or slightly after the March 1St state deadline. By adopting this interim urgency ordinance, Council will preserve its ability to retain local control of the regulation of marijuana -related activities and also provide staff with some additional time to complete review of the City's existing regulations and make any further revisions that are necessary to avoid "loop holes" in compliance. ENVIRONMENTAL COMPLIANCE: The moratorium ordinance is exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (Public Resources Code Section 21000, et seq.) (CEQA) because the City Council hereby finds that it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility the adoption and implementation of this ordinance may have a significant effect on the environment, and the Ordinance is exempt from CEQA pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Sections 15061(b)(1), 15061(b)(2), and 15061(b)(3). Moreover, the adoption of this ordinance is further exempt from CEQA because the Ordinance does not change existing City law and practice. STRATEGIC PLAN ALIGNMENT: This action is consistent with Strategic Plan Goal D — Continue to Develop a Vibrant Community by implementing mandated programs. OPTIONS CONSIDERED: 1. No action. This option is not recommended because of the potential consequences of missing the March 1St deadline in AB 243 for cities to have a land use regulation or ordinance regulating or prohibiting marijuana cultivation. 2. Adopt urgency ordinance. This is the preferred option. Adopting an urgency ordinance will continue existing policy toward a prohibition on marijuana cultivation sites. FISCAL IMPACT/FUNDING SOURCE: The fiscal impact is primarily the expense of staff time researching and preparing ordinance language for planning commission and city council consideration, in addition to public noticing expenses and other incidental expenses. This work is being completed in response to State legislation and will help the city avoid potential litigation and enforcement costs in the future. City expenses will be paid from the General Fund. ITEM NO. 10 Department Head Approval Date: 01/12/2016 Finance Director Approval Date: NA City Manager Approval Date: 01/15/2016 City Attorney Approval Date: 01/12/2016 Attachments (list in packet assembly order): 1. Interim Urgency Ordinance 895 2. 2009 California Police Chiefs Association White Paper Report 3. 2014 Santa Clara County District Attorney's Office Memorandum 4. Various News Stories Regarding Marijuana ORDINANCE NO. 895 AN INTERIM URGENCY ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROHNERT PARK ESTABLISHING A TEMPORARY MORATORIUM PROHBITING MARIJUANA CULTIVATION FACILITIES WITHIN THE CITY OF ROHNERT PARK PENDING COMPLETION OF A COMPREHENSIVE UPDATE TO THE CITY OF ROHNERT PARK ZONING ORDINANCE REGARDING MARIJUANA ESTABLISHMENTS, TO BECOME EFFECTIVE IMMEDIATELY AND FINDING THE ACTION EXEMPT UNDER THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALTIY ACT The City Council of the City of Rohnert Park does hereby ordain as follows: SECTION 1. Authority. This Ordinance is adopted pursuant to the provisions set forth in Government Code section 65858 and pursuant to other applicable law. SECTION 2. Findings. In adopting this Ordinance, the City Council finds: A. In 1970, Congress enacted the Controlled Substances Act (CSA) which, among other things, makes it illegal to import, manufacture, distribute, possess or use marijuana in the United States. B. In 1972, California added Chapter 6 to the state Uniform Controlled Substances Act, commencing at Health and Safety Code section 11350, which established the state's prohibition, penalties, and punishments for the possession, cultivation, transportation, and distribution of marijuana. C. In 1996, the voters of the State of California approved Proposition 215 (the "Compassionate Use Act" (CUA or Act); Health and Safety (H&S) Code Section 11362.5). D. California courts have held that the Act creates a limited exception from criminal liability under the state Uniform Controlled Substances Act for seriously ill persons who are in need of medical marijuana for specified medical purposes and who obtain and use medical marijuana under limited, specified circumstances. E. On January 1, 2004, the "Medical Marijuana Program" (MMP), codified as H&S Code Sections 11362.7 to 11362.83, was enacted by the state Legislature to clarify the scope of the Act, establish a voluntary program for identification cards issued by counties for qualified patients and primary caregivers, and provide criminal immunity to qualified patients and primary caregivers for certain activities involving medical marijuana, including the collective or cooperative cultivation of medical marijuana. F. The California Supreme Court ruled unanimously in City of Riverside v. Inland Empire Patients Health and Wellness Center, Inc. (2013) 56 CalAth 729, that the Act and the MMP do not preempt local ordinances that completely and permanently ban medical marijuana dispensaries, collectives, and cooperatives. G. In Maral v. City of Live Oak (2013) 221 Cal.AppAth 975, the Third District Court of Appeal held, based on Inland Empire, that there was no right to cultivate medical marijuana and that a city could implement and enforce a complete ban on this activity, including a ban on personal cultivation. H. On October 9, 2015, Assembly Bills 243 and 266 and Senate Bill 643 (collectively, the "Medical Marijuana Regulation and Safety Act" or "MMRSA") were enacted to create a state regulatory and licensing system governing the cultivation, testing, and distribution of medical marijuana, the manufacturing of medical marijuana products, and physician recommendations for medical marijuana. The new law also recognizes a range of marijuana businesses referred to as "commercial cannabis activities," including cultivation businesses, marijuana product manufacturers, marijuana distributors and transporters, marijuana testing laboratories, and dispensaries, and provides immunity to marijuana businesses operating with both a state license and a local permit. I. While the new legislation expressly preserves local control over marijuana facilities and land uses, including the authority to prohibit all marijuana businesses and cultivation completely, newly -added Health & Safety Code section 11362.777(c)(4) provides that if a city does not have a land use regulation or ordinance regulating or prohibiting marijuana cultivation, either expressly or otherwise under principles of permissive zoning, or chooses not to administer a conditional permit program under that section, then commencing March 1, 2016, the state Department of Food and Agriculture will become the sole licensing authority for marijuana cultivation in that jurisdiction. J. The author of AB 243, which added Health & Safety Code section 11362.777(c)(4), has stated that this preemption provision was left inadvertently in the final version of AB 243 and introduced legislation to delete subdivision (c)(4). K. The clean-up legislation is pending, but it is not certain whether it will become effective prior to the March 1, 2016 deadline regarding marijuana cultivation, nor is it certain what the ramifications would be for a city that does not have a marijuana cultivation regulation or ordinance in place by that deadline. L. The Municipal Code does not have express provisions regarding marijuana cultivation. It is not listed as a permitted or conditionally permitted land use in the Zoning Code and is therefore prohibited in Rohnert Park under principles of permissive zoning (City of Corona v. Naulls (2008) 166 Ca1.App.4tt' 418, 431-433). M. However, based on the ambiguous language of Health and Safety Code section I I362.777(c)(4), the City Council has determined that an express Municipal Code regulation regarding marijuana cultivation is necessary in order to ensure that the state does not become the sole licensing authority for marijuana cultivation within Rohnert Park after March 1, 2016, and to avoid unnecessary litigation with regard to the City's compliance with Health and Safety Code section 11362.777(c)(4). The new state law does not define what "sole licensing authority" would mean in this context, but it could mean that a city loses the ability to either prohibit marijuana cultivation or impose regulations upon such a land use. At a minimum, this uncertainty could result in costly litigation for the City. N. Furthermore, the question of whether marijuana cultivation is prohibited under principles of permissive zoning is another potential source of costly litigation. In City of Corona v. Naulls, the issue of whether Corona's zoning code was permissive was disputed. Although the trial court and appellate court resolved the matter in favor of Corona, the city was required to present evidence on the issue. O. It is imperative that the City retain local land use control over marijuana cultivation. Several California cities and counties have experienced serious adverse impacts associated with and resulting from marijuana dispensaries and cultivation sites. According to these communities and according to news stories widely reported, marijuana activities, including cultivation sites, have resulted in and/or caused an increase in crime, including burglaries, robberies, violence, and illegal sales of marijuana to, and use of marijuana by, minors and other persons without medical need in the areas immediately surrounding such marijuana activities. There have also been large numbers of complaints of odors related to the cultivation and storage of marijuana. Marijuana cultivation sites are often associated with illegal construction, unsafe electrical wiring, excessive water use, and fire hazards. P. A California Police Chiefs Association compilation of police reports, news stories, and statistical research regarding crimes involving marijuana businesses and their secondary impacts on the community is contained in a 2009 white paper report which is attached to the staff report presented to the City Council with this ordinance and on file with the City Clerk. The report details numerous violent crimes that occurred throughout the state in and around marijuana establishments. Q. The Santa Clara County District Attorney's Office issued a May 2014 memorandum entitled "Issues Surrounding Marijuana in Santa Clara County," which outlined many of the negative secondary effects resulting from marijuana cultivation; a copy of this memorandum is attached to the staff report presented to the City Council with this ordinance and on file with the City Clerk. According the memorandum, marijuana cultivation sites were often associated with illegal construction, haphazard electrical wiring, electricity theft, fires, mold and fungus problems, diversion of public water, pollution of waterways, firearm violations, crimes, and organized crime and street gang involvement. R. News stories regarding adverse impacts of marijuana businesses, including dispensaries, cultivation sites, and delivery services, are attached to the staff report presented to the City Council with this ordinance and on file with the City Clerk. As detailed in these stories, marijuana establishments and cultivation sites are frequent targets of violent crimes, including robberies and assaults. S. It is reasonable to conclude that marijuana cultivation facilities would cause similar adverse impacts on the public health, safety, and welfare in Rohnert Park. If the City lost the ability to regulate or prohibit marijuana cultivation as a result of Health and Safety Code section 11362.777(c)(4), it would lose the ability to protect the public health, safety, and welfare from the negative secondary impacts of marijuana cultivation sites, as detailed above. T. In order to protect the public health, safety, and welfare, the City Council desires to amend the City of Rohnert Park Zoning Ordinance to address, in express terms, marijuana dispensaries, marijuana cultivation facilities, commercial cannabis activities, and marijuana deliveries. The City Council hereby determines that the Zoning Ordinance is in need of further review and possible revision to protect the public against potential negative health, safety, and welfare impacts and to address the new marijuana business models recognized under MMRSA. U. The compacted time frame in Health and Safety Code section 11362.777(c)(4) for adopting a marijuana cultivation regulation or ordinance does not provide sufficient time to consider and adopt a regular Zoning Ordinance amendment, which includes public notice, consideration by the Planning Commission, and first and second readings before the City Council. As a result of the impending March 1, 2016 deadline regarding marijuana cultivation, the potential public health, safety, and welfare consequences of not having a marijuana cultivation regulation or ordinance in place by March 1st, and the potential for unnecessary and costly litigation involving the interpretation of Health and Safety Code section 11362.777(c)(4) and its application to the City, an interim prohibition on marijuana cultivation and the issuance of any permits and/or entitlements relating to marijuana cultivation is necessary for a period of 45 days. The loss of local land use control over marijuana cultivation would result in a current and immediate threat to the public health, safety, and welfare. V. An initial period of 45 days will permit City staff to complete an initial investigation of these matters and recommend any additional courses of action to the City Council. W. Government Code section 65858 authorizes the adoption of an interim urgency ordinance to protect the public health, safety, and welfare, and to prohibit land uses that may conflict with land use regulations that a city's legislative bodies are considering, studying, or intending to study within a reasonable time. X. Failure to adopt this moratorium would impair the orderly and effective implementation of contemplated amendments to the Zoning Ordinance. Y. Pursuant to Municipal Code section 17.25.073, the City Council finds (1) that this interim urgency ordinance is consistent with the General Plan in that a prohibition on marijuana cultivation facilities does not conflict with any allowable uses in the land use element and does not conflict with any policies or programs in any other element of the General Plan; (2) the interim urgency ordinance will protect the public health, safety, and welfare in that prohibiting marijuana cultivation facilities will protect the City from the adverse impacts and negative secondary effects associated with such a land use; and (3) the interim urgency ordinance will not have any impact on the availability of housing or residential density in that it merely prohibits the establishment and operation of marijuana cultivation facilities on properties in the City. Z. The City Council further finds that this moratorium is a matter of local and City-wide importance and is not directed towards any particular person or entity that seeks to cultivate marijuana in Rohnert Park. SECTION 3. Imposition of Temporary Moratorium. In accordance with the authority granted the City under Government Code section 65858, and pursuant to the findings stated herein, the City Council hereby finds that: (1) there exists a current and immediate threat to the public health, safety, and welfare requiring this interim Urgency Ordinance; (2) this Ordinance is necessary for the immediate preservation of the public peace, health, and safety as set forth herein; and (3) hereby declares and imposes a temporary moratorium for the immediate preservation of the public health, safety and welfare as set forth below: A. No marijuana cultivation facility may be established, operated, commenced, opened, or initiated in any zoning district in the City of Rohnert Park. B. No use permit, site development permit, tentative map, parcel map, variance, grading permit, building permit, building plans, zone change, business license, or other applicable permit will be accepted, approved, or issued for the establishment of a marijuana cultivation facility. C. As used in this Ordinance, the following definitions apply: 1. "Cultivation" means any activity involving the planting, growing, harvesting, drying, curing, grading, or trimming of marijuana. 2. "Marijuana" means all parts of the plant Cannabis, whether growing or not; the seeds thereof, the resin extracted from any part of the plant; and every compound, manufacture, salt, derivative, mixture, or preparation of the plant, its seeds or resin. It includes marijuana infused in foodstuff, and concentrated cannabis and the separated resin, whether crude or petrified, obtained from marijuana. It does not include the mature stalks of the plant, fiber produced from the stalks, oil or cake made from the seeds of the plant, any other compound, manufacture, salt, derivative, mixture, or preparation of the mature stalks (except resin extracted therefrom), fiber, oil, or cake, or the sterilized seeds of the plant that are incapable of germination. 3. "Marijuana cultivation facility" means any business, facility, use, establishment, property, or location where the cultivation of marijuana occurs. D. The prohibition against marijuana cultivation facilities set forth in subsection A above, however, shall not apply to a qualified patient, as defined in Health and Safety Code section 11362.7, cultivating marijuana/cannabis pursuant to Health and Safety Code section 11362.5 and the Guidelines for the Security and Non -Diversion of Marijuana Grown for Medical Use promulgated by the California Attorney General under the following circumstances: 1. The qualified patient maintains no more than three (3) marijuana/cannabis plants; and 2. The qualified patient cultivates marijuana/cannabis for his or her personal medical use at his or her place of residence and does not sell, distribute, donate, transmit, or provide marijuana/cannabis to any other person or entity; and 3. The property on which the qualified patient resides and is cultivating marijuana/cannabis has no more than fifty (50) square feet devoted to the cultivation of marijuana /cannabis by any qualified patient or combination of qualified patients (the area used to cultivate marijuana/cannabis shall be measured by the aggregate area of vegetative growth of live marijuana plants on the premises). E. Any use or condition caused or permitted to exist in violation of any of the provisions of this Ordinance shall be and is hereby declared a public nuisance and may be abated by the City pursuant to the procedures set forth in this Code. SECTION 4. Effective Date and Duration. Pursuant to Government Code section 65858(b), this Ordinance shall take effect immediately but shall be of no further force and effect 45 days from its date of adoption unless the City Council, after notice and public hearing as provided under Government Code section 65858(b) and adoption of the findings required by Government Code section 65858(c), subsequently extends this Ordinance. SECTION 5. Report of Interim Moratorium. Pursuant to Government Code section 65858(d), 10 days prior to the expiration or any extension of this Interim Ordinance, the City Council will issue a written report describing the measures taken to alleviate the conditions which led to the adoption of this Interim Ordinance. SECTION 6. Compliance with CEQA. The City Council hereby finds that this Ordinance is exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (Public Resources Code Section 21000, et seq.) (CEQA) because the City Council hereby finds that it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility the adoption and implementation of this Ordinance may have a significant effect on the environment, and the Ordinance is exempt from CEQA pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Sections 15061(b)(1), 15061(b)(2), and 15061(b)(3). Moreover, the adoption of this Ordinance is further exempt from CEQA because the Ordinance does not change existing City law and practice. SECTION 7. Severability. The City Council hereby declares every section, paragraph, sentence, cause and phrase is severable. If any section, paragraph, sentence, clause or phrase of this ordinance is for any reason found to be invalid or unconstitutional, such invalidity, or unconstitutionality shall not affect the validity or constitutionality of the remaining sections, paragraphs, sentences, clauses or phrases. SECTION 8: Publication. The City Clerk is directed to cause this ordinance to be published in the manner required by law. THE FOREGOING URGENCY ORDINANCE was introduced and adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Rohnert Park held on January 26, 2016, by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: CITY OF R01 NERT PARK Gina Belforte, Mayor ATTEST: JoAnne M. Buergler, City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: Michelle Marchetta Kenyon, City Attorney I, JOANNE BUERGLER, CITY CLERK of the City of Rohnert Park, California, do hereby certify that the foregoing Urgency Ordinance was duly adopted and passed at a regular meeting of the City Council on the 26th day of January, 2016 by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: JoAnne M. Buergler, City Clerk ATTACHMENT 2 WHITE PAPER ON MARIJUANA DISPENSARIES by CALIFORNIA POLICE CHIEFS ASSOCIATION'S TASK FORCE ON MARIJUANA DISPENSARIES © 2009 California Police Chiefs Assn, All Rights Reserved ACKNOWLEDGMENTS Beyond any question, this White Paper is the product of a major cooperative effort among representatives of numerous law enforcement agencies and allies who share in common the goal of bringing to light the criminal nexus and attendant societal problems posed by marijuana dispensaries that until now have been too often hidden in the shadows. The critical need for this project was first recognized by the California Police Chiefs Association, which put its implementation in the very capable hands of CPCA's Executive Director Leslie McGill, City of Modesto Chief of Police Roy Wasden, and City of El Cerrito Chief of Police Scott Kirkland to spearhead. More than 30 people contributed to this project as members of CPCA's Medical Marijuana Dispensary Crime/Impact Issues Task Force, which has been enjoying the hospitality of Sheriff John McGinnis at regular meetings held at the Sacramento County Sheriff's Department's Headquarters Office over the past three years about every three months. The ideas for the White Paper's components carne from this group, and the text is the collaborative effort of numerous persons both on and off the task force. Special mention goes to Riverside County District Attorney Rod Pacheco and Riverside County Deputy District Attorney Jacqueline Jackson, who allowed their Office's fine White Paper on Medical Marijuana: History and Current Complications to be utilized as a partial guide, and granted permission to include material from that document. Also, Attorneys Martin Mayer and Richard Jones of the law firm of Jones & Mayer are thanked for preparing the pending legal questions and answers on relevant legal issues that appear at the end of this White Paper. And, I thank recently retired San Bernardino County Sheriff Gary Penrod for initially assigning me to contribute to this important work. Identifying and thanking everyone who contributed in some way to this project would be well nigh impossible, since the cast of characters changed somewhat over the years; and some unknown individuals also helped meaningfully behind the scenes. Ultimately, developing a White Paper on Maryaiana Dispensaries became a rite of passage for its creators as much as a writing project. At times this daunting, and sometimes unwieldy, multi-year project had many task force members, including the White Paper's editor, wondering if a polished final product would ever really reach fruition. But at last it has! If any reader is enlightened and spurred to action to any degree by the White Paper's important and timely subject matter, all of the work that went into this collaborative project will have been well worth the effort and time expended by the many individuals who worked harmoniously to make it possible. Some of the other persons and agencies who contributed in a meaningful way to this group venture over the past three years, and deserve acknowledgment for their helpful input and support, are: George Anderson, California Department of Justice Jacob Appelsmith, Office of the California Attorney General John Avila, California Narcotics Officei's Assuwatiun Phebe Chu, Office of San Bernardino County Counsel Scott Collins, Los Angeles County District Attorney's Office Cathy Coyne, California State Sheriffs' Association Lorrac Craig, Trinity County Sheriffs Department Jim Denney, California State Sheriffs' Association Thomas Dewey, California State University—Humboldt Police Department Dana 1''ilkowski, Contra Costa County District Attorney's Office John Gaines, California Department of Justice/Bureau of Narcotics Enforcement Craig Gundlach, Modesto Police Department John Harlan, Los Angeles County District Attorney's Office—Major Narcotics Division © 2009 California Police Chiefs Assn. i All Rights Reserved Nate Johnson, California State University Police Mike Kanalakis, Monterey County Sheriffs Office Bob Kochly, Contra Costa County Office of District Attorney Tommy LaNier, The National Marijuana Initiative, HIDTA Carol Leveroni, California Peace Officers Association Kevin McCarthy, Los Angeles Police Department Randy Mendoza, Arcata Police Department Mike Nivens, California Highway Patrol Rick Oules, Office of the United States Attorney Mark Pazin, Merced County Sheriffs Department Michael Regan, El Cerrito Police Department Melissa Reisinger, California Police Chiefs Association Kimberly Rios, California Department of Justice, Conference Planning Unit Kent Shaw, California Department of Justice/Bureau of Narcotics Enforcement Crystal Spencer, California Department of Justice, Conference Planning Unit Sam Spiegel, Folsom Police Department Valerie Taylor, ONDCP Thomas Toller, California District Attorneys Association Martin Vranicar, Jr., California District Attorneys Association April 22, 2009 Dennis Tilton, Editor © 2009 California Police Chiefs Assn. II All Rights Reserved F TABLE OF CONTENTS Pages ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ............. . .............. .. ............ ......... i -ii EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ......................... . .. . .. . .. . .. . . . ..............iv -vi WHITE PAPER ON MARIJUANA DISPENSARIES INTRODUCTION............................................................1 FEDERAL LAW ........... .......... ....... .......... ........................ 1-2 CALIFORNIA LAW ...................... ................... ............. .....2-6 LAWS IN OTHER STATES.. , ............... . _6 ..6 STOREFRONT MARIJUANA DISPENSARIES AND COOPERATIVES ............ ...6-7 HOW EXISTING DISPENSARIES OPERATE. . ... ......... ........................ 7-8 ADVERSE SECONDARY EFFECTS OF MARIJUANA DISPENSARIES AND SIMILARLY OPERATING COOPERATIVES ...................... . ......... _8 ANCILLARY CRIMES ................... ........................ ........ ...... 8-10 OTHER ADVERSE SECONDARY IMPACTS IN THE IMMEDIATE VICINITY OF DISPENSARIES..............................................................11 SECONDARY ADVERSE IMPACTS IN THE COMMUNITY AT LARGE .............. 11-14 ULTIMATE CONCLUSIONS REGARDING ADVERSE SECONDARY EFFECTS ........ 14 POSSIBLE LOCAL GOVERNMENTAL RESPONSES TO MARIJUANA DISPENSARIES. 14-17 LIABILITY ISSUES...........................................................18-19 A SAMPLING OF EXPERIENCES WITH MARIJUANA DISPENSARIES ...............19-30 PENDING LEGAL QUESTIONS.................................................31-39 CONCLUSIONS..............................................................40 ENDNOTES..................................................................41-44 NON -LEGAL REFERENCES....................................................45-49 © 2009 California Police Chiefs Assn iii All Rights Reserved WHITE PAPER ON MARIJUANA DISPENSARIES by CALIFORNIA POLICE CHIEFS ASSOCIATION'S TASK FORCE ON MARIJUANA DISPENSARIES EXECUTIVE SUMMARY INTRODUCTION Proposition 215, an initiative authorizing the limited possession, cultivation, and use of marijuana by patients and their care providers for certain medicinal purposes recommended by a physician without subjecting such persons to criminal punishment, was passed by California voters in 1996. This was supplemented by the California State Legislature's enactment in 2003 of the Medical Marijuana Program Act (SB 420) that became effective in 2004. The language of Proposition 215 was codified in California as the Compassionate Use Act, which added section 11362.5 to the California Health & Safety Code. Much later, the language of Senate Bill 420 became the Medical Marijuana Program Act (MMPA), and was added to the California Health & Safety Code as section 11362.7 et seq. Among other requirements, it purports to direct all California counties to set up and administer a voluntary identification card system for medical marijuana users and their caregivers. Some counties have already complied with the mandatory provisions of the MMPA, and others have challenged provisions of the Act or are awaiting outcomes of other counties' legal challenges to it before taking affirmative steps to follow all of its dictates. And, with respect to marijuana dispensaries, the reaction of counties and municipalities to these nascent businesses has been decidedly mixed. Some have issued permits for such enterprises. Others have refused to do so within their jurisdictions. Still others have conditioned permitting such operations on the condition that they not violate any state or federal law, or have reversed course after initially allowing such activities within their geographical borders by either limiting or refusing to allow any further dispensaries to open in their community. This White Paper explores these matters, the apparent conflicts between federal and California law, and the scope of both direct and indirect adverse impacts of marijuana dispensaries in local communities. It also recounts several examples that could be emulated of what some governmental officials and law enforcement agencies have already instituted in their jurisdictions to limit the proliferation of marijuana dispensaries and to mitigate their negative consequences. FEDERAL LAW Except for very limited and authorized research purposes, federal law through the Controlled Substances Act absolutely prohibits the use of marijuana for any legal purpose, and classifies it as a banned Schedule I drug. It cannot be legally prescribed as medicine by a physician. And, the federal regulation supersedes any state regulation, so that under federal law California medical marijuana statutes do not provide a legal defense for cultivating or possessing marijuana—even with a physician's recommendation for medical use. © 2009 California Police Chiefs Assn. iv All Rights Reserved CALIFORNIA LAW Although California law generally prohibits the cultivation, possession, transportation, sale, or other transfer of marijuana from one person to another, since late 1996 after passage of an initiative (Proposition 215) later codified as the Compassionate Use Act, it has provided a limited affirmative defense to criminal prosecution for those who cultivate, possess, or use limited amounts of marijuana for medicinal purposes as qualified patients with a physician's recommendation or their designated primary caregiver or cooperative. Notwithstanding these limited exceptions to criminal culpability, California law is notably silent on any such available defense for a storefront marijuana dispensary, and California Attorney General Edmund G. Brown, Jr. has recently issued guidelines that generally find marijuana dispensaries to be unprotected and illegal drug-trafficking enterprises except in the rare instance that one can qualify as a true cooperative under California law. A primary caregiver must consistently and regularly assume responsibility for the housing, health, or safety of an authorized medical marijuana user, and nowhere does California law authorize cultivating or providing marijuana—medical or non-medical—for profit. California's Medical Marijuana Program Act (Senate Bill 420) provides further guidelines for mandated county programs for the issuance of identification cards to authorized medical marijuana users on a voluntary basis, for the chief purpose of giving them a means of certification to show law enforcement officers if such persons are investigated for an offense involving marijuana. This system is currently under challenge by the Counties of San Bernardino and San Diego and Sheriff Gary Penrod, pending a decision on review by the U.S. Supreme Court, as is California's right to permit any legal use of marijuana in light of federal law that totally prohibits any personal cultivation, possession, sale, transportation, or use of this substance whatsoever, whether for medical or non-medical purposes. PROBLEMS POSED BY MARIJUANA DISPENSARIES Marijuana dispensaries are commonly large money -making enterprises that will sell marijuana to most anyone who produces a physician's written recommendation for its medical use. These recommendations can be had by paying unscrupulous physicians a fee and claiming to have most any malady, even headaches. While the dispensaries will claim to receive only donations, no marijuana will change hands without an exchange of money. These operations have been tied to organized criminal gangs, foster large grow operations, and are often multi -million -dollar profit centers. Because they are repositories of valuable marijuana crops and large amounts of cash, several operators of dispensaries have been attacked and murdered by aimed robbers both at their storefronts and homes, and such places have been regularly burglarized. Drug dealing, sales to minors, loitering, heavy vehicle and foot traffic in retail areas, increased noise, and robberies of customers just outside dispensaries are also common ancillary byproducts of their operations. To repel store invasions, firearms are often kept on hand inside dispensaries, and firearms are used to hold up their proprietors. These dispensaries are either linked to large imarijuana grow operations or encourage home grows by buying marijuana to dispense. And, just as destructive fires and unhealthful mold in residential neighborhoods are often the result of large indoor home grows designed to supply dispensaries, money laundering also naturally results from dispensaries' likely unlawful operations. © 2009 California Police Chiefs Assn. v All Rights Reserved LOCAL GOVERNMENTAL RESPONSES Local governmental bodies can impose a moratorium on the licensing of marijuana dispensaries while investigating this issue; can ban this type of activity because it violates federal law; can use zoning to control the dispersion of dispensaries and the attendant problems that accompany them in unwanted areas; and can condition their operation on not violating any federal or state law, which is akin to banning them, since their primary activities will always violate federal law as it now exists— and almost surely California law as well. LIABILITY While highly unlikely, local public officials, including county supervisors and city council members, could potentially be charged and prosecuted for aiding and abetting criminal acts by authorizing and licensing marijuana dispensaries if they do not qualify as "cooperatives" under California law, which would be a rare occurrence. Civil liability could also result. ENFORCEMENT OF MARIJUANA LAWS While the Drug Enforcement Administration has been very active in raiding large-scale marijuana dispensaries in California in the recent past, and arresting and prosecuting their principals under federal law in selective cases, the new U.S. Attorney General, Eric Holder, Jr., has very recently announced a major change of federal position in the enforcement of federal drug laws with respect to marijuana dispensaries. It is to target for prosecution only marijuana dispensaries that are exposed as fronts for drug trafficking. It remains to be seen what standards and definitions will be used to determine what indicia will constitute a drug trafficking operation suitable to trigger investigation and enforcement under the new federal administration. Some counties, like law enforcement agencies in the County of San Diego and County of Riverside, have been aggressive in confronting and prosecuting the operators of marijuana dispensaries under state law. Likewise, certain cities and counties have resisted granting marijuana dispensaries business licenses, have denied applications, or have imposed moratoria on such enterprises. Here, too, the future is uncertain, and permissible legal action with respect to marijuana dispensaries may depend on future court decisions not yet handed down. Largely because the majority of their citizens have been sympathetic and projected a favorable attitude toward medical marijuana patients, and have been tolerant of the cultivation and use of marijuana, other local public officials in California cities and counties, especially in Northern California, have taken a "hands off' attitude with respect to prosecuting marijuana dispensary operators or attempting to close down such operations. But, because of the life safety hazards caused by ensuing fires that have often erupted in resultant home grow operations, and the violent acts that have often shadowed dispensaries, some attitudes have changed and a few political entities have reversed course after having previously licensed dispensaries and authorized liberal permissible amounts of marijuana for possession by medical marijuana patients in their jurisdictions. These "patients" have most often turned out to be young adults who are not sick at all, but have secured a physician's written recommendation for marijuana use by simply paying the required fee demanded for this document without even first undergoing a physical examination. Too often "medical marijuana" has been used as a smokescreen for those who want to legalize it and profit off it, and storefront dispensaries established as cover for selling an illegal substance for a lucrative return. 2009 California Police Chiefs Assn, vi All Rights Reserved WHITE PAPER ON MARIJUANA DISPENSARIES by CALIFORNIA POLICE CHIEFS ASSOCIATION Editor: Dennis Tilton, M.A.Ed., M.A.Lit., M.C.J., J.D. Adjunct Professor of Criminal Justice, Political Science, & Public Administration, Upper Iowa University Sheriff's Legal Counsel (Retired), San Bernardino County Sheriff's Department INTRODUCTION In November of 1996, California voters passed Proposition 215. The initiative set out to make marijuana available to people with certain illnesses. The initiative was later supplemented by the Medical Marijuana Program Act. Across the state, counties and municipalities have varied in their responses to medical marijuana. Some have allowed businesses to open and provide medical marijuana. Others have disallowed all such establishments within their borders. Several once issued business licenses allowing medical marijuana stores to operate, but no longer do so. This paper discusses the legality of both medical marijuana and the businesses that make it available, and more specifically, the problems associated with medical marijuana and marijuana dispensaries, under whatever name they operate. FEDERAL LAW Federal law clearly and unequivocally states that all marijuana -related activities are illegal. Consequently, all people engaged in such activities are subject to federal prosecution. The United States Supreme Court has ruled that this federal regulation supersedes any state's regulation of marijuana — even California's. (Gonzales v. Raich (2005) 125 S.Ct. 2195, 2215.) "The Supremacy Clause unambiguously provides that if there is any conflict between federal law and state law, federal law shall prevail." (Gonzales v. Raich, supra.) Even more recently, the 9'h Circuit Court of Appeals found that there is no fundamental right under the United States Constitution to even use medical inarijuana. (Raich v. Gonzales (9th Cir. 2007) 500 F.3d 850, 866.) In Gonzales v. Raich, the High Court declared that, despite the attempts of several states to partially legalize marijuana, it continues to be wholly illegal since it is classified as a Schedule I drug under federal law. As such, there are no exceptions to its illegality. (21 USC secs. 812(c), 841(a)(1).) Over the past thirty years, there have been several attempts to have marijuana reclassified to a different schedule which would pormit medical use of the drug. All of these attempts havc failed. (See Gonzales v. Raich (2005) 125 S.Ct. 2195, fn 23.) The mere categorization of marijuana as "medical" by some states fails to carve out any legally recognized exception regarding the drug. Marijuana, in any form, is neither valid nor legal. Clearly the United States Supreme Court is the highest court in the land. Its decisions are final and binding upon all lower courts. The Court invoked the United States Supremacy Clause and the Commerce Clause in reaching its decision. The Supremacy Clause declares that all laws made in pursuance of the Constitution shall be the "supreme law of the land" and shall be legally superior to any conflicting provision of a state constitution or law. 1 The Commerce Clause states that "the © 2009 California Police Chiefs Assn. 1 All Rights Reserved Congress shall have power to regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes." z Gonzales v. Raich addressed the concerns of two California individuals growing and using marijuana under California's medical marijuana statute. The Court explained that under the Controlled Substances Act marijuana is a Schedule I drug and is strictly regulated .3 "Schedule I drugs are categorized as such because of their high potential for abuse, lack of any accepted medical use, and absence of any accepted safety for use in medically supervised treatment."4 (21 USC sec. 812(b)(1).) The Court ruled that the Commerce Clause is applicable to California individuals growing and obtaining marijuana for their own personal, medical use. Under the Supremacy Clause, the federal regulation of marijuana, pursuant to the Commerce Clause, supersedes any state's regulation, including California's. The Court found that the California statutes did not provide any federal defense if a person is brought into federal court for cultivating or possessing marijuana. Accordingly, there is no federal exception for the growth, cultivation, use or possession of marijuana and all such activity remains illegal.5 California's Compassionate Use Act of 1996 and Medical Marijuana Program Act of 2004 do not create an exception to this federal law. All marijuana activity is absolutely illegal and subject to federal regulation and prosecution. This notwithstanding, on March 19, 2009, U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder, Jr. announced that under the new Obama Administration the U.S. Department of Justice plans to target for prosecution only those marijuana dispensaries that use medical marijuana dispensing as a front for dealers of illegal drugs.6 CALIFORNIA LAW Generally, the possession, cultivation, possession for sale, transportation, distribution, furnishing, and giving away of marijuana is unlawful under California state statutory law. (See Cal. Health & Safety Code secs. 11357-11360.) But, on November 5, 1996, California voters adopted Proposition 215, an initiative statute authorizing the medical use of marijuana.' The initiative added California Health and Safety code section 11362.5, which allows "seriously ill Californians the right to obtain and use marijuana for medical purposes where that medical use is deemed appropriate and has been recommended by a physician ...."$ The codified section is known as the Compassionate Use Act of 1996.4 Additionally, the State Legislature passed Senate Bill 420 in 2003. It became the Medical Marijuana Program Act and took effect on January 1, 2004.10 This act expanded the definitions of "patient" and "primary caregiver"� and created guidelines for identification cards. 12 It defined the amount of marijuana that "patients," and "primary caregivers" can possess. 13 It also created a limited affirmative defense to criminal prosecution for qualifying individuals that collectively gather to cultivate medical marijuana, 14 as well as to the crimes of marijuana possession, possession for sale, transportation, sale, furnishing, cultivation, and maintenance of places for storage, use, or distribution of marijuana for a person who qualifies as a "patient," a "primary caregiver," or as a member of a legally recognized "cooperative," as those terms are defined within the statutory scheme. Nevertheless, there is no provision in any of these laws that authorizes or protects the establishment of a "dispensary" or other storefront marijuana distribution operation. Despite their illegality in the federal context, the medical marijuana laws in California are specific. The statutes craft narrow affrnnative defenses for particular individuals with respect to enumerated marijuana activity. All conduct, and people engaging in it, that falls outside of the statutes' parameters remains illegal under California law. Relatively few individuals will be able to assert the affirmative defense in the statute. To use it a person must be a "qualified patient," "primary caregiver," or a member of a "cooperative." Once they are charged with a crime, if a person can prove an applicable legal status, they are entitled to assert this statutory defense. 2009 California Police Chiefs Assn. 2 All Rights Reserved Former California Attorney General Bill Lockyer has also spoken about medical marijuana, and strictly construed California law relating to it. His office issued a bulletin to California law enforcement agencies on June 9, 2005. The office expressed the opinion that Gonzales v. Raich did not address the validity of the California statutes and, therefore, had no effect on California law. The office advised law enforcement to not change their operating procedures. Attorney General Lockyer made the recommendation that law enforcement neither arrest nor prosecute "individuals within the legal scope of California's Compassionate Use Act." Now the current California Attorney General, Edmund G. Brown, Jr., has issued guidelines concerning the handling of issues relating to California's medical marijuana laws and marijuana dispensaries. The guidelines are much tougher on storefront dispensaries—generally finding them to be unprotected, illegal drug-trafficking enterprises if they do not fall within the narrow legal definition of a "cooperative"—than on the possession and use of marijuana upon the recommendation of a physician. When California's medical marijuana laws are strictly construed, it appears that the decision in Gonzales v. Raich does affect California law. However, provided that federal law does not preempt California law in this area, it does appear that the California statutes offer some legal protection to "individuals within the legal scope of the acts. The medical marijuana laws speak to patients, primary caregivers, and true collectives. These people are expressly mentioned in the statutes, and, if their conduct comports to the law, they may have some state legal protection for specified marijuana activity. Conversely, all marijuana establishments that fall outside the letter and spirit of the statutes, including dispensaries and storefront facilities, are not legal. These establishments have no legal protection. Neither the former California Attorney General's opinion nor the current California Attorney General's guidelines present a contrary view. Nevertheless, without specifically addressing marijuana dispensaries, Attorney General Brown has sent his deputies attorney general to defend the codified Medical Marijuana Program Act against court challenges, and to advance the position that the state's regulations promulgated to enforce the provisions of the codified Compassionate Use Act (Proposition 215), including a statewide database and county identification card systems for marijuana patients authorized by their physicians to use marijuana, are all valid. 1. Conduct California Health and Safety Code sections 11362.765 and 11362.775 describe the conduct for which the affirmative defense is available. If a person qualifies as a "patient," "primary caregiver," or is a member of a legally recognized "cooperative," he or she has an affirmative defense to possessing a defined amount of marijuana. Under the statutes no more than eight ounces of dried marijuana can be possessed. Additionally, ei(her six mature or twelve immature plants may be possessed. 15 If a person claims patient or primary caregiver status, and possesses unore than this amount of marijuana, he or she can be prosecuted for drug possession. The qualifying individuals may also cultivate, plant, harvest, dry, and/or process marijuana, but only while still strictly observing the permitted amount of the drug. The statute may also provide a limited affirmative defense for possessing marijuana for sale, transporting it, giving it away, maintaining a marijuana house, knowingly providing a space where marijuana can be accessed, and creating a narcotic nuisance. 16 However, for anyone who cannot lay claim to the appropriate status under the statutes, all instances of marijuana possession, cultivation, planting, harvesting, drying, processing, possession for the purposes of sales, completed sales, giving away, administration, transportation, maintaining of marijuana houses, knowingly providing a space for marijuana activity, and creating a narcotic nuisance continue to be illegal under- California law. © 2009 California Police Chiefs Assn. 3 All Rights Reserved 2. Patients and Cardholders A dispensary obviously is not a patient or cardholder. A "qualified patient" is an individual with a physician's recommendation that indicates marijuana will benefit the treatment of a qualifying illness. (Cal. H&S Code secs. 11362.5(b)(1)(A) and 11362.7(f).) Qualified illnesses include cancer, anorexia, AIDS, chronic pain, spasticity, glaucoma, arthritis, migraine, or any other illness far which nrar#uanaar provides relief," A physician's recommendation that indicates medical marijuana will benefit the treatment of an illness is required before a person can claim to be a medical marijuana patient. Accordingly, such proof is also necessary before a medical marijuana affirmative defense can be claimed. A "person with an identification card" means an individual who is a qualified patient who has applied for and received a valid identification card issued by the State Department of Health Services. (Cal. H&S Code secs. 11362.7(c) and 11362.7(g).) 3. Primary Caregivers The only person or entity authorized to receive compensation for services provided to patients and cardholders is a primary caregiver. (Cal. H&S Code sec. 11362.77(c).) However, nothing in the law authorizes any individual or group to cultivate or distribute marijuana for profit. (Cal. H&S Code sec. 11362.765(a).) It is important to note that it is almost impossible for a storefront marijuana business to gain true primary caregiver status. Businesses that call themselves "cooperatives," but function like storefront dispensaries, suffer this same fate. In People v. Mower, the court was very clear that the defendant had to prove he was a primary caregiver in order to raise the medical marijuana affirmative defense. Mr. Mower was prosecuted for supplying two people with marijuana. $ He claimed he was their primary caregiver under the medical marijuana statutes. This claim required him to prove he "consistently had assumed responsibility for either one's housing, health, or safety" before he could assert the defense.19 (Emphasis added.) The key to being a primary caregiver is not simply that marijuana is provided for a patient's health; the responsibility for the health must be consistent; it must be independent of merely providing marijuana for a qualified person; and such a primary caregiver -patient relationship must begin before or contemporaneously with the time of assumption of responsibility for assisting the individual with marijuana. (People v. Mentch (2008) 45 CalAth 274, 283.) Any relationship a storefront marijuana business has with a patient is much more likely to be transitory than consistent, and to be wholly lacking in providing for a patient's health needs beyond just supplying hien or her with marijuana. A "primary caregiver" is an individual or facility that has "consistently assumed responsibility for the housing, health, or safety of a patient" over time. (Cal. H&S Code sec. I I362.5(e).) "Consistency" is the key to meeting this definition. A patient can elect to patronize any dispensary that he or she chooses. The patient can visit different dispensaries on a single day or any subsequent day. The statutory definition includes some clinics, health care facilities, residential care facilities, and hospices. But, in light of the holding in People v. Mentch, supra, to qualify as a primary caregiver, more aid to a person's health must occur beyond merely dispensing marijuana to a given customer. Additionally, if more than one patient designates the same person as the primary caregiver, all individuals must reside in the same city or county. And, in most circumstances the primary caregiver must be at least 18 years of age. © 2009 California Police Chiefs Assn. 4 All Rights Reserved The courts have found that the act of signing a piece of paper declaring that someone is a primary caregiver does not necessarily make that person one. (See People ex rel. Lungren v. Peron (1997) 59 Cal.AppAth 1383, 1390: "One maintaining a source of marijuana supply, from which all members of the public qualified as permitted medicinal users may or may not discretionarily elect to make purchases, does not thereby become the party `who has consistently assumed responsibility for the housing, health, or safety' of that purchaser as section I I362.5(e) requires.") The California Legislature had the opportunity to legalize the existence of dispensaries when setting forth what types of facilities could qualify as "primary caregivers." Those included in the list clearly show the Legislature's intent to restrict the definition to one involving a significant and long-term commitment to the patient's health, safety, and welfare. The only facilities which the Legislature authorized to serve as "primary caregivers" are clinics, health care facilities, residential care facilities, home health agencies, and hospices which actually provide medical care or supportive services to qualified patients. (Cal. H&S Code see. 11362.7(d)(1).) Any business that cannot prove that its relationship with the patient meets these requirements is not a primary caregiver. Functionally, the business is a drug dealer and is subject to prosecution as such. 4. Cooperatives and Collectives According to the California Attorney General's recently issued Guidelines for the Security and Non - Diversion of Marijuana Grotivn jor Medical Use, unless they meet stringent requirements, dispensaries also cannot reasonably claim to be cooperatives or collectives. In passing the Medical Marijuana Program Act, the Legislature sought, in part, to enhance the access of patients and caregivers to medical marijuana through collective, cooperative cultivation programs. (People v. Urziceanu (2005) 132 Cal.AppAth 747, 881.) The Act added section 11362.775, which provides that "Patients and caregivers 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" for the crimes of marijuana possession, possession for sale, transportation, sale, furnishing, cultivation, and maintenance of places for storage, use, or distribution of marijuana. However, there is no authorization for any individual or group to cultivate or distribute marijuana for profit. (Cal. H&S Code sec. 11362.77(a).) If a dispensary is only a storefront distribution operation open to the general public, and there is no indication that it has been involved with growing or cultivating marijuana for the benefit of members as a non-profit enterprise, it will not qualify as a cooperative to exempt it from criminal penalties under California's marijuana laws. Further, the common dictionary definition of "collectives" is that they are organizations jointly managed by those using its facilities or services. Legally recognized cooperatives generally possess "the following features: control and ownership of each member is substantially equal; members are limited to those who will avail themselves of the services furnished by the association; transfer of ownership interests is prohibited or limited; capital investment receives either no return or a limited return; economic benefits pass to the members on a substantially equal basis or on the basis of their patronage of the association; members are not personally liable for obligations of the association in the absence of a direct undertaking or authorization by them; death, bankruptcy, or withdrawal of one or more members does not terminate the association; and [the] services of the association are furnished primarily for the use of the members_"20 Marijuana businesses, of any kind, do not normally meet this legal definition. © 2009 California Police Chiefs Assn. 5 All Rights Reserved Based on the foregoing, it is clear that virtually all marijuana dispensaries are not legal enterprises under either federal or state law. LAWS IN OTHER STATES Besides California, at the time of publication of this White Paper, thirteen other states have enacted medical marijuana laws on their books, whereby to some degree marijuana recommended or prescribed by -a physician to a specified patient maybe legally possessed. These states are Alaska, Colorado, Hawaii, Maine, Maryland, Michigan, Montana, Nevada, New Mexico, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont, and Washington. And, possession of marijuana under one ounce has now been decriminalized in Massachusetts.21 STOREFRONT MARIJUANA DISPENSARIES AND COOPERATIVES Since the passage of the Compassionate Use Act of 1996, many storefront marijuana businesses have opened in California. 22 Some are referred to as dispensaries, and some as cooperatives; but it is how they operate that removes them from any umbrella of legal protection. These facilities operate as if they are pharmacies, Most offer different types and grades of marijuana. Some offer baked goods that contain marijuana. 23 Monetary donations are collected from the patient or primary caregiver when marijuana or food items are received. The items are not technically sold since that would be a criminal violation of the statutes.24 These facilities are able to operate because they apply for and receive business licenses from cities and counties. Federally, all existing storefront marijuana businesses are subject to search and closure since they violate federal law. 25 Their mere existence violates federal law. Consequently, they have no right to exist or operate, and arguably cities and counties in California have no authority to sanction them. Similarly, in California there is no apparent authority for the existence of these storefront marijuana businesses. The Medical Marijuana Program Act of 2004 allows patients and primary caregivers to grow and cultivate marijuana, and no one else. 26 Although California Health and Safety Code section 11362.775 offers some state legal protection for tnie collectives and cooperatives, no parallel protection exists in the statute for any storefront business providing any narcotic. The common dictionary definition of collectives is that they are organizations jointly managed by those using its facilities or services. Legally recognized cooperatives generally possess "the following features: control and ownership of each member is substantially equal; members are limited to those who will avail themselves of the services furnished by the association; transfer of ownership interests is prohibited or limited; capital investment receives either no return or a limited return; economic benefits pass to the members on a substantially equal basis or on the basis of their patronage of the association; members are not personally liable for obligations of the association in the absence of a direct undertaking or authorization by them; death, bankruptcy or withdrawal of one or more members does not terminate the association; and [the] services of the association are furnished primarily for the use of the members ."27 Marijuana businesses, of any kind, do not meet this legal definition. Actual medical dispensaries are commonly defined as offices in hospitals, schools, or other institutions from which medical supplies, preparations, and treatments are dispensed. Hospitals, hospices, home health care agencies, and the like are specifically included in the code as primary caregivers as long as they have "consistently assumed responsibility for the housing, health, or safety" of a patieut.28 Clearly, it is doubtful that any of the storefront marijuana businesses currently © 2009 California Police Chiefs Assn. 6 All Rights Reserved existing in California can claim that status. Consequently, they are not primary caregivers and are subject to prosecution under both California and federal laws. HOW EXISTING DISPENSARIES OPERATE Despite their clear illegality, some cities do have existing and operational dispensaries. Assuming, arguendo, that they may operate, it may be helpful to review the mechanics of the business. The fanner Green Cross dispensary in San Francisco illustrates how a typical marijuana dispensary works. 29 A guard or employee may check for medical marijuana cards or physician recommendations at the entrance. Many types and grades of marijuana are usually available. Although employees are neither pharmacists nor doctors, sales clerks will probably make recommendations about what type of marijuana will best relieve a given medical symptom. Baked goods containing marijuana may be available and sold, although there is usually no health permit to sell baked goods. The dispensary will give the patient a form to sign declaring that the dispensary is their "primary caregiver" (a process fraught with legal difficulties). The patient then selects the marijuana desired and is told what the "contribution" will be for the product. The California Health & Safety Code specifically prohibits the sale of marijuana to a patient, so "contributions" are made to reimburse the dispensary for its time and care in making "product" available. However, if a calculation is made based on the available evidence, it is clear that these "contributions" can easily add up to millions of dollars per year. That is a very large cash flow for a "non-profit" organization denying any participation in the retail sale of narcotics. Before its application to renew its business license was denied by the City of San Francisco, there were single days that Green Cross sold $45,000 worth of marijuana. On Saturdays, Green Cross could sell marijuana to forty-three patients an hour. The marijuana sold at the dispensary was obtained from growers who brought it to the store in backpacks. A medium- sized backpack would hold approximately $16,000 worth of marijuana. Green Cross used many different marijuana growers. It is clear that dispensaries are running as if they are businesses, not legally valid cooperatives. Additionally, they claim to be the "primary caregivers" of patients. This is a spurious claim. As discussed above, the term "primary caregiver" has a very specific meaning and defined legal qualifications. A primary caregiver is an individual who has "consistently assumed responsibility for the housing, health, or safety of a patient." 30 The statutory definition includes some clinics, health care facilities, residential care facilities, and hospices. If more than one patient designates the same person as the primary caregiver, all individuals must reside in the same city or county. In most circumstances the primary caregiver must be at least 18 years of age. It is almost impossible for a storefront marijuana business to gain true primary caregiver status. A business would have to prove that it "consistently had assumed responsibility for [a patient's] housing, health, or safety. i31 The key to being a primary caregiver is not simply that marijuana is provided for a patient's health: the responsibility for the patient's health must be consistent. As seen in the Green Cross example, a storefront marijuana business's relationship with a patient is most likely transitory. In order to provide a qualified patient with marijuana, a storefront marijuana business must create an instant "primary caregiver" relationship with him. The very fact that the relationship is instant belies any consistency in their relationship and the requirement that housing, health, or safety is consistently provided. Courts have found that a patient's act of signing a piece of paper declaring that someone is a primary caregiver does not necessarily make that person one. The © 2009 California Police Chiefs Assn. 7 All Rights Reserved consistent relationship demanded by the statute is mere fiction if it can be achieved between an J ndividual and a business that functions like a narcotic retail store. ADVERSE SECONDARY EFFECTS OF MARIJUANA DISPENSARIES AND SIMILIARLY OPERATING COOPERATIVES Of great concern are the adverse secondary effects of these dispensaries and storefront cooperatives. They are many. Besides flouting federal law by selling a prohibited Schedule I drug under the Controlled Substances Act, marijuana dispensaries attract or cause numerous ancillary social problems as byproducts of their operation. The most glaring of these are other criminal acts. ANCILLARY CRIMES A. ARMED ROBBERIES AND MURDERS Throughout California, many violent crimes have been committed that can be traced to the proliferation of marijuana dispensaries. These include armed robberies and murders. For example, as far back as 2002, two home occupants were shot in Willits, California in the course of a home - invasion robbery targeting medical marijuana. 32 And, a series of four armed robberies of a marijuana dispensary in Santa Barbara, California occurred through August 10, 2006, in which thirty dollars and fifteen baggies filled with marijuana on display were taken by force and removed from the premises in the latest holdup. The owner said he failed to report the first three robberies because "medical marijuana is such a controversial issue." 33 On February 25, 2004, in Mendocino County two masked thugs committed a home invasion robbery to steal medical marijuana. They held a knife to a 65 -year-old man's throat, and though he fought back, managed to get away with large amounts of marijuana. They were soon caught, and one of the men received a sentence of six years in state prison. 34 And, on August 19, 2005, 18 -year-old Demarco Lowrey was "shot in the stomach" and "bled to death" during a gunfight with the business owner when he and his friends attempted a takeover robbery of a storefront marijuana business in the City of San Leandro, California. The owner fought back with the hooded home invaders, and a gun battle ensued. Demarco Lowery was hit by gunfire and "dumped outside the emergency entrance of Children's Hospital Oakland" after the shootout.35 He did not survive .36 Near Hayward, California, on September 2, 2005, upon leaving a marijuana dispensary, a patron of the CCA Cannabis Club had a gun put to his head as he was relieved of over $250 worth of pot. Three weeks later, another break-in occurred at the Garden of Eden Cannabis Club in September of 2005.37 Another known marijuana -dispensary -related murder occurred on November 19, 2005. Approximately six gun- and bat -wielding burglars broke into Les Crane's home in Laytonville, California while yelling, "This is a raid." Les Crane, who owned two storefront marijuana businesses, was at home and shot to death. He received gunshot wounds to his head, arm, and abdomen. 38 Another man present at the time was beaten with a baseball bat. The murderers left the home after taking an unknown sum of U.S. currency and a stash of processed marijuana. 39 Then, on January 9, 2007, marijuana plant cultivator Rex Farrance was shot once in the chest and killed in his own home after four masked intruders broke in and demanded money. When the homeowner ran to fetch a firearm, he was shot dead. The robbers escaped with a small amount of © 2009 California Police Chiefs Assn. 8 All Rights Reserved cash and handguns. Investigating officers counted 109 marijuana plants in various phases of cultivation inside the house, along with two digital scales and just under 4 pounds of cultivated marijuana. 40 More recently in Colorado, Ken Gorman, a former gubernatorial candidate and dispenser of marijuana who had been previously robbed over twelve times at his home in Denver, was found murdered by gunshot inside his home. He was a prominent proponent of medical marijuana and the legalization of marijuana. 41 B. BURGLARIES In June of 2007, after two burglarizing youths in Bellflower, California were caught by the homeowner trying to steal the fruits of his indoor marijuana grow, he shot one who was running away, and killed him. 42 And, again in January of 2007, Claremont Councilman Corey Calaycay went on record calling marijuana dispensaries "crime magnets" after a burglary occurred in one in Claremont, California.43 On July 17, 2006, the El Cerrito City Council voted to ban all such marijuana facilities. It did so after reviewing a nineteen -page report that detailed a rise in crime near these storefront dispensaries in other cities. The crimes included robberies, assaults, burglaries, murders, and attempted murders Even Even though marijuana storefront businesses do not currently exist in the City of Monterey Park, California, it issued a moratorium on them after studying the issue in August of 2006.45 After allowing these establishments to operate within its borders, the City of West Hollywood, California passed a similar moratorium. The moratorium was "prompted by incidents of armed burglary at some of the city's eight existing pot stores and complaints from neighbors about increased pedestrian and vehicle traffic and noise ....„46 C. TRAFFIC, NOISE, AND DRUG DEALING Increased noise and pedestrian traffic, including nonresidents in pursuit of marijuana, and out of area criminals in search of prey, are commonly encountered just outside marijuana dispensaries,47 as well as drug-related offenses in the vicinity—like resales of products just obtained inside—since these marijuana centers regularly attract marijuana growers, drug users, and drug traffickers. 49 Sharing just purchased marijuana outside dispensaries also regularly takes place. 49 Rather than the "seriously ill,” for whom medical marijuana was expressly intended, so "'perfectly healthy' young people frequenting dispensaries" are a much more common sight.51 Patient records seized by law enforcement officers from dispensaries during raids in San Diego County, California in December of 2005 "showed that 72 percent of patients were between 17 and 40 years old ...."52 Said one admitted inaiijuana trafficker, "The people I deal with are the same faces I was dealing with 12 years ago but now, because of Senate Bill 420, they are supposedly legit. I can totally see why cops are bummed."53 Reportedly, a security guard sold half a pound of marijuana to an undercover officer just outside a dispensary in Morro Bay, California. 54 And, the mere presence of marijuana dispensaries encourages illegal growers to plant, cultivate, and transport ever more marijuana, in order to supply and sell their crops to these storefront operators in the thriving medical marijuana dispensary market, so that the national domestic marijuana yield has been estimated to be 35.8 billion dollars, of which a 13.8 billion dollar share is California grown. 55 It is a big business. And, although the operators of some dispensaries will claim that they only accept monetary contributions for the products they © 2009 California Police Chiefs Assn. 9 All Rights Reserved dispense, and do not sell marijuana, a patron will not receive any marijuana until an amount of money acceptable to the dispensary has changed hands. D. ORGANIZED CRIME, MONEY LAUNDERING, AND FIREARMS VIOLATIONS Increasingly, reports have been surfacing about organized crime involvement in the ownership and operation of marijuana dispensaries, including Asian and other criminal street gangs and at least one member of the Armenian Mafia, 56 The dispensaries or "pot clubs" are often used as a front by organized crime gangs to traffic in drugs and launder money. One such gang whose territory included San Francisco and Oakland, California reportedly ran a multi-million dollar business operating ten warehouses in which vast amounts of marijuana plants were grown. 57 Besides seizing over 9,000 marijuana plants during surprise raids on this criminal enterprise's storage facilities, federal officers also confiscated three firearms,58 which seem to go hand in hand with medical marijuana cultivation and dispensaries. 59 Marijuana storefront businesses have allowed criminals to flourish in California. In the summer of 2007, the City of San Diego cooperated with federal authorities and served search warrants on several marijuana dispensary locations. In addition to marijuana, marry weapons were recovered, including a stolen handgun and an M-16 assault rifle. 60 The National Drug Intelligence Center reports that marijuana growers are employing armed guards, using explosive booby traps, and murdering people to shield their crops. Street gangs of all national origins are involved in transporting and distributing marijuana to meet the ever increasing demand for the drug .61 Active Asian gangs have included members of Vietnamese organized crime syndicates who have migrated from Canada to buy homes throughout the United States to use as grow houses.62 Some or all of the processed harvest of marijuana plants nurtured in these homes then wind up at storefront marijuana dispensaries owned and operated by these gangs. Storefront marijuana businesses are very dangerous enterprises that thrive on ancillary grow operations. Besides fueling marijuana dispensaries, some monetary proceeds from the sale of harvested marijuana derived from plants grown inside houses are being used by organized crime syndicates to fund other legitimate businesses for profit and the laundering of money, and to conduct illegal business operations like prostitution, extortion, and drug trafficking. 63 Money from residential grow operations is also sometimes traded by criminal gang members for firearms, and used to buy drugs, personal vehicles, and additional houses for more grow operations, 64 and along with the illegal income derived from large-scale organized crime -related marijuana production operations comes widespread income tax evasion. 65 E. POISONINGS Another social problem somewhat unique to marijuana dispensaries is poisonings, both intentional and unintentional. On August 16, 2006, the Los Angeles Police Department received two such reports. One involved a security guard who ate a piece of cake extended to him from an operator of a marijuana clinic as a "gift," and soon afterward felt dizzy and disoriented," The second incident concerned a UPS driver who experienced similar symptoms after accepting and eating a cookie given to him by an operator of a different marijuana clinic. 61 © 2009 California Police Chiefs Assn. 10 All Rights Reserved OTHER ADVERSE SECONDARY IMPACTS IN THE IMMEDIATE VICINITY OF DISPENSARIES Other adverse secondary impacts from the operation of marijuana dispensaries include street dealers lurking about dispensaries to offer a lower price for marijuana to arriving patrons; marijuana smoking in public and in front of children in the vicinity of dispensaries; loitering and nuisances; acquiring marijuana and/or money by means of robbery of patrons going to or leaving dispensaries; an increase in burglaries at or near dispensaries; a loss of trade for other commercial businesses located near dispensaries; the sale at dispensaries of other illegal drugs besides marijuana; an increase in traffic accidents and driving under the influence arrests in which marijuana is implicated; and the failure of marijuana dispensary operators to report robberies to police.as SECONDARY ADVERSE IMPACTS IN THE COMMUNITY AT LARGE A. UNJUSTIFIED AND FICTITIOUS PHYSICIAN RECOMMENDATIONS California's legal requirement under California Health and Safety Code section 11362.5 that a physician's recommendation is required for a patient or caregiver to possess medical marijuana has resulted in other undesirable outcomes: wholesale issuance of recommendations by unscrupulous physicians seeking a quick buck, and the proliferation of forged or fictitious physician recommendations. Some doctors link up with a marijuana dispensary and take up temporary residence in a local hotel room where they advertise their appearance in advance, and pass out medical marijuana use recommendations to a line of"patients" at "about $150 a pop. 69 Other individuals just make up their own phony doctor recommendations, 70 which are seldom, if ever, scrutinized by dispensary employees for authenticity. Undercover DEA agents sporting fake medical marijuana recommendations were readily able to purchase marijuana from a clinic. 71 Far too often, California's medical marijuana law is used as a smokescreen for healthy pot users to get their desired drug, and for proprietors of marijuana dispensaries to make money off them, without suffering any legal repercussions. 72 On March 11, 2009, the Osteopathic Medical Board of California adopted the proposed decision revoking Dr. Alfonso Jimenez's Osteopathic Physician's and Surgeon's Certificate and ordering him to pay $74,323.39 in cost recovery. Dr. Jimenez operated multiple marijuana clinics and advertised his services extensively on the Internet. Based on information obtained from raids on marijuana dispensaries in San Diego, in May of 2006, the San Diego Police Department ran two undercover operations on Dr. Jimenez's clinic in San Diego. In January of 2007, a second undercover operation was conducted by the Laguna Beach Police Department at Dr. Jimenez's clinic in Orange County. Based on the results of the undercover operations, the Osteopathic Medical Board charged Dr. Jimenez with gross negligence and repeated negligent acts in the treatment of undercover operatives posing as patients. After a six-day hearing, the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) issued her decision finding that Dr. Jimenez violated the standard of care by committing gross negligence and repeated negligence in care, treatment, and management of patients when he, among other things, issued medical marijuana recommendations to the undercover agents without conducting adequate medical examinations, failed to gain proper informed consent, and failed to consult with any primary care and/or treating physicians or obtain and review prior- medical records before issuing medical marijuana recommendations. The ALJ also found Dr. Jimenez engaged in dishonest behavior by preparing false and/or misleading medical records and disseminating false and misleading advertising to the public, including representing himself as a "Cannabis Specialist" and "Qualified Medical Marijuana Examiner" when no such formal specialty or qualification existed. Absent any © 2009 California Police Chiefs Assn. 11 All Rights Reserved requested administrative agency reconsideration or petition for court review, the decision was to become effective April 24, 2009. B. PROLIFERATION OF GROW IIOUSES IN RESIDENTIAL AREAS In recent years the proliferation of grow houses in residential neighborhoods has exploded. This phenomenon is country wide, and ranges from the purchase for purpose of marijuana grow operations of small dwellings to "high priced McMansions ...."73 Mushrooming residential marijuana grow operations have been detected in California, Connecticut, Florida, Georgia, New Hampshire, North Carolina, Ohio, South Carolina, and Texas. 74 In 2007 alone, such illegal operations were detected and shut down by federal and state law enforcement officials in 41 houses in California, 50 homes in Florida, and 11 homes in New Hampshire. 75 Since then, the number of residences discovered to be so impacted has increased exponentially. Part of this recent influx of illicit residential grow operations is because the "THC -rich `B.C. bud' strain" of marijuana originally produced in British Columbia "can be grown only in controlled indoor environments," and the Canadian market is now reportedly saturated with the product of "competing Canadian gangs," often Asian in composition or outlaw motorcycle gangs like the Hells Angel S,76 Typically, a gutted house can hold about 1,000 plants that will each yield almost half a pound of smokable marijuana; this collectively nets about 500 pounds of usable marijuana per harvest, with an average of three to four harvests per year.77 With a street value of $3,000 to $5,000 per pound" for high -potency marijuana, and such multiple hat -vests, "a successful grow house can bring in, between $4.5 million and $10 million a year ... .,'78 The high potency of hydroponically grown marijuana can command a price as much as six times higher than commercial grade marijuana. 79 C. LIFE SAFETY HAZARDS CREATED BY GROW HOUSES In Humboldt County, California, structure fires caused by unsafe indoor marijuana grow operations have become commonplace. The city of Arcata, which sports four marijuana dispensaries, was the site of a house fire in which a fan had fallen over and ignited a fire; it had been turned into a grow house by its tenant. Per Arcata Police Chief Randy Mendosa, altered and makeshift "no code" electrical service connections and overloaded wires used to operate high-powered grow lights and fans are common causes of the fres. Large indoor marijuana growing operations can create such excessive draws of electricity that PG&E power pole transformers are commonly blown. An average 1,500 - square -foot tract house used for growing marijuana can generate monthly electrical bills from $1,000 to $3,000 per month. From an environmental standpoint, the carbon footprint from greenhouse gas emissions created by large indoor marijuana grow operations should be a major concern for every community in terms of complying with Air Board AB -32 regulations, as well as other greenhouse gas reduction policies. Typically, air vents are cut into roofs, water seeps into carpeting, windows are blacked out, holes are cut in floors, wiring is jury-rigged, and electrical circuits are overloaded to operate grow lights and other apparatus. When fires start, they spread quickly. The May 31, 2008 edition of the Los Angeles Times reported, "Law enforcement officials estimate that as many as 1,000 of the 7,500 homes in this Hurnboldt County community are being used to cultivate marijuana, slashing into the housing stock, spreading building -safety problems and sowing neighborhood discord." Not surprisingly, in this bastion of liberal pot possession rules that authorized the cultivation of up to 99 plants for medicinal purpose, most structural fres in the community of Arcata have been of late associated with marijuana cultivation.30 Chief of Police Mendosa clarified that the actual number of marijuana grow houses in Arcata has been an ongoing subject of public debate. Mendosa added, "We know there are numerous grow houses in almost every neighborhood in and around the city, which has been the source of constant citizen complaints." House fires caused by © 2009 California Police Chiefs Assn. 12 All Rights Reserved grower -installed makeshift electrical wiring or tipped electrical fans are now endemic to Humboldt County. 8 1 Chief Mendosa also observed that since marijuana has an illicit street value of up to $3,000 per pound, marijuana grow houses have been susceptible to violent armed home invasion robberies. Large-scale marijuana grow houses have removed significant numbers of affordable houses from the residential rental market. When property owners discover their rentals are being used as grow houses, the residences are often left with major structural damage, which includes air vents cut into roofs and floors, water damage to floors and walls, and mold. The June 9, 2008 edition of the New York Times shows an unidentified Arcata man tending his indoor grow; the man claimed he can make $25,000 every three months by selling marijuana grown in the bedroom of his rented house. 82 Claims of ostensible medical marijuana growing pursuant to California's medical marijuana laws are being advanced as a mostly false shield in an attempt to justify such illicit operations. Neither is fire an uncommon occurrence at grow houses elsewhere across the nation. Another occurred not long ago in Holiday, Florida. 83 To compound matters further, escape routes for firefighters are often obstructed by blocked windows in grow houses, electric wiring is tampered with to steal electricity, and some residences are even booby -trapped to discourage and repel unwanted intruders. 84 D. INCREASED ORGANIZED GANG ACTIVITIES Along with marijuana dispensaries and the grow operations to support them come members of organized criminal gangs to operate and profit from them. Members of an ethnic Chinese drug gang were discovered to have operated 50 indoor grow operations in the San Francisco Bay area, while Cuban -American crime organizations have been found to be operating grow houses in Florida and elsewhere in the South. A Vietnamese drug ring was caught operating 19 grow houses in Seattle and Puget Sound, Washington. 85 In July of 2008, over 55 Asian gang members were indicted for narcotics trafficking in marijuana and ecstasy, including members of the Hop Sing Gang that had been actively operating marijuana grow operations in Elk Grove and elsewhere in the vicinity of Sacramento, California. 86 E. EXPOSURE OF MINORS TO MARIJUANA Minors who are exposed to marijuana at dispensaries or residences where marijuana plants are grown may be subtly influenced to regard it as a generally legal drug, and inclined to sample it. In grow houses, children are exposed to dangerous fire and health conditions that are inherent in indoor grow operations.37 Dispensaries also sell marijuana to minors.88 F. IMPAIRED PUBLIC HFAI,TH Indoor marijuana grow operations emit a skunk -like odor, 89 and foster generally unhealthy conditions like allowing chemicals and fertilizers to be placed in tike open, an increased carbon dioxide level within the grow house, and the accumulation of mold, 40 all of which are dangerous to any children or adults who may be living in the residence,91 although many grow houses are uninhabited. © 2009 California Police Chiefs Assn„ 13 All Rights Reserved G. LOSS OF BUSINESS TAX REVENUE When business suffers as a result of shoppers staying away on account of traffic, blight, crime, and the undesirability of a particular business district known to be frequented by drug users and traffickers, and organized criminal gang members, a city's tax revenues necessarily drop as a direct consequence. H. DECREASED QUALITY OF LIFE IN DETERIORATING NEIGHBORHOODS, BOTH BUSINESS AND RESIDENTIAL Marijuana dispensaries bring in the criminal element and loiterers, which in turn scare off potential business patrons of nearby legitimate businesses, causing loss of revenues and deterioration of the affected business district. Likewise, empty homes used as grow houses emit noxious odors in residential neighborhoods, project irritating sounds of whirring fans, 92 and promote the din of vehicles coming and going at all hours of the day and night. Near harvest time, rival growers and other uninvited enterprising criminals sometimes invade grow houses to beat "clip crews" to the site and rip off mature plants ready for harvesting. As a result, violence often erupts from confrontations in the affected residential neighborhood, 93 ULTIMATE CONCLUSIONS REGARDING ADVERSE SECONDARY EFFECTS On balance, any utility to medical marijuana patients in care giving and convenience that marijuana dispensaries may appear to have on the surface is enormously outweighed by a much darker reality that is punctuated by the many adverse secondary effects created by their presence in communities, recounted here. These drug distribution centers have even proven to be unsafe for their own proprietors. POSSIBLE LOCAL GOVERNMENTAL RESPONSES TO MARIJUANA DISPENSARIES A. IMPOSED MORATORIA BY ELECTED LOCAL GOVERNMENTAL OFFICIALS While in the process of investigating and researching the issue of licensing marijuana dispensaries, as an interim measure city councils may enact date -specific moratoria that expressly prohibit the presence of marijuana dispensaries, whether for medical use or otherwise, and prohibiting the sale of marijuana in any form on such premises, anywhere within the incorporated boundaries of the city until a specified date. Before such a moratorium's date of expiration, the moratorium may then either be extended or a city ordinance enacted completely prohibiting or otherwise restricting the establishment and operation of marijuana dispensaries, and the sale of all marijuana products on such premises. County supervisors can do the same with respect to marijuana dispensaries sought to be established within the unincorporated areas of a county. Approximately 80 California cities, including the cities of Antioch, Brentwood, Oakley, Pinole, and Pleasant Hill, and 6 counties, including Contra Costa County, have enacted moratoria banning the existence of marijuana dispensaries. In a novel approach, the City of Arcata issued a moratorium on any new dispensaries in the downtown area, based on no agricultural activities being permitted to occur there. 94 © 2009 California Police Chiefs Assn. 14 All Rights Reserved B. IMPOSED BANS BY ELECTED LOCAL GOVERNMENTAL OFFICIALS While the Compassionate Use Act of 1996 permits seriously ill persons to legally obtain and use marijuana for medical purposes upon a physician's recommendation, it is silent on marijuana dispensaries and does not expressly authorize the sale of marijuana to patients or primary caregivers. Neither Proposition 215 nor Senate Bill 420 specifically authorizes the dispensing of marijuana in any form from a storefront business. And, no state statute presently exists that expressly pen -nits the licensing or operation of marijuana dispensaries. 95 Consequently, approximately 39 California cities, including the Cities of Concord and San Pablo, and 2 counties have prohibited marijuana dispensaries within their respective geographical boundaries, while approximately 24 cities, including the City of Martinez, and 7 counties have allowed such dispensaries to do business within their jurisdictions. Even the complete prohibition of marijuana dispensaries within a given locale cannot be found to run afoul of current California law with respect to permitted use of marijuana for medicinal purposes, so long as the growing or use of medical marijuana by a city or county resident in conformance with state law is not proscribed, 96 In November of 2004, the City of Brampton in Ontario, Canada passed The Grow House Abatement By-law, which authorized the city council to appoint inspectors and local police officers to inspect suspected grow houses and render safe hydro meters, unsafe wiring, booby traps, and any violation of the Fire Code or Building Code, and remove discovered controlled substances and ancillary equipment designed to grow and manufacture such substances, at the involved homeowner's cost.97 And, after state legislators became appalled at the proliferation of for-profit residential grow operations, the State of Florida passed the Marijuana Grow House Eradication act (House Bill 173) in June of 2008. The governor signed this bill into law, making owning a house for the purpose of cultivating, packaging, and distributing marijuana a third-degree felony; growing 25 or more marijuana plants a second- degree felony; and growing "25 or more marijuana plants in a home with children present" a first- degree felony. 99 It has been estimated that approximately 17,500 marijuana grow operations were active in late 2007.99 To avoid becoming a dumping ground for organized crime syndicates who decide to move their illegal grow operations to a more receptive legislative environment, California and other states might be wise to quickly follow suit with similar bills, for it may already be happening. 100 C. IMPOSED RESTRICTED ZONING AND OTHER REGULATION BY ELECTED LOCAL GOVERNMENTAL OFFICIALS If so inclined, rather than completely prohibit marijuana dispensaries, through their zoning power city and county officials have the authority to restrict owner operators to locate and operate so-called "medical marijuana dispensaries" in prescribed geographical areas of a city or designated unincorporated areas of a county, and require them to meet prescribed licensing requirements before being allowed to do so. This is a risky course of action though for would-be dispensary operators, and perhaps lawmakers too, since federal authorities do not recognize any lawful right for the sale, purchase, or use of marijuana for medical use or otherwise anywhere in the United States, including California. Other cities and counties have included as a condition of licensure for dispensaries that the operator shall "violate no federal or state law," which puts any applicant in a "Catch-22" situation since to federal authorities any possession or sale of marijuana is automatically a violation of federal law. Still other municipalities have recently enacted or revised comprehensive ordinances that address a variety of medical marijuana issues. For example, according to the City of Arcata Community © 2009 California Police Chiefs Assn. 15 All Rights Reserved Development Department in Arcata, California, in response to constant citizen complaints from what had become an extremely serious community problem, the Arcata City Council revised its Land Use Standards for Medical Marijuana Cultivation and Dispensing. In December of 2008, City of Arcata Ordinance #1382 was enacted. It includes the following provisions: "Categories: 1. Personal Use 2. Cooperatives or Collectives Medical Marijuana for Personal Use: An individual qualified patient shall be allowed to cultivate medical marijuana within his/her private residence in conformance with the following standards: 1. Cultivation area shall not exceed 50 s uare feet and not exceed ten feet 00' in height. a. Cultivation lighting shall not exceed 1200 watts; b. Gas products (CO2i butane, etc.) for medical marijuana cultivation or processing is prohibited. C. Cultivation and sale is prohibited as a Home Occupation (sale or dispensing is prohibited). d. Qualified patient shall reside in the residence where the medical marijuana cultivation occurs; e. Qualified patient shall not participate in medical marijuana cultivation in any other residence. f. Residence kitchen, bathrooms, and primary bedrooms shall not be used primarily for medical marijuana cultivation; g. Cultivation area shall comply with the California Building Code § 1203.4 Natural Ventilation or § 402.3 Mechanical Ventilation. h. The medical marijuana cultivation area shall not adversely affect the health or safety of the nearby residents. 2. City Zoning Administrator my approve up to 100 square foot: a. Documentation showing why the 50 square foot cultivation area standard is not feasible. b. Include written permission from the property owner. C. City Building Official must inspect for California Building Code and Fire Code. d. At a minimum, the medical marijuana cultivation area shall be constructed with a 1 - hour firewall assembly of green board. C. Cultivation of medical marijuana for personal use is limited to detached single family residential properties, or the medical marijuana cultivation area shall be limited to a garage or self-contained outside accessory building that is secured, locked, and fully enclosed. Medical Marijuana Cooperatives or Collectives. 1. Allowed with a Conditional Use Permit. 2. In Commercial, Industrial, and Public Facility Zoning Districts. 3. Business form must be a cooperative or collective. 4. Existing cooperative or collective shall be in full compliance within one year. 5. Total number of medical marijuana cooperatives or collectives is limited to four and ultimately two. 6. Special consideration if located within a. A 300 foot radius from any existing residential zoning district, b. Within 500 feet of any other medical marijuana cooperative or collective. © 2009 California Police Chiefs Assn. 16 All Rights Reserved C. Within 500 feet from any existing public park, playground, day care, or school. 7. Source of medical marijuana. a. Permitted Cooperative or Collective. On-site medical marijuana cultivation shall not exceed twenty-five (25) percent of the total floor area, but in no case greater than 1,500 square feet and not exceed ten feet (10') in height. b. Off-site Permitted Cultivation. Use Permit application and be updated annually. C. Qualified Patients. Medical marijuana acquired from an individual qualified patient shall received no monetary remittance, and the qualified patient is a member of the medical marijuana cooperative or collective. Collective or cooperative may credit its members for medical marijuana provided to the collective or cooperative, which they may allocate to other members. 8. Operations Manual at a minimum include the following information: a. Staff screening process including appropriate background checks. b. Operating hours. C. Site, floor plan of the facility. d. Security measures located on the premises, including but not limited to, lighting, alarms, and automatic law enforcement notification. e. Screening, registration and validation process for qualified patients. f Qualified patient records acquisition and retention procedures. g. Process for tracking medical marijuana quantities and inventory controls including on-site cultivation, processing, and/or medical marijuana products received from outside sources. h. Measures taken to minimize or offset energy use from the cultivation or processing of medical marijuana. i. Chemicals stored, used and any effluent discharged into the City's wastewater and/or storm water system. 9. Operating Standards. a. No dispensing medical marijuana more than twice a day. b. Dispense to an individual qualified patient who has a valid, verified physician's recommendation. The medical marijuana cooperative or collective shall verify that the physician's recommendation is current and valid. C. Display the client rules and/or regulations at each building entrance. d. Smoking, ingesting or consuming medical marijuana on the premises or in the vicinity is prohibited. e. Persons under the age of eighteen (18) are precluded from entering the premises. f. No on-site display of marijuana plants. g. No distribution of live plants, starts and clones on through Use Permit. h. Permit the on-site display or sale of marijuana paraphernalia only through the Use Permit. i. Maintain all necessary permits, and pay all appropriate taxes. Medical marijuana cooperatives or collectives shall also provide invoices to vendors to ensure vendor's tax liability responsibility; j. Submit an "Annual Performance Review Report" which is intended to identify effectiveness of the approved Use Permit, Operations Manual, and Conditions of Approval, as well as the identification and implementation of additional procedures as deemed necessary. k. Monitoring review fees shall accompany the "Annual Performance Review Report" for costs associated with the review and approval of the report. 10. Permit Revocation or Modification. A use permit may be revoked or modified for non- compliance with one or more of the items described above." © 2009 California Police Chiefs Assn. 17 All Rights Reserved LIABILITY ISSUES With respect to issuing business licenses to marijuana storefront facilities a very real issue has arisen: counties and cities are arguably aiding and abetting criminal violations of federal law. Such actions clearly put the counties permitting these establishments in very precarious legal positions. Aiding and abetting a crime occurs when someone commits a crime, the person aiding that crime knew the criminal offender intended to commit the crime, and the person aiding the crime intended to assist the criminal offender in the commission of the crime. The legal definition of aiding and abetting could be applied to counties and cities allowing marijuana facilities to open. A county that has been informed about the Gonzales v. Raich decision knows that all marijuana activity is federally illegal. Furthermore, such counties know that individuals involved in the marijuana business are subject to federal prosecution. When an individual in California cultivates, possesses, transports, or uses marijuana, he or she is committing a federal crime. A county issuing a business license to a marijuana facility knows that the people there are committing federal crimes. The county also knows that those involved in providing and obtaining marijuana are intentionally violating federal law. This very problem is why some counties are re -thinking the presence of marijuana facilities in their communities. There is a valid fear of being prosecuted for aiding and abetting federal drug crimes. Presently, two counties have expressed concern that California's medical marijuana statutes have placed them in such a precarious legal position. Because of the serious criminal ramifications involved in issuing business permits and allowing storefront marijuana businesses to operate within their borders, San Diego and San Bernardino Counties filed consolidated lawsuits against the state seeking to prevent the State of California from enforcing its medical marijuana statutes which potentially subject them to criminal liability, and squarely asserting that California medical marijuana laws are preempted by federal law in this area. After California's medical marijuana laws were all upheld at the trial level, California's Fourth District Court of Appeal found that the State of California could mandate counties to adopt and enforce a voluntary medical marijuana identification card system, and the appellate court bypassed the preemption issue by finding that San Diego and San Bernardino Counties lacked standing to raise this challenge to California's medical marijuana laws. Following this state appellate court decision, independent petitions for review filed by the two counties were both denied by the California Supreme Court. Largely because of the quandary that county and city peace officers in California face in the field when confronted with alleged medical marijuana with respect to enforcement of the total federal criminal prohibition of all marijuana, and state exemption from criminal penalties for medical marijuana users and caregivers, petitions for a writ of certiorari were then separately filed by the two counties seeking review of this decision by the United States Supreme Court in the consolidated cases of County of San Diego, County of San Bernardino, and Gary Penrod, cis Sheriff of the County of San Bernardino v. San Diego Nornil, State of California, and Sandra Shewry, Director of the California Department of Health Services in her official capacity, Ct.App. Case No. D-5-333.) The High Court has requested the State of California and other interested parties to file responsive briefs to the two counties' and Sheriff Penrod's writ petitions before it decides whether to grant or deny review of these consolidated cases. The petitioners would then be entitled to file a reply to any filed response. It is anticipated that the U.S. Supreme Court will formally grant or deny review of these consolidated cases in late April or early May of 2009. © 2009 California Police Chiefs Assn. 18 All Rights Reserved In another case, City of Garden Grove v. Superior Court (2007) 157 Cal.App.4th 355, although the federal preemption issue was not squarely raised or addressed in its decision, California's Fourth District Court of Appeal found that public policy considerations allowed a city standing to challenge a state trial court's order directing the return by a city police department of seized medical marijuana to a person determined to be a patient. After the court-ordered return of this federally banned substance was upheld at the intermediate appellate level, and not accepted for review by the California Supreme Court, a petition for a writ of certiorari was filed by the City of Garden Grove to the U.S. Supreme Court to consider and reverse the state appellate court decision. But, that petition was also denied. However, the case of People v. Kelly (2008) 163 Cal.AppAth 124—in which a successful challenge was made to California's Medical Marijuana Program's maximum amounts of marijuana and marijuana plants permitted to be possessed by medical marijuana patients (Cal. H&S Code sec. 11362.77 et seq.), which limits were found at the court of appeal level to be without legal authority for the state to impose—has been accepted for review by the California Supreme Court on the issue of whether this law was an improper amendment to Proposition 215's Compassionate Use Act of 1996. A SAMPLING OF EXPERIENCES WITH MARIJUANA DISPENSARIES MARIJUANA DISPENSARIES -THE SAN DIEGO STORY After the passage of Proposition 215 in 1996, law enforcement agency representatives in San Diego, California met many times to formulate a comprehensive strategy of how to deal with cases that may arise out of the new law. In the end it was decided to handle the matters on a case-by-case basis. In addition, questionnaires were developed for patient, caregiver, and physician interviews. At times patients without sales indicia but large grows were interviewed and their medical records reviewed in making issuing decisions. In other cases where sales indicia and amounts supported a finding of sales the cases were pursued. At most, two cases a month were brought for felony prosecution. In 2003, San Diego County's newly elected District Attorney publicly supported Prop. 215 and wanted her newly created Narcotics Division to design procedures to ensure patients were not caught up in case prosecutions. As many already know, law enforcement officers rarely arrest or seek prosecution of a patient who merely possesses personal use amounts_ Rather, it is those who have sales amounts in product or cultivation who are prosecuted. For the next two years the District Attorney's Office proceeded as it had before. But, on the cases where the patient had too many plants or product but not much else to show sales—the DDAs assigned to review the case would interview and listen to input to respect the patient's and the DA's position. Some cases were rejected and others issued but the case disposition was often generous and reflected a "sin no more" view. All of this changed after the passage of SB 420. The activists and pro marijuana folks started to push the envelope. Dispensaries began to open for business and physicians started to advertise their availability to issue recommendations for the purchase of medical marijuana. By spring of 2005 the first couple of dispensaries opened up—but they were discrete. This would soon change. By that summer, 7 to 10 dispensaries were open for business, and they were selling marijuana openly. In fact, the local police department was doing a small buy/walk project and one of its target dealers said he was out of pot but would go get some from the dispensary to sell to the undercover officer (UC); he did. It was the proliferation of dispensaries and ancillary crimes that prompted the San Diego Police Chief (the Chief was a Prop. 215 supporter who sparred with the Fresno DEA in his prior job over this issue) to authorize his officers to assist DEA. © 2009 California Police Chiefs Assn. 19 All Rights Reserved The Investigation San Diego DEA and its local task force (NTF) sought assistance from the DA's Office as well as the U.S. Attorney's Office. Though empathetic about being willing to assist, the DA's Office was not sure how prosecutions would fare under the provisions of SB 420. The U.S. Attorney had.the easier road but was noncommittal. After several meetings it was decided that law enforcement would work on using undercover operatives (UCs) to buy, so law enforcement could see exactly what was happening in the dispensaries. The investigation was initiated in December of 2005, after NTF received numerous citizen complaints regarding the crime and traffic associated with "medical marijuana dispensaries." The City of San Diego also saw an increase in crime related to the marijuana dispensaries. By then approximately 20 marijuana dispensaries had opened and were operating in San Diego County, and investigations on 15 of these dispensaries were initiated. During the investigation, NTF learned that all of the business owners were involved in the transportation and distribution of large quantities of marijuana, marijuana derivatives, and marijuana food products. In addition, several owners were involved in the cultivation of high grade marijuana. The business owners were making significant profits from the sale of these products and not properly reporting this income. Undercover Task Force Officers (TFO's) and SDPD Detectives were utilized to purchase marijuana and marijuana food products from these businesses. In December of 2005, thirteen state search warrants were executed at businesses and residences of several owners. Two additional follow-up search warrants and a consent search were executed the same day. Approximately 977 marijuana plants from seven indoor marijuana grows, 564.88 kilograms of marijuana and marijuana food products, one gun, and over $58,000 U.S. currency were seized. There were six arrests made during the execution of these search warrants for various violations, including outstanding warrants, possession of marijuana for sale, possession of psilocybin mushrooms, obstructing a police officer, and weapons violations. However, the owners and clerks were not arrested or prosecuted at this time just those who showed up with weapons or product to sell. Given the fact most owners could claim mistake of law as to selling (though not a legitimate defense, it could be a jury nullification defense) the DA's Office decided not to file cases at that time. It was hoped that the dispensaries would feel San Diego was hostile ground and they would do business elsewhere. Unfortunately this was not the case. Over the next few months seven of the previously targeted dispensaries opened, as well as a slew of others. Clearly prosecutions would be necessary. To gear up for the re -opened and new dispensaries prosecutors reviewed the evidence and sought a second round of UC buys wherein the UC would be buying for themselves and they would have a second UC present at the time acting as UC1's caregiver who also would buy. This was designed to show the dispensary was not the caregiver. There is no authority in the law for organizations to act as primary caregivers. Caregivers must be individuals who care for a marijuana patient. A primary caregiver is defined by Proposition 215, as codified in H&S Code section 11362.5(e), as, "For the purposes of this section, 'primary caregiver' means the individual designated by the person exempted under this section who has consistently assumed responsibility for the housing, health, or safety of that person." The goal was to show that the stores were only selling marijuana, and not providing care for the hundreds who bought from them. © 2009 California Police Chiefs Assn. 20 All Rights Reserved In addition to the caregiver -controlled buys, another aim was to put the whole matter in perspective for the media and the public by going over the data that was found in the raided dispensary records, as well as the crime statistics. An analysis of the December 2005 dispensary records showed a breakdown of the purported illness and youthful nature of the patients. The charts and other PR aspects played out after the second take down in July of 2006. The final attack was to reveal the doctors (the gatekeepers for medical marijuana) for the fraud they were committing. UCs from the local PD went in and taped the encounters to show that the pot docs did not examine the patients and did not render care at all; rather they merely sold a medical MJ recommendation whose duration depended upon the amount of money paid. In April of 2006, two state and two federal search warrants were executed at a residence and storage warehouse utilized to cultivate marijuana. Approximately 347 marijuana plants, over 21 kilograms of marijuana, and $2,855 U.S. currency were seized. Due to the pressure from the public, the United States Attorney's Office agreed to prosecute the owners of the businesses with large indoor marijuana grows and believed to be involved in money laundering activities. The District Attorney's Office agreed to prosecute the owners in the other investigations. In June of 2006, a Federal Grand Jury indicted six owners for violations of Title 21 USC, sections 846 and 841(a)(1), Conspiracy to Distribute Marijuana; sections 846 and 841(a), Conspiracy to Manufacture Marijuana; and Title 18 USC, Section 2, Aiding and Abetting. In July of 2006, 11 state and 11 federal search warrants were executed at businesses and residences associated with members of these businesses. The execution of these search warrants resulted in the arrest of 19 people, seizure of over $190,000 in U.S. currency and other assets, four handguns, one rifle, 405 marijuana plants from seven grows, and over 329 kilograms of marijuana and marijuana food products. Following the search warrants, two businesses reopened. An additional search warrant and consent search were executed at these respective locations. Approximately 20 kilograms of marijuana and 32 marijuana plants were seized. As a result, all but two of the individuals arrested on state charges have pled guilty. Several have already been sentenced and a few are still awaiting sentencing. All of the individuals indicted federally have also pled guilty and are awaiting sentencing. After the July 2006 search warrants a joint press conference was held with the U.S. Attorney and District Attorney, during which copies of a complaint to the medical board, photos of the food products which were marketed to children, and the charts shown below were provided to the media. Directly after these several combined actions, there were no marijuana distribution businesses operating in San Diego County. Law enforcement agencies in the San Diego region have been able to successfully dismantle these businesses and prosecute the owners. As a result, medical marijuana advocates have staged a number of protests demanding DEA allow the distribution of marijuana. The closure of these businesses has reduced crime in the surrounding areas. © 2009 California Police Chiefs Assn. 21 All Rights Reserved The execution of search warrants at these businesses sent a powerful message to other individuals operating marijuana distribution businesses that they are in violation of both federal law and California law. Press Materials: Reported Crime at Marijuana Dispensaries From January 1, 2005 through June 23, 2006 I 18 r 10 - 16 --- - -- - - -- 14 12 10 Information showing the dispensaries attracted crime: Battery The marijuana dispensaries were targets of violent crimes because of the amount of marijuana, currency, and other contraband stored inside the businesses. From January 1, 2005 through June 23, 2006, 24 violent crimes were reported at marijuana dispensaries. An analysis of financial records seized from the marijuana dispensaries showed several dispensaries were grossing over $300,000 per month from selling marijuana and marijuana food products. The majority of customers purchased marijuana with cash. Crime statistics inadequately reflect the actual number of crimes committed at the marijuana dispensaries. These businesses were often victims of robberies and burglaries, but did not report the crimes to law enforcement on account of fear of being arrested for possession of marijuana in excess of Prop. 215 guidelines. NTF and the San Diego Police Department (SDPD) received numerous citizen complaints regarding every dispensary operating in San Diego County. Because the complaints were received by various individuals, the exact number of complaints was not recorded. The following were typical complaints received: • high levels of traffic going to and from the dispensaries • people loitering in the parking lot of the dispensaries • people smoking marijuana in the parking lot of the dispensaries © 2009 California Police Chiefs Assn. 22 All Rights Reserved Burglary Attempted Criminal Attempted Armed Burglary Threat Robbery Robbery Information showing the dispensaries attracted crime: Battery The marijuana dispensaries were targets of violent crimes because of the amount of marijuana, currency, and other contraband stored inside the businesses. From January 1, 2005 through June 23, 2006, 24 violent crimes were reported at marijuana dispensaries. An analysis of financial records seized from the marijuana dispensaries showed several dispensaries were grossing over $300,000 per month from selling marijuana and marijuana food products. The majority of customers purchased marijuana with cash. Crime statistics inadequately reflect the actual number of crimes committed at the marijuana dispensaries. These businesses were often victims of robberies and burglaries, but did not report the crimes to law enforcement on account of fear of being arrested for possession of marijuana in excess of Prop. 215 guidelines. NTF and the San Diego Police Department (SDPD) received numerous citizen complaints regarding every dispensary operating in San Diego County. Because the complaints were received by various individuals, the exact number of complaints was not recorded. The following were typical complaints received: • high levels of traffic going to and from the dispensaries • people loitering in the parking lot of the dispensaries • people smoking marijuana in the parking lot of the dispensaries © 2009 California Police Chiefs Assn. 22 All Rights Reserved • vandalism near dispensaries threats made by dispensary employees to employees of other businesses • citizens worried they may become a victim of crime because of their proximity to dispensaries In addition, the following observations (from citizen activists assisting in data gathering) were made about the marijuana dispensaries: • Identification was not requested for individuals who looked under age 18 • Entrance to business was not refused because of lack of identification • Individuals were observed loitering in the parking lots • Child -oriented businesses and recreational areas were situated nearby • Some businesses made no attempt to verify a submitted physician's recommendation Dispensary Patients By Age Ages 66-70,19, Ages 61-65, 47,2 Ages 56-60, 89, 3%, Ages 51-55, 173,6% Ages 46-50, 210, 7°/0 Ages 41-45, 175, 60 Ages 36-40, 270, 9% Ages 31-35, 302, 10% Ages 71-75, 4, 0% Ages 76-80, 0, 0% Ages 81-85, 0, 0% tJa Age listed, 118, 4% Ages 17-20, 364,12% Ages 26-30, 504,17% Ages 21-25, 719, 23% An analysis of patient records seized during search warrants at several dispensaries show that 52% of the customers purchasing marijuana were between the ages of 17 to 30. 63% of primary caregivers purchasing marijuana were between the ages of 18 through 30. Only 2.05% of customers submitted a physician's recommendation for AIDS, glaucoma, or cancer. Why these businesses were deemed to be criminal --not compassionate: The medical marijuana businesses were doomed to be criminal enterprises for the following ieasons. • Many of the business owners had histories of drug and violence -related arrests. • The business owners were street -level marijuana dealers who took advantage of Prop. 215 in an attempt to legitimize marijuana sales for profit. • Records, or lack of records, seized during the search warrants showed that all the owners were not properly reporting income generated from the sales of marijuana. Many owners were involved in money laundering and tax evasion. • The businesses were selling to individuals without serious medical conditions. • There are no guidelines on the amount of marijuana which can be sold to an individual. For © 2009 California Police Chiefs Assn. 23 All Rights Reserved example, an individual with a physician's recommendation can go to as many marijuana distribution businesses and purchase as much marijuana as he/she wants. California law allows an individual to possess 6 mature or 12 immature plants per qualified person. However, the San Diego Municipal Code states a "caregiver" can only provide care to 4 people, including themselves; this translates to 24 mature or 48 immature plants total. Many of these dispensaries are operating large marijuana grows with far more plants than allowed under law. Several of the dispensaries had indoor marijuana grows inside the businesses, with mature and/or immature marijuana plants over the limits. State law allows a qualified patient or primary caregiver to possess no more than eight ounces of dried marijuana per qualified patient. However, the San Diego Municipal Code allows primary caregivers to possess no more than two pounds of processed marijuana. Under either law, almost every marijuana dispensary had over two pounds of processed marijuana during the execution of the search warrants. Some marijuana dispensaries force customers to sign forms designating the business as their primary caregiver, in an attempt to circumvent the law. 2. EXPERIENCES WITH MARIJUANA DISPENSARIES IN RIVERSIDE COUNTY There were some marijuana dispensaries operating in the County of Riverside until the District Attorney's Office took a very aggressive stance in closing them. In Riverside, anyone that is not a "qualified patient" or "primary caregiver" under the Medical Marijuana Prograin Act who possesses, sells, or transports marijuana is being prosecuted. Several dispensary closures illustrate the impact this position has had on marijuana dispensaries. For instance, the Palm Springs Caregivers dispensary (also known as Palm Springs Safe Access Collective) was searched after a warrant was issued. All materials inside were seized, and it was closed down and remains closed. The California Caregivers Association was located in downtown Riverside. Very shortly after it opened, it was also searched pursuant to a warrant and shut down. The CannaHelp dispensary was located in Palm Desert. It was searched and closed down early in 2007. The owner and two managers were then prosecuted for marijuana sales and possession of marijuana for the purpose of sale. However, a judge granted their motion to quash the search warrant and dismissed the charges. The District Attorney's Office then appealed to the Fourth District Court of Appeal. Presently, the Office is waiting for oral arguments to be scheduled. Dispensaries in the county have also been closed by court order. The Healing Nations Collective was located in Corona. The owner lied about the nature of the business in his application for a license. The city pursued and obtained an injunction that required the business to close. The owner appealed to the Fourth District Court of Appeal, which ruled against him. (City of Corona v. Ronald Naulls et al., Case No. E042772.) 3, MEDICAL MARIJUANA DISPENSARY ISSUES IN CONTRA COSTA COUNTY CITIES AND IN OTHER BAY AREA COUNTIES Several cities in Contra Costa County, California have addressed this issue by either banning dispensaries, enacting moratoria against them, regulating them, or taking a position that they are simply not a permitted land use because they violate federal law. Richmond, El Cerrito, San Pablo, Hercules, and Concord have adopted permanent ordinances banning the establislurrent of marijuana dispensaries. Antioch, Brentwood, Oakley, Pinole, and Pleasant Hill have imposed moratoria against dispensaries. Clayton, San Ramon, and Walnut Creek have not taken any formal action regarding the establishment of marijuana dispensaries but have indicated that marijuana dispensaries © 2009 California Police Chiefs Assn. 24 All Rights Reserved are not a permitted use in any of their zoning districts as a violation of federal law. Martinez has adopted a permanent ordinance regulating the establishment of marijuana dispensaries. The Counties of Alameda, Santa Clara, and San Francisco have enacted permanent ordinances regulating the establishment of marijuana dispensaries. The Counties of Solano, Napa, and Marin have enacted neither regulations nor bans. A brief overview of the regulations enacted in neighboring counties follows. A. Alameda County Alameda County has a nineteen -page regulatory scheme which allows the operation of three permitted dispensaries in unincorporated portions of the county. Dispensaries can only be located in commercial or industrial zones, or their equivalent, and may not be located within. 1,000 feet of other dispensaries, schools, parks, playgrounds, drug recovery facilities, or recreation centers. Permit issuance is controlled by the Sheriff, who is required to work with the Community Development Agency and the Health Care Services agency to establish operating conditions for each applicant prior to final selection. Adverse decisions can be appealed to the Sheriff and are ruled upon by the same panel responsible for setting operating conditions. That panel's decision may be appealed to the Board of Supervisors, whose decision is final (subject to writ review in the Superior Court per CCP sec. 1094.5). Persons violating provisions of the ordinance are guilty of a misdemeanor. B. Santa Clara County In November of 1998, Santa Clara County passed an ordinance permitting dispensaries to exist in unincorporated portions of the county with permits first sought and obtained from the Department of Public Health. In spite of this regulation, neither the County Counsel nor the District Attorney's Drug Unit Supervisor believes that Santa Clara County has had any marijuana dispensaries in operation at least through 2006. The only permitted activities are the on-site cultivation of medical marijuana and the distribution of medical marijuana/medical marijuana food stuffs. No retail sales of any products are permitted at the dispensary. Smoking, ingestion or consumption is also prohibited on site. All doctor recommendations for medical marijuana must be verified by the County's Public Health Department. C. San Francisco County In December of 2001, the Board of Supervisors passed Resolution No. 012006, declaring San Francisco to be a "Sanctuary for Medical Cannabis." City voters passed Proposition S in 2002, directing the city to explore the possibility of establishing a medical marijuana cultivation and distribution program run by the city itself. San Francisco dispensaries must apply for and receive a permit from the Department of Public Health. They may only operate as a collective or cooperative, as defined by California Health and Safety Code section 11362.7 (see discussion in section 4, under "California Law" above), and may only sell or distribute marijuana to members. Cultivation, smoking, and making and selling food products may be allowed. Permit applications are referred to the Departments of Planning, Building Inspection, and Police. Criminal background checks are required but exemptions could still allow the operation of dispensaries by individuals with prior convictions for violent felonies or who have had prior permits suspended or revoked. Adverse decisions can be appealed to the Director of © 2009 California Police Chiefs Assn. 25 All Rights Reserved Public Health and the Board of Appeals. It is unclear how many dispensaries are operating in the city at this time. D. Crime Rates in the Vicinity of MariCare Sheriff's data have been compiled for "Calls for Service" within a half -mile radius of 127 Aspen Drive, Pacheco. However, in research conducted by the El Cerrito Police Department and relied upon by Riverside County in recently enacting its ban on dispensaries, it was recognized that not all crimes related to medical marijuana take place in or around a dispensary. Some take place at the homes of the owners, employees, or patrons. Therefore, these statistics cannot paint a complete picture of the impact a marijuana dispensary has had on crime rates. The statistics show that the overall number of calls decreased (3,746 in 2005 versus 3,260 in 2006). However, there have been increases in the numbers of crimes which appear to be related to a business which is an attraction to a criminal element. Reports of commercial burglaries increased (14 in 2005, 24 in 2006), as did reports of residential burglaries (13 in 2005, 16 in 2006) and miscellaneous burglaries (5 in 2005, 21 in 2006). Tender Holistic Care (THC marijuana dispensary formerly located on N. Buchanan Circle in Pacheco) was forcibly burglarized on June 11, 2006. $4,800 in cash was stolen, along with marijuana, hash, marijuana food products, marijuana pills, marijuana paraphernalia, and marijuana plants. The total loss was estimated to be $16,265. MariCare was also burglarized within two weeks of opening in Pacheco. On April 4, 2006, a window was smashed after 11:00 p.m. while an employee was inside the business, working late to get things organized. The female employee called "911" and locked herself in an office while the intruder ransacked the downstairs dispensary and stole more than $200 worth of marijuana. Demetrio Ramirez indicated that since they were just moving in, there wasn't much inventory. Reports of vehicle thefts increased (4 in 2005, 6 in 2006). Disturbance reports increased in nearly all categories (Fights: 5 in 2005, 7 in 2006; Harassment: 4 in 2005, 5 in 2006; Juveniles: 4 in 2005, 21 in 2006; Loitering: 11 in 2005, 19 in 2006; Verbal: 7 in 2005, 17 in 2006). Littering reports increased from 1 in 2005 to 5 in 2006. Public nuisance reports increased from 23 in 2005 to 26 in 2006. These statistics reflect the complaints and concerns raised by nearby residents. Residents have reported to the District Attorney's Office, as well as to Supervisor Piepho's office, that when calls are made to the Sheriff's Department, the offender has oftentimes left the area before law enforcement can arrive. This has led to less reporting, as it appears to local residents to be a futile act and residents have been advised that law enforcement is understaffed and cannot always timely respond to all calls for service. As a result, Pacheco developed a very active, visible Neighborhood Watch program. The program became much more active in 2006, according to Doug Stewart. Volunteers obtained radios and began frequently receiving calls directly from local businesses and residents who contacted them instead of law enforcement. It is therefore significant that there has still been an increase in many types of calls for law enforcement service, although the overall number of calls has decreased. Other complaints from residents included noise, odors, smoking/consuming marijuana in the area, littering and trash from the dispensary, loitering near a school bus stop and in the nearby church parking lot, observations that the primary patrons of MariCare appear to be individuals under age 25, © 2009 California Police Chiefs Assn. 26 All Rights Reserved and increased traffic. Residents observed that the busiest time for MariCare appeared to be from 4:00 p.m. to 6:00 p.m. On a typical Friday, 66 cars were observed entering MariCare's facility; 49 of these were observed to contain additional passengers. The slowest time appeared to be from 1:00 p.m. to 3:00 p.rn. On a typical Saturday, 44 cars were counted during this time, and 29 of these were observed to have additional passengers. MariCare has claimed to serve 4,000 "patients." E. Impact of Proposed Ordinance on MedDelivery Dispensary, El Sobrante It is the position of Contra Costa County District Attorney Robert J. Kochly that a proposed ordinance should terminate operation of the dispensary in El Sobrante because the land use of that business would be inconsistent with both state and federal law. However, the Community Development Department apparently believes that MedDelivery can remain as a "legal, non- conforming use." F. Banning Versus Regulating Marijuana Dispensaries in Unincorporated Contra Costa County It is simply bad public policy to allow the proliferation of any type of business which is illegal and subject to being raided by federal and/or state authorities. In fact, eight locations associated with the New Remedies dispensary in San Francisco and Alameda Counties were raided in October of 2006, and eleven Southern California marijuana clinics were raided by federal agents on January 18, 2007. The Los Angeles head of the federal Ding Enforcement Administration told CBS News after the January raids that "Today's enforcement operations show that these establishments are nothing more than drug-trafficking organizations bringing criminal activities to our neighborhoods and drugs near our children and schools." A Lafayette, California resident who owned a business that produced marijuana -laced foods and drinks for marijuana clubs was sentenced in federal court to five years and 10 months behind bars as well as a $250,000 fine. Several of his employees were also convicted in that case. As discussed above, there is absolutely no exception to the federal prohibition against marijuana cultivation, possession, transportation, use, and distribution. Neither California's voters nor its Legislature authorized the existence or operation of marijuana dispensing businesses when given the opportunity to do so. These enterprises cannot fit themselves into the few, narrow exceptions that were created by the Compassionate Use Act and Medical Marijuana Program Act. Further, the presence of marijuana dispensing businesses contributes substantially to the existence of a secondary market for illegal, street -level distribution of marijuana. This fact was even recognized by the United States Supreme Court: "The exemption for cultivation by patients and caregivers can only increase the supply of marijuana in the California market. The likelihood that all such production will promptly terminate when patients recover or will preuisuly rrratch the patients' medical needs during their convalescence seems remote; whereas the danger that excesses will satisfy some of the admittedly enormous demand for recreational use seems obvious." (Gonzales v, Raich, supra, 125 S.Ct. at p. 2214.) As outlined below, clear evidence has emerged of such a secondary market in Contra Costa County. In September of 2004, police responded to reports of two men pointing a gun at cars in the parking lot at Monte Vista High School during an evening football game/dance. Two 19 -year-old Danville residents were located in the parking lot (which was full of vehicles and pedestrians) and in possession of a silver Airsoft pellet pistol designed to replicate a © 2009 California Police Chiefs Assn. 27 All Rights Reserved real Walther semi-automatic handgun. Marijuana, hash, and hash oil with typical dispensary packaging and labeling were also located in the car, along with a gallon bottle of tequila (1/4 full), a bong with burned residue, and rolling papers. The young men admitted to having consumed an unknown amount of tequila at the park next to the school and that they both pointed the gun at passing cars "as a joke." They fired several BBs at a wooden fence in the park when there were people in the area. The owner of the vehicle admitted that the marijuana was his and that he was not a medicinal marijuana user. He was able to buy marijuana from his friend "Brandon," who used a Proposition 215 card to purchase from a cannabis club in Hayward. In February of 2006, Concord police officers responded to a report of a possible drug sale in progress. They arrested a high school senior for two outstanding warrants as he came to buy marijuana from the cannabis club located on Contra Costa Boulevard. The young man explained that he had a cannabis club card that allowed him to purchase marijuana, and admitted that he planned to re -sell some of the marijuana to friends. He also admitted to possession of nearly 7 grams of cocaine which was recovered. A21 -year-old man was also arrested on an outstanding warrant. In his car was a marijuana grinder, a baggie of marijuana, rolling papers, cigars, and a "blunt" (hollowed out cigar filled with marijuana for smoking) with one end burned. The 21 -year-old admitted that he did not have a physician's recommendation for marijuana. Also in February of 2006, a 17 -year-old Monte Vista High School senior was charged with felony furnishing of marijuana to a child, after giving a 4 -year-old boy a marijuana - laced cookie. The furnishing occurred on campus, during a child development class. In March of 2006, police and fire responded to an explosion at a San Ramon townhouse and found three young men engaged in cultivating and manufacturing "honey oil" for local pot clubs. Marijuana was also being sold from the residence. Honey oil is a concentrated form of cannabis chemically extracted from ground up marijuana with extremely volatile butane and a special "honey oil" extractor tube. The butane extraction operation exploded with such force that it blew the garage door partially off its hinges. Sprinklers in the residence kept the fire from spreading to the other homes in the densely packed residential neighborhood. At least one of the men was employed by Ken Estes, owner of the Dragonfly Holistic Solutions pot clubs in Richmond, San Francisco, and Lake County. They were making the "honey oil" with marijuana and butane that they brought up from one of Estes' San Diego pot clubs after it was shut down by federal agents. Also in March of 2006, a 16 -year-old El Cerrito High School student was arrested after selling pot cookies to fellow students on campus, many of whom became ill. At least four required hospitalization. The investigation revealed that the cookies were made with a butter obtained outside a marijuana dispensary (a secondary sale). Between March of 2004 and May of 2006, the El Cerrito Police Department conducted seven investigations at the high school and junior high school, resulting in the arrest of eight juveniles for selling or possessing with intent to sell marijuana on or around the school campuses. In June of 2006, Moraga police officers made a traffic stop for suspected driving under the influence of alcohol. The car was seen drifting over the double yellow line separating north and southbound traffic lanes and driving in the bike lane. The 20 -year-old driver denied having consumed any alcohol, as he was the "designated driver." When asked about his bloodshot, watery, and droopy eyes, the college junior explained that he had 2009 California Police Chiefs Assn, 28 All Rights Reserved smoked marijuana earlier (confirmed by blood tests). The young man had difficulty performing field sobriety tests, slurred his speech, and was ultimately arrested for driving under the influence. He was in possession of a falsified California Driver's License, marijuana, hash, a marijuana pipe, a scale, and $12,288. The marijuana was in packaging from the Compassionate Collective of Alameda County, a Hayward dispensary. He explained that he buys the marijuana at "Pot Clubs," sells some, and keeps the rest. He only sells to close friends. About $3,000 to $4,000 of the cash was from playing high- stakes poker, but the rest was earned selling marijuana while a freshman at Arizona State University. The 18 -year-old passenger had half an ounce of marijuana in her purse and produced a doctor's recommendation to a marijuana club in Oakland, the authenticity of which could not be confirmed. Another significant concern is the proliferation of marijuana usage at community schools. In February of 2007, the Healthy Kids Survey for Alameda and Contra Costa Counties found that youthful substance abuse is more common in the East Bay's more affluent areas. These areas had higher rates of high school juniors who admitted having been high from drugs. The regional manager of the study found that the affluent areas had higher alcohol and marijuana use rates. USA Today recently reported that the percentage of 12`" Grade students who said they had used marijuana has increased since 2002 (from 33.6% to 36.2% in 2005), and that marijuana was the most -used illicit drug among that age group in 2006. KSDK News Channel 5 reported that high school students are finding easy access to medical marijuana cards and presenting them to school authorities as a legitimate excuse for getting high. School Resource Officers for Monte Vista and San Ramon Valley High Schools in Danville have reported finding marijuana in prescription bottles and other packaging from Alameda County dispensaries. Marijuana has also been linked to psychotic illnesses. 01 A risk factor was found to be starting marijuana use in adolescence. For all of the above reasons, it is advocated by District Attorney Kochly that a ban on land uses which violate state or federal law is the most appropriate solution for the County of Contra Costa. SANTA BARBARA COUNTY According to Santa Barbara County Deputy District Attorney Brian Cota, ten marijuana dispensaries are currently operating within Santa Barbara County. The mayor of the City of Santa Barbara, who is an outspoken medical marijuana supporter, has stated that the police must place marijuana behind every other police priority. This has made it difficult for the local District Attorney's Office. Not many marijuana cases come to it for filing. The District Attorney's Office would like more regulations placed on the dispensaries. However, the majority of Santa Barbara County political leaders and residents are very liberal and do not want anyone to be denied access to medical marijuana if they say they need it. Partly as a result, no dispensaries have been prosecuted to date. 5. SONOMA COUNTY Stephan R. Passalocqua, District Attorney for the County of Sonoma, has recently reported the following information related to distribution of medical marijuana in Sonoma County. In 1997, the Sonoma County Law Enforcement Chiefs Association enacted the following medical marijuana guidelines: a qualified patient is permitted to possess three pounds of marijuana and grow 99 plants in a 100 -square -foot canopy. A qualified caregiver could possess or grow the above-mentioned amounts for each qualified patient. These guidelines were enacted after Proposition 215 was overwhelmingly passed by the voters of California, and after two separate unsuccessful prosecutions in Sonoma County. Two Sonoma County _juries returned "not guilty" verdicts for three defendants © 2009 California Police Chiefs Assn. 29 All Rights Reserved who possessed substantially large quantities of marijuana (60 plants in one case and over 900 plants in the other) where they asserted a medical marijuana defense. These verdicts, and the attendant publicity, demonstrated that the community standards are vastly different in Sonoma County compared to other jurisdictions. On November 6, 2006, and authorized by Senate Bill 420, the Sonoma County Board of Supervisors specifically enacted regulations that allow a qualified person holding a valid identification card to possess up to three pounds of dried cannabis a year and cultivate 30 plants per qualified patient. No individual from any law enforcement agency in Sonoma County appeared at the hearing, nor did any representative publicly oppose this resolution. With respect to the People v. Sashon Jenkins case, the defendant provided verified medical recommendations for five qualified patients prior to trial. At the time of arrest, Jenkins said that he had a medical marijuana card and was a care provider for multiple people, but was unable to provide specific documentation. Mr. Jenkins had approximately 10 pounds of dried marijuana and was growing 14 plants, which number of plants is consistent with the 2006 Sonoma County Board of Supervisors' resolution. At a preliminary hearing held In January of 2007, the defense called five witnesses who were proffered as Jenkins' "patients" and who came to court with medical recommendations. Jenkins also testified that he was their caregiver. After the preliminary hearing, the assigned prosecutor conducted a thorough review of the facts and the law, and concluded that a Sonoma County jury would not return a "guilty" verdict in this case. Hence, no felony information was filed. With respect to the return of property issue, the prosecuting deputy district attorney never agreed to release the marijuana despite dismissing the case. Other trial dates are pending in cases where medical marijuana defenses are being alleged. District Attorney Passalacqua has noted that, given the overwhelming passage of proposition 215, coupled with at least one United States Supreme Court decision that has not struck it down to date, these factors present current challenges for law enforcement, but that he and other prosecutors will continue to vigorously prosecute drug dealers within the boundaries of the law. 6. ORANGE COUNTY There are 15 marijuana dispensaries in Orange County, and several delivery services. Many of the delivery services operate out of the City of Long Beach in Los Angeles County. Orange County served a search warrant on one dispensary, and closed it down. A decision is being made whether or not to file criminal charges in that case. It is possible that the United States Attorney will file on that dispensary since it is a branch of a dispensary that the federal authorities raided in San Diego County. The Orange County Board of Supervisors has ordered a study by the county's Health Care Department on how to comply with the Medical Marijuana Program Act. The District Attorney's Office's position is that any activity under the Medical Marijuana Program Act beyond the mere issuance of identification cards violates federal law. The District Attorney's Office has made it clear- to County Counsel that if any medical marijuana provider does not meet a strict definition of "primary caregiver" that person will be prosecuted. © 2009 California Police Chiefs Assn, 30 All Rights Reserved PENDING LEGAL QUESTIONS Law enforcement agencies throughout the state, as well as their legislative bodies, have been struggling with how to reconcile the Compassionate Use Act ("CUA"), Cal. Health & Safety Code secs. 11362.5, et seq., with the federal Controlled Substances Act ("CSA"), 21 U.S.C. sec. 801, et seq., for some time. Pertinent questions follow. QUESTION 1. Is it possible for a storefront marijuana dispensary to be legally operated under the Compassionate Use Act of 1996 (Health & Saf. Code sec. 11362.5) and the Medical Marijuana Program Act (Health & Sat Code secs. 11362.7- 11362.83? ANSWER 1. Storefront marijuana dispensaries may be legally operated under the CUA and the Medical Marijuana Program Act ("MMPA"), Cal. Health & Safety Code secs. 11362.7-11362.83, as long as they are "cooperatives" under the MMPA. ANALYSIS The question posed does not specify what services or products are available at a "storefront" marijuana dispensary. The question also does not specify the business stricture of a "dispensary." A "dispensary" is often commonly used nowadays as a generic terin for a facility that distributes medical marijuana. The teen "dispensary" is also used specifically to refer to marijuana facilities that are operated more like a retail establishment, that are open to the public and often "sell" medical marijuana to qualified patients or caregivers. By use of the term "store front dispensary," the question may be presuming that this type of facility is being operated. For purposes of this analysis, we will assume that a "dispensary" is a generic term that does not contemplate any particular business structure.' Based on that assinnp#ion, a "dispensary" might provide "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" and be within the permissible limits of the CUA and the MMPA. (Cal. Health & Safety Code sec. 11362.765 (b)(3).) As the term "dispensary" is commonly used and understood, marijuana dispensaries would not be permitted under the CUA or the MMPA, since they "sell" medical marijuana and are not operated as true "cooperatives." © 2009 California Police Chiefs Assn. 31 All Rights Reserved The CUA permits a "patient" or a "patient's primary caregiver" to possess or cultivate marijuana for personal medical purposes with the recommendation of a physician. (Cal. Health & Safety Code sec. 11362.5 (d).) Similarly, the MMPA provides that "patients" or designated "primary caregivers" who have voluntarily obtained a valid medical marijuana identification card shall not be subject to arrest for possession, transportation, delivery, or cultivation of medical marijuana in specified quantities. (Cal. Health & Safety Code sec. 11362.71 (d) & (e).) A "storefront dispensary" would not fit within either of these categories. However, the MMPA also provides that "[q]ualified 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 [possession], 11358 [planting, harvesting or processing], 11359 [possession for sale], 11360 [unlawful transportation, importation, sale or gift], 11366 [opening or maintaining place for trafficking in controlled substances], 11366.5 [providing place for manufacture or distribution of controlled substance; Fortifying building to suppress law enforcement entry], or 11570 [Buildings or places deemed nuisances subject to abatement]." (Cal. Health & Safety Code sec. 11362.775.) (Emphasis added).) Since medical marijuana cooperatives are permitted pursuant to the MMPA, a "storefront dispensary" that would qualify as a cooperative would be permissible under the MMPA. (Cal. Health & Safety Code sec. 11362.775. See also People v. Urziceanu (2005) 132 Cal. App. 4th 747 (finding criminal defendant was entitled to present defense relating to operation of medical marijuana cooperative).) In granting a re -trial, the appellate court in Urziceanu found that the defendant could present evidence which might entitle him to a defense under the MMPA as to the operation of a medical marijuana cooperative, including the fact that the "cooperative" verified physician recommendations and identities of individuals seeking medical marijuana and individuals obtaining medical marijuana paid membership fees, reimbursed defendant for his costs in cultivating the medical marijuana by way of donations, and volunteered at the "cooperative." (Id. at p. 785.) Whether or not "sales" are permitted under Urziceanu and the MMPA is unclear. The Urziceanu Court did note that the incorporation of section 11359, relating to marijuana "sales," in section 11362.775, allowing the operation of cooperatives, "contemplates the formation and operation of medicinal marijuana cooperatives that would receive reimbursement for marijuana and the services provided in conjunction with the provision of that marijuana." Whether "reimbursement" may be in the form only of donations, as were the facts presented in Urziceanu, or whether "purchases" could be made for medical marijuana, it does seem clear that a medical marijuana "cooperative" may not make a "profit," but may be restricted to being reimbursed for actual costs in providing the marijuana to its members and, if there are any "profits," these may have to be reinvested in the "cooperative" or shared by its members in order for a dispensary to © 2009 California Police Chiefs Assn. 32 All Rights Reserved be truly considered to be operating as a "cooperative. ,2 If these requirements are satisfied as to a "storefront" dispensary, then it will be permissible under the MMPA. Otherwise, it will be a violation of both the CUA and the MMPA. QUESTION 2. If the governing body of a city, county, or city and county approves an ordinance authorizing and regulating marijuana dispensaries to implement the Compassionate Use Act of 1996 and the Medical Marijuana Program Act, can an individual board or council member be found to be acting illegally and be subject to federal criminal charges, including aiding and abetting, or state criminal charges? ANSWER 2_ If a city, county, or city and county authorizes and regulates marijuana dispensaries, individual members of the legislative bodies may be held criminally liable under state or federal law.3 ANALYSIS A. Federal Law Generally, legislators of federal, state, and local legislative bodies are absolutely immune from liability for legislative acts. (U.S. Const., art. I, sec. 6 (Speech and Debate Clause, applicable to members of Congress); Fed. Rules Evid., Rule 501 (evidentiary privilege against admission of legislative acts); Tenney v. Brandhove (1951) 341 U.S. 367 (legislative immunity applicable to state legislators); Bogan v. Scott -Harris (1998) 523 U.S. 44 (legislative immunity applicable to local legislators).) However, while federal legislators are absolutely immune from both criminal and civil liability for purely legislative acts, local legislators are only immune from civil liability under federal law. (United Slates v. Gillock (1980) 445 U.S. 360.) Where the United States Supreme Court has held that federal regulation of marijuana by way of the CSA, including any "medical" use of marijuana, is within Congress' Commerce Clause power, federal law stands as a bar to local action in direct violation of the CSA. (Gonzales v. Raich (2005) 545 U.S. 1.) In fact, the CSA itself provides that federal regulations do not A "cooperative" is defined as follows: An enterprise or organization that is owned or managed jointly by those who use its facilities or services. THE AMERICAN HERITAGE DICTIONARY OF THE ENGLISH LANGUAGE, by Houghton Mifflin Company (4th Ed. 2000). 3 Indeed, the same conclusion would seem to result from the adoption by state legislators of the MMPA itself, in authorizing the issuance of medical marijuana identification cards. (Cal. Health & Safety Code secs. 11362.71, et seq.) © 2009 California Police Chiefs Assn, 33 All Rights Reserved exclusively occupy the field of drug regulation "unless there is a positive conflict between that provision of this title [the CSA] and that state law so that the two cannot consistently stand together." (21 U.S.C. sec. 903.) Based on the above provisions, then, legislative action by local legislators could subject the individual legislators to federal criminal liability. Most likely, the only violation of the CSA that could occur as a result of an ordinance approved by local legislators authorizing and regulating medical marijuana would be aiding and abetting a violation of the CSA. The elements of the offense of aiding and abetting a criminal offense are: (1) specific intent to facilitate commission of a crime by another; (2) guilty knowledge on the part of the accused; (3) that an offense was being committed by someone; and (4) that the accused assisted or participated in the commission of an offense. (United States v. Raper (1982) 676 F.2d 841; United States v. Staten (1978) 581 F.2d 878.) Criminal aiding and abetting liability, under 18 U.S.C. section 2, requires proof that the defendants in some way associated themselves with the illegal venture; that they participated in the venture as something that they wished to bring about; and that they sought by their actions to make the venture succeed. (Central Bank, N.A. v. First Interstate Bank, N.A. (1994) 511 U.S. 164.) Mere furnishing of company to a person engaged in a crime does not render a companion an aider or abettor. (United States v. Garguilo (2d Cir. 1962) 310 F.2d 249.) In order for a defendant to be an aider and abettor he must know that the activity condemned by law is actually occurring and must intend to help the perpetrator. (United States v. McDaniel (9th Cir_ 1976) 545 F.2d 642.) To be guilty of aiding and abetting, the defendant must willfully seek, by some action of his own, to make a criminal venture succeed. (United States v. Ehrenberg (E.D. Pa. 1973) 354 F. Supp. 460 cert. denied (1974) 94 S. Ct. 1612.) The question, as posed, may presume that the local legislative body has acted in a manner that affirmatively supports marijuana dispensaries. As phrased by Senator Kuehl, the question to be answered by the Attorney General's Office assumes that a local legislative body has adopted an ordinance that "authorizes" medical marijuana facilities. What if a local public entity adopts an ordinance that explicitly indicates that it does not authorize, legalize, or permit any dispensary that is in violation of federal law regarding controlled substances? If the local public entity grants a permit, regulates, or imposes locational requirements on marijuana dispensaries with the announced understanding that it does not thereby allow any illegal activity and that dispensaries are required to comply with all applicable laws, including federal laws, then the public entity should be entitled to expect that all laws°will be obeyed. It would seem that a public entity is not intentionally acting to encourage or aid acts in violation of the CSA merely because it has adopted an ordinance which regulates dispensaries; even the issuance of a "permit," if it is expressly not allowing violations of federal law, cannot necessarily support a charge or conviction of aiding and abetting violation of the CSA. A public entity should be entitled to presume that dispensaries will obey all applicable laws and that lawful business will be conducted at dispensaries. For instance, dispensaries could very well not engage in actual medical marijuana distribution, but instead engage in education and awareness activities as to the medical effects of marijuana; the sale of other, legal products that aid in the suffering of 2009 California Police Chiefs Assn. 34 All Rights Reserved ailing patients; or even activities directed at effecting a change in the federal laws relating to regulation of marijuana as a Schedule I substance under the CSA. These are examples of legitimate business activities, and First Amendment protected activities at that, in which dispensaries could engage relating to medical marijuana, but not apparently in violation of the CSA. Public entities should be entitled to presume that legitimate activities can and will be engaged in by dispensaries that are permitted and/or regulated by local regulations. In fact, it seems counterintuitive that local public entities within the state should be expected to be the watchdogs of federal law; in the area of controlled substances, at least, local public entities do not have an affirmative obligation to discern whether businesses are violating federal law. The California Attorney General's Office will note that the State Board of Equalization ("BOE") has already done precisely what has been suggested in the preceding paragraph. In a special notice issued by the BOE this year, it has indicated that sellers of medical marijuana must obtain a seller's permit. (See http://www.boe.ca.gov/news/pdf/medseller2007.pdf (Special Notice: Important Information for Sellers of Medical Marijuana).) As the Special Notice explicitly indicates to medical marijuana facilities, "[h]aving a seller's permit does not mean you have authority to make unlawful sales. The permit only provides a way to remit any sales and use taxes due. The permit states, 'NOTICE TO PERMITTEE: You are required to obey all federal and state laws that regulate or control your business. This permit does not allow you to do otherwise."' The above being said, however, there is no guarantee that criminal charges would not actually be brought by the federal government or that persons so charged could not be successfully prosecuted. It does seem that arguments contrary to the above conclusions could be persuasive in convicting local legislators. By permitting and/or regulating marijuana dispensaries by local ordinance, some legitimacy and credibility may be granted by governmental issuance of permits or authorizing and allowing dispensaries to exist or locate within a jurisdiction .4 All of this discussion, then, simply demonstrates that individual board or council members can, indeed, be found criminally liable under federal law for the adoption of an ordinance authorizing and regulating marijuana dispensaries that promote the use of marijuana as medicine. The actual likelihood of prosecution, and its potential success, may depend on the particular facts of the regulation that is adopted. 4 Of course, the question arises as to how far any such liability be taken. Where can the line be drawn between any permit or regulation adopted specifically with respect to marijuana dispensaries and other permits or approvals routinely, and often ministerially, granted by local public entities, such as building permits or business licenses, which are discussed infra? If local public entities are held responsible for adopting an ordinance authorizing and/or regulating marijuana dispensaries, cannot local public entities also be subject to liability for providing general public services for the illegal distribution of "medical" marijuana? Could a local public entity that knew a dispensary was distributing "medical" marijuana in compliance with state law be criminally liable if it provided electricity, water, and trash services to that dispensary? How can such actions really be distinguished from the adoption of an ordinance that authorizes and/or regulates marijuana dispensaries? © 2009 California Police Chiefs Assn. 35 All Rights Reserved B. State Law Similarly, under California law, aside from the person who directly commits a criminal offense, no other person is guilty as a principal unless he aids and abets. (People v. Dole (1898) 122 Cal. 486; People v. Stein (1942) 55 Cal. App. 2d 417.) A person who innocently aids in the commission of the crime cannot be found guilty. (People v. Fredoni (1910) 12 Cal. App. 685.) To authorize a conviction as an aider and abettor of crime, it must be shown not only that the person so charged aided and assisted in the commission of the offense, but also that he abetted the act— that is, that he criminally or with guilty knowledge and intent aided the actual perpetrator in the commission of the act. (People v. Terman (1935) 4 Cal. App. 2d 345.) To "abet" another in commission of a crime implies a consciousness of guilt in instigating, encouraging, promoting, or aiding the commission of the offense. (People v. Best (1941) 43 Cal. App. 2d 100.) "Abet" implies knowledge of the wrongful purpose of the perpetrator of the crime. (People v. Stein, supra.) To be guilty of an offense committed by another person, the accused must not only aid such perpetrator by assisting or supplementing his efforts, but must, with knowledge of the wrongful purpose of the perpetrator, abet by inciting or encouraging him. (People v. Le Grant (1946) 76 Cal. App. 2d 148, 172; People v. Carlson (1960) 177 Cal. App. 2d 201.) The conclusion under state law aiding and abetting would be similar to the analysis above under federal law. Similar to federal law immunities available to local legislators, discussed above, state law inmlunities provide some protection for local legislators. Local legislators are certainly immune from civil liability relating to legislative acts; it is unclear, however, whether they would also be immune from criminal liability. (Steiner v. Superior Court, 50 Cal.AppAth 1771 (assuming, but finding no California authority relating to a "criminal' exception to absolute immunity for legislators under state law).)5 Given the apparent state of the law, local legislators could only be certain that they would be immune from civil liability and could not be certain that ' Although the Steiner Court notes that "well-established federal law supports the exception," when federal case authority is applied in a state law context, there may be a different outcome. Federal authorities note that one purpose supporting criminal inummity as to federal legislators from federal prosecution is the separation of powers doctrine, which does not apply in the context of federal criminal prosecution of local legislators. However, if a state or county prosecutor brought criminal charges against a local legislator, the separation of powers doctrine may bar such prosecution. (Cal. Const., art. III, sec. 3.) As federal authorities note, bribery, or other criminal charges that do not depend upon evidence of, and cannot be said to further, any legislative acts, can still be prosecuted against legislators. (See Bruce v. Riddle (4th Cir. 1980) 631 F.2d 272, 279 ["Illegal acts such as bribery are obviously not in aid of legislative activity and legislators can claim no immunity for illegal acts."]; United States v. Brewster, 408 U.S. 501 [indictment for bribery not dependent upon how legislator debated, voted, or did anything in chamber or committee; prosecution need only show acceptance of money for promise to vote, not carrying through of vote by legislator]; United States v. Swindall (1 Ith Cir. 1992) 971 F.2d © 2009 California Police Chiefs Assn. 36 All Rights Reserved they would be at all immune from criminal liability under state law. However, there would not be any criminal violation if an ordinance adopted by a local public entity were in compliance with the CUA and the MMPA. An ordinance authorizing and regulating medical marijuana would not, by virtue solely of its subject matter, be a violation of state law; only if the ordinance itself permitted some activity inconsistent with state law relating to medical marijuana would there be a violation of state law that could subject local legislators to criminal liability under state law. QUESTION 3. If the governing body of a city, city and county, or county approves an ordinance authorizing and regulating marijuana dispensaries to implement the Compassionate Use Act of 1996 and the Medical Marijuana Program Act, and subsequently a particular dispensary is found to be violating state law regarding sales and trafficking of marijuana, could an elected official on the governing body be guilty of state criminal charges? ANSWER After adoption of an ordinance authorizing or regulating marijuana dispensaries, elected officials could not be found criminally liable under state law for the subsequent violation of state law by a particular dispensary. ANALYSIS Based on the state law provisions referenced above relating to aiding and abetting, it does not seem that a local public entity would be liable for any actions of a marijuana dispensary in violation of state law. Since an ordinance authorizing and/or regulating marijuana dispensaries would necessarily only be authorizing and/or regulating to the extent already permitted by state law, local elected officials could not be found to be aiding and abetting a violation of state law. In fact, the MMPA clearly contemplates local regulation of dispensaries. (Cal. Health & Safety Code sec. 113 62.8 3 ("Nothing in this article shall prevent a city or other local governing body from adopting and enforcing laws consistent with this article.").) Moreover, as discussed above, there may be legislative immunity applicable to the legislative acts of individual elected officials in adopting an ordinance, especially where it is consistent with state law regarding marijuana dispensaries that dispense crude marijuana as medicine. 1531, 1549 [evidence of legislative acts was essential element of proof and thus immunity applies].) Therefore, a criminal prosecution that relates solely to legislative acts cannot be maintained under the separation of powers rationale for legislative immunity. 2009 California Police Chiefs Assn. 37 All Rights Reserved QUESTION 4. Does approval of such an ordinance open the jurisdictions themselves to civil or criminal liability? ANSWER 4. Approving an ordinance authorizing or regulating marijuana dispensaries may subject the jurisdictions to civil or criminal liability. ANALYSIS Under federal law, criminal liability is created solely by statute. (Dowling v. United States (1985) 473 U.S. 207, 213.) Although becoming more rare, municipalities have been, and still may be, criminally prosecuted for violations of federal law, where the federal law provides not just a penalty for imprisonment, but a penalty for monetary sanctions. (See Green, Stuart P., The Criminal Prosecution of Local Governments, 72 N.C. L. Rev. 1197 (1994) (discussion of history of municipal criminal prosecution).) The CSA prohibits persons from engaging in certain acts, including the distribution and possession of Schedule I substances, of which marijuana is one. (21 U.S.C. sec. 841.) A person, for purposes of the CSA, includes "any individual, corporation, government or governmental subdivision or agency, business trust, partnership, association, or other legal entity." (21 C.F.R. sec. 1300.01 (34). See also 21 C.F.R. sec. 1301.02 ("Any term used in this part shall have the definition set forth in section 102 of the Act (21 U.S.C. 802) or part 1300 of this chapter.").) By its very terms, then, the CSA may be violated by a local public entity. If the actions of a local public entity otherwise satisfy the requirements of aiding and abetting a violation of the CSA, as discussed above, then local public entities may, indeed, be subject to criminal prosecution for a violation of federal law. Under either federal or state law, local public entities would not be subject to civil liability for the mere adoption of an ordinance, a legislative act. As discussed above, local legislators are absolutely immune from civil liability for legislative acts under both federal and state law. In addition, there is specific immunity under state law relating to any issuance or denial of permits. QUESTION 5. Does the issuance of a business license to a marijuana dispensary involve any additional civil or criminal liability for a city or county and its elected governing body? ANSWER 5. Local public entities will likely not be liable for the issuance of business licenses to marijuana dispensaries that plan to dispense crude marijuana as medicine. © 2009 California Police Chiefs Assn. 38 All Rights Reserved ANALYSIS Business licenses are imposed by cities within the State of California oftentimes solely for revenue purposes, but are permitted by state law to be imposed for revenue, regulatory, or for both revenue and regulatory purposes. (Cal. Gov. Code sec. 37101.) Assuming a business license ordinance is for revenue purposes only, it seems that a local public entity would not have any liability for the mere collection of a tax, whether on legal or illegal activities. However, any liability that would attach would be analyzed the same as discussed above. In the end, a local public entity could hardly be said to have aided and abetted the distribution or possession of marijuana in violation of the CSA by its mere collection of a generally applicable tax on all business conducted within the entity's jurisdiction. OVERALL FINDINGS All of the above further exemplifies the catch-22 in which local public entities are caught, in trying to reconcile the CUA and MMPA, on the one hand, and the CSA on the other. In light of the existence of the CUA and the MMPA, and the resulting fact that medical marijuana is being used by individuals in California, local public entities have a need and desire to regulate the location and operation of medical marijuana facilities within their jurisdiction.6 102 However, because of the divergent views of the CSA and California law regarding whether there is any accepted "medical" use of marijuana, state and local legislators, as well as local public entities themselves, could be subject to criminal liability for the adoption of statutes or ordinances furthering the possession, cultivation, distribution, transportation (and other act prohibited under the CSA) as to marijuana. Whether federal prosecutors would pursue federal criminal charges against state and/or local legislators or local public entities remains to be seen. But, based on past practices of locally based U.S. Attorneys who have required seizures of large amounts of marijuana before federal filings have been initiated, this can probably be considered unlikely. ° Several compilations of research regarding the impacts of marijuana dispensaries have been prepared by the California Police Chiefs Association and highlight some of the practical issues facing local public entities in regulating these facilities. Links provided are as follows: "Riverside County Office of the District Attorney," [White Paper, Medical Marijuana: History and Current Complications, September 2006];"Recent Information Regarding Marijuana and Dispensaries [El Cerrito Police Department Memorandum, dated January 12, 2007, from Commander M. Regan, to Scott C. Kirkland, Chief of Police]; "Marijuana Memorandum" [El Cerrito Police Department Memorandum, dated April 18, 2007, from Commander M. Regan, to Scott C. Kirkland, Chief of Police]; "Law Enforcement Concerns to Medical Marijuana Dispensaries" [Impacts of Medical Marijuana Dispensaries on communities between 75,000 and 100,000 population: Survey and council agenda report, City of Livermore]. © 2009 California Police Chiefs Assn. 39 All Rights Reserved CONCLUSIONS In light of the United States Supreme Court's decision and reasoning in Gonzales v. Raich, the United States Supremacy Clause renders California's Compassionate Use Act of 1996 and Medical Marijuana Program Act of 2004 suspect. No state has the power to grant its citizens the right to violate federal law. People have been, and continue to be, federally prosecuted for marijuana crimes. The authors of this White Paper conclude that medical marijuana is not legal under federal law, despite the current California scheme, and wait for the United States Supreme Court to ultimately rule on this issue. Furthermore, storefront marijuana businesses are prey for criminals and create easily identifiable victims. The people growing marijuana are employing illegal means to protect their valuable cash crops. Many distributing marijuana are hardened criminals. 103 Severa[ are members of stepped criminal street gangs and recognized organized crime syndicates, while others distributing marijuana to the businesses are perfect targets for thieves and robbers. They are being assaulted, robbed, and murdered. Those buying and using medical marijuana are also being victimized. Additionally, illegal so-called "medical marijuana dispensaries" have the potential for creating liability issues for counties and cities. All marijuana dispensaries should generally be considered illegal and should not be permitted to exist and engage in business within a county's or city's borders. Their presence poses a clear violation of federal and state law; they invite more crime; and they compromise the health and welfare of law-abiding citizens. © 2009 California Police Chiefs Assn. 40 All Rights Reserved ENDNOTES ' U.S. Const.. art. VI, cl. 2. 2 U.S. Const., art. 1, see. 8, cl. 3. ' Gonzales v. Raich (2005) 125 S.Ct. 2195 at p. 2204. 4 Gonzales v. Raich. Sea also United States v. Oakland Cannabis Buyers' Cooperative (2001) 121 S.Ct. 1711, 1718. 5 Gonzales v. Raich (2005) 125 S.Ct. 2195; see also United States v. Oakland Cannabis Buyers' Cooperative 121 S.Ct. 1711. 6 Josh Meyer & Scott Glover, "U.S. won't prosecute medical pot sales," Los Angeles Times, 19 March 2009, available at littp://www.latimes.corn/jimsfiocal/la-:ttc_ medpot]9-2009marl9,0.498757 Lstory 7See People v. tlffower (2002) 28 Cal.4th 457, 463. s Health and Safety Code section 1 I362.5(b) (1) (A). All references hereafter to the Health and Safety Code are by section number only. 7 H&S Code sec. 11362.5(a). 10 H&S Code see. 11362.7 et. seg. 1 r H&S Code sec. 11362.7. 12 H&S Code secs. 11362.71-11362.76. 13 H&S Code sec. 11362.77. 14 H&S Code secs. 11362.765 and 11362.775; People v. Urziceanu (2005) 132 Cal.App.41'' 747 at p. 786. " H&S Code sec. 11362.77; whether or not this section violates the California Constitution is currently under review by the California Supreme Court. See People v. Kelly (2008) 82 Cal.Rptr.3d 167 and People v. Phoraphokdp(2008) 85 CaLRptr. 3d 693. 16 H&S Code secs. 11357, 11358, 11359, 11360, 11366, 11366.5, and 11570. 17 H&S Code sec. 11362.7(h) gives a more comprehensive list -- AIDS, anorexia, arthritis, cachexia, cancer, chronic pain, glaucoma, migraine, persistent muscle spasms, seizures, severe nausea, and any other chronic or persistent medical symptom that either substantially limits the ability of a person to conduct one or more life activities (as defined in the ADA) or may cause serious harm to the patient's safety or physical or mental health if not alleviated. 's People v. Mower (2002) 28 Cal.4th 457 at p. 476. 19 Id. Emphasis added. 70 Packel, Organization and Operation oj'Cooperatives, 5th ed. (Philadelphia: American Law Institute, 1970),4-5. 21 Sam Stanton, "Pot Clubs, Seized Plants, New President—Marijuana's Future is Hazy," Sacramento Bee, 7 December 2008, 19A. �2 For a statewide list, see http://CanonTil.ot-9/prop/cbelist.htm]. *-'Laura McClure, "Fuming Over the Pot Clubs," California Lawyer Magazine, June 2006. 24 H&S Code sec. 11362.765(c); see, e.g., People v. Urziceanrr, 132 Cal.AppAth 747 at p. 764. 25 Gonzales u. Raich, .supra, 125 S.Ct. at page 2195. 26 People v. Uraiceamt (2005) 132 Cal.AppAth 747; see also H&S Code sec. 11362.765. 27 Israel Pack el, 4-S. Italics added. 28 I1&S Code sec. 1 1362.7(d)(1). 29 See, e.g., McClure, "fuming Over Pot Clubs," California Lawyer Magazine, June 2006. 30 H&S Code secs. 11362.5(e) and 11362.7(d)(1), (2);(3), and (e); see also People es rel. Lungren v. Peron (1997) 59 Cal.AppAth 1383, 1395.. 31 People V. Mower, 28 CalAth at 476. Emphasis added. 32 Glenda Andersen, "Laytonvillc Marijuana Guru Shot to Death: 2 Others Beaten in Home; No Suspects but Officials Believe Killing Related to Pot Growing," Santa Rosa Press Democrat, 19 November 2005, avaiIabIcatlattPJlwww1. D ressdemocrat.cog a}3Lslpbcs.rllllaM—Cl_7AT#)=/2005111 !nWS/5111.9030311Q33/ "Medical Marijuana Shop Robbed," Sarna Barbara hrrlependent, 10 August 2006, available at hitp:llinclelsenclent.cptttfnews12006/ate l 0lmediea l-mar•i'u��a-sho�obbedl Sd Mark Scaramella, "No Good Deed Goes Unptulrshed," Anderson [,'alley Advertiser, 16 June 2004, available at httpJ/wwev.tlreavatin/04/0.61.6-c,erclli.litml © 2009 California Police Chiefs Assn. 41 All Rights Reserved 35 Ricci Graham, "Police Arrest Suspect in Deadly San Leandro Pot Club Robbery," Oakland Tribune, 8 August 2006, available at littp:/Ifiind. rticles.comlglartii;leslmi on4l7kiS 20(}(rt Q8& _n 16659257 36 Ricci Graham, "Man Faces Murder Charge in Pot Robbery," Oakland Tribune, 24 August 2005, available at http://www.Iiighbeam,.conVdoe/i P2-7021933.html 37 Ricci Graham, "Another Medical Marijuana Clinic Robbed," Oakland Tribune, 10 September 2005, available at hlip://rindarticles,Moat/p/articies/miyn41761is 20050910/ai nl5809189/print 38I-aura Clark, "Pot Dispensary Owner Slain at Home." Ukiah DailyJrrrrrnal, 19 November 2007, available at littpJ/www.marijuana.coin/di,ug war-licadlint-news/24910-ca-pot-dispet)saiy-owner-slain_ iome,htm] 39 Laura Clark, "Breaking News: Medical Marijuana Supplier Les Crane Killed," Ukiah Daily Journal, 19 November 2005; Laura Clark, "Les Crane Murder Investigation Continues," Ukiah Daily Journal, 27 November 2005; Glenda Anderson, "Laylonville Marijuana Guru Slot to Death," Santa Rosa Press Democrat, 19 November 2005; Glenda Anderson, "Pot Activist Likely Knew Killers: Police Believe Gunmen Who Robbed Laytonville Man Familiar With Home," Santa Rosa Press Democrat, 20 November 2005, available at litho:!/www.e ualrigjats4ali.us/content/view/1ti215C?! 4t1 Mark Scaramella, "The Mendo Pot Chronicles," Anderson Valley Adverliser, 3 October 2007, available at http://www.ttieava.cotTdO4/0616-cerelli.lilml 41 Kirk Johnson, "Killing Highlights Risk of Selling Marijuana, Even Legally," New York Times, 13 March 2007, available at littp_/lwww.nytimes.cbml20071031021tEs102 annabis.hunl?ex=1181880000&en=c609936094adda50&ei=5070 4' Tami Abdollah & Richard Winton, "Pot Theft Claimed in Boy's Shooting Death," Los Angeles Times, 23 January 2007, available at http:/1www.califomiagolieeelliefs.org/ttavfilhleslniariivantt fil lll7ower sl oating death_,pdf 43 Will Bigham, "Claremont Marijuana Dispensary Burglarized," Inland Valley Daily Bulletin, 27 January 2007, available at http://www.dailybuiteliza.coin/ci_5104514 44 Planning Commission Agenda, available at litt�_ww:e1-cerrito.oig; see also Alan Lopez, "El Cerrito Moves to Ban Dispensaries," Contra Costa Times, 24 June 2006, available at ling;//www.the-miiiistnt.trct/forun i(arclliydel-eerrito-moves-to-ban-cannabis-clubs-6974.htm 45 Fred Ortega, "Ci(y Bans Outlets for Medical Marijuana," San Gabriel Valley Tribune, 17 August 2006, available at hHg://www.Ica-uk,or Idlca orum/viewto iiC. 1 ?f=6&t=2436&start=0&sid=15b6da11.5a0da43facbl7644195ebb 46 Ortega. 47 Greg Beato, "Pot Clubs in Peril: Are San Francisco Zoning Boards a Bigger Threat to Medical Marijuana Than the DEA?" Reason Magazine, February 2007, available at lrttp:/Iwww.rcason.comlttewslsltow/__- 1 1$314.huy l; Craig T. Steckler, City of Fre-moat Police Department Memorandum re Medical Marijuana Dispensaries — Potential Secondary Impacts, 20 June 2006; Tim Miller, City ofAnaheim Police Department: Special Operations Division Memorandum re Medical Marijuana Dispensary (MMD) Ban Ordinance, 13 June 2007. 48 Jeff McDonald, "15 Held in Raids on Pot Stores," San Diego Union-Tribune, 7 July 2006, available at littp //www siziiorisondle,go.cq iAl tiiantt ibQ04607071tsex�s_ 7_ m7pnt.htm '19 McDonald; Beato. So Cal. H&S Code sec. 11362.5. 51 Ethan Stewart, "The Medical Marijuana Movement Grows in Santa Barbara: Emerald Dreams and Smoky Realities," Santa Barbara Independent, 3 May 2007, available at http://incltpc?idc_iit.conVnewa120071, tin y/fl3/)ncdical-mar{iulna-inoveiiient-gt'owsys7nta-harbara/; see also Adam Ashton, "DEA Busts Pot Store Day After Council Talk," Modesto Bee, 28 September 2006. 52 McDonald. 53 Stewart. 54 Stewart. 55 Stewart. 56 National Drug Intel ligence Center, Domestic Cannabis Cultivation Assessment 2007, February 2007; available at httu•11_www,ttsdojclic/pubs21f224G1; Jaxon Van Derbeken, Charlie Goodyear, & Rachel Gordon, "3 S.F. Pot Clubs Raided in Probe of Organized Crime," San Francisco Chronicle, 23 June 2005, available at http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2005/06/23/NlNGRODDG32l.DTL; LAPD report information, 2007. 2009 California Police Chiefs Assn. 42 All Rights Reserved 57 Van Derbeken, et al. 58 Kale Heneroty, "Medical marijuana indictment unsealed," Jurist, 24 June 2005, available at http ll[urist.law,pit .edul a ereliasel2005f 6lmedical-iiiariivana-indictment-tmsealed. h ; Stacy Finz, "19 Named in Medicinal Pot Indictment: More Than 9,300 Marijuana Plants Were Seized in Raids," San Francisco Chronicle, 24 June 2005, available at htt r:://sfgate.ml*ggi-b_irllarticle.cgi?file=/cia12005/16/241BAGV9DEC4CI.DTL "Organized Crime Behind `Medical'Marijuana Dispensary in California," Pushingback. 29 September 2006, available at lett :1l usliin back.com/blo ;( u{i shingback/archive120p6/09129179Las x; "Ashton. G0 City of San Diego, Crime Stalisiics, 2007, available at http:llwww.sandiggo.gov 61 National Drug Intelligence Center, Marijuana, January 2001, available at http:llwww.usdoi.&oft 62 George Anastasia, "Viet Gangs on the Rise Again—The Emerging American Underworld—Gangs' Plant-filled Houses a Growing fart of Drug Trade," chronicle of Boredom, IS April 2007. 63 Will Bigham, "Houses Linked to Asian Gangs," Inland Valley Daily Bulletin, 23 September 2007, available at hLtR:://www.dailybulletin.com/iitw.*L-i 6,W0682 Bigham, 23 September 2007. 6j Feds Camc and Went—Now What? Humboldt County News, 30 June 2008, available at IttpWnews.h unicaunty comlarchiyes00816 .' LAPD Report Number DR11060625000, 16 August 2406. 67 LAPD Report Number DR#i060625001, 16 August 2006. 68 Tim Miller, City of Anaheim Police Department: Special Operations Division Memorandum re Marijuana Dispensary (MMD) Ban Ordinance, 25 October 2006; Johnson; Craig T. Steckler, City of Fremont Police Department; Memorandum re Medical Marijuana Dispensaries – Potential Secondary Impacts, 20 June 2006. 69 Stewart. 70 Johnson. 71 Ashton. 72 "What has the U.S. DEA said about medical marijuana? "Medical Marijuana ProCon.org, 2005; "What has federal law enforcement said about medical marijuana?" Medical Marijuana ProCon.org., 2009, available at http://medicalmarijuana.procon.orplviewanswers.,isp?gitestionlD--000630 73 Jim Avila, "Marijuana McMansions: Cops Say Organized Crime Is Sending Families Into the Suburbs to Grow Marijuana," ABC News, 14 June 2007, available at ht .'Ilabcnews,go.comlprint?id=3242700 74 Avila; Anastasia; "DEA Raids Miami Grow House," CBS5.com, 30 April 2008, available at htt :llp cbs5:coniltiatioiialldet.rdid.minmi.2.7129S8.littnl is Anastasia. -- 76 Bigham, 23 September 2007; Ethan Baron, "Angel Linked to Grow-op," The Province (CNBC), 22 May 2005, available at http:Ihviyw.map'nc.or ne sto1Iv051n8231nD2.himl 77 Bigham, 23 September 2007. 73 Bigham, 23 September 2007. 79 Heather Allen, "Marijuana Grow Houses Flourish as Southwest Florida Market Drops," HeraldTribune.com, 24 July 2007, available at ht( p,llwww.lreraldtr bune.caiii/articlel2007Q724NF-WS/707240498 "Eric Bailey and Tim Reiterman, "Where Mary ,lane is (lie girl next door," Lt7s Angeles Times, 31 May 2008, available at Litt 113rticles.latimes.e[7m1200tilmK3y.�3lllacalJmr. pot31 S1 Eureka house Dire Ilse Result of You-know-what," I-hunboldt County News, 7 September 2008, available at http:l/news.humcounty.conil; written remarks of Arcata Police Chief Randy Mendosa, 1 March 2009. " Jesse McKinley, "Marijuana Hotbed Retreats on Medicinal Use," New York Times, 9 June 2009, available at littpa/www.nytimes.corn/2008106/09/Us/pot.litin]? r=1 &em&ex=1213329 "Deputies: Fire Damages IIoliday Marijuana Grow Home, tampabay.com, 15 February 2008, available at ht% lblo sg tamuaba .coaiilbrettkiti ii ewsf20081021htrlidi-fire<ma.himl ss Don Ruane, "Grow )"louses Can Impact Utility Bills, Public Safety," News-press.com, 12 Apiil 2008, available at ht 11www.netVs-pi_ess.c_ om/a /pbcs.dll/ar6c10A.ID=1200$0412/NljWS01.031804120394 85"DEA Raids Miami Grow House." 86 Sandy Louey, "Arrests Take Toll on Local Gang," The Sacramento Bee, 14 August 2008, available at http:11w3vw.sacbee.comlelk rtig mr y-printlstaryl S 52310.html s7Avila. © 2009 California Police Chiefs Assn. 43 All Rights Reserved 88 Scott Glover, "Morro Bay Pot Dispensary Owner Found Guilty of Federal Charges," Los Angeles Times, 6 August 2008, available at lattp flarticles.latimes.conV2008/augI6/llocaVmc-pot6 69 Bailey and Reiterman. 90 Janis Ramsay, "Special Report: Grow -op House Can Still Be Dream Home: Realtor Says," The Barrie Advance, 25 August 2008, available at hit2:llwww.inapinc.orgldrugnewsJv081: $1$laQ6,htm1 9T Avila. 92 Bailey and Reiterman. 93 Steve Davis, "Grow Security," Cannabis Culture Magazine, 6 August 2004, available at ltttp:/Iivww. cMitabiscu ltur6.corW/articlesf3441.htm 1 94 Bailey and Reiterman. 95 Scc People v. Urziceanu, 132 Ca1.App.4th 747. 96 City of Pleasant Hill Presentation to Its Planning Commission by Planning Division Staff on April 24, 2007. 9' Office Consolidation: By-law 361-2004 of the City of Brampton, Ontario, Canada. 98Bill MCColhnm, "Landmark Hill 'Targeting Marijuana Grow Houses Becomes i 7w," Attorney General Bill McCollum News Release, 17 June 2008, available at http:flmyfloridalegal.cotttlnewsrelatsflnewsreleases/AFAE7E2BCC 1688D 18525746B0070D23B 99 "Asian Gangs Move Grow -ops," Tl:e Asian Pack Post, 27 September 2007, available at bitp://www.asianpaciliepost.aonnlpartal2/f£808' 0811548063f0115482401d00p03_asian tangs rugve grow pj)s.do.html Too See Asian Gangs Move Grow -ops. 101 See "Does Marijuana Contribute to Psychotic Illnesses?" Current Psychiatry Online 6(2), February 2007. Toe Sec, e.g_., htt,P:f]www.calirornia11() a liiefs.or�;L filsslresearcli/ordinances.html Toa ,National Drug Intelligence Center. © 2009 California Police Chiefs Assn. 44 All Rights Reserved NON -LEGAL REFERENCES Abdollah, Tami, and Richard Winton. "Pot Theft Claimed in Boy's Shooting Death," Los Angeles Times, 23 January 2007. Retrieved January 8, 2009, from litW://www.califomigpolicechiefs.oiViiav files/mari'uana files/bellflower shooting death. df Allen, Heather. "Marijuana Grow Houses Flourish as Southwest Florida Market Drops." HeraldTribune.com, 24 July 2007. Retrieved January 9, 2009, from hnp://www.heraldtiibuiie.coi.n/artidQaOO70724/NE-WS/707240498 Anastasia, George. "Viet Gangs on the Rise Again—The Emerging American Underworld—Gangs' Plant -filled Houses a Growing Part of Drug Trade." Chronicle of Boredom, 18 April 2007. Retrieved January 8, 2009, from http //www xanga.com/tiliailua/58485956$iviet- angs-on-tlie-rise-a a Iitml Anderson, Glenda. "Laytonville Marijuana Guru Shot to Death: 2 Others Beaten in Home." Santa Rosa Press Democrat, 19 November 2005. Retrieved January 8, 2009, from ha//www1.prres�deiTiocrat;com/aiags/pbes.dll/article?AID=/20051119/NEWS/511190303/ Anderson, Glenda. "Pot Activist Likely Knew Killers: Police Believe Gunmen Who Robbed Laytonville Man Familiar With Horne." Santa Rosa Press Democrat, 20 November 2005. Retrieved January 8, 2009, from http://www.gguairighLs4all.us/content/view/192/50/ Ashton, Adam. "DEA Busts Pot Store Day After Council Talk." Modesto Bee, 28 September 2006. "Asian Gangs Move Grow -ops." The Asian Pacific Post, 27 September 2007. Retrieved January 8, 2009, from littli:/Iwww.asianttcifiepost.conilportal2/ff8O808l l548063f011548240IdGQ003 Asian an _s_ move_ grow_ops.do.html Avila, Jim. "Marijuana McMansions: Cops Say Organized Crime Is Sending Families Into the Suburbs to Grow Marijuana." ABC News, 14 June 2007. Retrieved January 8, 2009, from lit!p://abcnews,go.codpriiit?id=3242.7610 Bailey, Eric, and Tim Reiterman. "Where Mary Jane Is the Girl Next Door." Los Angeles Times, 31 May 2008. Retrieved January 8, 2009, from littji://articles.latimes.com/2008/may/3 l Aocalhne--pot3l Baron, Ethan. "Angel Linked to Grow -op." The Province (CNBC), 22 May 2005. Retrieved January 8, 2009, from http://www.rnap nc.or'g/newstcl/v05/n823/aO2.html © 2009 California Police Chiefs Assn. 45 All Rights Reserved Beato, Greg. "Pot clubs in peril: Are San Francisco Zoning Boards a Bigger Threat to Medical Marijuana Than the DEA? Reason Magazine, February 2007. Retrieved January 8, 2009, from httR://www.ieason.com/news/show/I 18314.html Bigham, Will. "Claremont Marijuana Dispensary Burglarized." Inland Valley Daily Bulletin, 27 January 2007. Retrieved January 9, 2009, from lyitp://www.dailybuiletin.com/ei 5104514 Bigham, Will. "Houses Linked to Asian Gangs." Inland Valley Daily Bulletin, 23 September 2007. Retrieved January 8, 2009, from htin://www.dailybull_etin.conViiewsci 6980682 Brown, Edmund G., Jr. Guidelines for the Security and Non-Diversion ofMaryuana Grown for Medical Use, August 2008. City of Pleasant Hill. Presentation to Its Planning Commission by Planning Staff, April 24, 2007. City of San Diego. Crime Statistics, 2007. Retrieved January 9, 2009, from htlp://www.satidiego,p,o_ Clark, Laura. "Breaking News: Medical Marijuana Supplier Les Crane Killed." Ukiah Daily Journal, 19 November 2005. Clark, Laura. "Les Crane Murder Investigation Continues." Ukiah Daily Journal. 27 November 2005. Clark, Laura. "Pot Dispensary Owner Slain at Home." Ukaih Daily Journal, 19 November 2005. Retrieved January 9, 2009, from lift ://www.rnari'uaiia.coin/dni war-lieaclline-news/2491_fl-ce-vat-disp.ensary-owner-slain-home.html Davis, Steve. "Grow Security." Cannabis Culture Magazine, 6 August 2004. Retrieved January 8, 2009, from http://www.catinabisctilture.com//articles/3441.html "DEA Raids Miami Grow House." CBS News, 30 April 2008. Retrieved January 8, 2009, from hit://cbs5.co.nv'nationaUdea.raid.miami.2.712958.htm1 "Deputies: Fire Damages Holiday Marijuana Grow House." tampabay.com, 15 Fcbruary 2008. Retrieved January 8, 2009, from l J)Ahlogs,taii an l)ay.com/breakiilgnaws/2408/02Aioliday.zfire-tiia.htmi "Does Marijuana Contribute to Psychotic Illnesses?" Current Psychiatry Online 6(2) (February 2007). "Eureka House Fire the Result of You -know -what." Ilumboldl County News, 7 September 2008. Retrieved January 8, 2009, from htipalnews.humcounty.com/ © 2009 California Police Chiefs Assn. 46 All Rights Reserved "Feds Came and Went — Now What?" Humboldt County News, 30 June 2008. Retrieved January 8, 2009, from 17ttp;llnews.hurtacounty.c_oinlarchives/2008/6 Finz, Stacy. "19 Named in Medicinal Pot Indictment: More Than 9,300 Marijuana Plants Were Seized in Raids." San Francisco Chronicle, 24 June 2005. Retrieved January 8, 2009, from htt :flsf ate.com/c i-bin/aiticle.c i?hle=/c/a/2005/06/24BAGV9DEC4CLDTL Glover, Scott. "Morro Bay Pot Dispensary Owner Found Guilty of Federal Charges." Los Angeles Times, 6 August 2008. Retrieved January 8, 2009, from http://www latimes.cominews/local'la-me ot6_2008MO6,0,516054.story Graham, Ricci. "Man Faces Murder Charge in Pot Robbery." Oakland Tribune, 24 August 2005. Retrieved February 28, 2009 from http-//www.highbeam.com/doc/IP2-7021933.html Graham, Ricci. "Another Medical Marijuana Clinic Robbed." Oakland Tribune, 10 September 2005. Retrieved February 24, 2009, from http://findarticles.conVi)/articles/mi gn41761is 20050910/ai n15809189/print Graham, Ricci. "Police Arrest Suspect in Deadly San Leandro Pot Club Robbery." Oakland Tribune, 8 August 2006. Retrieved February 24, 2009, from h :Ilfindarticies.com/p/articles/mi =4176/is 2.0060808/ai n16659257 Heneroty, Kate. "Medical Marijuana Indictment Unsealed." Jurist, 24 June 2005. Retrieved January 8, 2009, from http: /iurist.law. ip_tt.edu/pgpereliase/2045/06/medical-mariivana-va lietnient-unsente(I. Johnson, Kirk. "Killing Highlights Risk of Selling Marijuana, Even Legally." New York Times, 13 March 2007. Retrieved January 8, 2009, from littp://www. iiytimes.com/2007/03/02/Lis/02cannabis.html?ex=1181880000&en=c609936094a dda50&ei=5070 LAPD Report Information, 2007. LAPD Report Number DR#060625000, 16 August 2006. LAPD Report Number DR#060625001, 16 August 2006. Lopez, Alan. "El Cerrito Moves to Ban Cannabis Clubs." Contra Costa Times, 6 January 2008. Retrieved January 8, 2009, from ht(p://www_lhc- ninistr net/forum/archive%el-cerrito-moves-to-ban-cannabis-clubs-6974.htm © 2009 California Police Chiefs Assn 47 All Rights Reserved Louey, Sandy. "Arrests Take Toll on Local Gang." The Sacramento Bee, 14 August 2008. Rerieved January 8, 2009, from http://www.sacbee.corn//elkp,rove/v-print/stoU/I 152310.html McClure, Laura. "Fuming Over the Pot Clubs." California Lawyer Magazine, June 2006. McCollum, Bill. "Landmark Bill Targeting Marijuana Grow Houses Becomes Law." Attorney General Bill McCollum News Release, 17 June 2008. Retrieved January 9, 2009, from http://niyfloridalezat.com/newsrel.nsflncwsreleases/AFAE7E2BCC 1688D 18525746BO07OD23B McDonald, Jeff. "15 Held in Raids on Pot Stores," San Diego Union -Tribune, 7 July 2006. Retrieved February 24, 2009, from lit�p://www.signotisAndiego.coi-n/iiniontribi2OO6O7O7/news 7m7 otn html McKinley, Jesse. "Marijuana Hotbed Retreats on Medicinal Use." New York Times, 9 June 2008. Retrieved March 19, 2009, from http:llwww.-yrtiines.cpm/200810/09/us/09pot.lx#rnl? l em=&ex=1213329 "Medical Marijuana Shop Robbed." Santa Barbara Independent, 10 August 2006. Retrieved January 9, 2009, from li:1/iiidgpcndent.corn/iiews/200ga-pg/10/medical-mariivana=stiol2-robbed/ Meyer, Josh, and Scott Glover. "U.S. Won't Prosecute Medical Pot Sales," 19 March 2009.. Retrieved March 21, 2009, from http://www.latimes. coiiVnews/locaVia-me-inedpot 19-2009niarl9,0,4987571.stozy Miller, Tim. City of Anaheim Police Department: Special Operations Division Memorandum re Medical Marijuana Dispensary (MMD) Ban Ordinance, 25 October 2006. National Drug Intelligence Center. Domestic cannabis cultivation assessment 2007, 26 February 2007. Retrieved January 9, 2009, from littp://www.usdoi.gov/iidic/pubs2l/22486/ Office Consolidation: By-law 361-2004 of the Corporation of the City of Brampton, 22 November 2004. "Organized Crime Behind `Medical' Marijuana Dispensary in California." Pushingback, 29 September 2006. Retrieved January 9, 2009, from http:111sushinglaack.com/biogsll)usliing laaciclar hivV2006/09/29/791.asp Ortega, Fred. "City Bans Outlets for Medical Marijuana," San Gabriel Valley Tribune, 28 August 2006. Retrieved January 9, 2009, from h ://www.lca- ok.orgllcafonitn/viewtopic.phl3?f=6&t-2436&staart=0&sid=15b6da115a0da43facb441„95cbb © 2009 California Police Chiefs Assn. 48 All Rights Reserved Packel, Israel. The Organization and Operation of Cooperatives, 4`h ed. Philadelphia: American Law Institute, 1970. Ramsay, Janis. "Special Report: Grow -op House Can Still Be Dream Home: Realtor Says." The Barrie Advance, 25 August 2008. Retrieved January 9, 2009, from lit tp://www,mapino.org/ gnews/y08/n818/a06.htm 1 Ruane, Don. "Grow Houses Can Impact Utility Bills, Public Safety." News-press.com, 12 April 2008. Retrieved January 9, 2009, from littp://www.news-press.com ap ./pbcs.dlUailicle"?AID–/20080412/NEWS0103/804120394 Scaramella, Mark. "The Mendo Pot Chronicles." Anderson Valley Advertiser, 3 October 2007. Retrieved January 9, 2009, from http://www.theava.com/07/1003-zig_qldQpot.html Scaramella, Mark. "No Good Deed Goes Unpunished." Anderson Valley Advertiser, 16 June 2004. Retrieved January 9, 2009, from http://wwww.theava.conVO4/0616-cerelli.html Stanton, Sam. "Pot Clubs, Seized Plants, New President—Marijuana's Future Is Hazy." Sacramento Bee, 7 December 2008, 19A. Steckler, Craig T. City of Fremont Police Department Memorandum re Medical Marijuana Dispensaries – Potential Secondary Impacts, 20 June 2006. Stewart, Ethan. (2007, May 3). "The Medical Marijuana Movement Grows in Santa Barbara: Emerald Dreams and Smoky Realities." Santa Barbara Independent," 3 May 2007. Retrieved January 9, 2009, from htW://indgpeandeiit.com/news/2007/niay/03/medical-mari i Liana-moveiuent-ga*ows-Santa-Barbara/ Van Derbeken, Jaxon, Charlie Goodyear, and Rachel Gordon. "3 S.F. pot clubs raided in probe of organized crime." San Francisco Chronicle, 23 June 2005. Retrieved January 9, 2009, from IM:///www.sl gate.com/c.gi-bin/article.cgi?file=/c/a/2005/06/2 3/MNGRODDG321.DTL "What has federal law enforcement said about medical marijuana?" Medical Marijuana ProCon.org, 2009. Retrieved February 24, 2009, from littp://medicalinarijuana. pro ton org/viewanswers,asti?gucstionID=000630 "What has the U.S. DEA said about medical marijuana?" Medical Marijuana ProCon.org, 2005. © 2009 California Police Chiefs Assn. 49 All Rights Reserved ATTACHMENT 3 County of Santa Clara Office of the District Attorney 70 West Hedding Street, West Wing, 5t^ Floor San Jose, California 95110 (408) 299-7400 Jeffrey F. Rosen District Attomey Issues Surrounding Marijuana in Santa Clara County By Patrick Vanier, Supervisor of Narcotics Prosecution Team Business Practices that Epitomize the Problems with the Proliferation of Marijuana Dispensaries In 2014, the Santa Clara County District Attorney's Office prosecuted a case involving the transportation and possession for sale of six pounds of dried marijuana and twelve pounds of concentrated cannabis. The defendant told investigators he was delivering marijuana from a vendor on behalf of his San Jose -based marijuana club. During trial, the director of the marijuana club, described as a "marijuana dispensary," testified to the business practice and organization of the club. The club consists of approximately 14,000 members between 2 "stores" in San Jose. 50 "vendors" throughout California sourced this "dispensary" with marijuana. Within the marijuana industry, the term "vendor" refers to a person who supplies marijuana to dispensaries and receives compensation for the product. The director identified the 50 vendors as persons who have marijuana cultivation sites which he has neither visited nor inspected. This particular dispensary does not pay city or state sales tax, or any income tax. The club generates approximately $1 million a year in annual sales involving approximately 100 pounds of dried marijuana bud, 30-40 pounds of wax (a form of concentrated cannabis) and varying quantities of cannabis products in other forms. The concentrated cannabis products are primarily manufactured using butane or other chemical solvents. This method of manufacturing is a crime under California Health and Safety Code section 11379.6 because of the hazards associated with production. The business practices and organization of this club epitomize the many problems resulting from the proliferation of marijuana clubs in Santa Clara County. Illegal marijuana cultivation operations generate a significant number of collateral crimes on the supply side. For example, marijuana clubs and dispensaries self -monitor in the absence of government oversight. Therefore, there is no way to be sure how and from whom the clubs are acquiring their inventory of cannabis products. Law enforcement agencies have gathered valuable intelligence that some clubs are selling marijuana harvested by illegal cultivation operations. This intelligence has been documented through arrested individuals, "vendor" membership agreements or Prop 215 notices referencing local dispensaries, and subpoenaed club records. Marijuana Case Trends The District Attorney's Office observed the following trends based on recent cases prosecuted by the Office. The following statistics include only issued cases, not pending investigations. Between 2011 and 2013, the Office issued criminal charges against 172 illegal marijuana growing operations. Of these cases, 118 were Page 2 identified as "indoor grows" and 54 were classified as "outdoor grows." Once again, these numbers only reflect a representative sample of cultivation operations within Santa Clara County. Indoor Grow Operations While indoor marijuana grow operations can be found in a variety of settings, including warehouses, barns, and back rooms of business establishments, the most common locations were single family homes in residential neighborhoods. These are locations where entire rental properties or vacant foreclosed homes are converted into clandestine greenhouses. The interior rooms for these homes are typically modified without construction permits, without permission from the banks (usually involving squatters) or knowledge of the rental property owners. With no regard to safety, structural integrity or value to the property, these former residences are generally ransacked. Often times the electricity to homes where cultivation operations are present have been haphazardly rewired or compromised in other forms to accommodate the equipment — e.g. grow lights, fans, irrigation pumps, timers. Electrical circuit boxes are modified to bypass electricity from the power company's meters (usually PG&E) resulting in the theft of millions of dollars in energy. House fires associated to residential marijuana gardens are frequently caused by the theft of power. Investigators also report tremendous amounts of moisture and standing water inside these indoor grows from leaking water sources, as well as humidity associated with the indoor process. Standing water is a breeding ground for caustic spores, black mold and fungus. Puddles of water combined with extension cords and exposed wiring create electrical hazards. First responders typically wear protective gear and respirators to avoid these dangers. Of 118 indoor marijuana grows over the last three years: 76 involved converted homes, 2 involved converted warehouses, and 41 of these locations were identified as rental properties. In at least 61 of these cases, electrical bypasses were observed where theft of power was deemed present and there were 5 house fires associated to indoor cultivations. The victim homeowners for these vandalized properties are by and large burdened with hundreds of thousands of dollars in clean up costs from indoor grows. Outdoor Grow Operations The other source of harvested marijuana comes from outdoor marijuana gardens. A large number of outdoor cultivation operations reviewed by the District Attorney's Office were investigated by the Santa Clara County Marijuana Eradication Team (MET). Over the last three years, the MET team reported the removal of 355,005 marijuana plants and the seizure of 1,838 pounds of processed marijuana bud derived mostly from outdoor grow locations. These outdoor grow sites were typically discovered by detectives in remote areas of unincorporated Santa Clara County — eastern foothills of Milpitas and San Jose, Gilroy and Morgan Hill foothills, the base of the Santa Cruz mountains and the eastern foothills of Los Gatos, Los Altos and Saratoga. Marijuana gardens have been found on public lands (e.g. Henry Coe State Park and Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District) and private property in varying sizes. These grows can have a few hundred plants over a small plot of land or tens of thousands of marijuana bushes spread over many acres. The number of marijuana plants willdetermine the yield potential for an operation. Most law enforcement experts conservatively estimate that a single marijuana plant can produce about 1 to 2 pounds of marijuana valued at $1,500 to $3,000 per pound (wholesale pricing). During harvesting periods for outdoor cultivations, May through October, the number of individual harvests for a single location can also impact Page 3 the profitability of the enterprise. Experienced growers can get two or three harvests on a single plot of land each year. The same is true for indoor marijuana locations, however, such locations can obviously grow year round. The level of sophistication of these outdoor grows can vary as well. Some outdoor operations have only one or two experienced cultivators, while others have teams of migrant farm workers tending to the crop. The single most important variable for any outdoor grow is a nearby water source. Many outdoor operations are set up near creeks, rivers or reservoirs. Water is diverted without regulatory permits or permission from landowners. There have been numerous instances of water diverted to illegal marijuana grows from nearby legitimate farms. Illegal outdoor marijuana cultivators pollute waterways with pesticides, rodent poisons, human feces, trash, and soil erosion. Wardens with the California Department of Fish and Wildlife assist MET detectives with these investigations and recommend the charging of environmental crimes associated with marijuana cultivation. Of the 54 outdoor marijuana gardens charged between 2011-2013, at least 24 of the grow sites were on private land and 11 were on public property/open space. Environmental crimes were charged in 21 of these cases. Other Associated Crimes In addition to the crimes and social impacts unique to the two styles of marijuana cultivation, other alarming trends have been noted. Within the sample size of the 172 cases referenced above, firearms were located in 36 investigations. Other controlled substances, e.g. methamphetamine, were found in 25 cultivation sites. Children were reported present in 10 instances. Serious or violent felony crimes, e.g. burglary, robbery or assaults using deadly weapons, were reported in 8 investigations. In 2012, one investigation of an outdoor marijuana garden resulted in an officer involved shooting when one of the marijuana growers pointed a loaded .22 caliber semi-automatic rifle at a Fish and Wildlife Warden. Organized Crime Probably one of the least talked about issues involving marijuana grows has been the influence of organized crime. Law enforcement has documented numerous instances of organized crime controlling the cultivation of marijuana. Conservatively, at least 8 documented instances of Mexican National Drug Cartels and/or criminal street gangs have been tied to marijuana grows. At one outdoor marijuana operation, investigators found written references to the Sinaloa Drug Cartel and a drawing of "Jesus Malverde," the patron saint of drug traffickers. At another indoor -marijuana grow, officers found a "Santa Muerte" statute, a Mexican cult figure associated with violence, criminality, and the illegal drug trade. Within the last five years, the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) and the Santa Clara County Sheriff's Office Multi -Jurisdictional Methamphetamine Enforcement Team (CAL-MMET) have identified multiple cartel drug trafficking cells operating within the county. These organizations are poly drug traffickers distributing methamphetamine, cocaine, heroin and marijuana. Through a variety of investigative techniques, DEA and CAL-MMET have learned that both indoor and outdoor marijuana cultivation is just one of many lucrative businesses operated by cartels to supplement the trafficking of methamphetamine and cocaine from Mexico. Mexican drug distributors will engage in human trafficking to bring farm workers up from the territorial regions the cartels control — Sinaloa or Michoacan — to tend to the cultivations. DEA and CAL-MMET investigations have resulted in the arrest of several high ranking drug distributors who have described to investigators firsthand how marijuana cultivation is a significant component to their overall business. Law enforcement has also seen the rise of multiple Vietnamese criminal street gangs distributing marijuana within Santa Clara County. In 2010, California Department of Justice, Bureau of Narcotics Enforcement, investigated the Insane Viet Thugs (IVT), a documented street gang distributing marijuana aqd other Page 4 narcotics, as well as firearms. Agents learned through the investigation that IVT was managing a network of grow houses and distributing drugs throughout the Bay Area — San Jose to Vallejo. The investigation of IVT resulted in the service of 22 search warrants throughout the Bay Area and the prosecution of 22 validated or associate gang members, the seizure of approximately 1,500 marijuana plants from 5 indoor grow houses (a total of 7 grow houses were identified during the investigation) over 71 lbs of harvested marijuana, 16 firearms (including 3 assault weapons), over $110,000 in U.S. Currency and various quantities of heroin, cocaine, methamphetamine and ecstasy. The information provided in this narrative demonstrates how the lack of any significant regulatory schemes to control the supply of marijuana to dispensaries is impacting public safety and quality of life within the county. DA Jeff Rosen supports Santa Clara County's efforts to establish comprehensive guidelines designed to prevent the dangerous and illegal activities from illegal cultivation and distribution of marijuana. ATTACHMENT 4 _ Recommend 14 17 mminafs target met ica Wash. shootout involving activist highlights risk to growers AP AI.e .h,a New updated 3/1612010 9:05:04 PM ET SAN PRANCL5C0 — Patients, growers and clinics in some of the 14 states that allow medical marijuana are falling victim to robberies, home invasions, shootings and even murders at the hands of pot thieves. There have been dozens of cases in recent months alone. The issue received more attention this week after a prominent medical marijuana activist in Washington state nearly killed a robber in a shootout — the eighth time thieves had targeted his pot -growing operation. Critics say the heists and holdups prove that marijuana and crime are inseparable, though marijuana advocates contend that further legalization is the answer. News of crimes related to medical marijuana comes at an awkward time for California and Washington advocates who are pushing to pass ballot measures to allow all adults, not just the seriously ill, to possess the drug. Sieve Sarich stands in a room used to grow medical marijuana in his home in Kirkland, Wash. Poll Investigated a shootoul between Sarich and a robber in his home on Monday. Sarich says he uses "Wheneveryou are dealing with drugs and money, there is going to be crime. If people think otherwise, they are very naive," said Scott Kirkland, the police chief in EI Cerrito, Calif., and a vocal critic of his state's voter -approved medical marijuana law. "People think if we decriminalize it, the Mexican cartels and Asian gangs are going to walk away. That's not the world I live in," Kirkland said. Unwanted attention Activists and law enforcement officials say it is difficult to get an accurate picture of crimes linked to medical marijuana because many drug users don't report the crimes to police for fear of arousing unwanted attention from the authorities. But the California Police Chiefs Association used press clippings to compile 52 medical marijuana -related crimes — including seven homicides — from April 2008 to March 2009. There also is plenty of anecdotal evidence: • A man in Washington state was beaten to death last week with what is believed to be a crowbar after confronting an intruder on the rural property where he was growing cannabis to treat painful back problems. Medical marijuana activist Steve Sarich exchanged gunfire with intruders in his Kirkland, Wash., home near Seattle on Monday, shooting and critically injuring one of them. In California, a boy was shot to death while allegedly trying to steal a cancer patient's pot plants from his home garden. A respected magazine editor was killed in 2007 by robbers who targeted his Northern California home for marijuana and money after hearing that his teenage son was growing pot with a doctor's approval. Robbers killed a security guard at a Los Angeles medical marijuana dispensary in 2008. Police and marijuana opponents say the violence is further proof that the proliferation of medical marijuana is a problem that will worsen if the drug is legalized or decriminalized. Pot activists say the opposite: that prohibition breeds crime and legalization would solve the problem. They also say the robberies have exposed the need for more regulation of medical marijuana laws in states like California, Washington and Colorado. "The potential for people to get ripped off and for people to use guns to have to defend themselves against robbers is very real," said Keith Stroup, founder and chief legal counsel for the National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws. "But it's nothing to do with medical marijuana, It is to do with the failure of states to regulate this." Marijuana advocates say there is adequate regulation in New Mexico, where officials say there have been no violent medical marijuana robberies. Medical cannabis is primarily grown by a small number of regularly inspected nonprofits in New Mexico, and [he state keeps their names and locations confidential. The law includes extensive requirements covering security, quality control, staff training and education about the use of the drug. http://www.nbenews.com/id/35940756/ns/us,news-crime and courts/t/criminals-target-... 10/27/2015 Criminals target medical marijuana - US news - Crime & courts I NBC News Page 2 of 2 Vague rules Most medical marijuana states have only vague rules for caregivers or dispensaries paiticipating in a business with products that can fetch $600 an ounce. Sonic states, including California and Colorado, can only guess how many pot dispensaries they have because the businesses don't have to register with the state. "This is ridiculous, in my opinion, to have medical marijuana and no regulation," Stroup said. "Ajewelry store wouldn't open without security, and if it did, a scuzzy person's going to break in and steal all their diamonds." Stephen Gutwillig, California director of the pro -pot Drug Policy Alliance, said that while the robberies are disturbing, there is noway to conclude that legalized marijuana breeds any more crime than convenience stores, banks or homes stocked with expensive jewelry and electronics. In fact, Denver police said the 25 robberies and burglaries targeting medical marijuana in the city in the last half of 2oo9 amounted to a lower crime rate than what banks or liquor stores there suffered. "I think what we are seeing is a spate of clime that reflects the novelty of medical marijuana cultivation and distribution through unregulated means," Gutwillig said. Marijuana is still illegal under federal law, but the Obama administration loosened its guidelines for prosecutions of medical pot last year. The Justice Department told federal prosecutors that targeting people who use or provide medical marijuana in strict compliance with state laws was not a good use of their time. The decision energized the medical marijuana movement and came as Washington state and California are trying to get pot legalization measures on the ballot. Activists are still gathering signatures, and it's not yet known ifthe measures will qualify for the ballot. Meanwhile, California cities have been trying to rein in the drug in response to a medical marijuana law that is the nation's most liberal. Detective Robert Palacios of the Los Angeles Police Department said he has investigated a half-dozen dispensary robberies in the last year, but he has seen the number of such crimes drop in recent weeks after the City Council moved to close many stores. Io all the cases he's investigated, armed robbers have stolen marijuana, cash and other items. They often resell the drug on the street. "They are going into a business and using a threat of force," Palacios said. "Even though they are in an establishment that itself is questionably legal, it's our duty to investigate." Copyrighr aaa The A.—inted Press. All lights reserved. This material mag not be published, broadcast, retoHiten or redistributed. 1 it cil Recommend 14 peopla maomr,and tro. Sqn up ro sec whol 17 your Glans oawavr wA http://www.nbenews.com/id/35940756/ns/us_news-crime and courts/t/criminals-target-... 10/27/2015 Marijuana Deliveryman Robbed in Richmond -The Bay Citizen Page 1 of 2 ABOUT US SUPPORT US SEND A TIP LOG It FRONT PAGE NEWS MULTIMEDIA EVENTS More Topics CRIME. Marijuana Deliveryman Robbed in Richmond Getty Images $1,000 and one pound of pot missing by Shorhana Walter— May 28, 2010, 12.08 ami. 0 Adjust Text Size READ IT LATER About the Author A San Francisco State student who delivers medical marijuana door-to-door was robbed at gunpoint just after midnight Thursday in Richmond. The assailants took $1,000 in cash and a pound of pot. Shoshana Walter Aaron Chandler, 33, runs Alternative Rx Solutions, a business he describes as a Crime, Pulse of the Bay, mobile medical marijuana dispensary catering to lower-income, ill and disabled Policing patients. Fallow@shveshIrk* Chandler, reached later by telephone, said he received a delivery order through his website around 9 p.m. Wednesday for a pound of marijuana from a Richmond man. He traveled from San Francisco to an address on the 4800 block of Cutting Boulevard to deliver it. When he arrived at about 12:15 a.m., police Tap Used say he and two friends were robbed at gunpoint of the product and their cash, tri this Story To become a member of Chandler's collective, a patient must register using a Richmond 29 medical marijuana identification number or upload a scan of a doctor's Marijuana 23 recommendation. Chandler said he also asks for proof of identification upon delivery. He said he never got that opportunity. Chandler said he usually closes shop at about 7 p.m , but when he talked to the man on the phone, his story seemed credible. "He claimed to have his own collective and said he had patients that were disabled and that he wanted to try to see me, but he had his daughter with him and his daughter was asleep and he had to leave early in the morning to meet a sick patient," Chandler recalled "He sounded really sincere, like a really good guy. I didn't think it would be a problem to go help him out " Chandler said he, his girlfriend and a friend hopped into Chandler's truck with the pound of marijuana the man had requested Search Sul The Bay Citizen thanks our sponsors Gel the daily news briefings Sign Up The Bay Citizen (hanks our sponsors Error: Not a valid Facebook Page url. https://www.baycitizen.org/news/crime/marijuana-delivery-man-robbed-richmond/ 11/2/2015 Marijuana Deliveryman Robbed in Richmond - The Bay Citizen Page 2 of 2 -stole-moneorom$handtee-rgirlkiendFand the-friend;-C-handfer-said-the-ran-rifled-through-his-pockets-and-told— - — - - him he wouldn't be able to find him because the medical marijuana ID number he'd used to place the order was stolen "And then they kind of surrounded me. They were just like, 'Welcome to Richmond,' and somebody hit me one more time across the back of my head and they took off running across the street " Having written about conducting safe transactions on his blog, Chandler said the robbery hurt his sense of trust more than his business Richmond police said the incident could have been avoided with common sense. "We would dissuade people from trying to do these types of transactlons, even if they're legal," said Lt. Mark Gagan of the Richmond Police Department. "At face value, it's a very serious crime that these people are victims of. But if this was any type of transaction on eBay, you wouldn't be buying an antique at midnight under a carport." Gagan said robberies at storefront dispensaries are not uncommon, but mobile dispensaries are particularly vulnerable to crime Chandler said he won't make the same mistake again. "I really like to help people and I kind of get blinded by that sometimes." The San Francisco State student has already outlined new security measures. "There are some places we just won't go. Don't do anything after dark unless you're already familiar with the patient in your collective and only deal with patients in your collective," he said. Discuss & Contribute F1Sign Up or Log In to comment on this article. — Citizen Contributions and Discussion "There aren't any comments yet. Add your voice! i . y d. . BayiCitizen 71Nxksrur.S�n�r7nrs About Us Stay In Touch About Us Emall Events Twitter Careers Facebook Privacy Policy Linkedin Membership FAQ RSS In Your Inbox the daily news briefings Sign Up Send Us Feedback» The Bay Citizen 2130 Center St., Suite 103 Berkeley, CA 94704 (510)809.3180 By accessing this site, you accept our Terms of Use Please read them, https://www.bayeitizen.org/news/crime/marijuana-delivery-man-robbed-richmond/ 11/2/2015 Places with More Marijuana Dispensaries Have More Marijuana -Related Hospitalizations... Page 1 of 2 p U CLARESEARCH Home J About the Study Research Team I Research Findings Frequently Asked Questions Contact Us Featured Places with More Marijuana o Press Release Dispensaries Have More Marijuana- • Research Findings Related Hospitalizations Recent News PITTSBURGH, Aug. 10, 2015 — People who live in areas of The Economic Geography of California with a higher density of marijuana dispensaries Places with More Marijuana experience a greater number of hospitalizations involving Dispensaries Have More marijuana abuse and dependence, a University of Pittsburgh Marijuana -Related Graduate School of Public Health analysis discovered. Hospitalizations (August, 2015) Dispensaries/Delivery Services The National Institutes of Health -funded research, published and Marijuana Use (September, online and scheduled for the Sept. 1 issue of the scientific 2014) journal Drug and Alcohol Dependence, could be informative as more states consider legalizing marijuana for medical and The Economic Geography of recreational use. It is the first analysis of the statewide impact of Medical Marijuana Dispensaries marijuana dispensaries on abuse and dependence, as well as in California (July, 2014) the first look at population characteristics associated with marijuana -related hospitalization rates. How Colleges Are Preparing Students for a Country Where "As marijuana is approved for medical or recreational use, we Pot Is Legal (January, 2014) need to carefully consider where we allow dispensaries to be 10 Things Medical Marijuana placed," said lead author Christina Mair, Ph.D., assistant Won't Tell You (August, 2013) professor in Pitt Public Health's Department of Behavioral and Community Health Sciences. "Our study indicates that there are Student Researchers on Front real problems associated with a higher density of marijuana Lines of Marijuana Issue dispensaries in neighborhoods. More study and monitoring, coupled with thoughtful legislation and community discussion, Panel: Medical Marijuana: will be prudent to ensure that marijuana laws have the fewest Helpful or Harmful? (March, negative consequences for vulnerable populations." 2013) The Ledger: Legal Medical In 1996, California was the first state to legalize medical Marijuana Has Some Worried marijuana, allowing physicians to prescribe the drug for medical (March, 2013) purposes. Since then, 22 states and Washington, D.C., have enacted similar laws, and four of those states also have Study: Pot Shop Security Could legalized recreational use. Pennsylvania doesn't allow either, Reduce Crime (February, 2013) though it is considering permitting medical marijuana. Washington City Paper: Vice Dr. Mair and her team looked at data on California hospital Principles (January, 2013) discharges that had either a primary or secondary medical code Top Downloaded Article of for marijuana dependence or abuse with at least one overnight November 2012 (November, hospital stay. The research covered 2001 through 2012, the 2012) most recent years for which consistent data were available. NBC - Number of LA Pot Shops Hospitalizations with marijuana abuse or dependence codes in Question (September, 2012) increased from 17,469 in 2001 to 68,408 in 2012. More than 85 http://www.uclamedicalmarijuanaresearch.com/node/33 11/2/2015 Places with More Marijuana Dispensaries Have More Marijuana -Related Hospitalizations... Page 2 of 2 MyFoxLA - Ban on Pot percent of marijuana -related hospitalizations were coded as Dispensaries on Hold abuse, rather than dependence, and 99.2 percent were (September, 2012) secondary codes, meaning the person was primarily hospitalized for something other than marijuana. 89.3 KPCC Southern California Public Radio (September, 2012) When the research team mapped the location of marijuana Woodland Hills Patch dispensaries and cross-referenced it with the ZIP code of each (September, 2012) patient's home, they found that each additional dispensary per square mile in a ZIP code was associated with a 6.8 percent increase in the number of hospitalizations linked to marijuana abuse and dependence. In addition, Dr. Mair and her team found that marijuana dispensaries and hospitalizations were more likely to be located in areas with lower household incomes and lower educational attainment. "It's unclear if the marijuana dispensaries are simply locating in neighborhoods that tend to be more disadvantaged and already have underlying problems with marijuana abuse, or if the presence of the dispensaries is causing an increase in abuse and hospitalizations," said Dr. Mair. "It could be a combination of both factors." Dr. Mair noted that research on the location of marijuana dispensaries has a parallel precedent in the location of liquor stores. This gives policymakers and public health practitioners the opportunity to learn from previous studies on the health effects of density and location of liquor stores in order to design studies that can provide similar data on marijuana dispensaries. "Once dispensaries open, it is much harder to go back and create regulations to guide their location and density," said Dr. Mair. "Passage of laws permitting marijuana use and sale is likely to continue, so it is critical that we continue to research the impact of dispensaries on the health of local communities to provide guidance on regulations and public health outreach to prevent abuse." Additional researchers on this project include senior author Bridget Freisthler, Ph.D., of UCLA's Luskin School of Public Affairs. Co-authors are Andrew Gaidus, M.E.M., and William R. Ponicki, M.A., of the Prevention Research Center in Oakland, California. This research was funded by the NIH's National Institute on Drug Abuse grant R01 -DA -032715. http://www.upmc.com/media/NewsReleases/2015/Pages/mair- marijuana. aspx © 2011 UCLA Medical Marijuana Research. All Rights Reserved http://www.uclamedicalmarijuanaresearch.com/node/33 11/2/2015 Regulating marijuana delivery services — not just dispensaries — could help address recr... Page 1 of 2 UCLAMEDICAL MAMIUANA RESEARCH Home I About the Study Research Team I Research Findings Frequently Asked Questions I Contact Us Featured Regulating marijuana delivery o Press Release services — not just dispensaries — o Research Findings could help address recreational use Recent News Banning medical marijuana dispensaries or Places with More Marijuana regulating their number and density in a given city Dispensaries Have More may not be sufficient to lower marijuana use if Marijuana -Related delivery services —reported more current Hospitalizations (August, 2015) delivery services open in their place, according to Dispensaries/Delivery Services UCLA research. and Marijuana Use (September, the number of storefront dispensaries in a 2014) The new study, led by UCLA social welfare professor The Economic Geography of Bridget Freisthler and co-authored by Paul Medical Marijuana Dispensaries Gruenewald of the Pacific Institute for Research and in California (July, 2014) services was.California allows marijuana use for November 2012 (November, Evaluation, compares self-reported marijuana use How Colleges Are Preparing by almost 9,000 people in 50 California cities where Students for a Country Where said, despite heightened interest from public health Pot Is Legal (January, 2014) medical marijuana is available through storefront 10 Things Medical Marijuana dispensaries and delivery services. The study's Won't Tell You (August, 2013) authors say the results can help lawmakers Student Researchers on Front understand how regulatory practices affect Lines of Marijuana Issue marijuana use across cities. Panel: Medical Marijuana Helpful or Harmful? (March, A key finding from the study was that people in 2013) cities with greater availability of medical marijuana The Ledger: Legal Medical — as measured by the density of dispensaries and Marijuana Has Some Worried (March, 2013) delivery services —reported more current marijuana use and more frequent use. In addition, Study: Pot Shop Security Could Reduce Crime (February, 2013) the number of storefront dispensaries in a community was more closely related to frequency of Washington City Paper: Vice Principles (January, 2013) marijuana use than the availability of delivery Top Downloaded Article of services was.California allows marijuana use for November 2012 (November, medicinal purposes but gives regulatory control of 2012) dispensaries to local jurisdictions. But, Freisthler NBC - Number of LA Pot Shops said, despite heightened interest from public health in Question (September, 2012) http://www.uclamedicalmarijuanaresearch.com/node/30 11/2/2015 Regulating marijuana delivery services —not just dispensaries —could help address recr... Page 2 of 2 MyFoxLA - Ban on Pot researchers and an emerging understanding of Dispensaries on Hold (September, 2012) statewide policies, little is known about how access to marijuana through dispensaries corresponds to 89.3 KPCC Southern California Public Radio (September, 2012) patterns of use on a city -by -city basis — and whether marijuana legalization is actually leading to Woodland Hills Patch (September, 2012) greater use. "The relationship between the physical availability of marijuana and the number of medical and recreational users could suggest a supply -and - demand relationship in which dispensaries and delivery services are opening in locations with higher demand," said Freisthler, a faculty member at the UCLA Luskin School of Public Affairs. "In terms of future policy, this could mean that banning storefront dispensaries or regulating the number and density of dispensaries may not be sufficient ways to reduce marijuana use if delivery services open in their place," she said. "The implication is that regulating delivery services needs to occur along with the regulation of storefront dispensaries." Researchers also found that 18- to 29 -year-olds were more likely to use marijuana currently and frequently than any other age group, which suggests that that concerns about young people's access to marijuana may be warranted. The study was published Sept. 2 in Drug and Alcohol Dependence. It was funded by the National Institute on Drug Abuse. © 2011 UCLA Medical Marijuana Research. All Rights Reserved. http://www.uclamedicalmarijuanaresearch.com/node/30 11/2/2015 Medical Marijuana Deliveryman Robbed by Baton -Wielding `Ninja Warriors' Pagel of 3 i I I ^.berdeen a t _DY: Earth heated up in medieval times—bafore human CO2 REPORT: Children 51 times more likely to have ldenlllY stolen emissions Medical Marijuana Deliveryman Robbed by Baton -Wielding `Ninja Warriors' Submitted by IWB, on March 26th, 2012 Shan G+1 C)Tweat gs Llka C11] WEST COVINA (CBS) — A medical marijuana del!veryman was still shaken up on Monday after what he described as a robbery by two men allegedly dressed as mnla warriors KNX 1070?s John Brook reports the robbers used the martial arts getup to conceal their identity as they got away with a big bag of m arijuana Free Technique From Former Goldman Sachs Trader Former Goldman Sachs Trader Scott Bauer reveals the strategy he can't live withoutl Learn how to limit your risk and maximize the leverage of stock options using this short-term strategy that requires relatively small capital. Get It now - FREE! This offer is available for a limited time. Trading Advantage What's IhW The assailants were reported dressed in all black with masks over their faces and wielded martial arts batons — known as long fa — to intimidate the deliveryman around 10 p.m. last Friday at an apartment house along the 800 block of South Sunset Avenue in West Covina, police said 'After he made his delivery, he was walking back to his vehicle and was approached by two males in their los wearing ninja costumes and holding while batons,' said Sgt Travis Tibbets. The victim dropped the bag of m arijuana and fled the scene, said Tibbets. The deliveryman was not hurt in the reported robbery , which look place just a short distance from the police station. Police said the suspects are in their 20s, approximately 5'8? in height, and thin in stature. Anyone with information on the robbery is asked to call West Covina polir at(626)939-8557. fl I� I Trade with_TradeStation. Voted best for opllons traders by Barrpn'a 2016 More From Us From Our Partners http://investmentwatchblog.com/medical-marijuana-deliveryman-robbed-by-baton-wleldin... 11/2/2015 Marijuana deliveryman robbed in Santa Maria Page 1 of 4 Home Uncovered SLO ]laity Briefs Discovered Sales and Deal„ Opinion Eye on the Coast Login Events Event Locations Weather Donate Advertise Employment Search Tlns Store - --.Mar-ijuana-+deliver-yman-robbed.-in.-.Santa Maria January 17, 2013 A man robbed a medical marijuana delivery man at gunpoint Wednesday evening in Santa Maria. [Ncg2har+] An employee of the Go Green Compassionate Care Collective was delivering medical marijuana to a patient when the robber approached him with a handgun in the 500 block of East Cook Street around 7:30 p.m. "The suspect demanded two cases full of marijuana products the victim was attempting to deliver to a patient," said Santa Maria Police Sgt. Russ Mengel. No injuries occurred. The suspect, who was in his early 20s, fled by foot and remained at large. •. � R k. . I ^son t .- Vi.R la14-1w llAunlY•— wIM.M., e•lr <ou,.w• N 1'X.'' 4 ne..lcn.n. cs.. nr Er17� , rIR. 1:FT1itR- I . . Z71Z•`ti,S;'-M- rla.l - .34TTi Like 6 people like IN% t'vPrint PDF 101 16 FG -111C.] 72. :Related: is- Previous ext •s :Santa Maria robbers evade caoture30/01/2014 ;.S.L.Q MaiL�.9AN-47 "n Turn in ;I:raifer fire �STgt[( and easfl in .Armed robber hits Fremont :Theatre10/28/2010 'Santa Marla man noes on criminal #?Inge In 14 The comments below represent the opinion of the writer and do not represent the views or policies of CalCoastNews.com. (> T[oripical[basanews.cam f"rtfnmot Guldeilnes ) 10 Comments ,.._ ._.,..... ^,........_. _.. . (111712013 at 3:0o Rm CommonSenseMama says: The robber must have either known the patient, or the delivery driver. How else would he know what was In the cases? Either that or he has a skunky sense of smell. i (5) ♦ 5 Total Votes - 5 up - 0 dawn fiv i7.2LL&}ttJ bummerforu says: Now let me get this straight? In the previous article a man working for a collective gets arrested after being pulled over while dellving? Then in this article the police ar elooking for a robber who stole probably the same amount of herb from the cops took from Chance at Ebotanlca. What a crock of shit I tell you!! Crock of Shlt this world!! e& (9) ♦ 9 Total Votes - 9 up - 0 down Things to Do, People to see Nov 2015 • Pron%4Le v ur Event here for Free! Sponsored Links Search Cal Coast News.Com Seafch Sponsored Links BIAMME €a MAMLEE NamI Iryrpirn entr I Rblinei lentAemontb I Financial Advice 805.543.4366 blakeslee-blci6doe.corn >/•R6•. fa:9A a M: Recent And Most Commented RrcEn[ inflir5 • �fg�t, 4if?Yft±l • Most commented . Sponsored Links http://calcoastnews. com/2013/01 /marijuana-deliveryman-robbed-in-santa-maria/ 11/2/2015 Search for 2 men who robbed medical marijuana delivery drivers - CBS News 8 - San Die... Page 1 of 1 SHARE A PHOTO OR MESSAGE TQ ANf7i?It54]1V 140NOR A LOM ONE t � y Search for 2 men who robbed medical marijuana delivery drivers Posted: Jen 22, 2013 9:34 AM PST Updated: Jan 22, 2013 2.09 PM PST IMPERIAL BEACH (CNS) - Authorities were on the hunt Tuesday for two men who robbed medical merfjua no delivery drivers at gunpoint in Imperial Beach. The drivers were attempting to deliver medical marijuana el�7t G._p,¢ S.�1y, Nny just before 5 p m Monday when two men approached on fool, according to San Diego County sheriffs Sgl Joel Stronger. One of the men threatened the drivers with a black semi-sutomalle handgun and look a backpack containing eight ounces of marijuana, the sergeant said In a stalemenl. The suspects then fled on fool, leaving the driven unharmed, Strenger sold. Aulhonlles described one of the suspects as black, 5 feel 10 and 150 pounds, with a thin mustache and goatee. He sold his name was "Aaron" and he wore a baggy grey Sen Diego State sweatshln, baggy blue jeans and a black baseball cap, according to the sorgeanl. His accomplice was described as black, S feet fall and 220 pounds, last seen wearing a red T-shirt and dark jeers. Anyone with Information on the robbers was asked to call the Sheriffs Department's Imperial Beech subslellon at (019) 499.2400 �_ .. a- I�' ' ' All wrA nt m Copyright 2000 - 20115 WwldNow and MkPo"T TeWvishrn, Inc, Ag RlgW Reserved- %w eserved. IA V� nOW For more InfonnaWn on 1113 site, pteosa read our PdYery PollCy and TnmH afSOryic . http://www.cbs8.comistory/20649021 /search -for -2 -men -who -robbed -medical -marijuana-... 10/27/2015 Medical marijuana delivery person held up in High Desert robbery Page 2 of 7 Obituaries Place art Obituary • O inion Columns Editorials Letters Editorial Board Endorsements • Special Report$ Getting Away with Murder Rialto Unifled Invcsti at'ttn Omaria Airoprt Claremont Water Colonies Corrul2lion Case All-Area Teams Califomin Drought Special Sections Readers Choice • Marltelpl�e Autos Classified o J&er tory Homes Jobs Loc3bySl * Puce An Ad ToMMkplacry ° Wc�lilpyct�t • Service? 0 Comments ° Sathscri�rvic SubscribeEmail o "e- Edition Erin Contact°uTumblr Share Yodrihlentln Work fm ShunttqUWn Mobile Auns Fina ii Newsletter Si o up Submit Ad • Home ht' • News Medical marijuana delivery person held up in High Desert robbery By Beatriz E. Valenzuela, Staff Writer Posted: 04/12/13, 12:01 AM PDT 0 Comments HESPERIA -- A man suspected of holding up a medical marijuana delivery man Thursday night in Hesperia is behind bars today. Christopher Street, 27, of Montrose is being held at the Victor Valley Jail on suspicion of robbery, according to San Bernardino County Sheriffs booking information. Deputies received a 911 call from a man who said he had just been robbed at gunpoint by a man, later identified as Street, at a home in the 14700 block of Live Oak Street around 6:30 p.m., according to sheriffs officials Initial dispatch reports indicate the man was delivering medical marijuana to the Live Oak Street home. The man reported he was invited into the home to make the delivery when Street reportedly pulled a rifle out and pointed at him, officials said. Frightened, the delivery man dropped the marijuana and managed to escape through a bedroom window then called deputies. The man was not injured in the incident. Deputies went to the home and were able to identify Street, according to Sue Rose, spokeswoman for the Hesperia station. Investigators also managed to locate the rifle and the marijuana dropped by the delivery man Street was arrested without incident. Street is scheduled to be in Victorville Superior court on Monday. http://www. dailybulletin.comlgeneral-news/20130412/medical-marijuana-delivery-perso... 10/27/2015 One Dead After Failed Robbery At San Diego Medical Marijuana Dispensary I KPBS Page 1 of 2 KL� One Dead After Failed Robbery At San Diego Medical Marijuana Dispensary Friday, April 25, 2014 By City News Service An attempted holdup at a North Park medical marijuana dispensary erupted in gunfire Friday, leaving a security guard wounded and a suspected robber dead, authorities reported. The shootout at the shop near the intersection of 30th Street and University Avenue occurred shortly before 12:30 p.m., according to San Diego police. One of three suspected thieves died at the scene, a dispatcher said. The other two ran off and sped out of the area in a white sedan. Medics took the wounded security officer to Scripps Mercy Hospital, SDPD public -affairs Officer Mark Herring said. The victim's condition was not immediately available. CITY NEWS SERVICE Related Content San Diego's First Legal Medical Marijuana Dispensary Passes Last Test I January 29, 2015 Sheriff: 2 Injured In Medical Marijuana Shop Robbery I December 9, 2014 Oceanside Planning Commission Votes To Zone For Medical Marijuana Dispensaries I May 9, 2014 Comments JeanMarc I April 25, 2014 at 3:14 p.m. — 1 year, 6 months ago Thank you security guard, get well soon. Only guns can stop armed thugs who decide to take things from other people instead of working and earning them on their own. http://www.kpbs. orglnews/2014/apr/25/attempted-holdup-medical-mari juana-dispensary-... 10/27/2015 One Dead After Failed Robbery At San Diego Medical Marijuana Dispensary I KPBS "tt muckapool I April 26, 2014 at 11:26 a.m. — 1 year, 6 months ago Congratulation on the kill shot. Get well soon. sdreefer2l I April 26, 2014 at 11:53 a.m. —1 year, 6 months ago -,i For some weed really....... Some people need to be cleansed from the earth. muckapool I April 26, 2014 at 12:53 p.m. — 1 year, 6 months ago =1 One was. Lock and load for the rest. Page 2 of 2 littp://www.kpbs. org/news/2014/apr/25/attempted-holdup-medical-marij uana-dispensary-... 10/27/2015 I killed in botched robbery at medical marijuana shop near LAX - LA Times Page 1 of 2 LOCAL / L.A. Now { 1 billed in botched robbery at medical marijuana shop near LAX Ruben Vives • Contact Reporter t SHARE THIS Attempted robbery at medical pot shop near LAX leaves 1 man dead; fV I another sought by police JUNE 25, 2014, 3:20 PM 41 ne man was killed and another was being sought Wednesday after an attempted robbery of a medical marijuana dispensary near Los Angeles International Airport. The two men entered the Nature's Cure Inc. dispensary at 5300 W. Century Blvd. about 12:18 p.m. and were involved in an exchange of gunfire with the security guard, according to the Los Angeles Police Department. One of the men was struck in the stomach during the incident and was later pronounced dead, police said. The second man, wearing a beige shirt, green pants and a brown baseball cap, fled in a black BMW, according to authorities. Police were searching for him. Article continues below 4, Follow me @LATVives Get essential California headlines delivered daily > > Enter your email SIGN UP Privacy Policy http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-1 -killed-medical-marijuana-lax-20140625-... 10/27/2015 1 killed in botched robbery at medical marijuana shop near LAX - LA Times Page 2 of 2 Copyright © 2015, Los Angeles Times This article is related to: Los Angeles International Airport UBETHE FIRST TO COMMENT Content Continues Below http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln- l -killed-medical-marijuana-lax-20140625-... 10/27/2015 2 killed in robbery of California marijuana grow - Yahoo News News Home U.S. World Politics Tech Science Health Odd News Local Dear Abby Comics ABC News Katie Couric Trending Photos Recommended Games 12. X'6 .9 More games » RATES FROM AdaGiM (A $89/NIGHT I,arrtat1, WITH FREE WIFI 2 killed in robbery of Cali- fornia marijuana grow AP August B, 2014 12:06 AM t f y E�] l.. Y]I� fD FRESNO, Calif. (AP) — The rob- bery of a Central California house with a marijuana- • r • growing operation triggered a fierce gunbattle in which two suspects were killed and a 15 - year -old girl was used as a human shield by fleeing robbers, authorities said Thursday. Two suspects were arrested and three remained at large after the pre -dawn violence south of Fresno, Fresno County Sheriff Margaret Mims said. "We have several children who were terrorized in their own home," Mims said. 'The teenage girl was used as a human shield as the suspects were leaving the residence, and they kidnapped her, putting her in the car." Seven armed men posed as law enforcement officers and forced their way into the house around 4 a.m., she said. During the home Page 1 of 16 Follow Yahoo News What to read next wMcon� ` Introducing XXL data. F I One Plan. Pick a Size. Simple. s: Verizon Wireless Sponsored Here Is The Most Wide -Open NFL Wide Re- ceiver Ever Hufringlon Post Tom Cruise And Katie Holmes 'Left Baby Suri Crying On The Floor' Stephanie Soleriou http://news.yahoo.com/2-killed-robbery-califomia-marijuana-grow-033708284.html;_ylt=... 11/2/2015 �r f� Rejected Dog Returned To Animal Shelter Is Now So Sad She Refuses To Go On Walk Andy Wells wMcon� ` Introducing XXL data. F I One Plan. Pick a Size. Simple. s: Verizon Wireless Sponsored Here Is The Most Wide -Open NFL Wide Re- ceiver Ever Hufringlon Post Tom Cruise And Katie Holmes 'Left Baby Suri Crying On The Floor' Stephanie Soleriou http://news.yahoo.com/2-killed-robbery-califomia-marijuana-grow-033708284.html;_ylt=... 11/2/2015 2 killed in robbery of California marijuana grow - Yahoo News invasion, a man in the house was pistol-whipped and the robbers and victims exchanged gunfire. Deputies who responded to calls of the robbery saw two cars speed away. They were only able to stop one of the vehicles when it pulled up to a hospital with a wounded man in a ski mask. The deputies gave him CPR, but he died a short time later inside the hospital, Mims said. Two other men in the vehicle were taken into custody. Suspects In the other car took the girl hostage and took her a dan- gerous ride topping 100 mph before dropping her off unhal med near downtown Fresno. Investigators found several shotguns and handguns tossed out of the getaway vehicles, Mims said. Another robber found near the house later died of gunshot wounds. The house had three marijuana plots and 150 plants, Mims said. Investigators were trying to determine whether the homeowner had medical -marijuana permits. F3 View Comments (319) t f y Eii11 hftp://news.yahoo.com/2-kill. Recommended for You _ 1 Woman hospitalized after breaking into Omaha I zoo 'to pet' three-legged tiger A woman was hospitalized on Sunday for severe injuries to her left Chrisllan Science Monitor 20 Images You'll Only See in Dubai Dubai is a Place of Opulence and Luxury and These Images You LifeDally corn Sponsored Cruz hopes to build 2016 momentum after debate performance DES MOINES, Iowa (AP) — For months, Texas Sen. Ted Cruz has flown under the radar in the Republican Associated Press Carson puts new spotlight on Sev- enth -day Adventist Church BROOMFIELD, Colo (AP) — The Seventh -day Ad- ventist Church is having a moment. Associated Press I AV Page 2 of 16 Heidi Klum Dressed as Jessica Rabbit Is Terrifying for All the Wrong Reasons Racked 30 Celebs Who Lost Their Fortune Lifebaly.com Sponsored Yoenis Cespedes is "highly likely" to leave Mets and sign with another team NBC Sports 10 NFL trades we'd like to see happen be- fore Tuesday's deadline Shutdown Corner Polish court rejects U.S. extradition request for Roman Polanski Yahoo News Video http://news.yahoo.coni/2-killed-robbery-california-marijuana-grow-033708284.html;_ylt=... 11/2/2015 Sean Penn says Paris climate talks - 'last great hope' Paris (AFP) - Hollywood star Sean Penn said Sunday the upcoming climate talks in Paris were the "last AFP 39 mins ago "s SNAPPEDI Ranveer Singh At A Dub- bing Studio In Mumbai (a photos) r Ranveer Singh was snapped g outside Sunny Super Sound studio in Juhu, Mumbai. After wrapping up the GossipTicket Carson puts new spotlight on Sev- enth -day Adventist Church BROOMFIELD, Colo (AP) — The Seventh -day Ad- ventist Church is having a moment. Associated Press I AV Page 2 of 16 Heidi Klum Dressed as Jessica Rabbit Is Terrifying for All the Wrong Reasons Racked 30 Celebs Who Lost Their Fortune Lifebaly.com Sponsored Yoenis Cespedes is "highly likely" to leave Mets and sign with another team NBC Sports 10 NFL trades we'd like to see happen be- fore Tuesday's deadline Shutdown Corner Polish court rejects U.S. extradition request for Roman Polanski Yahoo News Video http://news.yahoo.coni/2-killed-robbery-california-marijuana-grow-033708284.html;_ylt=... 11/2/2015 Sheriff. 2 Injured In Medical Marijuana Shop Robbery I KPBS Page 1 of 2 Sheriff: 2 Injured In Medical Marijuana Shop Robbery Shooting occurred on Campo Road in Spring Valley Tuesday, December 9, 2014 By City News Service A holdup at an unlicensed East County medical marijuana shop erupted in gunfire Tuesday, wounding a good Samaritan and an alleged robber, who later was arrested along with a suspected accomplice. The shooting in the 9000 block of Campo Road in Spring Valley was reported about 11 a.m., according to sheriffs officials. Deputies arrived to find a 32 -year-old man suffering from a gunshot wound to the leg, Lt. Chris May said. The victim, a worker at a smoke shop next door, was shot while coming to the aid of the people being robbed, May said. A short time later, a deputy pulled over two suspects on a nearby street. The passenger, identified as 29 -year-old James Crutcher, jumped out and escaped on foot, despite having been shot several times during the robbery, May said. The driver, 30 -year-old Frank Daley, resisted arrest, according to Mays, but was eventually taken into custody after the patrolman sicced a service dog on him. Deputies eventually caught up with Crutcher in the 4100 block of Camino Paz and took him into custody. Both suspects were taken to a hospital. Sheriffs officials did not immediately disclose who fired the shots that wounded Crutcher and the smoke -shop employee. CITY NEWS SERVICE Related Content One Dead After Failed Robbery At San Diego Medical Marijuana Dispensary I April 25, 2014 Shot Fired At La Mesa Motel; Parolee Holed Up In Room Found Dead I April 21, 2014 Man Leads Police On Car Chase Then Flees On Foot I November 18, 2010 http://www.kpbs. org/news/2014/dec/09/sheriffs-several -people-shot-medical-marijuana-s... 10/27/2015 Sheriff: 2 Injured In Medical Marijuana Shop Robbery I KPBS Page 2 of 2 Please stay on topic and be as concise as possible. Leaving a comment means you agree to our Community Discussion Rules. We like civilized discourse. We don't like spam, lying, profanity, harassment or personal attacks. Comments for this thread are now closed. x 1 Comment KPBS Public Media Login - Recommend L Share Sort by Newest p_h • -r , aaar ago Legalizing marijuana sure is reducing crime... a 2 .. _ Share 5 ALSO ON KPBS PUBLIC MEDIA San Diego's Hot Solar Market May Cool Off 30 cof'irnents . 4 days ago Will Snfldt — The utilities only allow you to access your stored power from solar in a TOTAL UTILITY POWER ... Construction Begins On Otay Mesa Border Freeway Connection z2 conn-nts • a ciav aro Dotfflood — When the SR 125 toll road was first proposed as a privately funded project, the toll road builders ... WHAT'STHIS? The Online College That's Helping Undocumented Students 1 cainryient • l {lays n C7 Ll Tornp,ci — do they meet with advisers? China Condemns U.S. Destroyer's Maneuver In South China Sea 1 r;ornmem • > hour:; tt�caa�l�e3r�_i�aarel — The ops are dangerous -- but necessary. http://www.kpbs.org/news/2014/dec/09/sheriffs-several-people-shot-medical-marijuana-s... 10/27/2015 file Idil View F.4vorites fools Jjelp csr d sftc� Burke, Wilfiams& Sorense.. '0 -sugg HoMe � 0 A Read mail Fv Tgols (Help tni �Pvnl � page- Safely- MEMBER CENTER: C—li-4r.1-111 I L1q In GO rM rv'JeEo MM 166? Lwpnnw__f F 9:1 ask10' 1 + Two men face charges in deadly pot dispensary hold-up POSW J-28, 20136'49 AM PST upd-d J- 26. 205 TA9 PM PST Video Report By Angie Lee, Reporter I Local News DUI to blame for 3 -car pileup on 1-8 Updated. 1Vvv 70, A 160, 18 A64 PS Y hinni w^I :cads and U"rqysdtivinq Owl. caused 1,125% file Fdit Yiew Fgvorites Tools delp Suggested Site; + Burke, Williams & Sorense,.. j HoMe '���'' Read mail Print Qage+ Safely Tools Help V �+m��l=] M[Nrlrrgl aE rtl531lIC L+Allliry W get Their mrr,5agn ar.rors as DIEGO (CNS) - A security guard feared for his life when he they "Fight for $15", including faculty at Stan Diego ry fol age fatally shot one of two robbers during an armed holdup at a MESAN North Park marijuana dispensary, a San Diego police detective 8 weather update: Scattered showers testified Wednesday. moving through San Diego Cir Detective Jana Beard said guard Henry Smith told her that he Update d: Nov 10, 2015 640 AM PST Related shot the alleged robber, identified as 18 -year-old Marlon Thci7urtycrnlmd r,n x- M.— Thomas, after Thomas and another robber threatened to kill him affef.�ing IYAts of San Wego Deadly shootout as pot and the dispensary owner during the armed holdup. Cmiily TaesJny morning are exprylyd lofrasr trp Mlcr in shop robbery goes bad the afternoon ahead of a warming trend that will Cir "He (the guard) thought he was going to die," Beard testified exU-nd Into the upcoming weeker',d during a preliminary hearing for suspects Kurese Bell and Attim Smith. "He was scared .. petrified." The security guard was shot in his pelvis and survived. Family asks for help in finding missing Bell, 18, is charged with first-degree murder, attempted murder and robbery in the holdup Orange County teen at and fatal shooting that occurred about 12:30 p.m. April 25, 2014, in the 3800 block of Ray Updafed: Nov 10, 2015 6'37 AAA PST Street. A sB-year-gln gilts nnss-ng }, jrral her munfy braer.ine n;ap Smith, 22, is charged with attempted murder and felony robbery. His fingerprints were found have been rG lncled;nla thn in a car impounded by police after the robbery, a latent print examiner testified, se%trade {Bcxux Cerr[reras, vh also goes by t, «i, w,y est spoken at n,e Another person, 21 -year-old Jonathan Vincent Collins, pleaded guilty to a robbery charge corner of Mission Doulrward and Garnell A-ti,w in pacific Beach repoiledl; wth Mo older men aWut with a gang allegation. 22 days ago Bell — who was 17 at the time -- is also charged in the robbery of a smoke shop on EI Cajon Boulevard four days before the dispensary robbery, D.A.: Shooting of mentally ill homeless man justified o+ He was arrested in May at a Los Angeles -area motel and charged as an adult in the case. Updated, Nov 10, 20 0 639 AU PST 4, 125% V Eile Edit yew Fgvorites Innis Help 7 _ Suggested Site; ' .of Burke, Williams & Sorense... Home ® 5u1: ii: 1==7 Read mail �I Print Page' Safety' Tools • Help . S • r NmSTS ^. Following the conclusion of the preliminary hearing tomorrow, Judge Jay Bloom will decide ifA Sam Diego polices: o0wei was legally juslifird ill ral illy enough evidence was presented for Bell and Smith to stand trial. shooUng a mentally Ili humele:sto man s dlo wNwiccd toward him with what he Ihoughl was a knife, San Diego County District Attorney F3cnnie Duinanis :vinouncrd Monday. Do you have information about this story to share with CBS News 87 Click Here r �.;r•., � �� - t ` `i� ! x.11 y $699 —Jamaica: Rlu All. Your Cable Company Brilliant Trick To Save Up Jeff Bridges' Magnificent In Cl11f.IVe Rnrexs w1Mr, Doesn't Want You To To 70% On Electric BIII Home Is Beyond Stunning Save $260 Know This Nwiwmi8olsr.am Lonny Trovel:on The mwilly roel 1 Want to Make Your Bank Why We Belleve Cmdlt Mad? Try This Mortgage Card Annual Fees Make Trick Complete Sense n•-VJ How The Shaving Why Amn't Homeowners Industry Was Turned On Taking Advantage Of Its Head Solar Panels? n,aev.ca�., mon _ _ ........ .... Widow's home in Encinitas targeted twice cat Updalml. Nov 09, 2014 11.21 P8f P7T For the second lime in lust sin nuinths a rndow'n 110 a In F.ndmias as largeled by burglars One killed in San Marcos car crash OlVo 1. Nov 0d, 2015 6:34 P6.6 PST ;a ArdmpaclSllVandapickua truck coAided un a two, lane North County routs Mondry aRernonn, killing one motorisi and sending Zhu usher In a hospital with nonlife,, IhrrxMming injuries Federal agents arrest two with large meth stash (8)datcld' Nov 09, 2015 6:13 Ph1 PST -- Two suspected drug dealers were auns1ed ^scary rile U S y S 125 V pile Edit yiew Fgvorites fools help Burke, Williams & Somme_. .r .® c Help Hobe Feeds (y�5Read mail c' PEnt page Safety n City Nash politlu I Topics Emu,.—t I Education Mnouncements TrslAe photos ®lop O©® l+(�k 1.5 �.• rl k'Yi:i 4l�rs5 lNieAlraros<r.'n? GAS L•Fo.mer !'C MILITARY: As Narine tANEELSINORE: RIVERSIDE:Clnema REV, RCCatondaut Cnrpslums7 p. dl-th;2-Wa Cultures FlGn Fest Nanson files num Ger oltroo deatGl sh toIt eelehrat iteco,rd samsdown w y resldentamested year WMS UPLAND: Marijuana dispensary robbed; suspects arrested after standoff 125% V file Edit view Fgvorites fools Iielp �4 .M Sug UestFo Sltas - ati' Burke, Williams & Soreme- > Home ® feeds (D i_r3 Read mail [! 1 Pdnl - Cage - Safety - Tgfils Help ' ,e Coy News I'WiHo Tepic, EmirvnmeM Educeden Mnounc Ma T,.flk Phot. Blop 000 suueswow; BY STEPHEN WALL J CONTRIBUTING WRITER uptaNu: wnrluano T1P"•�s,r .>:.:>.:t.:t«� a:, n':6r:,,oa.a rn;nT :oMwd; ruape: rseneatrpurrr Armed suspects robbed an Upland marijuana dispensary Friday night, Jan. 30, and ua'iaua 7 PiuNx.> bar ricaded themselves inside an apartment before surrendering to police about 12 hours later, officials said. Officers got a call about 11 p.m. Friday of a robbery at a medical marijuana dispensary In the T00 block of Mountain Avenue, said Upland police Lt. Cliff Mathews. Two adults and two teens -three of them armed with handguns -approached three male employees in the parking lot of the business and shot one of the workers in the leg, lie said. The suspects forced the employees inside the dispensary at gunpoint. They tied up their hands and feet, then stole marijuana, cash and a car belonging to one of the workers, Mathews said, They Red in a dark gray LeXUs, which was later recovered. A victim managed to untie himselfand call police. Officers received information leading them loan apartment in the 1300 block of Randy Street less than a mile away. They arrived about4:40 a.m, and determined the men had barricaded themselves inside the apartment. They gave commands but were unsuccessful in getting them to come out, Mathews said. Asan Bernardino Courllysherif's SWATteam responded and continued communicating with the suspects.Al about 11 a.m., the three men walked out and were taken into custody. Theywere unarmed when they left the apartment, Mathews said. Aboutan hour later, Upland police learned that a fourth suspectwas hiding in an upstairs apartment next door. Officers entered and took the Iran out in handcuffs at 12:15 P.M. Lrd aV'&LN TSA lry r.I.wlee�M..s[.,:ia tuKpax.ti.n N"r., Snuthrn CA Sp ish News Today's Poll Wham this? Do you think Ronda Rousay, who was born inW_� Riverside, ie a good rnla modal for youngwfw on? VES Young'a+omen should aspinl to be slmng. oulso aandW P.Mldht W11" rtol'. absd to embrace Illelrlit"kel beauty. NO: Rocsey makes a lvmg off violence: Sts appeared in the Sports Illusi elea 6wurirdl N6ve, wnkIt BkpVt, no pbJaenee women. No opinan %p �Oli f�l�I�]I&Ite�eted v 4, 125% '�' nttn:llsY.4n.pC,COmlaril r*�s�tr�llPnit-a 43b5=8iu!�,ia�•ent: rJ�tm1 �. :;.- ;. -.-,: ": �?.'..-(*,+ UPLAND: Marijuana dispens.. x file Edit Yew FQvodtes fools help �. » . .ug9esiai Site> Burke, Williams & Sorense.. x Home ® Feeds fD �. Read mail 11110 Pdnl page Safely Tools Help News City Nava PWid. Tapia EnNm„mant ' Edaemian Mnoonaemant. Tref. Phoma alaga O/®�® --- W a/W No one was injured in the standoff. The man who was shot in the leg was taken to a ✓� hospital. His injuries are not considered life threatening, Mathews said. Village Medical Arts Plaza Police arrested Christopher Baca, 30, of Covina, and Diego Sanchez, 19, of Upland. 341 Magnolia Ave., Suite#201 Corona, Ca 92879. Two 15-yearboys were taken taaSan Bernardino Counryjuveniledeiention M-735-9211 facility, Mathewssaewssaid, Baca and Sanchez face charges of robbery, assault with a deadly weapon and Tr&ndlnZ kidnapping, he said. Mathews said he didn't know if any guns, marijuana or cash was recovered. ,nwenryuYrylrn l". „a,ty,ra,.„1 „n ,�Tatrly Police has earlier evacuated residents near the crime scene to a shelter setup by the American Red Cross at Magnolia Recreation Center in Upland. They were allowed to UW1Er5 11011:11an4na, return to their homes about 12:30 p.m. R� haat tacgln, 'mde,lh?>f ce ,ay Stephanie Monroy,13, lives in an apartment next to where the three suspects barricaded themselves. She said she was asleep when she heard officers order them BA'i(:llNI:F"me•REV, %:C :w:nso,rt Na:u<ndiea to come out. Police arrived and told her family to go out the back door, Monroysald. } FI'.'fiT:ieE; fwena it nn "I felt so scared,"she said. "Society Is Craryhurt." today. Thank OuJ nobody got :c:saa cihAmgup: E:.w,n z,na, Monroysaid a manwho lived in theapartment next doorseemed like a friendly person. et:ptinrd;n?;: s,�,+y. a surori'tice, Police say they don't know if the suspects lived in the apartment. ,<s,,,:.l,:uro.an I#, Upland prohibits medical marijuana dispensaries, and the business where the �. i obbery occurred will be shut down, Mathews said. '4 125% n V IE SWAT Standoff Ends in Arrests After Marijuana Dispensary Ambush Robbery: Police... Page 1 of 4 SOUTHERN CAUFORNIA ,•������}��� Com, PRINTTI"-IIS *62 Powered by 74J ��� ���� i�� IE SWAT Standoff Ends in Arrests After Marijuana Dispensary Ambush Robbery: Police Three people were zip -tied during the robbery ambush and one shot, said police, who tracked some of the suspects to a nearby Upland residence By Asher Klein and Jane Yamamoto An hours -long standoff ended in the arrests of two men and two boys in the inland Empire, where a medical marijuana dispensary was robbed. Jane Yamamoto reports for the NBC4 News at 6 p.m. on Saturday, Jan. 31, 2015. (Published Saturday, Jan. 31, 2015) An hours -long standoff between a SWAT team and men believed to have violently robbed three other men at a nearby Inland Empire medical marijuana dispensary ended in four arrests Saturday morning. Two men and two boys were arrested after police used a claw device to rip open the facade of the Upland apartment where the suspects were holed up. • Do -q Rescued From Rain -Swollen LA River "I saw cops, guns, rifles. I saw guys on the roofs, which I think were the sharpshooters," a witness said. Three were arrested in that house, while the fourth suspect was found and taken into custody at a nearby apartment complex, Upland police said. The four suspects allegedly had five handguns in their possession. http://www.printthis.clickability.coinlpticpt?expire=&title=IE+SWAT+Standoff+Ends+in... 11/10/2015 IE SWAT Standoff Ends in Arrests After Marijuana Dispensary Ambush Robbery: Police... Page 2 of 4 Earlier, police said five men in hoods took money and a car from the marijuana dispensary, but they later revised that number to four. The four suspects face charges of robbery, assault with a deadly weapon and kidnapping, police said. • 3 -Month -Old Baby FOUnd Safe, Father Arrested: Deputies The suspects are believed to have shot one of three men they tied up at the dispensary, in the 700 block of North Mountain Avenue, at about 10 p.m. Friday. The dispensary was about three miles from the apartment complex where the standoff took place. The men were able to break free from zip ties and spoke to police. • Lakers GM Talks Kobe Surgery and Steve Nash A SWAT team arrived at the house in the 1400 block of Randy Street about 4:40 a.m. as police evacuated nearly 75 residents of the neighborhood. The long standoff ended at around 11 a.m. Diego Sanchez, 19, of Upland, and Christopher Baca, 30, of Covina, were arrested along with two boys who haven't been named because of their ages, police said. It wasn't clear what their relationship was. http://www.printthis.clickability.com/pt/cpt?expire=&title=IE+SWAT+Standoff+Ends+in... 11/10/2015 IE SWAT Standoff Ends in Arrests After Marijuana Dispensary Ambush Robbery: Police... Page 3 of 4 • Updates: Download the FREE NBCLA A Police responded to Cal Med Express, located at 759 North Mountain Avenue, in Upland, just after 11 p.m. for a robbery call, Lt. Alan Ansara said. They found the three victims who had been tied up by the robbers, Ansara said. The three men were leaving the medical marijuana dispensary about 10 p.m. Friday, when they were approached by males wearing gloves and hoods over their faces, police said. The victims were forced back into the business and were immediately zip -tied. One of the victims suffered a non -life threatening gunshot wound to his leg and was later transported to Arrowhead Regional Medical Center, Ansara said. Another victim was pistol whipped during the incident but did not need any medical treatment. The suspects allegedly took off in one of the victims' 2007 dark grey Lexus IS 250 with cash and marijuana, police said. The shop was not zoned to sell medical marijuana, police said. NBC4 editor Olee via Woo contributed to this report. Published at 6:12 AM PST on Jan 31, 2015 Follow NBCLA for the latest LA news, events and entertainrr7entiPhoneliPad App I Facebooki Twitter I Google I Instagram I RSS I Email Aierts Find this article at: http://www nbclosangeles.com/news/local/Robbery-Ambush-at-Upland-Marijuana-Dispensary--290419511 html 0 Check the box to include the list of links referenced in the article. http://www.printthis.clickability.com/pt/ept?expire=&title=IE+SWAT+Standoff+Ends+in... 11/10/2015 IE SWAT Standoff Ends in Arrests After Marijuana Dispensary Ambush Robbery: Police... Page 4 of 4 zU` NBC Universal, Inc. I All Rights Reserved. http://www.printthis.clickability.com/pt/cpt?expire=&title=IE+SWAT+Standoff+Ends+in... 11/10/2015 Security Guard Fatally Shot in California Marijuana Dispensary Robbery Zbe �atlp VI.L..brottic (http://www.thedailychronic.netn (h fp:l yyv,ltl I1rOniC,nB cat@9orylnew tTdMrYFWWTIY S.h ot in (http:lff 1 ft tQn"IC47 "tpana (http:/Iwww.thedf);wee�rt�tOL&Vych notogy/) A •77 (http://www.thedailychronic.net/category/culture/) By TJ Baker (http://www.thedailychronic.net/authorltibaker/) I The Daily Chronic (http://www.thedailychronic.net) February 17, 2015 3:52 PM O O f (http://www.facebook.com/sharer.php? u=http://www.thedailychronic.neV2015/40907/security-guard-fatally-s hot-in-california- medical-marijuana-dispensary-robbery/&t=Security Guard Fatally Shot in California Medical Marijuana Dispensary Robbery) V (http://twitter.com/home? status=@daily chronic: Security Guard Fatally Shot in California Medical Marijuana Dispensary Robbery - http://www.thedailychronic.neV2015/40907/security-guard-fatally- shot-in-california-medical-marijuana-dispensary-robbery/) (http://www.reddit.com/r/trees/submit?url=http://tdcn.ws/?p=40907&title=Security Guard Fatally Shot in California Medical Marijuana Dispensary Robbery) di99 (http://digg.com/subm it?url=http://www.thedailychronic. net/2015/40907/security-guard- fatally-shot-in-california-medical-marijuana-dispensary-robbery/&title=Security Guard Page 1 of 11 http://www.thedai lychronic.net/2015/40907/security-guard-fatally-shot-in-california-med... 11/10/2015 Security Guard Fatally Shot in California Marijuana Dispensary Robbery Page 2 of 11 Fatally Shot in California Medical Marijuana Dispensary Robbery) X. (http://www.stumbleupon.comtsubmit? url=http://www.thedailychronic.neV2015/40907/security-guard-fatally-shot-in-california- medical-marijuana-dispensary-robbery/&title=Security Guard Fatally Shot in California Medical Marijuana Dispensary Robbery) in (http://www.linkedin.com/shareArticle? mini=true&url=http://www.thedailych ronic.net/2015/40907/security-guard-fata lly-shot-in- california-medical-marijuana-dispensary-robbery/&title=Security Guard Fatally Shot in California Medical Marijuana Dispensary Robbery&summary=&source=The Daily Chronic) G) (http://pinterest.com/pin/create/button/? url=http://www.theda i lych ronic. nett20l 5/40907/security-guard-fatally-s hot-in-california- medical-marijuana-dispensary- robbery/&media=http://il.wp.com/www.thedailychronic.net/wp- content/uploads/2015/02/San-Bernardino-dispensary-shooting.jpg?resize=150% 2C150&description=Security Guard Fatally Shot in California Medical Marijuana Dispensary Robbery) Z (mailto:?subject=The%20Daily%20Chronic%20%3A% 20Security%20Guard%20Fatally%20Shot%20in%20Ca lifornia%20Medical%20Marijuana% 20Dispensary%20Robbery&body=l%20saw%20this%20and%201%20thought%20you% 20might%201ike%20to%20read%20it%3A%20Secu rity%20Guard%20Fatally%20Shot% 20in%20California%20Medical%20Marijuana%20Dispensary%20Robbery.%OAYou% 20can%20read%20it%20on%3A%20http%3A%2F%2Fwww.thedailychronic.net%2F2015% 2F40907%2Fsecurity-guard-fatally-shot-in-california-medical-marijuana-dispensary- robbery%2F) i �1 1 0 Llke Tweet G+1 SAN BERNADINO, CA — A security guard at a California medical marijuana dispensary was shot and killed Monday night during a botched robbery attempt. The shooting happened around 10 p.m. at an unnamed pot shop in the Star World Plaza strip mall on the 2800 block of West Rialto Avenue in San Bernadino. According to witnesses, two men were attempting to rob the dispensary when shots were fired. According to police, one of the men forced his way into a back room and started shooting at the security guard, who returned fire. The security guard, 25 -year-old Anthony Victor Pineda, was pronounced dead at the scene. He may have shot one of the suspects before he died, http://www.thedailychronic.net/2015/40907/security-guard-fatally-shot-in-california-med... 11/10/2015 Security Guard Fatally Shot in California Marijuana Dispensary Robbery 25 year old security guard Anthony Victor Pineda was shot and killed during a botched robbery attempt of a medical marijuana dispensary operating illegally in San San Bernardino. It's unclear who else was in the building at the time of the shooting. Police say the employees and owners of the dispensary have not been cooperating with the investigation, and the mortally wounded security guard was locked inside the building after being shot. according to officials who report a large pool of blood was discovered outside the business Police believed the wounded suspect, who remains at large, may have been critically injured. Local hospitals have been alerted to look for someone suffering from a gunshot wound. According to police, the suspects fled the scene following the shooting. It was not immediately known if the suspects got away with any cash or marijuana from the dispensary. "Somebody actually locked the business. We actually had to force entry to get to the victim and check his status," said San Bernardino police Lt. Rich Lawhead. Police say employees of the business — who described themselves as "volunteers" — have been uncooperative with the investigation. "We could do our job a lot better if everybody would be cooperative with us and just give us the information," Lawhead said. Detectives want to access security footage from the dispensary, but store employees are not cooperating. "We're hoping that the video gives us a lot more information," Lt. Lawhead added. "It's very frustrating. I mean I just think if it was your loved one in there." Medical marijuana dispensaries are not allowed in San Bernardino, and it was not clear how long the unnamed dispensary had been operating. Page 3 of 11 http://www.thedailychronic.net/2015/40907/security-guard-fatally-shot-in-california-med... 11/10/2015 Security Guard Fatally Shot in California Marijuana Dispensary Robbery Monday's shooting was the second to occur in that strip mall in the past year. A man was fatally shot in the parking lot last July, and police have not made an arrest in that case. TJ Baker (http://www.thedailychronic.net/author/tjbaker/) The gaily �bro�><ir You may also like.... powered by MANTIS (http://www.mantisadnetwork.com/content-marketing/? utm_source=mantis&utm_medium=recommend&utm_campaign=powered) (http://mantodea, mantisadjARb%qoo lin/track/click/09223587- f6ee-4782-9687- 5bcd8d3789c4) What's All The Fuss About Vaporizing? (http://mantodea.mantisadnetwork.com/track/click/09223587-f6ee-4782-9687- 5bcd8d3789c4) (http://mantodea.mantisaoAp�k�, AEack/click/58313638- 8342-45le-aad0- Handcuffed Marijuana Arrestee Shot, Killed in Police 168d3b46724f) Car (http:Hmantodea.mantisadnetwork.com/track/click/58313638-8342-451 a-aad0- 168d3b46724f) (http://mantodea.mantisagr gXFRm/track/click/104d8a7e- 4c5a-43d6-970d- d5f84db29caf) How to choose: Titanium vs. Ceramic vs. Quartz Nails (http://mantodea. mantisadnetwork.com/track/click/104d8a7e-4c5a-43d6-970d- d5f84db29caf) (http://mantodea.mantisa (R MAEack/click/d3056f5e- f4b6-4974-ache- California Law Change Leads to Decline in Marijuana 331017lec6ac) Arrests (http://mantodea. mantisadnetwork.com/track/click/d3056f5e-f4b6-4974-ac6e- 331017lec6ac) THE DAILY CHRONIC Page 4 of 11 http://www.thedallyclu-onic.net/2015/40907/security-guard-fatally-shot-in-cal1fornia-med... 11/10/2015 Eile E04 view Fivorite5 Tools 1jelp ;X_11 5ugg(sled Silt, Burke. Williams & Sorense... Read mail M Plint T.Quis Help HoMe 0; page Safety Highland Park -Mount Washington Patch firinciYou.patch ffl or; patch 0 Patch Localstexil Advertise With Ui n.All Topics ,Police 2. Fire � Robbers at a Pot Dispensary Shoot Employee in Leg The suspects Hashed firearms and made off with marijuana, but it's unclear if they stole any money. PiGNand Park C.A (0i BY MIRNA ALFONSO IPXV­.,011� Vfly TRENDING NOW ACROSS PATICH VIATCHt Tlny'r*J(M Woman wy(r%nes Oil AINSator In Houston Strip Mail WATOT.'43-Pound 6-Year-Uld Cotthes 41 -Pound Striper Gun -Wielding Girlfriend Breaks Up L.arblawer Fight UPDATE: Police ID 9 -Year -Old Girl Killed In Pit Bull Attack on Long Island 'Bear Force One' Is For Sale +,125% - V raw JJ Robbers at a Pot Dkpensar- X file fait Vievi Filvorites fools help rsry-f,'; ..•;a' y HeIP4 �9e;ed Si;es Burke, Williams & Sorense.,Ho e W.MPLInt gage- Safety- THols- Highland- Park-Mount Washington Patch Rind Your Pinch - :0:51° clearPost on Paich� t9 Patch LocalStreani Advertise With lis f?! All Topics >Polkc. R Fir - A medical marijuana dispensary employee was shot in the leg as three men robbed the mid -Wilshire area business, pollce said Sunday, May 24. i> At about 7 p.m., the three suspects entered the store in the 5800 block of Pico Boulevafd, Los Angeles police U, Lonnie Tiano said. The suspects flashed firearms and matte off with marijuana, but iV5 unclear if they stole any money, Tiano said. , As they left, they fired ore shot that struck an employee in a leg, he said. The victim was taken to an area hospital for treatment. — The suspects were described as black males in their MORE HIGHLAND PARK-MOt1N1 More from Highland Park -Mount WASHINGTON, CA NEWS Washington Patch 20s. • 7 Men, 1 Woman Accused of 7 Men, 1 Woman Accused of Numerous Graffiti Attacks on Metro -City News Service Numerous Graffiti Attacks on Metro • Have You Seen Him? Young Manhe • 5,L7JRi@o�ased U.S.U5Coast Guard Crew trey allegedly Missing Since September g4tsrttes Wler in Mex can Wat, rs bk ,>rey.nre, and co—y", OFFICIALS; Las Angeles Children[iHF1lSthtG:SeaWorldSDetlaliststclLi� Hand propenyaI1w Los Among l K Exploited by,f�,�3uelLs OiLSoiM _- r sales ea�.ry. Pornographers • OWED'. NaV PiluLi da_wEd.F..t"SYajhj25pltdj Have You Seen Him? Young Man Fallowitlp Eiectlon F(0inS Ad1i0i PlA= Missing Since September • }1€vl Want to Name This cute Cub? amixlMdery W.mm� UPCIA7ED_' .c0p0Lt Arrested In Urea 1351de • Winter Homicide as la:[ seen eaouc I p m. Sept 12 mi Fdth screec south or grana • NIMPlane f4MIssAS ftu omx Crashes rnto_13M Avenue. Pilot Ejects V \ 125% - Print Article: Armed men rob closed medical marijuana dispensary in Santa Ana Page 1 of 1 oxauvcE couNrry REGISTER Armed men rob closed medical marijuana dispensary in Santa Ana BY LOUIS CASIANO JR. 2015-07-02 19:17:23 A shuttered medical marijuana dispensary in Santa Ana with two people inside was robbed by two armed men Thursday afternoon, authorities said. At 2:45 p.m., two men with handguns broke into a building in the 1800 block of East Garry Avenue, where they found two people inside, said Cpl. Anthony Bertagna of the Santa Ana Police Department. The people inside were tied up with duct tape and the suspects took an undisclosed amount of cash, marijuna, and personal items from the victims. The suspects fled in a vehicle, and no one was injured. No description of the suspects was available. The business that operated in the building was closed in June after undercover police officers purchased marijuana there, Bertagna said. It was not clear how the suspect got inside the building or if the dispensary was still operating inside, Bertagna said. "I do know they had marijuana and money at the location, but I don't know if they were operating or not," he said. In November, voters approved a measure to repal the ban on medical marijuana dispensaries in the city. Twenty applicants selected from a public lottery were chosen in Febuary to move on to the next phase in opening a medical marijuna collective. All other facilities in Santa Ana are operating illegally, Bertagna said. Contact the writer: 714-796-2478 or Icasiano@ocreclister.com © Copyright 2015 Freedom Communications. All Rights Reserved. Privacy Policy I User Agreemen I Site Mao http://www. ocregister. com/common/printer/view.php?db=ocregister&id=670080 11/10/2015 Eile Edit view Favorites fools yelp Suy9e5tMi Site,; Burke, Williams & Sorene... Home Feeds W_Read mail '�P nt Page + Safety + TQols + �� Help ' arbe Makerf ielb (f alif ornian NEWS OBITS SPORTS EVENTS MARKETPLACE HOMES JOBS CARS ^ a Full Menu s. FIUME> NEWS> BREAKING NEWS Four wanted in connection with pot shop robbery By The Bakersfield Californian r U)N6.SDAY. A;'JG 19. R015.1A4 PHI Four people are wanted in connection with the armed robbery of a medical marijuana dispensary Wednesdayjust south of downtown Bakersfield. Ali/` Police said two men armed with handguns entered the CNE nI��11 Collective at 12o6 California Ave. and stole money and Bent marijuana. No injuries were reported. Two other suspects were in a red Chevrolet extended cab pickup the men entered after the robbery. 225% v 0 Few wanted in cowellen._ x file Edit view Favorites fools Help Sugqt +s ea Sites Burke, Williams & Sorense— ; P' • G a » Hame Feeds (D - .J Read mail Pont - page - Safety - TIIols ,' Help M. nnr:'SDAY, All 14, .71115 ::,N F'HS 0 tour people are wanted in connection with the armed robbery of a medical marijuana dispensary Wednesday just south of downtown Bakersfield. Police said two men armed with handguns entered the CNE Collective at 12o6 California Ave. and stole money and marijuana. No injuries were reported. Two other suspects were in a red Chevrolet extended cab pickup the men entered after the robbery. Police said the suspects in the store were each described as black men, one in his early 30s, the other about 25. The suspect in his early 30s is bald, has a beard and was wearing a red and white polo shirt. The other suspect was wearing a black baseball cap, a black shirt and shorts. The two suspects in the pickup were described only as black males. Anyone with information regarding this case is asked to call the Bakersfield Police Department at 327-71". KI V Buy Michelin Tres 65% OFF W Marijuana delivery man robbed in Altadena I Crime Scene Page 1 of 2 The Audi A3 $500 New Owner Acquisition Offer Audi Mission Viejo Mission VIeJo, CA Find Your A3 Marijuana delivery man robbed in Altadena Posted on September 26, 2015 by Brian Day _: El.umaflal�. SdgrYln Maiden Ln B Beverly Way v Maiden Ln 6 Beverly Way, Alladena, Save CA 91001 View larger map natio st p4wdena De liladenn Or � L � o �,«Vrau� x M � s lIYII In Waellien Ad ,laiden Ln B LA "Man Di levedy Way Aa,ld,r •, tuJ,.Gao ati � y hr: nuierJ'nr.a r 8+. ®PD Ma dB qq .. P 0D afia�w@e ALTADENA >> A man claiming to be delivering medical marijuana for a dispensary was robbed of both cannabis and cash early Thursday in a residential Alladena neighborhood, authorities said. The crime was reported just before 2 a.m. at Beverly Way and Maiden Lane, Los Angeles County sheriffs Lt. Cruz Solis said. Deputies liirsl responded to the neighborhood after residents reported a man knocking on doors, apparently in some sort of distress, the lieutenant said. The victim, a 26 -year-old Pasadena man, told police he was delivering for a legal medical marijuana dispensary when a man grabbed him, threatened him and robbed him of marijuana, cash and his car keys, Solis said. They keys turned up in some nearby bushes the following day, he said. The amount of money and marijuana stolen was not available. A detailed suspect description was not available. 16IGf--a©LF This entry was posted in 211, Altadena, marijuana by Brian Day. Bookmark the parmalink [http://www. ins idesocal.com/sgvcrime/2015/09/26/m a rijua na-doilvery-man-robbed-I A -altadenan . AdCboicesl'3 http://www.insidesocal.com/sgverirne/2015/09/26/marijuana-delivery-man-robbed-in-alta... 10/27/2015 Police Arrest Suspect In Armed Robbery Of Medical Marijuana Delivery Driver a CBS S... Page 1 of 3 San Francisco v SIGN UP FOR NEWSLETTERS 8 CBS ' - - -- - t5Kp11x KCBSI CBS Local Rewards 2 Login I Register Search FOLLOW US 670 Home News Traffic Weather Sports Health Eye on the Bay Events Video Audio Directory Travel Deals Circulars Autos Latest News Local Consumer LGBT Politics Environment Health Tech Business National World Entertainment Education �r j3•_�° r AMERICAN CANCER SOCIETY a eDISCACV DISCOVERY SHOP`a WARRIORS BEGIN TITLE DEFENSE a Game Preview vs. Pelicans a NBA Champs Targeted • Kerr Sidelined • Steph Curry A'Jeopardy Category a 2015-16 Schedule a Flashback: Dubs Win NBA Title a Shop Warriors Gear Police Arrest Suspect In Armed Robbery Of Medical Marijuana Delivery Driver September 28, 2015 10:19 AM Filed Under: Armed robbery, Arrest, Dellvery Driver, Medical marijuana, Monterey MONTEREY (CBS SF) — A man was arrested Friday on suspicion of robbing a medical marijuana delivery service driver at gunpoint last month in Monterey, according to the Peninsula Regional Violence and Narcotics Team. Detectives with the regional task force arrested 25 -year-old Juan Alvarez when they served a search warrant at a home in the 1400 block of North First Street in Salinas. Alvarez was arrested on suspicion of armed robbery, possession of a firearm as a prohibited person, possession of marijuana for sale, possession of a firearm while selling drugs and violation of a restraining order, according to the task force. Officers with the Marina and Carmel police departments assisted task force detectives with the arrest. LISTEN LIVE FOLLOW US ON u Si" Up fnr Newsletler5 DoLs . So eOn1-,RP You Love Need , Hospice. ,-- -i,TA S' l Healthcare 1 �M� http://sanfrancisco.ebslocal.com/2015/09/28/police-arrest-suspect-in-armed-robbery-of-m... 10/27/2015 Police Arrest Suspect In Armed Robbery Of Medical Marijuana Delivery Driver « CBS S... Page 2 of 3 Around 5:45 p.m. on Aug. 20, Monterey police had responded to a report of an armed robbery in the 400 block of Del Rosa Avenue. When officers arrived, they learned the suspect had robbed a medical marijuana delivery service driver at gunpoint. The suspect then fled on foot with marijuana and cash, according to the task force. Alvarez was booked into Monterey County Jail following his arrest Friday and his bail was set at $40,000. Promoted Stories : ma Bakersfield Californian: An inside look at fracking (The Bakersfield Californian) •# Comments The Anti -Aging Pill from an MIT scientist (Technology Review) A popular new site reveals the truth about anyone's past. Simply (Instant Checkmate) More Promoted Stories We Recommend $200 Just For Getting A Credit Card? While it Nearly 200 Sickened From Shigella Bacteria lasts (Nexladvisor) In 6 Bay Area Counties 21 Colleges That Nobody Wants to Go to Poisonous Swimming Snakes From South Anymore (SlartClass) Seas Found On California Beaches Bikini Clad Woman Vs Texas Water Slide: Possible Pufferfish Found On Monterey Bay Watch What Happens Nextl (Full Throttle Beach Linked To EI Nino LGGCNDS) Attack On BART Train Ends In Struggle With Don't Get Stuck With a Lemon: 15 Cars Not Police, Systemwide Delays to Buy (Forbes) • Sen Francisco Scooter Rider's Crash With 8 Don'ts for Job Hunters Over 50 (AARP) 'Jaywalking' Jogger Caught On Camera Two Banks That Pay 10 Times The Interest DMV Employee Files Grievance Over On Your Savings (vviisersaver com) Agency's Strict'Potty Policy' Recommended by MORE NEWS Motorcyclist Killed In Rear -End Crash With Minivan On 1-80 In Man Driving Home After Winning $9000 At NorCal Casino Robbed At 'Great Pumpkin' Asteroid Hurtling Past Earth On Halloween http://sanfrancisco.ebslocal.com/2015/09/28/police-arrest-suspect-in-armed-robbery-of-m... 10/27/2015 Police Arrest Suspect In Armed Robbery Of Medical Marijuana Delivery Driver « CBS S... Page 3 of 3 lay MOUP NEW PODCAST NETWOPK 0 FOLLOW US NEWS WATCH + LISTEN SPORTS BEST OF CORPORATE Business Heard On Raiders Arts & Culture About Us Local Seen On SF Giants Family & Pets Advertise Politics Audio on Demand Sharks Food & Drink Business Development Health Music Warriors Nightlife & Music Contact Tech Only CBS STATS Shopping & Style Mobile Entertainment Travel Connect 0 1 CBS Lore11MJia . erym orcus Radio hw AY Ophi ne —d By viewing our video content, you are accepting the lerms of our Video Services Policy Pdvacy Policy Terms of Use Your Califomia Privacy Rights Mobile User Agreement Ad Choices EEO Reports Contact KPIX 5 Contact KCBS Radio Deals KPIX-TV Public File http://sanfrancisco.cbslocal.com/2015/09/28/police-arrest-suspect-in-armed-robbery-of-m... 10/27/2015 Print Article: Man shot near Santa Ana medical marijuana dispensary Page 1 of 1 -axnivcE courrTv - REGISTER Man shot near Santa Ana medical marijuana dispensary BY LOUIS CASIANO Jr. 2015-11-02 16:19:06 A man was hospitalized Monday after he was shot near a medical marijuana dispensary in Santa Ana, police said. Santa Ana police officers responded at 3:35 p.m. to reports of shots fired in a parking lot of the South Coast Safe Access marijuana dispensary in the 1900 block of East Warner Avenue, Cpl. Anthony Bertagna said. When they arrived, they found a man in his late 40s with a gunshot wound to his stomach. He was taken to a hospital and is expected to survive. It is unclear how many times the man was wounded but multiple shots were fired, Bertagna said. Officers and an Orange County Sheriffs Department helicopter were searching for one suspect. Authorities originally reported they were searching for two suspects. At the scene, Randall Longwith, an attorney for the dispensary, appeared frustrated by the events. He said there were multiple employees inside the store and one guard who, much to his disappointment, was unarmed. Safe Coast Safe Access was the first diWensary to open of the 20 that were chosen to apply for licenses from the city. "Theoretically we anticipated that this was going to happen," Longwith said. He claims to have asked the city to allow the store to have an armed guard but was denied. He believes that the store's inventory and money make it a target. "This is essentially a cash business ... we have a lot of cash on hand." He said he plans to approach the city once again to let the store have an armed guard. The name of victim was not released. Contact the writer: 714-796-2478 or Icasiano _ ocregister.com © Copyright 2015 Freedom Communications. All Rights Reserved. Privacy Poh I User Aureemen1 1 Stepp http://www.ocregister.com/common/printer/view.php'?db=ocregister&id=690304 11/10/2015 Saldanha, Caitlin From: Buergler, JoAnne Sent: Tuesday, January 26, 2016 8:43 AM To: Saldanha, Caitlin Subject: FW: City Council 1.26.16, Agenda Item 10 From: Tawnie Logan [mailto:tawnie@scgalliance.com] Sent: Tuesday, January 26, 2016 8:37 AM To: Masterson, Brian; Admin; Buergler, JoAnne; Ahanotu, Amy; Belforte, Gina; Callinan, Joseph; blumacjazz@aol.com; Stafford, Pam; Azevedo, Susan Subject: RE: City Council 1.26.16, Agenda Item 10 RE: City Council Meeting Jan, 26, 2016, Agenda Item 10: Consideration of an Interim Urgency Ordinance Establishing a Temporary Moratorium on Marijuana Cultivation Facilities To the Members of the Rohnert Park City Council, Hello, my name is Tawnie Logan; I am the Executive Director of the Sonoma County Growers Alliance. SCGA's mission is to educate the community about the opportunities and challenges of integrating compliant cannabis businesses into the fabric of society and to advocate for responsible, common sense policies that benefit public safety, the economy and the environment. SCGA thanks the Rohnert Park City Council for the willingness to open discussion about the implementation of the Medical Marijuana Regulation and Safety Act. SCGA recognizes that the recently enacted MMRSA poses implementation challenges for localities. The first is the inadvertently included March 1, 2016 deadline to affirm local control of Medical Marijuana permitting or cede that authority to the State. As you are aware, AB 21, which has been voted out of committee and is expected to be signed by the Governor, will remove this March 1 st deadline and give localities more time to make informed decisions and adopt a permitting structure based on the license types identified in the MMRSA. Yet, AB 21 does not yet have the force of law and it is understandable that localities feel compelled to act in the meantime. When considering how to regulate the cannabis industry, there are three sectors of the cannabis economy of which you should be mindful: • Personal Use: This is the existing model established by the Compassionate Use Act (1996). Patients are regulated on how much cannabis they can cultivate for themselves and consume. • Commercial. This includes any activities outside personal use. Compliant cannabis operators can engage with the greater patient base in CA • Black Market: These are individuals who refuse to participate in any regulated activities. The majority of public safety violations, environmental degradation and property crimes stem from black market activities. Current law has been written for personal use, and the 'collective model' has been the base of existing grey market activities in which operators who wish to comply with state and local law (existing or not) have created a credible defense and business model over the years. Nonetheless, an 'urgency' ban will not achieve local control over black market activities. In fact, it will perpetuate the very type of criminal activity the Council seeks to eradicate. Rohnert Park would be left with non-compliant actors who skirt public safety regulations and endanger the environment. The White Paper on Marijuana Dispensaries by California Police Chiefs Association's Task Force on Marijuana Dispensaries, 2009 referenced in your briefing is outdated and fails to recognize the vast differences between compliant businesses and those looking to avoid regulation. Nor will a ban ordinance address a potential permitting schema for compliant commercial operators. These small businesses are already operating in Rohnert Park and without a clearly defined process by which they can obey local regulations, pay business taxes and fees and adhere to local fire and safety regulations, they will be forced to leave Rohnert Park for other localities where they can be legally permitted and secure in their business investments. The City of Santa Rosa's Planning Commission unanimously approved a plan to create a permitting structure based upon the 17 different license types outlined in the MMRSA. I anticipate that Santa Rosa's decision will, in the long run, give the city of competitive advantage of other localities that fail to adopt a permitting structure. The economic impacts on the City of Rohnert Park could be significantly beneficial and affect not only those employed in the cannabis industry, but also ancillary businesses that depend upon the economic activity. Without further discussion, the goals that we all share; to protect public safety and the environment and foster strong local economies, cannot be met unless we collaboratively address all three sectors of the cannabis economy. SCGA would like to work with the City of Rohnert Park to avoid the negative impacts of non-compliant operators, mitigate issues that negatively affect public safety and the environment, and reward complaint small businesses by allowing them to become fully participating members of the commercial life of the City. I urge you to consider more careful language that sends a message to your upstanding citizens and local operators that the City of Rohnert Park is responding to the March 1 st deadline, but not avoiding the task set forth by the State to regulate the industry and create permits for good operators. If the RP City Council feels it must act now, please consider the following suggestions: 1. Make the ordinance a 45 -day moratorium instead of a ban, as Solano County did. By this time, the fate of AB 21 and the March 1, 2016 deadline will be clear. 2. Include a "sunset" clause as Alameda County did. The ordinance will automatically sunset at such time as the March 1 deadline is repealed, (see hhttp://www.canorml.org/sunse[letter.pdt) 3. Your ban ordinance could be rewritten to ban commercial cultivation only; this is the only activity covered by MMRSA. There is no need to strip all patients in Rohnert Park of their rights even if the Council feels it must pass a cultivation ban. Cities across the state such as Santa Barbara, Grover Beach, Morro Bay, Livermore, Suisun, Del Mar, Port Hueneme and Jurupa Valley have banned commercial cultivation but have made an exemption for personal -size gardens. Other places like Coalinga, Watsonville Adelanto and Desert Hot Springs have regulated commercial grows instead of banning them, and San Jose, Monterey County, Long Beach and others are developing licensing regulations. Should the Rohnert Park City Council decide to take more time, I suggest the appointment of an ad hoc committee or a Cannabis Subcommittee to study the issue and come up with meaningful land regulations in the city that will protect both public safety and patient access, as well as allow for the enforcement of environmental regulations and the taxation of commercial medical marijuana activities. I am willing to serve on such a committee and/or present professional members who will serve. For your edification, the following documents are attached: 1. A MMRSA Primer: A Summary of the Medical Marijuana Regulation and Safety Act outing the types of licenses that will be issued by the State of California and the State agencies that will be responsible for establishing the regulatory framework. 2. California Medical Cannabis Distribution Chain Graphic 3. Resources for your Review: A list of relevant links that can guide your continued research 4. A helpful Contact List for more information Again, SCGA is willing to assist and able to answer your questions. I am particularly interested in working with local law enforcement so that we can understand one another's concerns and move forward collaboratively. Please feel free to call me, let's build a working relationship and support the continued health and well being of our community together. Best Regards, Tawnie Logan Executive Director SCGAlliance Get our monthly Newsletter (707) 972-7407 A4'l�'LV. til'k?J111E�Il::s',yL�ll] Best Regards, Tawnie Logan Executive Director SCGAlliance Get our monthly Newsletter (707) 972-7407 www.scglil.l i �uice.coni State of California Medical Marijuana Regulation and Safety Act Summary On October 9, 2015, Governor Brown signed into law Senate Bill 643 (McGuire), Assembly Bill 266 (Bonta), and Assembly Bill 243 (Wood) known collectively as the Medical Marijuana Regulation and Safety Act (MMRSA) that becomes effective January 1, 2016. The Governor will appoint a Chief of the Bureau of Medical Marijuana Regulation (BMMR) under the California State Department of Consumer Affairs. The Bureau of Medical Marijuana Regulations will be responsible for dispensing and renewing annual state licenses and establishing the regulatory framework. There are 13 regulatory agencies assigned various aspects of regulation for the cannabis industry. The following primary agencies will work with BMMR on the appropriate license types. Dept. Consumer Affairs responsible for: Dispensary, Distributor, Transporter; Dept. of Food and Agriculture responsible for: Cultivation, Track and Trace program; Board of Equalization responsible for collecting state tax revenues and issuing sales permits, adopting a system for reporting the movement of commercial cannabis and cannabis products Dept. of Public Health responsible for: Manufacturing and Testing; Dept. of Pesticides Regulation responsible for: Standards for Production and Labeling; Dept. of Fish and Wildlife responsible for Environmental Standards; California State Water Resources Control Board responsible for: Water Quality. MMRSA pertains only to commercial activity, medical marijuana patients will maintain their right to cultivate for personal use. The California Dept. of Food and Agriculture will establish the Medical Cannabis Cultivation Program and the cultivation of medical cannabis will be recognized by the State of California as an agricultural activity. Under this program, a state licensed Cultivator may engage in the cultivation of medical cannabis which includes any activity involving planting, growing, harvesting, drying, curing, grading, or trimming medical cannabis. No medicinal cannabis may be cultivated without first obtaining a license, permit, or other authorization from the local jurisdiction permitting the cultivation. A state license for cultivation cannot be given unless the local jurisdiction has provided documentation authorizing the cultivation activity. License types are as follows: Type 1 - Cultivation; Specialty outdoor. Up to 5,000 square ft of canopy, or up to 50 noncontiguous plants Type 1 A - Cultivation; Specialty indoor. Up to 5000 sq ft Type 1 B - Cultivation; Specialty mixed -light. Using exclusively artificial lighting Type 2 - Cultivation; Outdoor. Up to 5000 sq ft, using a combination of artificial and natural lighting Type 2A - Cultivation; Indoor. 5001 -10,000 sq ft. Type 2B - Cultivation; Mixed -light. 5001 -10,000 sq ft Type 3 - Cultivation; Outdoor. 10,001 sq ft - 1 Acre Type 3A - Cultivation; Indoor.. 10,001 - 22,000 sq ft Type 3B - Cultivation; Mixed -light. 10,001 - 22,000 sq ft Type 4 - Cultivation; Nursery Type 6 - Manufacturer 1 for products not using volatile solvents Type 7 - Manufacturer 2 for products using volatile solvents Type 8 - Testing Type 10 - Dispensary; General Type 10A - Dispensary; No more than three retail sites Type 11 - Distribution Type 12 - Transportation All product must go through a distributor for testing and taxing. Dispensaries must buy product from licensed cultivators and use licensed Transportation and Distribution companies to move product between cultivation sites, manufacturing facilities and testing facilities. As of January 1, 2018, a facility or entity that is operating in compliance with local zoning ordinances and other state and local requirements may continue its operations so long as they continue to follow local zoning ordinances and other state and local requirements until its application for licensure is approved or denied by the BMMR. California Medical Cannabis Distribution Chain under MMRSA Cultivators Oharvested cannabis must go to distributor inspect Analytics weigh sample sample � Testing Lab FEistributors/Transporters J safe tracked 4 taxed I GROy�F cultivators can form independent contracts w/ Q 9l manufacturers & dispensaries 4 but still must use distributor I h Manufacturerso'"'N F 5 Dispensaries raw materials to manufacturers, finished products to dispensaries Resources for your Review Assemblyman Jim Wood's Open Letter March 1st, 2016 Deadline to be dissolved Text of the Medical Marijuana Regulation and Safety Act: AB 243: http_//le ing fo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/bilINavClient.xhtml?bill id=201520160AB243 AB 266: http//le info.legislature.ca.gov/faces/bilINavClient.xhtml?bill id=201520160AB266 SB 643: httl2://le ing fo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/bilINavClient.xhtml?bill id=201520160SB643 Summaries of MMRSA: CaNORML Summary of MMRSA 10 Highlight's of California's MMRSA Sebastopol City Council Resolution: http_//ci.sebastopol.ca.us/sites/default/files/events-and-meetings/agenda item number 5 approval of resolution for sonoma county action on cannabis policypdf Humboldt County's "Commercial Cannabis Activity Registry" ordinance Preparing paperwork for pot balancing act Marin City Council - Cultivation, Manufacturing Latest Draft of the Marin County Proposed Medical Marijuana Ordinance Sonoma County Marijuana Policy Sonoma County approves North Coast Counties Marijuana Policy Statement Memo from ASA to Local Lawmakers Regarding the MMRSA, Local Licensing of Commercial Medical Cannabis Cultivation, and Bans on Personal and Commercial Cultivation White Paper: Where Will Patients Obtain Their Medicine? This white paper discusses the experience of local jurisdictions with medical cannabis dispensaries, with a focus on correcting the misperception that dispensaries cause crime. Sample Ordinance https://d3n8a8pro7vhmx.cloudfront.net/americansforsafeaccess/pages/8467/attachments/ori ig nal/1449942813/Model cultiv ation ordiannce CA.pdf?1449942813 California Medical Cannabis License Categories under MMRSA Cultivation 0 - 5,000 sq ft canopy 5,001 -10,000 sq ft canopy 10,001 - 22,000 sq ft canopy 'limited 1 - Specialty Outdoor 1A - Specialty Indoor 1B - Speciality Mixed -Light 2 - Specialty Outdoor 2A - Specialty Indoor 2B - Speciality Mixed -Light 3 - Specialty Outdoor 3A - Specialty Indoor 3B - Speciality Mixed -Light Permitted Combinations Manufacturer non-volatile solvents 6 - Manufacturer volatile solvents 7- Manufacturer 'limited Testing Dispensary Type 8 Unlimited store fronts Type 10 up to 3 Type 10A Distribution & Transport Type 11 Type 12 1 or 2 6 or 7 1 or 2 11+12 6 or 7 10A 10A 10A 'this structure becomes 6 or 7 inoperative Jan 2026 1, 2, 3, 4 (can combo, no more than 4 acres) We respectfully encourage you to contact our representatives in the state to request more information specifically for the development with the March 1st deadline in MMRSA. Below is a list Board of Equalization; not sure BoE has information on March deadline? • Joey Luiz o Joey.Luiz@boe.ca.gov o (916) 445-4081 Dept of Consumer Affairs • Adam Quinones o Adam.Quinones@dca.ca.gov o (916) 574-7813 Assemblyman Wood • Ed Sheffield, District o Ed.Sheffield@asm.ca.gov o (707) 576-2526 • Tony Bui, Capitol o Tony.Bui@asm.ca.gov o (916) 319-2002 Assemblyman Bonta • An -Chi Tsou, Assembly Health Committee o An-Chi.Tsou@asm.ca.gov o (916) 319-2018 • Max Mikalonis, Senior Legislative Consultant o max.mikalonis@asm.ca.gov o (916) 319-2018 Senator Mike McGuire • Jason Liles, District o Jason.Liles@sen.ca.gov 0 916-651-4002 or at 707-570-7070 Mark Lovelace • Humboldt County, 3rd District Supervisor 0 825 5th Street, Room 111, Eureka, CA 95501 o Direct line: (707) 476-2393 o mlovelace anco.humboldt.ca.us Your local and state cannabis advocacy groups are available for questions or concerns: Tawnie Logan, Sonoma County Growers Alliance: (707) 972-7407, tawnie@scgalliance.com Hezekiah Allen, California Growers Association: (916) 879-5063, hezekiah@cagrowers.org ,�_pHNERT PgRK «► Mission Statement "We Care for Our Residents by Working Together to Build a Better Community for Today and Tomorrow." C/LIFD RN IP CITY OF ROHNERT PARK CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT Meeting Date: January 26, 2016 Department: Development Services Submitted By: Jeffrey S. Beiswenger, AICP, Planning Manager Prepared by: Jeffrey S. Beiswenger, AICP, Planning Manager George Osner, Consultant ITEM NO. 11 Agenda Title: Consideration of an ordinance amending Chapters 17.02 (General Provisions), 17.04 (Definitions) and 17.06 (Land Use Regulations) of the zoning ordinance and adoption of a new Chapter 8.30 (Marijuana Cultivation, Processing, Delivery, and Dispensaries) of the Municipal Code and finding the action exempt under the California Environmental Quality Act. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Staff recommends that the City Council approve an ordinance amending chapters 17.02 (General Provisions), 17.04 (Definitions) and 17.06 (Land Use Regulations) of the zoning ordinance and adoption of a new chapter 8.30 (Marijuana Cultivation, Processing, Delivery and Dispensaries) of the municipal code and find the action exempt under the California Environmental Quality Act. The ordinance is attached hereto for introduction at this meeting and, if approved, would be brought back to the Council for a second reading on February 9th. BACKGROUND: Due to recent State legislation the City needs to move quickly to adopt some Municipal Code amendments to explicitly regulate the cultivation, distribution and sale of marijuana within the City. The California Legislature passed Assembly Bills 243 and 266 and Senate Bill 643 last September, which taken together create a broad state regulatory and licensing system governing the cultivation, testing, and distribution of marijuana; the manufacturing of marijuana products; and physician recommendations for medical marijuana. This new legislation also provides limited immunity to marijuana businesses operating with both a state license and a local permit. The new legislation allows for local control over marijuana facilities and land uses, including the authority to prohibit all marijuana businesses and cultivation, as long as the local jurisdiction adopts regulations before March 1, 2016. If a local agency does not have regulations in place by this date, the state Department of Food and Agriculture will become the sole licensing authority for marijuana cultivation in that jurisdiction. As long as local agency has regulations in place by this date, the local agency retains its authority to modify its regulations in the future and at the discretion of local policy makers. ITEM NO. 11 The City's municipal code already bans most activities related to marijuana businesses and cultivation. The City of Rohnert Park has what is referred to as a "permissive zoning ordinance." The City's zoning ordinance has very clear statements throughout that establish that if a use in not listed on the table of permitted land uses, it is not permitted. Stated another way, only those listed land uses are allowed in a zone and all other uses are prohibited. This is a typical zoning ordinance technique that avoids the need to list every conceivable business type on the land use tables. Short Re ug latory History To place this issue in context, the history of marijuana regulation in California is derived from the following legislation: In 1970, U.S. Congress enacted the Controlled Substances Act (CSA) which, among other things, makes it illegal to import, manufacture, distribute, possess or use marijuana in the United States. In 1972, California added Chapter 6 to the state Uniform Controlled Substances Act, commencing at Health and Safety Code section 11350, which established the state's prohibition, penalties, and punishments for the possession, cultivation, transportation, and distribution of marijuana. In 1996, the voters of the State of California approved Proposition 215 (the "Compassionate Use Act " Health and Safety (H&S) Code Section 11362.5 et seq.), California courts have held that the CUA created a limited exception from criminal liability for seriously ill persons who are in need of medical marijuana for specified medical purposes and who obtain and use medical marijuana under limited, specified circumstances. In 2004, the state Legislature enacted "Medical Marijuana Program" (MMP), codified as Health and Safety Code sections 11362.7 to 11362.83, to clarify the scope of the CUA, establish a voluntary program for identification cards issued by counties for qualified patients and primary caregivers, and provide criminal immunity to qualified patients and primary caregivers for certain activities involving medical marijuana, including the collective or cooperative cultivation of medical marijuana; In September of 2015, the California Legislature passed Assembly Bills 243 and 266 and Senate Bill 643, which taken together create a broad state regulatory and licensing system governing the cultivation, testing, and distribution of medical marijuana, the manufacturing of marijuana products, and physician recommendations for marijuana, and provide immunity to marijuana businesses operating with both a state license and a local permit. The combination of this past Federal and State regulatory activity allows for local governments to restrict almost all marijuana related activities with the exception of certain activities related to medical marijuana. W ITEM NO. 11 Overview of Regulations Due to the recently adopted State legislation and pending State licensing, City staff believes that it is prudent to address marijuana related land uses expressly, as follows:: Prohibit deliveries. Under newly -added California Business and Professions Code section 19340(a), if a city wants to prevent marijuana deliveries within its jurisdiction, it must adopt an ordinance expressly prohibiting them. Clarify that marijuana activities are prohibited by the zoning ordinance. Marijuana businesses, dispensaries, cultivation activities, and deliveries are not listed and not permitted in the zoning ordinance (under the City's permissive zoning provisions). Some additional language will be added to Chapter 17.02 (General Provisions) of the zoning ordinance to make this clear. Clearly prohibit marijuana cultivation activities. Staff belives that express regulations regarding marijuana cultivation will best protect the City from unnecessary litigation. Regulate tobacco stores. In 2009, a "Tobacco Ordinance" was adopted that required all tobacco stores to obtain a conditional use permit. Among other things, this use permit was intended to prevent the indirect proliferation of "head shops" that may be posing as a regular retail tobacco stores. Head Shops are specifically prohibited by the code. In 2013, the requirement that tobacco stores obtain a use permit was eliminated. At this time, reinstating the use permit requirement will allow this use to be more effectively regulated — including strengthening the provision related to the sale of marijuana paraphernalia. Add marijuana business regulations and prohibitions under Title 8 (Health and Safety) of the Municipal Code. This would provide definitions and regulation of marijuana -related businesses and would help clarify business licensing restrictions. Limit personal cultivation. The ability for medical marijuana patients to grow marijuana for personal use is not well defined by the zoning ordinance. Current practice is to allow for some limited cultivation, since this is permitted by State law. The proposed municipal code revisions would add a definition of "cultivation facility," generally prohibiting such activity, and create an exemption, as follows: "A marijuana cultivation facility shall not include a property where a qualified patient cultivates marijuana pursuant to Health and Safety Code section 11362.5 if the qualified patient maintains no more than six (6) marijuana plants and does not sell, distribute, donate, or provide marijuana to any other person or entity, and the property on which the qualified patient is cultivating marijuana/cannabis has no more than 100 square feet devoted to the cultivation of marijuana /cannabis by any qualified patient or combination of qualified patients ...." ITEM NO. 11 STAFF ANALYSIS The recently adopted State legislation allows for local jurisdictions to establish local control to all or ban certain marijuana related activities. The past practice of Rohnert Park is to limit these activities as much as possible. In order to ensure that existing regulations continue to be enforceable and to close potential loop -holes, certain changes to the municipal code are proposed. These changes would preserve the City's local autonomy related to marijuana regulation and maintain the City's historic practice of limiting marijuana -related activities without limiting the City's ability to adopt more or less restrictive practices in the future should local policy goals change. In order to protect the public health, safety, and welfare and preserve the City's historic practice of limiting marijuana related activities, staff recommends the addition of Municipal Code Chapter 8.30 to provide regulation of marijuana -related activities including marijuana dispensaries, marijuana cultivation facilities, commercial cannabis activities, and marijuana deliveries, and amendment of Section 17.02 (General Provisions) of the Zoning Ordinance to make express the prohibition of marijuana -related activities in all districts. There is significant evidence that marijuana delivery services, dispensaries, cultivation facilities, commercial cannabis activities are also targets of violent crime and pose a danger to the public. Many California communities have experienced adverse impacts and negative secondary effects from medical marijuana establishments and cultivation sites, including hazardous construction, unsafe electrical wiring, noxious odors and fumes affecting neighboring properties and businesses, increased crime in and around such land uses, and the diversion of medical marijuana to minors (source: White Paper on Marijuana Dispensaries by California Police Chiefs Association's Task Force on Marijuana Dispensaries, 2009). Marijuana related activities are not currently listed as permitted or conditionally permitted uses anywhere within the City, and proposed updates to the municipal code will add definitions and clarifying statements to ensure that the code is not misinterpreted to inadvertently allow these uses and/or activities to occur. The current permissibility of marijuana deliveries is vague in the current municipal code. While deliveries businesses of this type are not allowed as a permitted use within the City it is not clear whether deliveries that originate from elsewhere would be permitted. The municipal code will be updated to clarify that any marijuana delivery business or activity operating within city limits is prohibited. Allowing the cultivation of medical marijuana for personal use is commonly allowed in California. The approach is recommended (versus a complete ban on all personal cultivation) since it is consistent with the State approach towards personal cultivation. Codifying a limit on the number of plants and a limit on the size of the grow area will help with law enforcement and code enforcement activities. 2 ITEM NO. 11 ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION The approval of this ordinance is not a project subject to the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA") pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Sections 15060(c)(2) (the activity will not result in a direct or reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment) and 15060(c)(3) (the activity is not a project as defined in Section 15378) of the CEQA Guidelines, California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Chapter 3, because it has no potential for resulting in a physical change to the environment, directly or indirectly. Alternatively, the City Council finds the approval of this ordinance is exempt under CEQA Regulation Section 15061(b)(3) because it can be seen with certainty to have no potential for causing a significant effect on the environment.. STRATEGIC PLAN ALIGNMENT: This action is consistent with Strategic Plan Goal D — Continue to Develop a Vibrant Community by implementing mandated programs. OPTIONS CONSIDERED: 1. Introduce the attached ordinance. Staff recommends this option because it is consistent with our current zoning practice of prohibiting most marijuana activities. Our permissive zoning scheme does not ordinarily expressly state prohibited activities, but we must do so in this instance as a result of new legislation. 2. The alternative to these code amendments are to take no action. This is not recommended because the code amendments are needed to strengthen the existing prohibitions on marijuana businesses and activities and to response to recent State legislation. 3. Introduce a revised ordinance. The Council could direct that staff return to the Council with a revised ordinance that permits a different scope of marijuana activity. Due to the limited time to adopt an ordinance, staff recommends taking a conservative approach at this stage and maintaining the current zoning scheme. If alternatives are to be explored, they should be thoroughly studied and changes to the code can be made at a later date. FISCAL IMPACT/FUNDING SOURCE: Adopting the attached ordinance has minimal fiscal impact. Department Head Approval Date: 01/12/16 Finance Director Approval Date: N/A City Manager Approval Date: 01/15/16 City Attorney Approval Date: 01/12/16 Attachments (list in packet assembly order): 1. Ordinance No. 896 5 ORDINANCE NO. 896 AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ROHNERT PARK, CALIFORNIA, AMENDING CHAPTERS 17.02 (GENERAL PROVISIONS), 17.04 (DEFINITIONS) AND 17.06 (LAND USE REGULATIONS) OF THE ZONING ORDINANCE, AND ADOPTION OF A NEW CHAPTER 8.30 (MARIJUANA CULTIVATION, PROCESSING, DELIVERY, AND DISPENSARIES) OF THE MUNICIPAL CODE WHEREAS, the applicant, City of Rohnert Park, filed Planning Application No. PLMC 2015-04 proposing to amend the Rohnert Park Municipal Code ("RPMC") by amending Chapters 17.02 (General Provisions), 17.04 (Definitions), and 17.06 (Land Use Regulations) of the City of Rohnert Park Zoning Ordinance, and amending the Municipal Code by addition of a new Chapter 8.30 (Marijuana Cultivation, Processing, Delivery, and Dispensaries) to Title 8; and WHEREAS, the proposed amendments to the Zoning Ordinance Chapters would provide a definition of the term "Tobacco Store" consistent with Chapter 8.32 of the RPMC and reinstate Tobacco Stores to the Use list in Chapter 17.06 of the Zoning Ordinance, and would clarify in Chapter 17.02 that marijuana -related uses are not permitted uses in any zone; and WHEREAS, the proposed new Chapter 8.30 of Title 8, the Health and Safety Code, would provide definitions and regulation of marijuana -related uses; and WHEREAS, in 1970, Congress enacted the Controlled Substances Act (CSA) which, among other things, makes it illegal to import, manufacture, distribute, possess or use marijuana in the United States.; and WHEREAS, in 1972, California added Chapter 6 to the state Uniform Controlled Substances Act, commencing at Health and Safety Code section 11350, which established the state's prohibition, penalties, and punishments for the possession, cultivation, transportation, and distribution of marijuana; and WHEREAS, in 1996, the voters of the State of California approved Proposition 215 (the "Compassionate Use Act;" Health and Safety (H&S) Code Section 11362.5 et seq.); and WHEREAS, California courts have held that the CUA created a limited exception from criminal liability for seriously ill persons who are in need of medical marijuana for specified medical purposes and who obtain and use medical marijuana under limited, specified circumstances; and WHEREAS, on January 1, 2004, the state Legislature enacted the "Medical Marijuana Program" (MMP), codified as Health and Safety Code sections 11362.7 to 11362.83, to clarify the scope of the CUA, establish a voluntary program for identification cards issued by counties for qualified patients and primary caregivers, and provide criminal immunity to qualified patients and primary caregivers for certain activities involving medical marijuana, including the collective or cooperative cultivation of medical marijuana; and WHEREAS, the California Supreme Court ruled unanimously in City of Riverside v. Inland Empire Patients Health and Wellness Center Inc. (2013) 56 CalAth 729, that the CUA and the MMP do not preempt local ordinances that completely and permanently ban medical marijuana dispensaries, collectives, and cooperatives; and WHEREAS, in Maral v. City of Live Oak (2013) 221 Cal.AppAth 975, the Third District Court of Appeal held, based on Inland Empire, that there was no right to cultivate medical marijuana and that a city could implement and enforce a complete ban on this activity, including a ban on personal cultivation; and WHEREAS, on September 11, 2015, the California Legislature passed Assembly Bills 243 and 266 and Senate Bill 643, which taken together create a broad state regulatory and licensing system governing the cultivation, testing, and distribution of marijuana, the manufacturing of marijuana products, and physician recommendations for medical marijuana, and provide immunity to marijuana businesses operating with both a state license and a local permit; and WHEREAS, Governor Brown signed each bill on October 9, 2015; and WHEREAS, while the new legislation expressly preserves local control over marijuana facilities and land uses, including the authority to prohibit all marijuana businesses and cultivation completely, newly -added Health & Safety Code section 11362.777(c)(4) provides that if a city does not have a land use regulation or ordinance regulating or prohibiting marijuana cultivation, either expressly or otherwise under principles of permissive zoning, or chooses not to administer a conditional permit program under that section, then commencing March 1, 2016, the state Department of Food and Agriculture will become the sole licensing authority for marijuana cultivation in that jurisdiction; and WHEREAS, under newly -added Business and Professions Code section 19340(a), if a city wants to prevent marijuana deliveries within its jurisdiction, it must adopt an ordinance expressly prohibiting them; and WHEREAS, marijuana businesses, dispensaries, cultivation activities, and deliveries are not listed in the Zoning Code as either permitted or conditionally -permitted land uses and are, therefore, prohibited under the City's permissive zoning provisions, as set forth in Municipal Code sections 19.04.030 and 19.04.050 (City of Corona v. Naulls (2008) 166 Cal.App.4th 418, 431-433); and WHEREAS, the City Council has determined that express Municipal Code regulations regarding marijuana dispensaries, marijuana cultivation facilities, commercial cannabis activities, and marijuana deliveries will benefit the public by providing clear guidelines regarding the scope of prohibited conduct and minimize the potential for confusion regarding the City's policies, and WHEREAS, many California communities have experienced adverse impacts and negative secondary effects from marijuana establishments and cultivation sites, including hazardous construction, unsafe electrical wiring, noxious odors and fumes affecting neighboring properties and businesses, increased crime in and around such land uses, and the diversion of marijuana to minors; and WHEREAS, a California Police Chiefs Association compilation of police reports, news stories, and statistical research regarding crimes involving marijuana businesses and their secondary impacts on the community is contained in a 2009 white paper report which is attached to the staff report presented to the City Council with this ordinance and on file with the City Clerk; and WHEREAS, the Santa Clara County District Attorney's Office issued a May 2014 memorandum entitled "Issues Surrounding Marijuana in Santa Clara County," which outlined many of the negative secondary effects resulting from marijuana cultivation; a copy of this memorandum is attached to the staff report presented to the City Council with this ordinance and on file with the City Clerk; and WHEREAS, the Santa Clara County Public Defender issued a May 2014 memorandum entitled "Substance -Related Suspensions in the East Side Union High School District," describing a correlation between substance abuse -related suspensions in local high schools and a proliferation of medical marijuana dispensaries in the area; a copy of this memorandum is attached to the staff report presented to the City Council with this ordinance and on file with the City Clerk; and WHEREAS, news stories regarding adverse impacts of medical marijuana business, including dispensaries, cultivation sites, and delivery services, are attached to the staff report presented to the City Council with this ordinance and on file with the City Clerk; and WHEREAS, it is reasonable to conclude that marijuana dispensaries, marijuana cultivation facilities, commercial cannabis activities, and marijuana deliveries could cause similar adverse impacts on the public health, safety, and welfare in Rohnert Park; and WHEREAS, in order to protect the public health, safety, and welfare, the adoption of Municipal Code Chapter 8.30 regulation of marijuana -related activities including marijuana dispensaries, marijuana cultivation facilities, commercial cannabis activities, and marijuana deliveries, and amendment of Section 17.02 (General Provisions) of the Zoning Ordinance will make express the prohibition of marijuana -related activities in all districts; and WHEREAS, the proposed regulations have been determined not to be a project for the purposes of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA); and WHEREAS, the Ordinance attached hereto as Exhibit A amends Chapters 17.02, 17.04, and 17.06 and adopts a new Chapter 8.30; and WHEREAS, on January 14, 2015, the Planning Commission held a public hearing at which time interested persons had an opportunity to testify either in support or opposition to the proposal and the Planning Commission recommended adoption of the municipal code amendments to the City Council; and WHEREAS, on January 26, the City Council conducted a duly notice public hearing to review and consider the information contained in Planning Application No. PLMC 2015-04 for the amendments to Chapters 17.02, 17.04, 17.06 of the Zoning Ordinance and adoption of a new Chapter 8.30 of Title 8 (Health and Safety). NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Rohnert Park does hearby ordain as follows: Section 1. The above recitations are true and correct and material to this Ordinance. In making its findings, the City Council relied upon and hereby incorporates by reference all staff reports, presentations, and other documentation presented to the Council in the meeting. Section 2. Findings for Enactment of Amendments to Chapters 17.02, 17.04, and 17.06. The City Council hereby makes the following findings concerning amendments to Chapter 17.02, 17.04, and 17.06 of the Zoning Ordinance: 1. That the proposed amendments to the Zoning Ordinance are consistent with the General Plan 2020. Criteria Satisfied. The proposed amendments to the Zoning Ordinance make no changes affecting the General Plan in that they simply clarify and make express the prohibition against marijuana -related activities, and clarify and make an express provision for Tobacco Stores within the context of the Ordinance. Prohibition of marijuana -related activities does not conflict with any allowable uses in the land use element and does not conflict with any policies or programs in any other element of the General Plan 2. That the proposed amendment to the Zoning Ordinance will be beneficial to the public health, safety or welfare. Criteria Satisfied. The proposed amendments will benefit the public by making express the prohibition against marijuana -related activities, activities with potential adverse effects on the public health, safety, and welfare. The proposed amendment will not have any detrimental impacts and will have some positive impacts to the public health, safety or welfare. 3. That with the proposed zoning and/or amendment adequate and available sites remain (refer to the quantified housing objectives in the city's housing element of the general plan) to mitigate the loss of residential density on the subject property to accommodate the city's "fair share" regional housing needs used by the State Department of Housing and Development in determining compliance with Housing Element Law pursuant to Government Code Section 65863(b). Criteria satisfied. The proposed amendments will not affect the availability of housing or residential density, but rather makes express the City's existing prohibition against marijuana -related land uses. Section 3. Environmental Clearance. The City Council finds the approval of this ordinance is not a project subject to the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA") pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Sections 15060(c)(2) (the activity will not result in a direct or reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment) and 15060(c)(3) (the activity is not a project as defined in Section 15378) of the CEQA Guidelines, California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Chapter 3, because it has no potential for resulting in a physical change to the environment, directly or indirectly. Alternatively, the City Council finds the approval of this ordinance is exempt under CEQA Regulation Section 15061(b)(3) because it can be seen with certainty to have no potential for causing a significant effect on the environment. Section 4. Approval of Municipal Code Amendments. The City Council hereby approves the amendments to the Zoning Ordinance which are attached as Exhibit A and are incorporated by reference as if set forth in full. Section 5. Severability. The City Council hereby declares that every section, paragraph, sentence, clause, and phrase of this ordinance is severable. If any section, paragraph, sentence, clause or phrase of this ordinance is for any reason found to be invalid or unconstitutional, such invalidity, or unconstitutionality shall not affect the validity or constitutionality of the remaining sections, paragraphs, sentences, clauses, or phrases. Section 6. Effective Date. This ordinance shall be in full force and effective 30 days after its adoption, and shall be published and posted as required by law. Section 7. Publication. The City Clerk is directed to cause this ordinance to be published in the manner required by law. This ordinance was introduced on January 26, 2016 and adopted by the Council of the City of Rohnert Park on February 9, 2016, by the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: CITY OF ROHNERT PARK Gina Belforte, Mayor ATTEST: JoAnne M. Buergler, City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: Michelle Marchetta Kenyon, City Attorney I, JOANNE BUERGLER, CITY CLERK of the City of Rohnert Park, California, do hereby certify that the foregoing Urgency Ordinance was duly adopted and passed at a regular meeting of the City Council on the 26th day of January, 2016 by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: JoAnne M. Buergler, City Clerk Exhibit A Amendments to the City of Rohnert Park, Municipal Code New Chapter 8.30 — Marijuana Cultivation, Processing, Delivery, and Dispensaries 8.30.010 — Purpose A. The commercial cultivation, processing, delivery, or dispensing of marijuana can affect the health, safety, and well-being of City residents by increasing the risks of criminal activity, degradation of the natural environment, malodorous smell, and electrical fire hazards that may result from such activities. B. Marijuana cultivation, processing, delivery, or dispensing in any location increases the risk that surrounding homes or businesses may be negatively impacted by nuisance activity such as loitering or crime. C. The above factors have the potential to create significant hazards and nuisances to the public such that a City-wide prohibition of such activities is proper and necessary D. The City Council finds that this chapter: (1) expressly prohibits the cultivation of marijuana in the City and expresses the City's intent to not administer a conditional permit program pursuant to Health & Safety Code section 11362.777 for the cultivation of marijuana in the City; (2) exercises its local authority to enact and enforce local regulations and ordinances, including those regarding the permitting, licensing, or other entitlement of the activities prohibited by this chapter; (3) exercises its police power to enact and enforce regulations for the public benefit, safety, and welfare of the City and its community; and (4) expressly prohibits the delivery of marijuana in the City. 8.30.020 — Definitions A. "Marijuana" means any or all parts of the plant Cannabis sativa Linnaeus, Cannabis indica, or Cannabis ruderalis, whether growing or not; the seeds thereof; the resin or separated resin, whether crude or purified, extracted from any part of the plant; and every compound, manufacture, salt, derivative, mixture, or preparation of the plant, its seeds or resin, including marijuana infused in foodstuff or any other ingestible or consumable product containing marijuana, or any extract or infusion preparation. The term "marijuana" shall also include "medical marijuana" as such phrase is used in the August 2008 Guidelines for the Security and Non -Diversion of Marijuana Grown for Medical Use, as may be amended from time to time, that was issued by the office of the Attorney General for the state of California or subject to the provisions of California Health and Safety Code Section 11362.5 (Compassionate Use Act of 1996) or California Health and Safety Code Sections 11362.7 to 11362.83 (Medical Marijuana Program Act). B. "Marijuana Cultivation" means growing, planting, harvesting, drying, curing, grading, trimming, or processing of marijuana. C. "Marijuana cultivation facility" means any business, facility, use, establishment, property, or location where the cultivation of marijuana occurs. A marijuana cultivation facility shall not include a property where a qualified patient resides and cultivates marijuana pursuant to Health and Safety Code section 11362.5 if the qualified patient maintains no more than three (3) marijuana plants and does not sell, distribute, donate, or provide marijuana to any other person or entity, and the property on which the qualified patient resides and is cultivating marijuana/cannabis has no more than 50 square feet devoted to the cultivation of marijuana /cannabis by any qualified patient or combination of qualified patients (the area used to cultivate marijuana/cannabis shall be measured by the aggregate area of vegetative growth of live marijuana plants on the premises). Notwithstanding this exception, a qualified patient cultivating marijuana may not create or cause a nuisance condition and the city may abate, in any manner permitted by law, a nuisance condition created or caused by, associated with, or arising from marijuana cultivation by a qualified patient. D. "Marijuana Processing" means any method used to prepare marijuana or its byproducts for commercial retail and/or wholesale, including but not limited to: drying, cleaning, curing, packaging, and extraction of active ingredients to create marijuana related products and concentrates. E. "Delivery" or "deliveries" means the commercial transfer of marijuana or marijuana products from a dispensary to a primary caregiver or qualified patient as defined in Section 11362.7 of the California Health and Safety Code, or a testing laboratory either owned and controlled by a dispensary or independently licensed that enables qualified patients or primary caregivers to arrange for or facilitate the commercial transfer by a licensed dispensary of marijuana or marijuana products. F. "Marijuana Dispensary" or "Marijuana Dispensaries" means any business, office, store, facility, location, retail storefront or wholesale component of any establishment, cooperative or collective that delivers (as defined in Business & Professions Code section 19300.5(m) or any successor statute thereto) whether mobile or otherwise, dispenses, distributes, exchanges, transmits, transports, sells or provides marijuana to any person for any reason, including members of any medical marijuana cooperative or collective consistent with the August 2008 Guidelines for the Security and Non -Diversion of Marijuana Grown for Medical Use, as may be amended from time to time, that was issued by the office of the Attorney General for the state of California, or for the purposes set forth in California Health and Safety Code Section 11362.5 (Compassionate Use Act of 1996) or California Health and Safety Code Sections 11362.7 to 11362.83 (Medical Marijuana Program Act). G. "Medical marijuana collective" or "cooperative or collective" means any group that is collectively or cooperatively cultivating and distributing marijuana for medical purposes that is organized in the manner set forth in the August 2008 Guidelines for the Security and Non -Diversion of Marijuana Grown for Medical Use, as may be amended from time to time, that was issued by the office of the Attorney General for the state of California or subject to the provisions of California Health and Safety Code Section 11362.5 (Compassionate Use Act of 1996) or California Health and Safety Code Sections 11362.7 to 11362.83 (Medical Marijuana Program Act). 8.30.030 — Prohibited Activities Marijuana cultivation facilities, marijuana processing, marijuana delivery, and marijuana dispensaries shall be prohibited activities in all zones in the City, except where the City is preempted by federal or state law from enacting a prohibition on any such activity. No use permit, variance, building permit, or any other entitlement, license, or permit, whether administrative or discretionary, shall be approved or issued for the activities of marijuana cultivation, marijuana processing, marijuana delivery, or the establishment or operation of a marijuana dispensary in the City, and no person shall otherwise establish or conduct such activities in the City, except where the City is preempted by federal or state law from enacting a prohibition on any such activity for which the use permit, variance, building permit, or any other entitlement, license, or permit is sought. 8.30.040 Public Nuisance. Any violation of this chapter is hereby declared to be a public nuisance. 8.30.050 Enforcement. The city may enforce this section in any manner permitted by law. The violation of this section shall be and is hereby declared to be a public nuisance and shall, at the discretion of the City, create a cause of action for injunctive relief. Amendments to Title 17 — Zoning 1. New Section amending Chapter 17.02 — General Provisions: 17.02.100 - Marijuana -related Uses Prohibited Marijuana cultivation facilities, marijuana processing, marijuana delivery, and marijuana dispensaries as defined in Chapter 8.30 are expressly prohibited in all districts. 2. New definition added to 17.04 - Definitions "Tobacco Store" shall be as defined in Chapter 8.32 3. Amend 17.06 — Land Use Regulations, Section 17.06.060 (Permitted Uses). Commercial Land Use table to add the following entry: 17.06.060 Permitted Uses Land Use Category C -O C -N C-R Tobacco store (retail or wholesale) and -- -- C private smoker's lounge when attached to a tobacco store (Regulated by Municipal Code Chapters 8.32 and 8.33) City Council Marijuana Urgency Ordinance and Recommended Code Amendments January 26, 2016 19 RO1NERTPq , �f1LIFOlZ1`j� 62 Regulatory History - Marijuana 1970 — Controlled Substance Act (U.S.) Marijuana illegal throughout U.S. 1972 — California, Controlled Substance Act State prohibition on marijuana 1996 —Voters Approve Compassionate Use Medical marijuana Limited exception to prohibition 2004 — State enacts med.marijuana program Identification cards Collective cultivation of marijuana permitted 2015 — State Legislature, Bills 243, 266, 643 Broad State regulatory and licensing system Recent State Legislation 2015 — State Legislature, Bills 243, 266, 643 Adopted September 2015 Broad State regulatory and licensing system Provide immunity to marijuana businesses (with permit) Local government can clearly restrict almost all marijuana related activities, including: Cultivation Manufacturing of products Despensaries Distribution (deliveries) Personal use for qualified patients is protected March Is' deadline Public Health, Safety &Welfare White Paper on Marijuana Dispensaries (California Police Chiefs Association, 2009) Dispensaries are often not legally valid cooperatives Evidence of increased violent crime Burglaries Drug dealing Organized crime/money laundering Proliferation of grow houses in residential areas Building code violations Public Health Safety &Welfare Study by Santa Clara County, District Attorney Proliferation of indoor/outdoor growing operations Grow operation are often associated with crime Influence of organized crime Study concludes that comprehensive guidelines are needed to prevent illegal activities that could result from marijuana cultivation Part Urgency Ordinance Marijuana Cultivation Marijuana Cultivation Significant concern! Cities must act on cultivation by March I State could become sole licensing authority Zoning code is vague on this topic Urgency Ordinance is recommended G [OT• V� Ri IVI Ap F •. ,may i rLow • �•-. W 6 `. f iii/• Tr�� � ��� �*6� �, � � ` • � � `may -'s- � •�.\ - � � ' ' t '�r _ " � .,• 'fin - '• Why an Urgency Ordinance? March Is' deadline Prohibits marijuana cultivation facilities Exempts qualifies patients Permits three plants per patient Permits growing area of 50 sf per household Existing zoning code subject to some interpretation ("permissive zoning code") Example —allows for "agriculture processing" Ordinance allows Council to retain local control Recommend action Adopt Interim Urgency Ordinance Establishing aTemporary Moratorium on Marijuana Cultivation Facilities Part 2 Code Changes Overview of regulations Clarify that marijuana activities are prohibited Prohibit deliveries (required by new legislation) Clearly prohibit marijuana cultivation activities Regulate tobacco stores — require a CUP Allows more control of sale of products Prevents "head -shops" Add marijuana business regulations (MC Title 8) Limit personal cultivation Code is currently silent Limit to 3 plants per patient 50 square feet per property Prevent large grows for a multitude of patients Overview of regulations Clarify that marijuana activities are prohibited Prohibit deliveries (required by new legislation) Clearly prohibit activities marijuana cultivation Overview of regulations Regulate tobacco stores — require a CUP Allows more control of sale of products Prevents "head -shops" Add marijuana business regulations (MC Title 8) Limit personal cultivation Limit Personal Cultivation Code is currently silent Currently we default to State limits 6 mature plants 12 young plants Applies per patient Problem —large marijuana grows (multiple patients growing at a single location) Recommendation Must be a qualified medical marijuana patient Limit to 3 plants per patient 50 square feet per property Steps to Adopt Tonight: Introduce Ordinance forAdoption Amend chapter 17.02 (General Provisions), 17.04 (Definitions) Clarifies existing prohibitions Adds definitions Amends chapter 17.06 (Land Use Regulations) Adds "Tobacco Store" into use table with a CUP Adds new Chapter 8.30 (Medical Marijuana) Responds to State legislation and regulated marijuana businesses Second reading, February 9, 2016 Effective, March 12, 2016 01;N T Mission Statement "We Care for Our Residents by Working Together to Build a Better Community for Today and Tomorrow." Catr�vnr�t" CITY OF ROHNERT PARK CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT Meeting Date: January 26, 2016 Department: Development Services Division Submitted By: Mary Grace Pawson, Director of Development Services Prepared By: Jette Selberg, Code Compliance Officer ITEM NO. 12 Agenda Title: Statement of Costs and Property Lien on 1391 Miramonte Place, Rohnert Park CA to Recover Nuisance Abatement Costs RECOMMENDED ACTION: Adopt a Resolution to Approve a Statement of Costs and Establish a Property Lien Against the Vacant Real Property Located at 1391 Miramonte Place Rohnert Park, CA APN- 047-370-015 to Recover Nuisance Abatement Costs Pursuant to Rohnert Park Municipal Code Sections 1.24.200 and 1.27.050 and Government Code Section 38773.1. BACKGROUND: In August 2013, staff received a complaint at 1391 Miramonte Place (See Attachment 1 — Parcel Map) regarding the hedges being over grown causing a possible rat harborage, debris and an inoperable vehicle. This case was resolved. On May 21, 2014, staff received a written complaint regarding lack of maintenance and the condition of the same property. On June 24, 2014, staff inspected the property and found the hedge and trees were overgrown which presented a visual hazard to pedestrians and motorists as well as an inoperable vehicle in the driveway. Staff notified the property owner of the violations and began working with the owner to correct the violations. Attachment 2 provides the history of Code Enforcement Case 14-0161. A Preliminary Notice was sent on July 17, 2014 (Attachment 3) and a Notice Of Violation on June 24, 2014 (Attachment 4). Staff was unable to resolve the violations with the property owner on a voluntary basis and an Administrative Citation was sent to the property owner on August 13, 2014 in the amount of $4800.00. This was for 3 violations (1. Overgrown vegetation, 2. Impeding the right of way, and 3. Inoperable vehicle) @$100 per violation per day for the period of July 29 -August 13, 2014) (See Attachment 5). After no response from the property owner, following the procedures outlined in Municipal Code 1.24.150, staff scheduled a hearing on the unabated nuisances. The first two violations were addressed pursuant to Chapter 1.26 of the Rohnert Park Municipal Code. Under that authority, when a nuisance goes unabated after a notice of violation has been issued, the City can hold an administrative hearing to achieve enforcement of the Code. On January 27, 2015, some nine months after the initial complaint, staff notified the property owner, via first class and registered mail, that a nuisance abatement hearing was scheduled for February 10, 2015. This notice ordered the owner to show cause why the City should not abate the nuisances and impose the costs on the owner. The property owner failed to appear for the [Version 2 - 12/18/2015] 1 ITEM NO. 12 hearing, which means the owner failed to exhaust the owner's administrative remedies and forfeits any right that may have existed to object. Director Masterson, the Hearing Officer, conducted the hearing and subsequently confirmed the violations and ordered that the violations be removed by March 1, 2015. The property owner did not comply. (See Attachment 6) On March 3, 2015, Staff met a contractor and received an initial bid for the abatement of $400.00. On March 10, 2015 the contactor began abatement and the final invoice was for $500.00. On May 19, 2015, staff sent the property owner a demand for payment for the abatement and citation. At that time the total was $6,656.50, which included the Administrative Citation, Abatement and staff costs. The property owner has not yet responded to this demand letter and this invoice has not been paid. (See Attachment 7) The third violation, the abandoned vehicle, was addressed pursuant to Chapter 8.16, which is specific to abandoned vehicles, and is not before the Council. To date, the total cost of the City's code compliance effort is $8,303.64. (Attachment 9) At the present time, the property remains vacant and unattended. There has been no water service since 2003 due to a water leak that has never been repaired. ANALYSIS: As was more particularly described above, after exhausting all attempts to gain voluntary compliance on the various code violations through personal contact, violation notices and a citation, staff scheduled a noticed hearing for the unabated nuisances. The property owner failed to appear for the hearing and waived the opportunity to object to the violations, abatement efforts or imposition of costs. The Hearing Officer ordered that the violations be corrected within a reasonable specified time. The property owner failed to comply with the order and, as a result, the violations were abated by the City in order to protect the public's health, safety and welfare. The City incurred costs associated with this abatement, which it now seeks to formalize in a statement of costs and recover via a lien. Staff has had approximately 2,400 Code Compliance cases from 2012-2015. Of those cases, only 3, including this one, went to a hearing. This is the only case to date in which a lien is being sought as a means to recoup actual expenses for the nuisance abatement efforts. Staff recognizes that imposing a lien on real property has consequences for current and future property owners and for that reason staff has exhausted all alternatives to achieve code compliance and recoup nuisance abatement expenses before recommending a lien. This is a last resort which has become necessary due to the failure of the owner to respond to staff's numerous repeated efforts to achieve compliance over the years. Pursuant to Rohnert Park Municipal Code Section 1.24.190 an accounting of expenses and statement of costs was prepared by staff. (Attachment 9) As required by Section 1.24.200, this Council meeting was set as the date for a formal hearing on these costs. The owner was provided timely notice of the statement of costs and this hearing via certified mail. (Attachment 10) [Version 2 - 12/18/2015] 2 ITEM NO. 12 The owner and anyone liable to be assessed for the costs may attend this hearing to raise objections or protests. Per the Rohnert Park Municipal Code, the Council must review the statement of costs and consider any objections. At the conclusion of the hearing, the Council should adopt a resolution determining the costs of abatement. These costs may be established either as is presented in the statement of costs or the Council can make any revisions, corrections, or modifications it deems necessary or just. The Council may also require, by resolution, that the costs be collected as a nuisance abatement lien on the property. Staff recommends doing so because the owner has been unwilling to comply voluntarily with any of the City's previous requests or orders. As required by Section 1.27.050, the owner has been provided timely notice of the potential recordation of a lien and has the opportunity to objection to the imposition of a lien at this hearing. If the Council authorizes a lien, as recommended by staff, a Notice of Pending Lien may be recorded against the property. The owner will have 45 calendar days after the adoption of the resolution to remit the monies due and owing to the City. If the debt remains outstanding after 45 days, the City Clerk will record the lien with the County Recorder. Once payment in full is received, the Director of Finance will record a notice of satisfaction or allow the owner to do so with the County Recorder. The City of Rohnert Park is authorized, pursuant to the Rohnert Park Municipal Code 1.24.190, to recover all costs associated with nuisance abatements including, but limited to notices, inspections, hearings and attorney fees. Further, the City of Rohnert Park is authorized, pursuant to Rohnert Park Municipal Code 1.24.200, 1.27.050 and Government Code 38773.1, to place a lien against vacant real property for recovery of abatement costs. All required notices were served to the property owner, pursuant to the Rohnert Park Municipal Code 1.24.130. Staff has exhausted its administrative options to recover costs. Approving a statement of costs and establishing a lien is the next step in the City's procedures. A resolution to that effect is attached. The owner can avoid the imposition of a lien by repaying the debt within 45 days of the Council's adoption of the attached resolution. STRATEGIC PLAN ALIGNMENT: Goal B It is the City's strategy to maintain financial procedures for cost recovery whenever possible. OPTIONS CONSIDERED: 1. Approve a Statement of Costs and Establish a Lien Against the Property (Recommended Option). This option is consistent with the City's Municipal Code and Procedures and provides a mechanism for recovering the City's costs in preserving public health, safety and welfare when a property owner is not compliant. 2. Allow an outside agency to attempt to collect the funds due. This option is not recommended because it is not consistent with the City's Municipal Code and Procedures; because it may not be successful given the owner's history of ignoring requests for payment; and because it would cost the City to engage a collection agency. [Version 2 - 12/18/2015] 3 ITEM NO. 12 3. Provide the property owner with more time to make the required payments to the City. This option is not recommended because of the owner's history of ignoring requests for payment. 4. Abandon the process of recovering the costs for abatement. This is not recommended because of both the effort expended to abate the nuisance and the impacts on public health, safety and welfare. FISCAL IMPACT/FUNDING SOURCE: Positive impact of $8,303.64 which would offset General Fund Expenditures for this Code Compliance case. Department Head Approval Date: 01/12/16 Finance Director Approval Date: N/A City Attorney Approval Date: 01/15/16 City Manager Approval Date: Attachments (list in packet assembly order): 1) Parcel Map 2) Case History 3) Preliminary Notice 6-24-2014 4) Notice of Violation 7-17-2014 5) Administrative Citation 2014 6) Hearing and Decision 7) Demand for Payment 8) Photos Before and After 9) Statement of Costs 10) Notice of Hearing on Unpaid Costs 11) Resolution 12) Notice of Pending Lien [Version 2 - 12/18/2015] 4 Parcel Report Parcel #: 047-370-015 County Assessor Information Parcel #: 047370015 Land Use: SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING Owner: HASSMAN PATRICIA J In Care Of: Address: 383 HOLLY DR CSZ: SAN RAFAEL, CA 94903 Situs Address: 1391 MIRAMONTE PL Situs CSZ: ROHNERT PARK, CA 94928 Tax Area: 007012 Jurisdiction: ROHNERT PARK Recording # : 1988 RO93886 Rec Date: 11/2/1988 1/7/2016 3:38:24 PM 1387 1391 1395 AP Map URL: http://imaps.ci.santa-rosa.ca.us/scans/APMaps/04737.pdf Print Code Enforcement Case Page 1 of 4 Code Enforcement Case: CE -14-0161 Entered on: 05/21/2014 00:00 Printed on: 01/19/2016 Topic: Vehicle Abatement Status: Open Due Date: 07/05/15 Assigned To: Jette Selberg Initiated bv: Neip-libor Permit #: Business name: License #: Property Location Occupant Name: Address: 1391 MIRAMONTE PL, 94928 Phone: Cell #: APN : 047-370-015 Owner Information Owner Name: HASSMAN PATRICIA J Address: 383 HOLLY DR SAN RAFAEL CA, 94903-2448 Phone: 415-299-4595 Cell #: 415- 499-1290 Actions Action By Date Time Hours Note/Observation 'omalaintDoua 05/21/2014 2.46 nm 0.25 Request 8489 -Brian Gaston - Pronertv annears Hearn to be abandoned and it not being maintained. Inspection Doug 06/24/2014 3:22 pm 0.12 Hughes_ Courtesy Notice Doug 06/24/2014 3:29 pm 0.25 c Send to (Owner) Hughes Inspection Doug 07/02/201411:00 am 0.12 Not cut Hearn Inspection Doug 07/16/2014 0.25 _ Not done. Hearn Notice of Violation Doug 07/17/2014 11:06 am 0.25 Send to (Owner) Hearn Inspection Doug 07/29/2014 7:45 am 0.12 Not done. Hearn Phone Call Doug 07/30/2014 12:06 pm 0.12 1 attempted to talk to owner and she hung up. Hearn She did say she received the letter prior to hanging up. Inspection Doug 08/05/2014 8:05 am 0.12 Not done. Hearn Inspection Doug 08/06/2014 12:00 pm 0.12 Not done. Hearn Inspection Doug 08/12/2014 8:00 am 0.12 _ Not done. Hearn _ Inspection Doug 08/13/2014 7:30 am 0.12 Not done. Cite issued. Hearn Inspection Doug 08/26/2014 8:00 am 0.12 not done Hearn Inspection Doug 09/02/2014 7:30 am 0.12 Not done, car still in the driveway. Hearn Inspection Doug 09/03/2014 7:30 am 0.12 _ Not done Hearn _ Inspection Doug 09/09/2014 8:00 am 0.12 _ Not done. Neighbor emailed wanting to know status. He was updated. Inspection -Hearn Doug _ _ 09/11/2014 7:43 am 0.12 Not done Hearn http://user.govoutreach.com/rohnertpark/ceprintrequest.plip?curld=802467&type=0 1/19/2016 Print Code Enforcement Case Page 2 of 4 Inspection Doug 09/30/2014 7:10 am 0.12 Sidewalk cleared and driveway & car cleaned. 1 met with Marilyn and she concurred with the Hearn Hearn Message_ left for contractor to schedule. Phone Call Doug 10/22/2014 10:39 am 0.25 1 talked to the owner again and she will cut 12/16/2014 9:30 am Hearn Message left for owner to call me. hedge to three feet. She is still doesn't agree Hearn about the complaints from the neighbor. She Inspection Doug 01/06/2015 7:15 am feels she can keep her trees any height. I Not done. Hearn Hearn explained it wasn;t the tree height, but the hedge _ Inspection Doug _ Inspection along the sidewalk. She will cut it. Inspection Doug 10/28/2014 2:03 pm 0.12 Hedge cut. Hearn Hearn 03/24/2015 1:30 pm 0.50 discussed case with Joanne and I will supply Conference Doug 10/30/2014 11:08 am 1.00 Mr Ogston came in and we discussed the case. 1 called the owner and when I said who I was Hearn Hearn Marilyn approved giving him a copy of the case she hung up. Notice of Hearing history. He advised of the on-going conditions of 01/27/2015 12:13 pm 0.50 Hearing Date:02/10/2015, Hearing Time: 10:00 the property and requested further be done. I Hearn advised him that I was going to update Marilyn and make a recommendation on how to Location,Complainant - Brian Ogston) Inspection Doug proceed. Inspection Doug 11/19/2014 7:10 am 0.12 Not finished. Hearn Other Phone Call Doug 11/19/2014 9:37 am 0.25 1 talked to Patricia again and explained the Hearn zoning violation. I think she finally understands that the trees need to be trimed up fromt he bottom 7 -feet or trimmed down to three feet. She said she understands and will take care of it. Conference Doug 11/19/2014 9:54 am 0.25 1 met with Marilyn and she concurred with the 02/26/2015 10:58 am 0.12 Not done Hearn Message_ left for contractor to schedule. Inspection Doug violation. Phone Call Doug 12/16/2014 9:30 am 0.12 Message left for owner to call me. inspection 3/4/15-@ 9:30 am. Hearn vegetation. Inspection Doug 01/06/2015 7:15 am 0.12 Not done. Hearn Hearn _ Inspection Doug _ Inspection Doug 01/20/2015 10:01 am 0.12 Not done. Hearn Doug 03/24/2015 1:30 pm 0.50 discussed case with Joanne and I will supply Phone Call Doug 01/21/2015 10:02 am 0.12 1 called the owner and when I said who I was Doug Hearn 1.50 Prepare information for lien and bill. she hung up. Notice of Hearing - Unabated Nuisance Doug 01/27/2015 12:13 pm 0.50 Hearing Date:02/10/2015, Hearing Time: 10:00 Hearn am, Send to (Owner,Property Location,Complainant - Brian Ogston) Inspection Doug 02/03/2015 12:15 pm 0.25 Not done. Hearn Other Doug 02/03/2015 1:19 pm 2.00 Staff report and case info. Hearn Conference Doug 02/10/2015 10:00 am 3.00 Hearing held and order issued confirming Hearn violation. Director Masterson held hearing, Patty Other Poon took notes and sent letter and I gave 03/05/2015 11:18 am statement as to violations. Total time 3 staff hrs. Inspection Doug 02/26/2015 10:58 am 0.12 Not done Hearn Message_ left for contractor to schedule. Inspection Doug 03/03/2015 7:00 am 0.12 Not done. Hearn 0.50 Trees cut. I met contractor there and had him Phone Call Doug 03/03/2015 11:38 am 0.12 Called contractor and will meet for site Hearn inspection 3/4/15-@ 9:30 am. Other Doug 03/05/2015 11:18 am 2.00 Don Schwartz approved money for work. Hearn Message_ left for contractor to schedule. Inspection Doug 03/10/2015 1:00 pm 0.50 Trees cut. I met contractor there and had him Hearn remove additional debris from overgrown vegetation. Inspection Doug 03/12/2015 12:15 pm 0.50 Contractor there doing final clean-up. Hearn _ Inspection Doug 03/17/2015 1:00 pm 0.25 Done. Hearn Conference Doug 03/24/2015 1:30 pm 0.50 discussed case with Joanne and I will supply Hearn documents for bill. Other Doug 04/29/2015 10:06 am 1.50 Prepare information for lien and bill. Hearn http://user.govoutreach.com/rohnertpark/cepri ntrequest.php?curl d=802467&type=0 1/19/2016 Print Code Enforcement Case Page 3 of 4 Other Doug 04/29/2015 11:51 am 1.00 Demand letter sent. Hearn Conference Doug 05/12/2015 10:50 am 0.12 Shannon Peterson advised no payment Hearn received. Notice of Abatement Proceedings Doug 05/14/2015 12:46 pm 0.25 Send to (Owner,Property Location) Hearn Notice of Lien - Pending Doug 05/14/2015 12:51 pm 0.50 Legal Description: 1391 Miramonte PL, Rohnert Hearn Park CA _ APN# 047-370-015, Send to (Owner) Notice of Lien Doug 05/14/2015 1:02 pm 0.25 Legal Description: 1391 Miramonte PI Rohnert Hearn Park CA 94928 APN - 047-370-015, Hearing Date:06/15/2015, Send to (Owner) Conference Doug 05/19/2015 7:40 am 0.75 1 met with the City Clerk, Joanne, and discussed Hearn what would be needed for the Special Assessment for this property. I'm preparing the staff report and resolution for review. Other Doug 05/19/2015 2:22 pm 0.12 1 st demand resent - priviouse had wrog Hearn address. _ Notice of Lien - Pending Doug 05/28/2015 1:36 pm 0.50 Legal Description: 1371 Miramonte PI, Rohnert Hearn Park CA, Send to (Owner) Other Doug 06/03/2015 10:00 am 1.50 Council pack to Mary Grace. Hearn Notice of Hearing - Unpaid Costs Jette 12/30/2015 10:00 am 0.25 > Abatement Hearing:02/10/2015, > Abatement Selberg Date: 03/01/2015, > Hearing Date:01/26/2016, > Hearing Time:6:00 pm, Send to (Owner,Property Location) Conference Jette 01/05/2016 1:00 pm 0.25 Conference with Mary Grace about case and Selberg staff report. Other Jette 01/11/2016 10:00 am 1.00 Revised staff report and supporting documents. Selberg Conferences Jette 01/11/2016 11:00 am 0.50 Conference with Mary Grace about staff report. Selberg Conference Jette 01/14/2016 9:00 am 0.50 Phone conference with Mary Grace and Selberg Alexandra regarding staff report. Other Jette 01/14/2016 4:00 pm 0.50 Work on revision of staff report and Resolution. Selberg Conference Jette 01/15/2016 1:38 pm 0.25 Conference with Mary Grace on staff report Selberg changes. Conference Jette 01/15/2016 1:38 pm 2.00 Work with Alexandra via email regarding Selberg changes to staff report and supporting _ documents. Inspection Jette 01/19/2016 2:34 pm 0.25 Case preparation. Selberg Violations fat Violation Type Due Date Status Closed Date Overgrown Vegetation Closed 03/19/2015 1 Corrections Required: Hedge/trees are not being maintained and exceed maximum 3 -foot height in front yard setback. Please cut and maintain property. _ 2 Blocking/Impeding Public Right of Way Closed 10/01/2014 Corrections Required:Hedge is not being maintained and is impeding_ sidewalk. Please clear and maintain right of way. 3 Inoperable Vehicles Closed 10/05/2015 Corrections Required:Vehicle parked in driveway. Please remove and maintain property. Additional Addresses Address Type:Complainant Name:Brian Ogston Address: 1387 Miramonte PI Rohnert Park, CA 95403 Phone:(707) 795-2613 Cell #:(707) 494-5562 Fees Fee Type Date Charges Payments Details http://user.govoutreacii.com/rohnertparklceprintrequest.php?curld=802467&type=0 1/19/2016 Print Code Enforcement Case Page 4 of 4 Fee 08/13/2014 4800.00 Citation Fee 02/10/2015 642.63 Hearing Fee 03/10/2015 500.00 —_--------Abatement Contactor Abatement Fee 04/29/2015 714.00 Inspections, notices and reports 6,656.63 0.00 Inspection Notes Date: Time: Findings: http://user.govoutreach.com/rohnertparklceprintrequest.php?curld=802467&type=0 1/19/2016 PRELIMINARY NOTICE TO CORRECT VIOLATION(S) (Rohnert Park Municipal Code § 1.24.120) BY FIRST CLASS MAIL HASSMAN PATRICIA J 383 HOLLY DR SAN RAFAEL CA 94903-2448, Date: June 24, 2014 CITY OF ROHNERT PARK DEVELOPMENT SERVICES 130 Avram Avenue Rohnert Park, CA 94928 Phone: (707) 588-2249 Web: www.rpcity.org Address of Violation: 1391 MIRAMONTE PL ROHNERT PARK CA, APN #: 047-370-015, Case #: CE14- 0161 This is a Courtesy Notice, issued pursuant to Section 1.24.120 of the Rohnert Park Municipal Code ("RPMC"), that violation(s) of the RPMC exist on the property located at the above -referenced address. The City of Rohnert Park ("City") records show that the addressee(s) identified above are the owner(s) and/or responsible party(ies) for such property. On June 24, 2014, the City inspected the property and determined that violation(s) exist, as described below. The violation(s) also constitute a public nuisance as defined in Chapter 1.24 of the RPMC. By this letter, the City hereby requests that the violation(s) be corrected within the time frame specified below. Violation #1: RPMC § 1.24.030 D. 15 - Prohibits dead, decayed, diseased, or hazardous trees, weeds, and overgrown or uncultivated vegetation which are allowed to remain on property for at least seventy-two consecutive hours, which are a hazardous condition to pedestrian or vehicular traffic or which are likely to harbor rats, vermin, or constitute visual blight, or which may cause a danger to public safety. Description/Correction of Violation: Please cut and maintain property. Maintain maximum 3ft height for hedges in required front yard setbacks. Correction Date for Violation: July 4, 2014 Violation #2: RPMC § 1.24.030 D. 24 - Any obstructions, impediments, or excavations that interfere with the ordinary use by the public of any public street, way, or sidewalk except when and as permitted pursuant to this Code or State law. Description/Correction of Violation: Please clear and maintain right of way. Correction Date for Violation: July 4, 2014 Declaration of Public Nuisance: In the event that the above referenced violation(s) are not timely corrected, a declaration of public nuisance can be recorded against this property with the County Recorder pursuant to RPMC § 1.24.230. Additionally, your mortgage holder can be notified of this violation. Abatement: In addition to any other remedies available to the City, the City may take abatement action to remove or correct the violation if the violations are not corrected within the date specified. All abatement costs including legal and administrative costs will be billed to the property owner and, if unpaid, may be recovered as a lien on the property, as provided for in RPMC section 1.24.230. The purpose of this courtesy Preliminary Notice to Correct Violations is to achieve voluntary compliance with the Municipal Code. If you have any questions regarding this Notice or the nuisance abatement action required of you, or you desire to explain why the property should not be declared a public nuisance and why penalties should not be assessed, feel free to call me at or send an email to dhughes@rpcit�org. Sincerely, Doug Hughes Building Inspector dhughes@rpcity.org CITY OF ROHNERT PARK L 4�r �R r DEVELOPMENT SERVICES 130 Avrarn Avenue Rohnert Park, CA 94928 Phone: (707) 588-2249 Web: www.rpcity.org NOTICE OF VIOLATIONS / ORDER TO ABATE VIOLATIONS (Rohnert Park Municipal Code § 1.24.140) BY FIRST CLASS MAIL AND REGISTERED MAIL HASSMAN PATRICIA J 383 HOLLY DR SAN RAFAEL CA 94903-2448, Date: July 17, 2014 Address of Violation: 1391 MIRAMONTE PL ROIINERT PARK CA, APN #: 047-370-015, Case #: CE14- 0161 NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN, pursuant to Chapter 1.24 of the Rohnert Park Municipal Code ("RPMC") that a City Code Compliance Officer has determined that violation of the RPMC exists on the property located at the above referenced address. You were previously notified to correct these violations on June 24, 2014. On July 16, 2014, the City re -inspected the property and determined that violation(s) still exist as described below. The violation(s) constitutes a public nuisance as defined in Chapter 1.24 of the RPMC. You are hereby ORDERED to abate these violation(s) within the timeframe indicated on this notice. Violation #1: RPMC § 1.24.030 D. 15 - Prohibits dead, decayed, diseased, or hazardous trees, weeds, and overgrown or uncultivated vegetation which are allowed to remain on property for at least seventy-two consecutive hours, which are a hazardous condition to pedestrian or vehicular traffic or which are likely to harbor rats, vermin, or constitute visual blight, or which may cause a danger to public safety. Description/Correction of Violation: Hedge/trees are not being maintained and exceed maximum 3 -foot height in front yard setback. Please cut and maintain property. Correction Date for Violation: July 27, 2014 Violation #2: RPMC § 1.24.030 D. 24 - Any obstructions, impediments, or excavations that interfere with the ordinary use by the public of any public street, way, or sidewalk except when and as permitted pursuant to this Code or State law. Description/Correction of Violation: Hedge is not being maintained and is impeding sidewalk. Please clear and maintain right of way. Correction Date for Violation: July 27, 2014 Violation #3: RPMC § 1.24.030 D. 12 - Storage of any wrecked, disabled, inoperative, salvaged or dismantled vehicle, vessel, equipment trailer, house trailer, camper shell, boat, or boat trailer as defined in Health and Safety Code § 18010, or other vehicle or major vehicle parts stored or parked in front yards, driveways, side yards, sidewalks or walkways for at least seventy-two consecutive hours visible from a public street, unless they are stored or parked pursuant to the provisions of this. Code. Unregistered vehicles are considered inoperable. Description/Correction of Violation: Vehicle parked in driveway. Please remove and maintain property. Correction Date for Violation: July 27, 2014 Administrative Citation: If you fail to correct violations by July 27, 2014 an administrative citation will be issued (RPMC § 1.25). Each day that any such violation continues shall constitute a separate offense with an independent fine. A fine for the first violation not exceeding one hundred dollars ($100); a fine for the second violation not exceeding two hundred dollars ($200) for a second violation of the same code provision within a twelve month period; a fine not exceeding five hundred ($500) for each additional violation of the same code provision within a twelve month period. The City may also pursue other legal remedies available if you fail to comply. Notice of Administrative Hearing: Notice is hereby further given that, if you have not made the required corrections by the specified compliance date, the undersigned Code Compliance Officer may schedule a hearing before an Administrative Hearing Officer to obtain an administrative order directing your compliance. In that event, the City will notify you of the date and time of the hearing. If you fail to appear at that hearing, or the hearing officer orders you to abate the nuisance and you fail to do so within the specified time, the City will abate the nuisance at your expense and the costs of such abatement may be charged against the property as a lien or special assessment. Appeal Rights: Any person having any record or title or legal interest in this parcel of land may appeal the Code Compliance Officer's determination that violation(s) exist and have not been abated. An appeal is made, as specified in RPMC section 1.24.140, by filing with the City Manager within ten ('10) days of the date of this Notice and Order, a written statement: (1) requesting a hearing before the City Manager; (2) explaining why the premises should not be declared a nuisance and abated at the expense of the parties and why the costs of such abatement should not become a charge against the premises; and (3) providing an address for further communications. The written statement should be addressed to the City Manager and mailed or delivered to 130 Avram Avenue, Rohnert Park, CA 94928-2486. Alternative remedy: Any person violating the provisions or failing to comply with any mandatory requirement of the ordinances of the City is guilty of an infraction, unless the violation is specifically identified as a misdemeanor. In addition to or in lieu of the remedies provided in Section 1.16.010, for infractions and misdemeanors, the City Attorney may commence an action for abatement, including, but not limited to, an injunction thereof, in the manner required by law and shall take such other steps to obtain such relief as will abate or remove a violation and restrain an enjoin any person from violating any provisions of this code, or other applicable laws and rules and regulations. All costs, including attorney's fees, for the abatement of a violation of this code which constitutes a public nuisance is assessed against any property declared to be a public nuisance and the costs, including attorney's fees, shall be collected in the manner provided for by Government Code Section 38773.5. (RPMC § 1.16.020). Declaration of Public Nuisance: A declaration of public nuisance can be recorded against this property with the County Recorder (RPMC § 1.27.050). Additionally, your mortgage holder can be notified of this violation. Abatement: The City may take abatement action to remove or correct the violation if the violations are not corrected within the date specified. All abatement costs including legal and administrative costs will be billed to the property owner and may be recovered as a lien on the property, as provided for in RPMC section 1.27.060. If you have any questions regarding this Notice and Order or the nuisance abatement action required of you, feel free to call me at (707) 588-2249 or send an email to dhearn@rpcity.org. Sincerely, Doug Hearn Code Compliance Officer (707) 588-2249 dhearn@rpcity.org August 13, 2014 Development Services 130 Avram Avenue Rohnert Park CA 94928 707-588-2249 Fax 707-794-9242 Attachment to Administrative Citation (Rohnert Park Municipal Code § 1.25) BY FIRST CLASS AND REGISTERED MAIL Patricia Hassman 1391 Holly Dr. San Rafael, CA 94903 Address of Violation: 1391 Miramonte PI., Rohnert Park, CA APN: 047-370-015 Case: CE14- 0161 On August 13, 2014 an inspection was conducted at the above referenced property and the violations listed below were not corrected. You were previously notified that an administrative citation would be issued if the below violations were not corrected by July 27. 2014. You are hereby ordered to correct the below violations by September 1, 2014 or a subsequent administrative citation will be issued. Violation #1: RPMC § 1.24.030 D. 15 - Prohibits dead, decayed, diseased, or hazardous trees, weeds, and overgrown or uncultivated vegetation which are allowed to remain on property for at least seventy-two consecutive hours, which are a hazardous condition to pedestrian or vehicular traffic or which are likely to harbor rats, vermin, or constitute visual blight, or which may cause a danger to public safety. Zoning Code § 17.14.020 A. 1. - Front yard fencing. No fence, wall, hedge or screen planting shall exceed a maximum height of three feet in the required front yard setback. Description/Correction of Violation: Hedge/trees are not being maintained and exceed maximum 3 -foot height in front yard setback. Please cut and maintain property. Violation 42: RPMC § 1.24.030 D. 24 - Any obstructions, impediments, or excavations that interfere with the ordinary use by the public of any public street, way, or sidewalk except when and as permitted pursuant to this Code or State law. Description/Correction of Violation: Hedge is not being maintained and is impeding sidewalk. Please clear and maintain right of way. Violation #3: RPMC § 1.24.030 D. 12 - Storage of any wrecked, disabled, inoperative, salvaged or dismantled vehicle, vessel, equipment trailer, house trailer, camper shell, boat, or 130 Avram Avenue • Rohnert Park, CA 94928-2486 • (707) X88-2249 . Pas (707) 794-9242 . www.rinity.org boat trailer as defined in Health and Safety Code § 18010, or other vehicle or major vehicle parts stored or parked in front yards, driveways, side yards, sidewalks or walkways for at least seventy-two consecutive hours visible from a public street, unless they are stored or parked pursuant to the provisions of this Code. Unregistered vehicles are considered inoperable. Description/Correction of Violation: Vehicle parked in driveway. Please remove and maintain property. 3 -violations @ $100 per violation @ $300.00 per day for 16 days (July 29th — August 13, 2014): Total: $4,800.00 Doug Hearn RGS Code Compliance Officer City of Rohnert Park (707) 588-2249 dhearn@rpcity.org 130 Avram Avenue . Rohnert Park. CA 94928-2486 . (707) 588-2249 • Fax (707) 794-9242 . w%vw.rpcitv.org 0 Citation Number: Administrative Citation ❑ Pre -Citation Notice Violation Date Time Day of the Week Dept. Case # PM Location of Violation ._�...................... .. q................................................._...._......................................................................................................._.................................................... ........ Name of Responsible Person (First, Middle, Last) ................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................ U -,9.4 tlrrr R -n/ Address City fState I Zip Code Rohnert Park Municipal Code Violations Section Description Fine Amount ?vne. t'J, 030 ,t7 /T'- 7kol# A Z - Z COONo &/,,.r- //,l'"W 6V l l tP� C z, 0 p1 , If Pre -Citation Notice, violations shall be corrected by , 20 or an administrative citation for the above fine amount(s) will be issued, and/or other code enforcement action taken. Total Fine Due Fine Due By Continuation or repetition of sly/ two the noted Violation is prohibited and could result in zO/y itation issuance on a daily basis and/or criminal citation. Date Issued: Issuing Officer: 2 - ,glgj L y Name Mailed Signature ❑ Hand Delivered _. ............._.......... _...._.......... .. .... .......... ...... Department CA01 /s _,40 /'14(wGd IMPORTANT NOTE: SEE REVERSE SIDE IMPORTANT—READ CAREFULLY IF THIS IS A PRE -CITATION NOTICE: Pursuant to Chapter 1.25 of the Rohnert Park Municipal Code, if you fail to correct the listed Code violations by the specified date, the City may issue you an administrative citation imposing a fine for the amount indicated, and/or the City may pursue other legal remedies, including criminal citation. If you feel that this Pre -Citation has been issued in error you have the right to contact the issuing code enforcement officer to discuss the matter. IF THIS IS AN ADMINISTRATIVE CITATION: Pursuant to Chapter 1.25 of the Rohnert Park Municipal Code, the specified fine shown on the front side of this form must be paid within thirty (30) days of the issue date shown on the front side of this form. If you continue or repeat the commission of the listed Municipal Code violations, the City may issue you another Administrative Citation and/or pursue other legal remedies against you. Payment Process Information: The specified fine shall be delivered or mailed, together with the "Return with Payment" copy of the citation, to City of Rohnert Park, 130 Avram Avenue, Rohnert Park, CA 94928 OR City of Rohnert Park, P.O. Box 1489, Rohnert Park, CA 94927-1489. Payment should be in the form of a personal check, cashier's check, or money order payable to the City of Rohnert Park. Please write the citation number on check to ensure proper processing. Unless you have requested a hearing to contest the Administrative Citation, you will be subject to the imposition of a 10% late payment penalty (or $250.00) if you fail to pay the fine by the due date (30 days after citation). Payment of the fine does not excuse your responsibility for any continuation or repetition of the listed Municipal Code violations. Right to Hearing to Contest Administrative Citation: You have the right to contest ,the .listed Municipal Code violations by requesting a hearing before an Administrative Hearing Officer. To request a hearing, you must file a Request for Hearing within ten (10) days from the Administrative Citation issue date as shown on the front of this form. This Request must be accompanied by an advance deposit of the fine, ora notice that a request is being made for an Advance Deposit;Hardship Waiver as explained below. The Request for Hearing form may be obtained by calling the City Clerk's Office (707) 588-2227 or stopping by City Hall at 130 Avram Avenue, Rohnert Park. You will be sent a written notice of the date and time set for your hearing. A failure to appear at a scheduled hearing may result in a forfeiture of your deposit of the fine and will constitute a failure to exhaust your administrative remedies. The advance deposit of the fine will be refunded if determined that the violation is cancelled. The Administrative Hearing Officer's decision will be final, subject to an appeal to the Sonoma County Courts under Government Fode Section 53069.4. Advance Deposit Hardship Waiver: If you intend to request a hearing to contest the Administrative Citation, and you contend that you are financially unable to make the advance deposit of the fine as required, you may file request for Advance Deposit Hardship Waiver. This form is available at City Hall, 130 Avram Avenue, Rohnert Park. The Request for Advance Hardship Waiver and supporting documentation must be filed with the Request for Hearing. The decision to waive the advance deposit is made by the City Manager or his/her designee. Unless the waiver is granted, you will be required to make the advance deposit as a condition to obtaining a hearing. Consenuences of Failure to Pay Fine: Your failure to pay the fine assessed by the Administrative Citation will result in late payment penalties and interest charges, and may result in collection by a Small Claims Court action or by other legal remedies. City ofRohnert Park • City Administrative Offices 130 Avram Avenue • Rohnert Park, CA 94928 • (707) 588-2200 PROOF OF SERVICE BY MAIL CITY OF ROHNERT PARK DEVELOPMENT SERVICES 130 Avram Avenue Rohnert Park, CA 94928 Phone: (707) 588-2249 Web: wwwxpcity.org I am a citizen of the United States and employed in the County of Sonoma, State of California, and over the age of eighteen (18) years: my business address is City Hall, 130 Avram Avenue, Rohnert Park, California 94928. I am familiar with the practice of the City of Rohnert Park for collection and processing of correspondence for mailing with the United States Postal Service. It is the practice that correspondence is deposited with the United States Postal Service the same day it is submitted for mailing. On August 13, 2014, 1 served the following person: HASSMAN PATRICIA J at: 383 HOLLY DR SAN RAFAEL CA 94903-2448, by mailing a true copy of: Administrative Citation; Case # CE14-0161 I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing identified envelope was sealed and mailed first class and register postage fully prepaid placed thereon, in the United States mail at Rohnert Park, California. Executed at Rohnert Park, Cali o ia, on the 13th day of August, 2014. Signed: CITY OF ROHNERT PARK DEVELOPMENT SERVICES 130 Avram Avenue Rohnert Park, CA 94928 Phone: (707) 588-2249 Web: www.rpcity.org NOTICE OF HEARING ON UNABATED NUISANCE (Rohnert Park Municipal Code § 1.24.150) BY FIRST CLASS MAIL AND REGISTERED MAIL HASSMAN PATRICIA J 383 HOLLY DR SAN RAFAEL CA, 94903-2448 Date: January 27, 2015 Address of Violation: 1391 MIRAMONTE PL ROHNERT PARK CA, APN #: 047-370-015, Case #: CE14- 0161 You were previously notified to correct violation(s) of the Rohnert Park Municipal Code (RPMC) that exist on the property at the above referenced address by a Preliminary Notice on June 24, 2014 and by a Notice and Order to Abate on July 17, 2014. On January 20, 2015, the City re -inspected the property and determined that violation(s) still exist. Hearing Scheduled: Due to your failure to comply, the City Manager or his designee has determined that the facts and circumstances of the nuisance require City action to abate the nuisance. NOTICE IS HERBY GIVEN, pursuant to RPMC 1.24.150, that a hearing shall take place on this matter on February 10, 2015 at 10:00 am, at the Department of Public Safety, 500 City Center Ur., Rohnert Park CA 94928. Hearing Procedures: At that hearing, you are ORDERED TO SHOW CAUSE why the City should not be allowed to enter the property to abate the identified nuisances in the manner described in the notices and why the City should not be allowed to assess the costs thereof to the owner. The hearing will be conducted in the manner set forth in RPMC 1.26.050. A courtesy copy of that code section is attached hereto, as Exhibit A, for your convenience. If you appear at the hearing, pursuant to RPMC 1.26.050, within ten (10) days after the conclusion of the hearing, the hearing officer will issue a written decision and, where applicable, an order of abatement. If the nuisance is not abated within the time provided, the nuisance shall be abated by the City at the owners' expense and the expenses may be made a lien or a special assessment against the property. If you fail to appear at that hearing, the City will abate the nuisance at your expense and the costs of such abatement may be charged against the property as a lien or special assessment. The decision of the hearing officer is final with no right of appeal to any city employee, officer or legislative body. In the event that legal action is instituted by either the owner or city in any manner relating to the abatement of the nuisance, note that the prevailing party may seek recovery of its costs and attorneys' fees. If you have any questions regarding this Notice of Hearing, feel free to call me at (707) 588-2249 or send an email to dhearri(@)�city.org. City of Rohnert Park 130 Avram Avenue Rohnert Park, CA 94928 STAFF REPORT FOR UNABATED NUISANCE HEARING PREPARED BY: Doug Hearn, Code Compliance Officer DATE: February 3, 2015 SUBJECT: Abatement Hearing Case No. CE14-0161 1391 Miramonte Pl., Rohnert Park CA, APN 047-370-015 Property Owner: Patricia Hassman SUMMARY: On May 21, 2014 Mr. Brian Ogston made a written complaint regarding the condition of his neighbor's property at 1391 Miramonte Pl. He said the house was vacant and not being maintained. On June 24, 2014, I inspected the property and found the hedge and trees were overgrown. The hedge was obstructing the sidewalk and exceeded 3 -foot in height. The trees were approximately 12-15 feet tall and grown in a row from the sidewalk to the back yard concealing the house from view. In August 2013, I had a similar case here (13-0438) regarding the hedges being over grown, rat harborage, debris and an inoperable vehicle, which was resolved. Ms. Hassman was notified of the violations and I began working with her to maintain the property. She was uncooperative and hung up on me several times. During some of our conversations she acknowledged growing the trees as a hedge to block the view of her house. She was served the below notices and cited on one occasion. On October 22, 2014, she agreed to cut the hedges. On October 28th I inspected the property and found she had only cut the hedge along the sidewalk. During subsequent conversations, Ms. Hassman agreed to cut trim the trees to bring her property into compliance. On January 21, 2015 I made one last attempt to get Ms. Hassman to comply. She answered and when I identified myself she hung up. By her repeated unwillingness to bring her property into compliance, it's apparent she has no intention of complying. NOTICE AFTER HEARING ON UNABATED NUISANCE (Rohnert Park Municipal Code § 1.24.170) In the Matter of the Hearing of Public Nuisance at 1391 Miramonte Place, Rohnert Park CA 94028 Assessor's Parcel No. 047-370-015, Case #: CE14-0161 Date: February 10, 2015 BY FIRST CLASS MAIL AND REGISTERED MAIL PATRICIA J. HASSMAN 383 HOLLY DRIVE SAN RAFAEL, CA 94903-2448 Development Services 130 Avram Avenue Rohnert Park CA 94928 707-588-2249 Fax 707-794-9242 Address of Violation: 1391 MIRAMONTE PLACE, ROHNERT PARK CA APN #: 047-370-015, Case #: CE 14-0161 Decision of the Hearing Officer The proceeding for the hearing on unabated nuisance at 1391 Miramonte Place, as cited in the Notice of Violation/Order to Abate Violations dated July 17, 2014 was commenced pursuant to the provisions of Chapter 1.24 of the Rohnert Park Municipal Code (RPMC). Hearing Officer, Brian Masterson, Director of Public Safety, in accordance with Section 1.24 of the Rohnert Park Municipal Code rendered this decision. The Notice of Violation/Order to Abate Violations charges that there are conditions constituting a nuisance at 1391 Miramonte Place are: Hedge/trees are not being maintained and exceed maximum 3 -foot height in front yard setback. RPMC § 1.24.030 D. 15, which states, Prohibits dead, decayed, diseased, or hazardous trees, weeds, and overgrown or uncultivated vegetation which are allowed to remain on property for at least seventy-two consecutive hours, which are a hazardous condition to pedestrian or vehicular traffic or which are likely to harbor rats, vermin, or constitute visual blight, or which may cause a danger to public safety. 130 Avram Avenue • Rohnert Park, CA 94928-2486 • (707) 588-2249 • Fax (707) 794-9242 • www.rpeity.org Determination, The City has determined that you have violated RPMC § 1.24.030 D.15 - Overgrown vegetation, RPMC § 1.24.030 D.23 - Conditions that violate the city's zoning ordinances and RPMC § 17.14.020 A.1- - No fence, wall, hedge or screen planting shall exceed a maximum height of three feet in the required front yard setback (20 -feet). Order to Abate Nuisance: As the owner of the described property at 1391 Miramonte Place, Rohnert Park, California, Assessor's Parcel No. 047-370-015, you are ORDERED to remove the overgrown vegetation and trees from the property by no later than MARCH 1, 2015. If you fail to remove the overgrown vegetation and trees from the property by that date, the RPMC § 1.24.170 provides that in the event the owner does not abate the nuisances the City will abate the nuisance, make the cost and administrative expenses a special assessment, and post a lien against the property pursuant to Government Code Section 38773.5 and 38773.1. This is in addition to any administrative fines that may be issued. Appeal Rights: An appeal of this administrative decision and order can be made in Sonoma Superior Court. A procedure for judicial review is governed by the provision of Code of Civil Procedure, Section 1094.6. The appeal must be made within thirty calendar days of the date of service of the decision. PLEASE NOTE: The effective date of this order will not be stayed while any appeals are made. U .. 00vstal Service,,;, CERTIFIE€ , AILi,.RECEIPT ' (.€JCi;aa>y5#i� i:;fai# t�r�ly'fvv irrsurriatca �over��e Provi#edt FrJFtlall+nary.Fn.alil+Lel��+#v':-.�crt'wwv,u~ipsv,r:,., frl M PATRICIA J. HASSMAN O Srrca 383 HOLLY DRIVE 17- or PC SAN RAFAEL. Cqq,�yA 94903-24 130 Avram Avenue . Rohnert Tian Masterson, earin s Officer Director of Public Safety ■ Complete items 1,v#?tnd 3. Also complete item 4 if Res tricted'Oetivery is desired. ® Print your name and address on the reverse so that we can return the card to you. ® Attach this card to the back of the mailpiece or on the front if space permits. 1. Article Addressed to: PATRICIA J. HASSMAN 383 HOLLY DRIVE SAN RAFAEL, CA 94903-2448 2. Article Number (Transfer from service label) PS Form 3811, February 2004 A. Signature XI fF'5- P ❑ Agent Q Addre, B. Received by(PrintedName) C. �A!`edf�7ei' ve ry J, 3 D. Is delivery address different from item 1? 0 Yes If YES, enter delivery address below: ❑ No 3. Se Ice Type ertifled Mall ❑ re*s Mail 11 Registered �ttrm Receipt for Merchandise Q Insured Mall ❑ C,O.D, 4. Restricted Delivery? (Extra Fee) 7013 1090 0001 4197 2504 Domestic Return Receipt O Yes 102595-02-M-1540 Certified l=ee r=I C3 Return Receipt Fee _ O (Endorsement Required) O Restricted Delivery Fee C3 (EndorsemcM Required) r]-' O Total Postage & Fees r� frl M PATRICIA J. HASSMAN O Srrca 383 HOLLY DRIVE 17- or PC SAN RAFAEL. Cqq,�yA 94903-24 130 Avram Avenue . Rohnert Tian Masterson, earin s Officer Director of Public Safety ■ Complete items 1,v#?tnd 3. Also complete item 4 if Res tricted'Oetivery is desired. ® Print your name and address on the reverse so that we can return the card to you. ® Attach this card to the back of the mailpiece or on the front if space permits. 1. Article Addressed to: PATRICIA J. HASSMAN 383 HOLLY DRIVE SAN RAFAEL, CA 94903-2448 2. Article Number (Transfer from service label) PS Form 3811, February 2004 A. Signature XI fF'5- P ❑ Agent Q Addre, B. Received by(PrintedName) C. �A!`edf�7ei' ve ry J, 3 D. Is delivery address different from item 1? 0 Yes If YES, enter delivery address below: ❑ No 3. Se Ice Type ertifled Mall ❑ re*s Mail 11 Registered �ttrm Receipt for Merchandise Q Insured Mall ❑ C,O.D, 4. Restricted Delivery? (Extra Fee) 7013 1090 0001 4197 2504 Domestic Return Receipt O Yes 102595-02-M-1540 City Council Amy 0. Ahanotu Mayor Gina Belforte Vice Mayor Joseph T. Callinan Jake Mackenzie Pam Stafford Councilmembers Darrin Jenkins City Manager Don Schwartz Assistant City Manager Michelle Marchetta Kenyon City Attorney Alexandra M. Barnhill Assistant City Attorney JoAnne Buergler City Clerk Betsy Howze Finance Director Brian Masterson Director of Public Safety John McArthur Director of Public Works and Community Services Victoria Perrault Human Resources Director Marilyn Ponton Director of Development Services Attachment 7 to Staff Report May 19, 2015 FIRST DEMAND FOR PAYMENT BY FIRST CLASS AND REGISTERED MAIL Patricia Hassman 383 Holly Dr. San Rafael, CA 94903 Address of Violation: 1391 Miramonte Pl., Rohnert Park, CA APN: 047-370- 015 Case: CE 14-0161 Dear Ms. Hassman The following is a demand for payment for the abatement of nuisance violations on the above referenced property. As a result of violations not being corrected, a hearing was held and the hearing officer ordered you to correct the violations on your property by March 1, 2015 or the city would abate the violations and bill you for the costs. You failed to abate the violations and the city abated the violations. The citation and abatement costs are as follows: Inspections, notices and staff report ....... 14 hours @ 51.00 per hr. _ $714.00 Abatement Hearing (3 -staff) ................ 3 hours @ 214.21 per hr. _ $642.63 Administrative Citation $4,800 Contractor Costs $500 Total: $6,656.63 Obligation to Pay City's Abatement Costs As was stated in previous notices and pursuant to RPMC Chapter 1.24, you are obligated to pay all of the City's costs associated with the abatement of nuisance violations on your property, including but not limited to the fees and costs of the City Attorney's office. In the event that you fail to remit the required payment in full, by May 29, 2015, the unpaid costs will be recoverable by use of all available legal means, including the recordation of a lien against the property. Please make your money order/check payable to the City of Rohnert Park, 130 Avram Ave., Rohnert Park CA 94928. Sincerely, Doug Hearn 130 Avram Avenue ♦ Rohnert Park CA ♦ 94928 ♦ (707) 588-2226 ♦ Fax (707) 792-1876 www.rpcity.org I ' - T 1 x k'` A, Statement of Costs Attachment 9 to Staff Report City of Rohnert Park 130 Avram Ave Rohnert Park, CA 94928 1391 Miramonte Place, Rohnert Park, CA APN #047-370-015 Case # 14-0161 Date Opened: 5/21/14 Case # 15-0585 Date opened: 9/24/15 DATE DESCRIPTION PERSONNEL HOURS RATE BALANCE 5/14-8/15 37 Inspections D Hearn 4.15 $51.00/hr $211.65 5/14-8/15 9 Letters Sent D Hearn 4.0 $51.00/hr $204.00 5/14-8/15 4 Phone Calls D Hearn .74 $51.00/hr $37.74 5/14-8/15 5 Conferences D Hearn 2.62 $51.00/hr $133.62 5/14-8/15 Case Preparation D Hearn 5.0 $51.00/hr $255.00 10/15-12/15 Case Preparation J Selberg 4.0 3.0 $46.00/hr $214.21/hr $184.00 $642.63 $4800.00 $500.00 2/10/15 Abatement Hearing 3 Staff 8/3/14 Citation 3/10/15 Contractor cost/abatement 5/14-2/16 Office Supplies and postage $46.00/hr $201.00/hr $100.00 1/16-2/15 Case Preparation J Selberg 5.0 1 $230.00 1$1005.00] 1/16-2/15 Case Preparation MG Pawson 5.0 Total 8303.64 Dout Hearn Code ComplianceOfficer RGS/Rohnert Park Jette Selberg Code Compliance Officer Rohnert Park 999 Attachment 10 to Staff Report NOTICE OF HEARING ON UNPAID COSTS (Rohnert Park Municipal Code § 1.24.200) BY FIRST CLASS MAIL AND REGISTERED MAIL HASSMAN PATRICIA J 383 HOLLY DR SAN RAFAEL CA, 94903-2448 Date: January 6, 2016 CITY OF ROHNERT PARK DEVELOPMENT SERVICES 130 Avram Avenue Rohnert Park, CA 94928 Phone: (707) 588-2249 Web: www.rpcity.org Address of Violation: 1391 MIRAMONTE PL ROHNERT PARK CA, APN #: 047-370-015, Case #: CE14- 0161 The City of Rohnert Park issued a Preliminary Notice on June 24, 2014 and a Notice and Order on July 17, 2014 both of which identified and ordered you to abate a public nuisance on your property, located at the above referenced address. Due to your failure to comply, a hearing was held on February 10, 2015 and the Hearing Officer issued a written order to abate on March 1, 2015. Because the nuisance was not abated within the specified time and a default judgment was filed against you, the City entered your property and abated the nuisance on March 10, 2015. The City has incurred costs in relation to this abatement matter which have been accounted for pursuant to Rohnert Park Municipal Code (RPMC) 1.24.190 in a statement of costs, which is attached for your reference as Exhibit A. The City now seeks to recover those costs. Obligation to Pay City's Abatement Costs As was previously stated in the Notice and Order, and the Preliminary Notice, pursuant to RPMC Chapter 1.24 you are obligated to pay all of the City's code compliance staff and inspection costs. In the event that you fail to remit the required payment in full, the unpaid costs will be recoverable by use of all available legal means, including the recordation of a lien against the property. Notice of Hearing on Unpaid Costs An accounting of the City's costs incurred in relation to this matter is attached to this letter, as Exhibit A for your information. A copy of this statement of costs will also be filed with the City Clerk. According to this accounting, the City's total costs incurred to date are $7137.64. Additional costs, estimated to be approximately $1,235,00, are expected to be incurred as part of the hearing. The City wishes to recoup City Attorneys' fees and additional staff costs that may be incurred in order to collect and/or impose the lien and have the Council approve a not -to -exceed amount to be finalized in an accounting based on actual costs. Because the costs may become a lien or special assessment on the property, before the City demands payment to recover these costs, City staff has requested that the City Council hold a public hearing to consider a report on the amounts due and owing, pursuant to the City's lien procedure. A hearing on the amount of debt owed to the City by the owner(s) of the above -referenced property will occur on January 26, 2016 at 6:00 pm at 130 Avram Ave. Pursuant to RPMC 1.27.060, you, or any person having any record, title or legal interest in the property, may raise any objections to the City's accounting and/or potential imposition of a lien or special assessment. Prior to the City Council hearing, you may file a written protest with the Code Compliance Officer, jette Selberg, by mail at 130 Avram Avenue, Rohnert Park, CA 94928. At the hearing, you may make an oral protest during the public comment period, by identifying yourself and stating the grounds for the objection. Failure to object will constitute of a waiver of all rights to a City Council determination of the matter. Upon considering the evidence and testimony presented at the hearing, the City Council will adopt a resolution confirming, discharging or modifying the amount of the debt. The order of the City Council shall be final and conclusive. Remission of Payment Upon the City Council's confirmation of the outstanding debt by resolution, you will be required to remit the monies to the City within 45 calendar days, pursuant to Government Code Section 38773.1. During the 45 -day payment period, the City shall record a Notice of Pending Lien on your property. A copy of the Notice of Pending Lien is attached as Exhibit B. The Notice of Pending Lien shall remain recorded until such time as payment is remitted in full or it is replaced by recordation of a Notice of Lien. Lien Recordation and Satisfaction In the event that you fail to timely remit the required payment in full, the unpaid costs will be recoverable by a lien against the property. After the 45 -day payment period has expired, the City Clerk shall file a copy of the City Council's resolution and a Notice of Lien indicating the outstanding balance as a judgment lien in the office of the recorder of Sonoma County, California. The lien may carry such additional administrative charges as are set forth by resolution of the City Council. Once payment in full is received by the City for outstanding penalties and costs, the City Clerk shall either record a notice of satisfaction or provide the property owner or financial institution with a notice of satisfaction so they may record such notice with the Office of the County Recorder. Such notice of satisfaction shall cancel the City's lien. If you have any questions regarding this Notice of Hearing on Unpaid Costs, feel free to call me at (707) 588- 2249 or send an email to jselberg@[p ty.org. Sincerely, 'VAL Jette Selberg Code Compliance Officer (707) 588-2249 jselberg@[pcit Enc: Exhibit A: Statement of Costs Exhibit B: Notice of Pending Lien PROOF OF SERVICE BY MAIL CITY OF ROHNERT PARK DEVELOPMENT SERVICES 130 Avram Avenue Rohnert Park, CA 94928 Phone: (707) 588-2249 Web: www.rpcity.org I am a citizen of the United States and employed in the County of Sonoma, State of California, and over the age of eighteen (18) years: my business address is City Hall, 130 Avram Avenue, Rohnert Park, California 94928. I am familiar with the practice of the City of Rohnert Park for collection and processing of correspondence for mailing with the United States Postal Service. It is the practice that correspondence is deposited with the United States Postal Service the same day it is submitted for mailing. On January 6, 2016, I served the following person: HASSMAN PATRICIA J at: 383 HOLLY DR SAN RAFAEL CA, 94903-2448 by mailing a true copy of. Notice of Hearing - Unpaid Costs I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing identified envelope was sealed and mailed first class and registered postage fully prepaid placed thereon, in the United States mail at Rohnert Park, California. Executed at Rohnert Park, California, on the 5th day of January, 2016 Signed: /J Mail Fee ❑ Return Receipt (hardcopy) $ Priority Mall Express® ❑ Return Receipt (electronic) $ Post ❑ Certified Mail Restricted Delivery $ He ❑ Adult Signature Reculred S ❑ Adult Signature Restricted Delivery S X//II I 'ostage ❑ Rettvn Receipt for ❑ Collect on Delivery btal Postage and Fees f ey ----iU9le"/[ -/r- 1 --•--...._ ■ Complete items'1, 2, and 3. ■ Print your name and address on the reverse so that we can return the card to you. ■ Attach this card to the back of the mailplece, or on the front if space permits. 1. Article Addressed to: ,3$31-4 A62- 9590 29590 9402 1331 5285 1998 61 A. §qnature X /(` ❑ Agent ri 13 Addressee B. Rocelved by Printed Name) C. Date of Delivery D. Is delivery address different from item 17 ❑ Yes If YES, enter delivery address below: ❑ No 3. Service Type 2. Article Number (Transfer from service label) 10 Collect on Delivery Restricted Delivery gnat Priority Mall Express® 0 Adult. Slgrialture eWeglstered MallT r� Adult Slgnalure Restricted Delivery ❑ Reg€stered Mall Restricted' iSy Cort lied Mall® Delivery ❑ Certlfled Mall Restricted Delivery ❑ Rettvn Receipt for ❑ Collect on Delivery . Merchandise ❑ SI C fl -1—TM ure on rrn 11 Signature Co 7 015 1730 0001 6366 3076 I Restricted Delivery Restricted Delivery on �PS Form 3811, July 2015 PSN 7530-02-000-9053 Domestic Return Recelpt RESOLUTION 2016-011 RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROHNERT PARK APPROVING A STATEMENT OF COSTS AND ESTABLISHING A LIENAGAINST THE VACANT REAL PROPERTY LOCATED AT 1391 MIRAMONTE PL, ROHNERT PARK CA, APN- 047-370-015 PURSUANT TO ROHNERT PARK MUNICIPLE CODE SECTIONS 1.24.200, AND 1.27.050 AND GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 38773.1 WHEREAS, On May 21, 2014, staff received a written complaint regarding lack of maintenance and the condition of property at 1391 Miramonte Place, Rohnert Park, California, Assessor Parcel No. 047-370-015 ("Property"); and WHEREAS, City staff inspected the Property and identified several code violations that threatened the public's health, safety and welfare; and WHEREAS, on June 24, 2014, the property owner was notified of nuisance violations on her property and requested to abate the violations; and WHEREAS, on July 17, 2014, the City re -inspected the Property and the violations had not been abated. The property owner was served a Notice of Violation, ordering the violations abated; and WHEREAS, on August 13, 2014, the violations had not been abated and the property owner was issued an administrative citation; and WHEREAS, on September 30, 2014, the City re -inspected and found violations unresolved; and WHEREAS, on January 27, 2015, pursuant to Chapter 1.26 of the Rohnert Park Municipal Code ("Code"), the property owner was notified of an administrative hearing on the unabated nuisance. The notice ordered the owner to attend the hearing to show cause why the City should not abate the nuisance and impose the costs of doing so on the owner; and WHEREAS, February 10, 2015, the hearing for the unabated nuisance was held and the owner failed to appear, forfeiting the right to object to the City's nuisance abatement efforts; WHEREAS, on February 10, 2015, the hearing officer confirmed the violation and served the property owner with the decision ordering the violations be corrected by March 1, 2015; and WHEREAS, on March 10, 2015, the violation was not abated and the city hired a contractor and removed the violation; and WHEREAS, the City of Rohnert Park is authorized, pursuant to the Rohnert Park Municipal Code 1.24.190, to recover all costs associated with nuisance abatement including, but limited to notices, inspections, hearings and attorney fees; and WHEREAS, the City of Rohnert Park is authorized, pursuant to Rohnert Park Municipal Code 1.24.030, 1.27.050 and Government Code 38773.1 to adopt a statement of costs for the nuisance abatement efforts and place a lien against vacant real property for recovery of those nuisance abatement costs; and WHEREAS, on January 26, 2016, pursuant to Rohnert Park Municipal Code 1.24.200, the City Council held a duly noticed public hearing to consider the statement of costs and expenses of the abatement and the lien to be imposed on the owner's property, at which time, all interested parties were given an opportunity to be heard and present evidence. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF ROHNERT PARK Section 1. Recitals and Findings. The above recitals are true and correct and material to this Resolution and in making this finding, the Council relied upon and hereby incorporates by reference all staff reports, presentations, and other documentation presented to the Council. Section 2. Determination of the Cost of Abatement. Pursuant to Rohnert Park Municipal Code Section 1.24.200, the City Council hereby confirms the assessment in the amount of eight thousand, three hundred three dollars and sixty four cents ($8,303.64) on the property located at 1391 Miramonte Place, Rohnert Park, California, Assessor Parcel No. 047-370-015, based on the accounting of the costs incurred by the City in connection with the nuisance abatement on Property and as presented in Exhibit A, which is attached hereto and incorporated by this reference. Section 3: Lien. Pursuant to Rohnert Park Municipal Code Section 1.27.050, the abatement costs in Exhibit A shall be imposed as a nuisance abatement lien upon the property located at 1391 Miramonte Place, Rohnert Park, California, Assessor Parcel No. 047-370-015 as provided for in Rohnert Park Municipal Code Chapter 1.27. Section 4: Recordation of Pending Lien. Upon adoption of this Resolution, the City Clerk is hereby directed to record a notice of pending lien against the Property with the County of Sonoma Recorders Office in substantially similar form as Exhibit B, attached hereto and incorporated by this reference. Section 5. Recordation of Lien. In the event that the costs established in this Resolution are not repaid within 45 calendar days of the adoption of this Resolution, the City Clerk is hereby directed to record a notice of lien against the property with the County of Sonoma Recorders Office in substantially similar form as Exhibit C, attached hereto and incorporated by this reference. KDIGEIJII Section 6. Satisfaction. Once payment in full is received by the city, the director of finance shall either record a notice of satisfaction or provide the property owner with a notice of satisfaction so they may record this notice with the County of Sonoma Recorders Office. Such notice of satisfaction shall cancel the city's lien. DULY AND REGULARLY ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Rohnert Park this 26th day of January, 2016. CITY OF ROHNERT PARK Gina Belforte, Mayor ATTEST: JoAnne Buergler, City Clerk Exhibit A: Statement of Costs Exhibit B: Notice of Pending Lien Exhibit C: Notice of Lien AHANOTU: CALLINAN: STAFFORD: MACKENZIE: BELFORTE: AYES: ( ) NOES: ( ) ABSENT:( ) ABSTAIN: ( ) 3 2016-011 A, Statement of Costs Exhibit A to Resolution City of Rohnert Park 130 Avram Ave Rohnert Park, CA 94928 1391 Miramonte Place, Rohnert Park, CA APN #047-370-015 Case # 14-0161 Date Opened: 5/21/14 Case # 15-0585 Date opened: 9/24/15 DATE DESCRIPTION PERSONNEL HOURS RATE BALANCE 5/14-8/15 37 Inspections D Hearn 4.15 $51.00/hr $211.65 5/14-8/15 9 Letters Sent D Hearn 4.0 $51.00/hr $204.00 5/14-8/15 4 Phone Calls D Hearn .74 $51.00/hr $37.74 5/14-8/15 5 Conferences D Hearn 2.62 $51.00/hr $133.62 5/14-8/15 Case Preparation D Hearn 5.0 $51.00/hr $255.00 10/15-12/15 Case Preparation J Selberg 4.0 3.0 $46.00/hr $214.21/hr $184.00 $642.63 $4800.00 $500.00 2/10/15 Abatement Hearing 3 Staff 8/3/14 Citation 3/10/15 Contractor cost/abatement 5/14-2/16 Office Supplies and postage $46.00/hr $201.00/hr $100.00 1/16-2/15 Case Preparation J Selberg 5.0 1 $230.00 1$1005.00] 1/16-2/15 Case Preparation MG Pawson 5.0 Total 8303.64 Dout Hearn Code ComplianceOfficer RGS/Rohnert Park Jette Selberg Code Compliance Officer Rohnert Park Exhibit B to Resolution RECORDING REQUESTED BY: CITY OF ROHNERT PARK WHEN RECORDED MAIL TO: CODE COMPLIANCE DIVISION 130 Avram Ave. Rohnert Park. CA 94928 SPACE ABOVE THIS LINE FOR RECORDER'S USE NOTICE OF PENDING LIEN APN#:047-370-015 AKA: 1391 MIRAMONTE PL SAN RAFAEL CA 94903-2448 Notice is hereby given that, pursuant to the provisions of Chapter 1.24 of the Rohnert Park Municipal Code (RPMC), the City of Rohnert Park has incurred the cost of inspections and abatement of the property described below. The City of Rohnert Park intends to impose a lien against the property described below to recover the cost of such inspections, plus appropriate fees and fines, as authorized by RPMC Sections 1.24.170, 1.24.180, 1.24.190, and 1 .27.050 upon confirmation of the City Council. For further information regarding this notice and the status of Department proceedings, please contact Jette Selberg of the Code Compliance Division between 9:00 a.m. and 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday. Telephone Number: (707) 588-2249 Office Location: 130 Avram Avenue, Rohnert Park The property subject to this Notice of Pending Lien is that certain real property in the City of Rohnert Park, County of Sonoma, State of California, described as follows: [INSERT LEGAL DESCRIPTION] THIS NOTICE WILL CONTINUE IN FULL FORCE AND EFFECT UNTIL THE CITY OF ROHNERT PARK RECORDS A SUBSEQUENT NOTICE OF TERMINATION OF PENDING LIEN OR A NOTICE OF LIEN. DATED: This OWNER(S): HASSMAN PATRICIA J 383 HOLLY DR SAN RAFAEL CA, 94903-2448 OAK 44810-8771-1788 v] Day of 12016. CITY OF ROHNERT PARK Jette Selberg City of Rohnert Park, Code Compliance Officer Development Services By Jette Selberg PROOF OF SERVICE BY MAIL CITY OF ROHNERT PARK DEVELOPMENT SERVICES 130 Avram Avenue Rohnert Park, CA 94928 Phone: (707) 588-2249 Web: www.rpciiy.org I am a citizen of the United States and employed in the County of Sonoma, State of California, and over the age of eighteen (18) years: my business address is City Hall, 130 Avram Avenue, Rohnert Park, California 94928. 1 am familiar with the practice of the City of Rohnert Park for collection and processing of correspondence for mailing with the United States Postal Service. It is the practice that correspondence is deposited with the United States Postal Service the same day it is submitted for mailing. On (DATE), I served the following person: (NAME) (LOCATION) by mailing a true copy of. Notice of Lien - Pending I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing identified envelope was sealed and mailed first class and register postage fully prepaid placed thereon, in the United States mail at Rohnert Park, California. Executed at Rohnert Park, California, on the day of , 2016. Signed: OAK #4810-8771-1788 v1 RECORDING REQUESTED BY: CITY OF ROHNERT PARK WHEN RECORDED MAIL TO: CODE COMPLIANCE DIVISION 130 Avram Ave. Rohnert Park, CA 94928 Exhibit C to Resolution SPACE ABOVE THIS LINE FOR RECORDER'S USE NOTICE OF LIEN APN#: 047-370-015 AKA: 1391 MIRAMONTE PL SAN RAFAEL CA 94903-2448 Pursuant to the authority vested by the provisions of Sections 1 .24.190, 1.24.200, 1.24.2 10 and 1 .24.230 of the Rohnert Park Municipal Code and pursuant to the confirmation of the City Council on [INSERT DATE OF CITY COUNCIL HEARING], the City of Rohnert Park hereby claims a lien in the sum $---------- plus daily interest at the legal rate set forth in California Code of Civil Procedure section 685.010 from [INSERT DATE OF CITY COUNCIL HEARING], against the property described below to recover inspection costs, plus appropriate fees and fines, incurred in relation to the property. The property subject to this Notice of Lien is that certain real property in the City of Rohnert Park, County of Sonoma, State of California, described as follows: [INSERT LEGAL DESCRIPTION] THIS LIEN WILL CONTINUE IN FULL FORCE AND EFFECT UNTIL THE CITY OF ROHNERT PARK RECORDS A SUBSEQUENT RELEASE OF LIEN. DATED: This OWNER(S): HASSMAN PATRICIA J 383 HOLLY DR SAN RAFAEL CA, 94903-2448 OAK #4810-8771-1788 v] Day of 12016. CITY OF ROHNERT PARK Jette Selberg City of Rohnert Park, Code Compliance Officer Development Services By Jette Selberg PROOF OF SERVICE BY MAIL CITY OF ROHNERT PARK DEVELOPMENT SERVICES 130 Avram Avenue Rohnert Park, CA 94928 Phone: (707) 588-2249 Web: www.rpciiy.org I am a citizen of the United States and employed in the County of Sonoma, State of California, and over the age of eighteen (18) years: my business address is City Hall, 130 Avram Avenue, Rohnert Park, California 94928. 1 am familiar with the practice of the City of Rohnert Park for collection and processing of correspondence for mailing with the United States Postal Service. It is the practice that correspondence is deposited with the United States Postal Service the same day it is submitted for mailing. On (DATE), I served the following person: (NAME) (LOCATION) by mailing a true copy of. Notice of Lien I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing identified envelope was sealed and mailed first class and register postage fully prepaid placed thereon, in the United States mail at Rohnert Park, California. Executed at Rohnert Park, California, on the day of , 2016. Signed: OAK #4810-8771-1788 v1 Statement of Costs and Property Lien 1391 M i ramonte Place for Nuisance Abatement Costs January 2016 19 vot,NERT P4 `L�`1LIFOR'S 1-�� 62 Case History August 2013 — case resolved May 2014 - new complaint Preliminary and Final Notices of Violation Administrative Citation Administrative Hearing &Fine (February 2015) Abandoned vehicle abated through RPMC Section 8.16 City retained contractor to abate vegetation and clear right-of-way w Mm reraq A 3 F , rors F. drmw�M ' t � + , t ##44;ir *��►i{,� {{yyam�� ,, �, t Original Demand for Payment May 2015 - $6,656.50 $4,800.00 Fine for Citation $ 500.00 Cost of Contractor $1,356.50 Staff Time Proposed Lien - $8,303.64 $6,656.50 — Original Demand $1,647.14—Additional Staff Time City is not seeking to recover legal costs associated with bringing this item to Council Next Steps Council Consideration of Lien Notice of Preliminary Lien filed with County Property Owner has an additional 45 -days to male arrangements for payment If no payment made, Notice of Lien filed with County City would recover costs when property is sold in the future 01;N T Mission Statement "We Care for Our Residents by Working Together to Build a Better Community for Today and Tomorrow." Catr�vnr�t" CITY OF ROHNERT PARK CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT Meeting Date: January 26, 2015 Department: Administration Submitted By: Darrin Jenkins, City Manager Prepared By: Carol Adams, Executive Asst. to the City Manager Agenda Title: Sonoma County Mayors' and Councilmembers' Association Matters RECOMMENDED ACTION: ITEM NO. 13 1.) Consider supporting the requests of council members for appointment to the League of California Cities North Bay Division, Executive Board Alternate for a two-year term ending February 2018; 2.) Create list of `regional issues of significance' for submission to the Mayors' and Councilmembers' Association Board on February 11, 2016 for further consideration; and 3.) Confirm Mayor's letter designating an alternate voting representative to attend Mayors' and Councilmembers' Association meetings. BACKGROUND: The Sonoma County Mayors' and Councilmembers' Association Board of Directors (Association) and the City Selection Committee (Committee) is a collaboration of all Sonoma County cities with a goal of creating a united front to represent the strongest voice possible in support of city interests. At its next board meeting on February 11, 2016, the Association Board and Committee will consider several matters of business including appointment to existing vacant committee positions, acceptance of voting delegate letters, and the compilation of the list of regional issues of significance with a purpose of guiding the 2016 meeting program format. ANALYSIS: Letters of Interest At its next board meeting on February 11, 2016, the Association Board of Directors will consider appointment to fill a 2 -year term ending February 2018 on the North Bay Division, League of California Cities Executive Board. Two letters of interest for this vacancy were received from Mark Millan, Mayor (Town of Windsor) and Chris Albertson, Councilmember (City of Petaluma) which are attached for consideration of support by Council (Attachment 1). List of Regional Issues of Significance On October 8, 2015, the Association Board of Directors took action requesting each city/town consider submitting lists of regional issues of significance they would like considered by the Association's General Membership. The intent of this request is to help determine the programming content for the 2016 General Membership quarterly meetings. Lists of significant issues submitted by the various partner cities will be considered by the Association Board at its meeting on February 11, 2016. [Version 2 - 12/18/2015] ITEM NO. 13 Mayor's Voting Delegate Each year, the Mayor for each city designates a voting delegate to vote in the event the Mayor is unable to attend meetings related to the Committee and/or Association. The attached letter indicates the Mayor's designation for Rohnert Park's voting delegate to serve in this capacity and is submitted to Council for confirmation (Attachment 3). STRATEGIC PLAN ALIGNMENT: This item aligns with the City's Strategic Plan Goal A & C by facilitating participative leadership at all levels while also ensuring the effective delivery of public services. OPTIONS CONSIDERED: 1. Recommended Option: Staff recommends following the course of action outlined in this report. No other options were considered as these actions are initiated by previously established Association and Committee protocols. FISCAL IMPACT/FUNDING SOURCE: N/A Department Head Approval Date: N/A Finance Director Approval Date: N/A City Attorney Approval Date: N/A City Manager Approval Date: 1/15/16 Attachments (list in packet assembly order): Letters of Interest for League of California Cities North Bay Division, Executive Board Alternate 2. Draft Regional Issues of Significance Letter 3. Draft Voting Representative Delegation Letter [Version 2 - 12/18/2015] 2 TOWN OF December 16, 2015 WINDSOR Sonoma County Mayors' and Councilmembers' Association Town of Windsor c/o: Katie Crump 9291 Old Redwood Highway P.O. Box 100 Windsor, CA 95492-0100 RE: North Bay Division, LOCO, Executive Board Appointment Phone: (707) 83 8-1000 Fax: (707) 838-7349 www.townofwindsor.com Dear Mayors and Councilmembers: I am asking for your support for appointment to the North Bay Division, League Mayor of California Cities (LOCC), Executive Board position. I have experience Mark Millan working with local, regional and state agencies in regard to energy and water, and Vice Mayor water recycling related issues for over twenty years. Debora Fudge My experience and involvement in the County community has given me a broad Councilmembers understanding of the various needs of the cities here in Sonoma Count from Dominic Foppoli g y Bruce Okrepkie housing and transportation to water and natural resources. I currently serve on the Baro salmon Water Advisory Committee (WAC) and on the Russian River Watershed Town Manager Association (RRWA) board. Linda Kelly Therefore, I would like to offer my experience, and would appreciate your support for the opportunity to serve. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me at (707) 836-0300 or via email at mmillan@townofwindsor.com. Thank you for your consideration. Sincer ly, n ark Millan Mayor cc: Town Council L. Kelly I:\01 - Town Council\Correspondence & Misc Info\2015\Millan Marl, North Bay Division LOCC Executive Board Letter of Interest 12-17-15 mm.docx Printed on recycled paper Chris Albertson Councilmember Pelahima City Hall 11 English Street Petaluma, CA 94952 Msg Phone (707)778-4525 Fax (707) 778-4419 E -Mail councilman.alberlson@gmail.com CITY OF PETALUMA POST OFFICE Box 61 PETALUMA, CA 94953-0061 December 10, 2015 Board of Directors Sonoma County Mayor's and Councilmembers Association Re: Appointment to the North Bay Division LOCC Executive Board Dear Board of Directors, I am submitting my name for consideration to the North Bay Executive Board of the League of California Cities. I have been involved with the LOCC for several decades, first as a member of the Fire Chiefs Section and more recently as a member of the Petaluma City Council. Currently, I serve as the alternate member of the Sonoma County representatives to the Executive Board. I request your support for an appointment as a regular member of the Executive Board for the two year term. Respectfully, Chris Albertson, City Councilman City Council Gina Belforte Mayor Jake Mackenzie Vice Mayor Amy 0. Ahanotu Joseph T. Callinan Pam Stafford Councilmembers Darrin Jenkins City Manager Don Schwartz Assistant City Manager Michelle Marchetta Kenyon City Attorney Alexandra M. Barnhill Assistant City Attorney JoAnne Buergler City Clerk Betsy Howze Finance Director Brian Masterson Director of Public Safety John McArthur Director of Public Works and Community Services Mary Grace Pawson Director of Development Services Victoria Perrault Human Resources Director Attachment 2 January 26, 2016 Mayor David Glass Sonoma County Mayors' & Councilmembers' Assoc. City of Petaluma 11 English Street Petaluma, CA 94952 RE: Regional Issues of Significance Dear Mayor Glass, On October 8, 2015, the Sonoma County Mayors' & Councilmembers' Association Board of Directors took action requesting each city/town consider submitting a list of regional issues of significance they would like considered by the Association's General Membership in 2016. The Rohnert Park City Council approved the following list of regional topics at its January 26, 2016 meeting and is being submitted to the Association's Board of Directors for discussion and consideration on February 11, 2016. 1. 2. 3. Thank you for your consideration of these topics. Please let me know if you have any questions. Sincerely, CITY OF ROHNERT PARK Gina Belforte Mayor Cc: City Council 130 Avram Avenue ♦ Rohnert Park CA ♦ 94928 ♦ (707) 588-2226 ♦ Fax (707) 794-9248 www.rpcity.org January 26, 2016 Attachment 3 City Council Gina Belforte Sonoma County Mayors' & Councilmembers' Association Mayor c/o Katie Crump, City of Petaluma Jake Mackenzie Via e-mail: kcrump@ci.petaluma.ca.us Vice Mayor Amy 0. Ahanotu City Selection Committee Joseph T. Callinan c/o Darin A. Bartow, Clerk Pam Stafford Via e-mail: darin.bartow@sonoma-county.org Councilmembers To Whom It May Concern: Darrin Jenkins City Manager In the event that I am unable to attend a meeting of the City Selection Don Schwartz Committee or the Board of Directors of the Sonoma County Mayors' and Assistant City Manager Councilmembers' Association, Vice Mayor Jake Mackenzie is my Michelle Marchetta Kenyon designated representative who may vote in my place on all occasions. City Attorney Alexandra M. Barnhill Sincerely, Assistant City Attorney CITY OF ROHNERT PARK JoAnne Buergler City Clerk Betsy Howze Finance Director Gina Belforte Brian Masterson Director of Public Safety Mayor John McArthur Director of Public Works and cc: City Council Community Services Mary Grace Pawson Director of Development Services Victoria Perrault Human Resources Director 130 Avram Avenue ♦ Rohnert Park CA ♦ 94928 ♦ (707) 588-2226 ♦ Fax (707) 794-9248 www.rpcity.org OFFICE OF THE CITY MANAGER 130 Avram Avenue, Rohnert Park, CA 94928 (707) 588-2223, Fax (707) 794-9248 MEMORANDUM TO: Mayor and City Councilmembers FROM: Darrin Jenkins, City Manager DATE: January 22, 2016 SUBJECT: 1/26/16 Supplemental Agenda Item — Mayors' and Councilmembers' Assoc. Matters Regarding City Council Agenda Item No. 13.13— Mayor's letter listing regional topics of significance for report to the Mayors and Councilmembers Association (Association) Board on February 11, 2016, the attached letters from Town of Windsor and City of Healdsburg were recently distributed by the Association Secretary and are provided to you in consideration of developing Rohnert Park's list of regional topics of significance. TOWN OF December 14, 2015 WINDSOR Mayor David Glass Sonoma County Mayors' and Councilmembers' Association Town of Windsor City of Petaluma 9291 Old Redwood Highway P.O. Box 100 11 English Street Windsor, CA 95492-0100 Petaluma, CA 94952 Phone: (707) 838-1000 Fax: (707) 838-7349 www.townofwindsor.com Dear Mayor Glass: At the Sonoma County Mayors' and Councilmembers' Association meeting held Mayor on October 8, 2015, the Board of Directors took action to request that each Mark Millan city/town consider submitting suggestions for regional issues of significance they Vice Mayor would like the Association General Membership to take up as issues in 2016. Debora Fudge The Windsor Town Council, at its December 2, 2015 meeting, directed Town Councilmembers staff to submit the Town Council's top issues of regional concern to the Mayors' Dominic Foppoli Bruce Okrepkie and Councilmembers, Association Board of Directors for the Association's Sam Salmon discussion and consideration for 2016 as follows: Town Manager Linda Kelly • Affordable Housing • Medical Marijuana • Post -redevelopment financing • Infrastructure financing • Waste management - composting Thank you, and please let me know if you have any questions. Sincerely, V�nda Kelly )Y1 Town Manager 1:\10 - Town Manager's Office\Linda Kelly\Correspondence\2015\City of Petaluma M&CA List of Priorities 12-09- 15.docx Printed on recycled paper January 14, 2016 CITY OF HEALDSBURG ADMINISTRATION Mayor David Glass Sonoma County Mayors' and Councilmembers' Association City of Petaluma 11 English Street Petaluma, CA 94952 Dear Mayor Glass: 401 Grove Street Healdsburg, CA 95448-4723 Phone: (707) 431-3317 Fax: (707) 431-3321 Visit us at www.ei.healdsburg.ea.us At the Sonoma County Mayors' and Councilmembers' Association meeting held on October 8, 2015, the Board of Directors took action to request that each city/town consider submitting suggestions for regional issues of significance they would like the Association General Membership to take up as issues in 2016. The Healdsburg City Council's top issues of regional concern for the Association's discussion and consideration in 2016 are as follows: • Affordable Housing • Transportation funding (road funding) • Tax increment financing (post RDA options) • Homelessness Please let me know if you have any questions or need additional information. S' cerely, r � David Mickaelian City Manager cc: City Council �oHKg RT P4 kr ITEM NO. 14 Mission Statement "We Care for Our Residents by Working Together to Build a Better Communityfor Today and Tomorrow." CITY OF ROHNERT PARK CITY COUNCIL AGENDA REPORT Meeting Date: January 26, 2015 Department: Administration Submitted By: Darrin Jenkins, City Manager Prepared By: Carol Adams, Executive Asst. to the City Manager Agenda Title: 2016 City Council Committee Appointments and Liaison Assignments to Various Outside Agencies RECOMMENDED ACTIONS: 1.) Announce Mayor's assignment of Councilmembers to the City's various standing, ad hoc committees and liaison assignments; and 2.) Confirm the Mayor's appointment of Councilmembers to various outside agencies and liaison assignments. BACKGROUND: Each year with the seating of a new Mayor, council member assignments to City committees as well as liaison assignments and outside agency appointments are considered. The City Council Protocols outline the purpose, process and procedures for committee formation, assignments, and appointments. City Committees The City Council forms internal committees (standing and ad hoc) from time to time with the purpose of studying, investigating, and making recommendations to the full Council regarding specific topics relevant to the organization. The differentiating factor in determining whether a Standing Committee or an Ad Hoc Committee is more appropriate is contingent upon the anticipated duration of a proposed committee. Ad hoc committees are typically formed for a limited time of no more than 12 months and have a specific purpose outlined, whereas standing committees tend to be more enduring with a broader scope of duties defined. Per City Council Protocols (Attachment 1), when establishing an ad hoc committee, the Mayor designates the term of the committee and appoints council members to each established committee. Liaison Assignments There are a number of internal and external agencies where council members serve as liaisons. Examples include the Rohnert Park Chamber of Commerce, Golf Course Oversight Committee, Rohnert Park Library Advisory Board, and Senior Citizens Advisory Committee. Per the Protocols, these assignments are made by the Mayor. Outside Appointments The City is a member of a number of joint powers authorities, governmental agencies, and advisory groups. Examples include Russian River Watershed Association, Sonoma County [Version 2 - 12/18/2015] ITEM NO. 14 Transportation Authority, Sonoma County Waste Management Agency, Redwood Empire Municipal Insurance Fund, Sonoma Clean Power, and the Water Advisory Committee. The City selects representatives to serve on the boards of these agencies. Per the Protocols, these appointments are made by the Mayor and confirmed by the City Council. At the January 26, 2016 City Council Meeting, appointments to committees, liaison assignments and outside agency appointments will be announced. The outside agency appointments require City Council confirmation per the Protocols. STRATEGIC PLAN ALIGNMENT: This item aligns with the City's Strategic Plan Goal A & C by facilitating participative leadership at all levels while also ensuring the effective delivery of public services. OPTIONS CONSIDERED: No other options were considered as these actions are governed by City Council Protocols. FISCAL IMPACT/FUNDING SOURCE: N/A Department Head Approval Date: N/A Finance Director Approval Date: N/A City Attorney Approval Date: N/A City Manager Approval Date: 1/15/16 Attachments (list in packet assembly order): 1. City Council Protocol References 2. List of Proposed Council Committee & Liaison Appointments for 2016 (to be distributed at meeting) Attachment 1 City Council Protocols - References VIII. LIAISON ASSIGNMENTS The Mayor assigns liaisons to various outside agencies, committees, commissions, boards, and taskforces. 1. Unless acting in an official liaison capacity, individual Councilmembers should refrain from attending meetings organized or chaired by City staff which are not open to the public. 2. Liaisons are obligated to keep Council well informed on activities pertaining to Rohnert Park via the Council Committee and Other Reports at Council meetings. 3. City staff may serve as a liaison with the concurrence of the City Manager. IX. OUTSIDE AGENCY APPOINTMENTS The Mayor nominates and the City Council confirms by majority vote of the membership appointments to outside agencies, committees, commissions, boards, and taskforces. 1. An appointee's role is to represent the City on matters affecting the City of Rohnert Park. Appointees have no authority to appropriate City funds except as otherwise approved by the City Council. 2. Appointees are obligated to keep Council well informed via Council meetings or City staff. 3. Appointees are expected to attend meetings on a regular and consistent basis. 4. Each appointees serves at the pleasure of the City Council. Any City Councilmember may bring forward a proposal to remove an appointee. Three affirmative votes of the City Council are required to remove an appointee. 5. City staff may be appointed with the concurrence of the City Manager. X. COUNCIL COMMITTEES A. Purpose The City Council from time to time forms committees. These committees are formed to study, investigate, and make recommendations to the full Council regarding specific topics. In some instances these are standing committees and in other instances these are ad hoc committees. In order for the committees to serve effectively, it is necessary to establish certain policies for the conduct of City business by committees. B. Appointment Council committees will be appointed by the Mayor. Committee members will be promptly notified of their selection and the scope of the committee assignment. The Mayor will designate the term of the committee and identify whether it is a standing appointment (on-going) or a short-term (ad hoc) assignment. 1. Standing Committee is a committee that has a continuing subject matter jurisdiction or has a meeting schedule that is fixed by the Council. Attachment 1 2. Ad Hoc Committee is a committee that has a specific purpose and limited duration, does not have a continuing subject matter jurisdiction, and does not have a meeting schedule that is fixed by the Council. C. Conflict of Interest Should an appointee to a committee discover a conflict of interest with his/her appointment to the committee, that discovery will be communicated to the Mayor immediately. D. Committee Meetings Council committee meetings will be scheduled at times which allow for each member to attend. Each member should make an effort to accommodate the committee meeting schedule. The schedule of committee meetings will be promptly communicated to each committee member. Individual committee members will not meet with other citizens or organizations during a fact finding process or other reason associated with the scope of the committee's purpose without the knowledge of all committee members. E. Communications Committee members are obligated to keep all members well informed via the Council Committee and Other Reports at Council meetings, and will not purposely harbor or keep relevant information from other members. F. Committee Materials Meeting agendas will be compiled by staff with input from each committee member. Committee materials will be provided to each committee member. These materials will be distributed to each committee member at the same time. Special arrangements may be made with committee members who are out of town when materials are distributed. G. Committee Recommendations Generally, committee members should reach agreement on findings and recommendations to present to the City Council. When the opinions of committee members are divergent, each member may submit his/her findings and recommendations separately to the City Council. Although written minutes of each committee meeting are not required, committee findings and recommendations should be presented to the City Council in a written document. H. Staffing Councilmembers assigned to committees will observe the City Council Protocols regarding staff assignment of duties. Only the City Manager will assign staff to committees for the purposes of administrative services, to attend committee meetings, and to assist with committee presentations to the City Council. Attachment 2 Rohnert Park City Council List of Proposed Committee & Liaison Appointments — 2016 Item to be Distributed at Meeting Standina & Ad Hoc Committees Rohnert Park City Council Committee & Liaison Assignments - 2016 ,-n IV6. r . Standing Committees Mayor's Appointees 1. Economic Development 2. Waste and Recycling 3. • Water/Wastewater Issues (to include Creek Master Plan Sub.) Ahanotu/Belforte Ahanotu/Stafford Mackenzie/8eiforte Ad Hoc Committees Mayor's Appointees 1.' Education Callinan/Belforte Liaison Assi'anments & Outside Aaencv Anpointments Liaison Assignments Mayor's Appointee Alternate 1. Chamber of Commerce (Board of Directors) Golf Course Oversight Committee Stafford j Ahanotu Callinan Belforte 2. 3.' Library Advisory Board Ahanotu Stafford 4. Senior Citizens Advisory Committee Belforte Mackenzie Paul Libeu Mayor's Appointee 4. Outside Agency Appointments (with Council confirmation) Alternate 1. Association of Bay Area Governments General Assembly (ABAG) Mackenzie Belforte 2. Health Action Council Belforte Ahanotu 3. Mayors & Councilmembers Legislative Committee Belforte I Mackenzie 4. Redwood Empire Municipal Insurance Fund (REMIF) Board Jenkins Perrault S. Russian River Watershed Association Stafford Ahanotu 6. Sonoma County Transportation Authority/Regional Climate Protection Authority (SCTA/RCPA) Mackenzie Belforte Stafford 7. Sonoma County Waste Management Agency Schwartz Schwartz Ahanotu 8. 'Sonoma Clean Power 9.: Water Advisory Committee (WAC) Callinan Mackenzie urner Appointments ana iwayors & i.ouncitmemoerslLirp 3eiecrion Lomm►rree Appoinrmenrs Other Appointments Appointee/s Term Expires 1. Housing & Community Development (City Manager & Finance Dir.) Jenkins/Howze 2. Landfill Liability Fund (City Manager per JPA) Jenkins/Schwartz 3. Marin/Sonoma Mosquito & Vector Control District Paul Libeu 12/31/2016 4. Oversight Board I Mackenzie/+tirt n- iv asterson 5. Rohnert Park Foundation Officers ) Ahanotu/Belforte 12/31/2015 6. — — — Sonoma County Library Commission __ Barbara Mackenzie 8/1/2018 Page 1 of 2 MWors & Councilmembers/City Selection Committee Appointments Appointee Term Expires 1. ABAG Executive Board Mackenzie 6/30/2017 •2. Board of Directors/City Selection Committee Belforte 12/2416 3. Golden Gate Bridge, Highway & Transportation District Belforte 3/2017 4. Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) Mackenzie 2/2019 5. Remote Access Network (RAN) Board Belforte 2/2016 6, Sonoma County Local Agency Formation Commission Stafford j 5/2018 7, Sonoma Marin Area Rail Transit (SMART) (SCTA position) I Mackenzie 2/10/2019 Page 2 of 2 ' FfrlQi i��♦ st t f Ii d IWI tr9�' � WE maa ►m!!IBM J � CITI FS A (J k--) F Sonoma County Legislative Matrix January 2016 Bill # Author (Subject Status League ISonoma Reviewed/ Position JPosition Action 2016 Legislation AB 21 Wood MMJ: Clean-up legislation: This measure addresses the need to Jan 13: Senate Support remove from statute a provision that would harm cities by pre- GOV. & F. and empting them from enacting cultivation regulations if they do not have HEALTH. such regulations in effect as of March 1, 2016 AB 1591 Frazier Transportation Proposal: Assembly Proposal on Transportation In Print Jan 6 Support funding to assist state and local roads and bridges Budget Ca Senate Legislative Package to Prevent and Address Homelessness in our Budget Bill support Process Leadership Local Communities: No Place Like Home Initiative policy 2015 Bills that may carry over to 2016 ACA 4 Frazier would lower the voter threshold requirements for special taxes by a Support Support Letter sent in local government for the purpose of providing funding for local June 2015 transportation proiects from /3rd a r val to 55% roval 2 Year Bill Ting Would prohibit an adjustment in the calculation of emissions of Oppose Letter sent greenhouse gases through the application of renewable energy Unless Aug 2 credit §. carbon offset credits. or other attributes acguired from any CHAPTERED Amended AD <`v _a Chu Would prohibit local agencies from enforcing laws and ordinances, or Oppose Oppose Letter sent in otherwise subject to civil or criminal penalties, the act of people June 2015 sleeping or resting in a lawfully parked motor vehicle 2 year bill SB 593 McGuire Thriving Communities and Sharing Economy Act: Where vacation Support Support Letter sent in rentals are legal, the bill will assist local jurisdictions in their regulation June 2015 and collection of TOT. Further, requires online Vacation Rental Businesses to disclose information (address of host rental, amount of nights stayed, and amount paid by the visitor) to the cities and counties upon request . 2 year bill