The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About05-06-2014 PH1 Medical Marijuana May 6, 2014 PH1 FROM: Derek Johnson, Community Development Director Prepared By: Greg Hermann, Special Projects Manager SUBJECT: CONSIDERATION OF AN ORDINANCE PROHIBITING MEDICAL MARIJUANA CULTIVATION, PROCESSING AND DISTRIBUTION RECOMMENDATION: Introduce the proposed Ordinance to add Chapter 9.61 of the San Luis Obispo Municipal Code prohibiting medical marijuana cultivation, processing and distribution in all areas of the City, with limited exceptions, and find the action exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act. DISCUSSION Background On September 3, 2013, the City began receiving complaints that outdoor medical marijuana cultivation in a residential area was creating noxious odors and that the ongoing cultivation was creating health and safety concerns to adjacent neighbors and neighborhoods. Attachment 1 provides written public testimony about this specific incident. Under the San Luis Obispo Municipal Code, a property owner is not permitted to use his or her property for an illegal use, or to use their property in a fashion that constitutes a public nuisance. The Municipal Code also specifically provides that a person who uses his or her property for illegal narcotics activity is, by definition, maintaining a public nuisance 1. Because marijuana remains an illegal substance under the Federal Controlled Substances Act, 21 U.S.C. 801 et seq., and the City has received recent complaints of adverse localized impacts and nuisances associated with medicinal marijuana activities, staff recommends that the City prohibit the cultivation, processing and distribution of medical marijuana, subject to certain narrow exceptions to exempt certain activities of qualified patients and designated caregivers from enforcement. Accordingly, staff has worked with the City Attorney to draft an Ordinance to clearly prohibit medical marijuana cultivation, processing and distribution within City limits, subject to defined exceptions (Attachment 2). Proposed Ordinance Medical marijuana cultivation, processing and distribution have become an increasingly common use since adoption of Proposition 215, also known as the “Compassionate Use Act”, in 1996. Although cultivation processing, distribution and consumption of marijuana for qualified medicinal purposes is exempted from enforcement under certain state criminal and abatement statutes in 1 1.24.040 Maintaining public nuisances prohibited. Pursuant to the authority of State Government Code Section 38771 and Sections 1.12.070 and 1.12.080, any continuing violation of the San Luis Obispo Municipal Code constitutes a public nuisance. Therefore, any person owning or having possession of any real property in the city of San Luis Obispo who is in violation of any provision of the San Luis Obispo Municipal Code may be determined to be maintaining a public nuisance; provided, however, that it shall not be the intent of the city that this chapter preempt any private nuisance right of action or any and all other legal remedies available to private parties to abate such nuisances. (Ord. 1576 § 1 (part), 2012) PH1 - 1 Medical Marijuana Ordinance Page 2 California, recent court decisions have affirmed that cities retain full regulatory authority under their constitutional police powers to prohibit and/or regulate medicinal marijuana related activities and land uses within their jurisdictional limits. Activities related to medical marijuana cultivation, processing and distribution can introduce a number of documented neighborhood conflicts and public health and safety issues, including offensive odors, trespassing, theft, violent encounters between growers and persons attempting to steal plants, fire hazards, excessive energy consumption, and problems associated with mold, fungus, and pests. In a small (approximately 13 square miles), densely developed city such as San Luis Obispo, uses associated with the cultivation, processing and distribution of medical marijuana can cause adverse neighborhood impacts and conflicts, ongoing health and safety issues and public nuisances. The Police Chief has expressed concerns for the public safety threats that may be created by medical marijuana cultivation, processing and distribution uses. The City of San Luis Obispo has experienced firsthand the public safety impacts of marijuana cultivation, processing and distribution as outlined in Attachment 3. While the City’s zoning code does not permit “bricks and mortar” medical marijuana dispensaries within the City because such facilities are not specified as allowed uses in the code, the City does not currently have regulations that expressly address local cultivation activity or mobile distribution or delivery of medical marijuana. The proposed regulations directly address those activities in order to prevent further nuisances and health and safety threats related to those activities in the City. The proposed Ordinance would prohibit the cultivation and processing of medical marijuana within City limits, while still allowing “primary caregivers” and “qualified patients” the necessary latitude to access medical marijuana to meet physician recommended medical needs of qualified patients, without threat of enforcement action by the City. The proposed Ordinance establishes limits on personal medical marijuana cultivation, prohibiting all outdoor cultivation and specifying limitations on growing marijuana indoors. Those limitations are intended to prevent cultivation from becoming a public nuisance, as was recently the case, and creating negative impacts on local residents, neighborhoods and businesses. The proposed Ordinance also explicitly prohibits the distribution of medical marijuana throughout the City, while exempting limited distribution for personal use by qualified patients among groups of three or fewer qualified patients and their primary caregivers. CONCURRENCES The City Attorney and Police Chief concur with the recommendation to adopt the proposed ordinance. FISCAL IMPACT There is no fiscal impact associated with the recommended action. ALTERNATIVES 1. Amend the proposed ordinance. This is not recommended as the ordinance was carefully crafted and modeled after other ordinances and based on recent case law which provides the PH1 - 2 Medical Marijuana Ordinance Page 3 City the authority to prohibit the cultivation, processing and distribution of medical marijuana. 2. Reject the proposed ordinance. Testimony and a review of law enforcement records demonstrates that an ordinance is needed to address the deleterious health and safety impacts associated with the cultivation, processing and distribution of medical marijuana. ATTACHMENTS 1. Outdoor Medical Marijuana Complaints 2. Medical Marijuana Ordinance 3. Violent Marijuana Incidences 4. CEQA Notice of Exemption 5. Grand Jury Medical Marijuana Report (2011-2012) 6. City of San Luis Obispo Grand Jury Response t:\council agenda reports\2014\2014-05-06\medical marijuana (johnson)\ecar- marijuana cultivation, distribution, and processing 2.docx PH1 - 3 Goodwin, Heather From: Sent: To: Subject: Begin forwarded message: Mejia, Anthony Wednesday, October L6,20L31:50 AM Goodwin, Heather Fwd: Home grows Ë:;ì f:: n- i' " i.'i¡ :l Ll OcT 1 6 2013 $Ln r]rrY {--l"il$},!{ AGENDA CORRESPONDENCE From: "Ashbaugh, John" @> Date: October 15,2013 at 6:34:07 PM PDT To: "Mej ia, Anthony" <ame-iia@slocity.org> Cc: "Lichtig, Katie" <klichtig@slocity.org>, "Dietrick, Christine" <cdietrick@slocity.org> Subject: FW: Home grows For agenda correspondence... John B. Ashbaugh San Luis Obispo City Council -----Ori ginal Message----- From: Brett Bargenquast fbrett@audioengineusa.com] Sent: Tuesday, October 15, 2013 03:39 PM Pacific Standard Time To: Marx, Jan; Ashbaugh, John; Carpenter, Dan; Smith, Kathy; Christianson, Carlyn Cc: Leff, Mike & Denise Subject: Home grows Hello, My name is Brett Bargenquast and I own the property on the corner of Leff and Nipomo. My wife and I attended the city council meeting a few weeks back and listened to Mike and Denise Shandroff (Nipomo St residents) speak about the marijuana grow house located between our properties. Here are a few things you need to be aware of as leaders of our community: l A major nuisance is created by the constant stench of weed all day long as the tenants grow 12 giant pot plants. 2. Hawthorne school is 3 blocks away. Kids walk by the drug house daily on their way tolfrom school. 3. The day care center direct behind the drug house shut down for a day because they though there was some kind of dangerous gas leak, but it was the smell created by the drug house. 4. Diminution of values. As owners, we must disclose this situation. What buyer or tenant who has a family wants to live next to this? Would you want to? 1 Attachment 1 PH1 - 4 5. A 17 year old minor lives in the drug house and is cultivating and using marijuana. He lives in the back yard in a tent so he can protect his plants. 6. Safety/crime threat due to a house full of either weed or cash. They harvest, use, and are able to accept "donations" for what's left of the 12 pot plants (i.e. sell). Understand that it not only affects us as adults, but this situation clearly puts children at risk. We now have broken bottles in the street, pit bulls barking and frghting in the backyard, sleazy people constantly coming and going and the threat of crime in our neighborhood due to the presence of drugs and the people growing and using them. You have the opportunity to nip this problem in the bud (so to speak) before these "home grows" get out of control. This is not what we want for our beautiful community so we ask you to lead on this issue. Lastly, I have a simple question, Would you feel comfortable with your kids playing outside next to a drug house like this? Regards, Brett Bargenquast 80s.878.0870 2 Attachment 1 PH1 - 5 Attachment 2 ORDINANCE NO._______ (2014 Series) ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO PROHIBITING MEDICAL MARIJUANA CULTIVATION, PROCESSSING AND DISTRIBUTION BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAN LUIS OBISPO AS FOLLOWS: The City Council of the City of San Luis Obispo makes the following findings: WHEREAS, in 1996, the voters of the State of California approved Proposition 215, also known as the Compassionate Use Act (CUA), codified at California Health and Safety Code section 11362.5 et seq; and WHEREAS, on January 1, 2004, S.B. 420, known as the “Medical Marijuana Program” (MMP) (codified at Health and Safety Code section 11362.7 through 11362.83) went into effect to clarify the scope of the CUA; and WHEREAS, the CUA is limited in scope in that it only provides a defense from criminal prosecution for possession and cultivation of marijuana to qualified patients and their primary caregivers. The MMP is also limited in scope in that it establishes a statewide identification program and affords qualified patients, persons with identification cards and their primary caregivers an affirmative defense to certain enumerated criminal sanctions that would otherwise apply to transporting, processing, administering or distributing marijuana; and WHEREAS, neither the CUA nor the MMP require or impose an affirmative duty or mandate upon local governments, such as the City of San Luis Obispo, to allow, authorize or sanction the establishment and the operation of facilities cultivating, distributing, or processing medical marijuana within its jurisdiction; and WHEREAS, the CUA expressly anticipates the enactment of additional local legislation, providing: “[n]othing in this section shall be construed to supersede legislation prohibiting persons from engaging in conduct that endangers others, nor to condone the diversion of marijuana for non-medical purposes.” (Cal. Health & Safety Code, § 11362.5(b)(2).); and WHEREAS, on May 6, 2013, the California Supreme Court issued its decision in City of Riverside v. Inland Empire Patients Health and Wellness Center, Inc., holding that cities have the authority to ban medical marijuana uses within their boundaries and prohibit any use that constitutes a violation of state or federal law; and WHEREAS, marijuana remains an illegal substance under the Federal Controlled Substances Act, 21 U.S.C. 801 et seq., which makes it unlawful for any person to cultivate, manufacture, distribute or dispense, or possess with intent to manufacture, distribute or dispense marijuana. The Federal Controlled Substances Act contains no statutory exemption for the cultivation or distribution of marijuana for medical purposes. In addition, the possession, possession for sale, cultivation, processing, transportation, importation, and distribution of marijuana by those individuals who have not received a physician’s recommendation for medicinal use to treat a medical condition generally still constitutes a crime in California pursuant to California Health and Safety Code Sections 11357 through 11361; and WHEREAS, on June 6, 2005, the United States Supreme Court held, in Gonzales v. Raich, that Congress has the authority under the Commerce Clause of the United States Constitution, and has the PH1 - 6 ORDINANCE NO. _________ Attachment 2 power under the Federal Controlled Substances Act, to prohibit local cultivation, distribution, processing and use of marijuana even though it would be in compliance with California law; and WHEREAS, some of the documented problems with the cultivation, processing and distribution of marijuana include offensive odors, trespassing, theft, violent encounters between growers and persons attempting to steal plants, fire hazards and problems associated with mold, fungus, and pests; and WHEREAS, the nuisance impacts of the type herein delineated would be substantially intensified to the detriment of the City’s residents, workers, businesses and visitors in a small (approximately 13 square miles) developed city such as the City of San Luis Obispo, comprised for the most part of single family and multifamily homes and a significant number of mobile home spaces, and industrial, commercial, public facility and residential land uses in extremely close proximity to one another with few buffer areas of separation; and WHEREAS, the City has closely followed the documented experiences of other jurisdictions in which cultivation, distribution and processing activity has grown and has experienced firsthand the secondary impacts associated with marijuana cultivation, distribution, and processing; and WHEREAS, in January 2009, the San Luis Obispo Police Department investigated an incident in which two masked suspects entered a residence and forcibly restrained the resident in order to steal a large quantity of marijuana. This type of violent criminal activity was repeated again later in January 2009 when residents were held at gunpoint while a large quantity of marijuana was stolen in addition to cash and other personal property. The pattern repeated itself again in November 2012 with two incidents; the first involved an assault of a victim, theft of a large quantity of marijuana and a shooting of the victim in the back as he attempted to flee the area, the second incident involved the brandishing of a firearm and the strong arm theft of a large quantity of marijuana from the victims; and WHEREAS, most recently, in September 2013, the San Luis Obispo Police Department investigated an outdoor marijuana growing operation that was generating pungent odors that could be detected by neighboring properties to include a child care facility. The owner and tender of the marijuana plants had erected a tent outside so that the growing operations could be guarded during evening hours to prevent theft. The City received reports that the tender of the plants allegedly slept with a shotgun for protection and to serve as a deterrent for would be thieves. The tender and each resident of the property possessed valid Medical Marijuana cards leaving no legal recourse to address the public safety concern. Due to the City’s small size and the proximity of various uses to one another, any public nuisance within the City has the potential to adversely impact the entire community regardless of where the nuisance occurs; and WHEREAS, effects of medical marijuana-related uses to the health, safety and welfare of City residents, especially those residents located near marijuana cultivation and distribution, are so great, current and immediate, the City Council finds that there is a need to adopt an ordinance which will unequivocally and clearly provide that medical marijuana cultivation, distribution, and processing in the City, except for personal use by qualified patients in conformance with the standards stated in this ordinance, is a public nuisance and is also specifically and explicitly prohibited in the City of San Luis Obispo; and WHEREAS, the California Police Chiefs Association has compiled extensive reports and information detailing the negative secondary effects associated with medical marijuana dispensaries. The City Council hereby finds that the reports and information provided by the California Police Chiefs Association, which can be found at http://www.californiapolicechiefs.org/nav_files/medical_marijuana.html contain further persuasive PH1 - 7 ORDINANCE NO. _________ Attachment 2 evidence that medical marijuana operations and dispensaries pose a threat to the public health, safety and welfare; and WHEREAS, City of San Luis Obispo does not have a land use designation for medical marijuana dispensaries and since this use is not provided for in the Municipal Code, medical marijuana dispensaries located within the City are prohibited; and WHEREAS, the exact number of mobile marijuana delivery services operating on the Central Coast is unclear, since the state does not keep a registry of mobile medical marijuana distributors, but in April of 2014, over 20 delivery services between Morro Bay and Arroyo Grande advertised direct delivery of marijuana in San Luis Obispo on “Weedmaps.com”; and WHEREAS, the inherent mobility of mobile dispensaries increases the difficulty in monitoring and regulating such operations and such operations have been associated with criminal activity because delivery drivers are commonly known to travel with and carry on their person quantities of cash and drugs that make them targets for robbery. As a result, many drivers carry weapons or have armed guards as protection and there have been many documented accounts of violent crimes and incidents involving mobile delivery drivers throughout the state. NOW, THERFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the Council of the City of San Luis Obispo as follows: Section 1: The City Council hereby adopts the foregoing recitals as its findings in support of the following regulations and further finds that the following regulations are necessary and appropriate to protect the health, safety and welfare of the residents and businesses of San Luis Obispo from the identified adverse impacts of medicinal marijuana-related activities within the City limits. Section 2: Chapter 9.61 is hereby added to the San Luis Obispo Municipal Code to read as follows: 9.61.010 Purpose and Intent A. It is the purpose and intent of this chapter, pursuant to the City’s constitutional and charter authority to promote and protect the health, safety, and general welfare of the residents and businesses within the City by regulating the cultivation, distribution and processing of medical marijuana. B. Nothing in this chapter shall be construed to (1) permit persons to engage in conduct that endangers others or causes a public nuisance, (2) permit the use or cultivation of marijuana for non- medical purposes, or (3) permit any activity relating to the cultivation, processing, or distribution of marijuana that is illegal under state or federal law. 9.61.020 Definitions For purposes of this chapter, the following definitions shall apply: A. “Collective or cooperative cultivation” means the association within California of qualified patients, persons with valid identification cards, and designated primary caregivers to cultivate marijuana for medical purposes as defined in strict accordance with California Health and Safety Code sections 11362.5 et seq. B. “Cultivate” or “cultivation” is the planting, growing, harvesting, drying, processing, or storage of one or more marijuana plants or any part thereof. C. “Medical marijuana” is defined in strict accordance with California Health and Safety Code sections 11362.5 et seq. D. "Mobile Medical Marijuana Dispensary" shall mean any person, business, clinic, cooperative, club, group or organization, whether or not maintaining a facility or physical location within the City of PH1 - 8 ORDINANCE NO. _________ Attachment 2 San Luis Obispo, which transports, distributes or delivers, or arranges for the transportation, distribution or delivery of medical marijuana to any person or location within the City of San Luis Obispo, except as expressly provided in this Chapter. E. “Person” is defined as any individual, firm, corporation, association, club, business, clinic, cooperative, club, group or organization. F. “Processing” is defined as any method used to prepare marijuana or its byproducts including but not limited to: drying, cleaning, curing, packaging, and extraction of active ingredients to create marijuana related products and concentrates. G. “Primary caregiver” is defined in strict accordance with California Health and Safety Code section 11362.5 et seq. H. “Qualified Patient” is defined in strict accordance with California Health and Safety Code section 11362.7 et seq. 9.61.030 Prohibited activities. A. No person shall cultivate or process medical marijuana at any location indoors or outdoors within the City of San Luis Obispo, except as outlined below in this Section. 1. It shall not be a violation of this Chapter for a qualified patient or a designated caregiver to cultivate or process Medical marijuana for personal use by a qualified patient provided that cultivation and processing activities are conducted only as follows: (a) Indoors on the parcel where one or more qualified patients or the designated caregivers of a qualified patient legally reside. Outdoor cultivation or cultivation in any other location within the City is prohibited in all areas within the City and constitutes a violation of this Section. (b) Medical marijuana cultivation is permitted only on parcels with residential units. Medical marijuana cultivation is permitted only within a residential unit, a garage, or a self-contained, outside accessory building that complies with the California Building Code, as adopted in the City of San Luis Obispo, or, if exempt from permit requirements, that has a complete roof enclosure supported by connecting walls extended from the ground to the roof, a foundation, slab or equivalent base to which the floor is secured by bolts or similar attachments, is secure against unauthorized entry, and is accessible only through one or more lockable doors and accessible only to a primary caregiver or a qualified patient. Walls and roofs must be constructed of solid materials that cannot be easily broken through such as two inch by four inch or thicker studs overlaid with 3/8 inch or thicker plywood or the equivalent. Plastic sheeting regardless of gauge, or similar products do not satisfy this requirement. If indoor grow lights or air filtration systems are used, they must comply with the California Building, Electrical and Fire Codes as adopted in the City of San Luis Obispo and other applicable laws and regulations. (c) The medical marijuana cultivation area shall not exceed fifty (50) square feet per residential parcel, whether the cultivation is conducted indoors or in an allowed accessory building to the residence, and regardless of the number of qualified patients and/or designated caregivers that may legally reside at a single location. (d) The use of gas products (CO2, butane, etc.) for medical marijuana cultivation or processing is prohibited. (e) From the public right of way, there shall be no visible or exterior evidence of medical marijuana cultivation. (f) Any residence used for cultivation activities or maintaining an accessory structure used for cultivation activities shall maintain kitchens, bathrooms, and primary bedrooms for PH1 - 9 ORDINANCE NO. _________ Attachment 2 their intended use and any cultivation activities conducted in those rooms shall not displace or otherwise preclude the primary use of such rooms for their intended purpose. (g) Any medical marijuana cultivation area located within a residence or permitted accessory structure shall not be conducted in a manner that creates a nuisance condition related to increased humidity, mold or any other nuisance condition that creates adverse health and safety impacts or results in any code violation on the property, including but not limited to violations of applicable zoning, building, fire and/or health and safety codes.. (h) The medical marijuana cultivation area shall not adversely affect the health or safety of the nearby residents by creating dust, glare, excessive light, heat, noise, noxious gases, odor, smoke, traffic, vibration, or other impacts, and shall not be hazardous due to use or storage of materials, processes, products or wastes. B. No person, association, organization, collective, cooperative, or company or entity of any kind shall operate or establish the operation of any Mobile Medical Marijuana Dispensary, as defined in this ordinance in any area of the City. 1. It shall not be a violation of this Chapter for a qualified patient or a designated caregiver of a qualified patient or patients to provide or distribute medical marijuana for the personal use of a qualified patient, provided that no person shall provide or distribute medical marijuana to more than two qualified patients in the City with whom that person does not reside. C. Nothing in this Chapter shall be construed to permit the sale, processing, or distribution of Medical marijuana for commercial use or profit as is otherwise prohibited under state or federal law. Notwithstanding any such prohibition, it shall not be a violation of this Chapter for a primary caregiver to be reimbursed by his or her qualified patient an amount not to exceed the actual costs incurred by the primary caregiver in cultivating the medical marijuana he or she provides to the qualified patient. 9.61.040 Prohibited activities declared a public nuisance. A. Any use or condition caused or permitted to exist in violation of any of the provisions of this chapter shall be and is hereby declared a public nuisance and may be abated by the City or subject to any available legal remedies, including but not limited to civil injunctions. 9.61.050 Penalties for violation. B. Violations of this Chapter may be enforced by any applicable law. Notwithstanding any other provision of this Code, a violation of this Chapter is not subject to criminal penalties. C. Each day a violation is allowed to continue and every violation of the chapter shall constitute a separate violation and shall be subject to all remedies. 9.61.060 Severability. If any part or subsection of this chapter is for any reason held to be invalid, unlawful, or unconstitutional, such invalidity, unlawfulness, or unconstitutionality shall not affect the validity, lawfulness, or constitutionality of any other part of this chapter. Section 2. For the reasons hereinabove stated or otherwise presented in the staff report or in the public record, the City Council finds and determines that: (a) there is a current and immediate threat to the public peace, health, or safety of the residents, land owners and businesses of San Luis Obispo arising from medical marijuana-related activities as set forth herein; and (b) the City Council of the City of San PH1 - 10 ORDINANCE NO. _________ Attachment 2 Luis Obispo has received evidence and testimony demonstrating that the actual and potential adverse impacts on residents, businesses and landowners of San Luis Obispo arising from medical-marijuana related activities as set forth herein are matters of unique local concern, subject to regulation by the City Council pursuant to its constitutional and charter police powers and land use regulation authority; (c) this ordinance must therefore be enacted and enforced in order to protect and preserve the public interest, health, safety, comfort and convenience and to preserve the public welfare; and (c) this ordinance is necessary to preserve the public health and safety of all residents, landowners or businesses impacted by such uses as are prohibited by this ordinance. Section 3. This ordinance is not subject to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Section 15060(c)(2) – the activity will not result in a direct or reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment and Section 15060(c)(3) – the activity is not a project as defined in Section 15378 of the CEQA Guidelines, because it has no potential for resulting in physical change to the environment, directly or indirectly. Section 4. Effective Dates. A summary of this ordinance, together with the names of Council members voting for and against, shall be published at least five (5) days prior to its final passage, in The Tribune, a newspaper published and circulated in this City. This ordinance shall go into effect at the expiration of thirty (30) days after its final passage. INTRODUCED on the 6th day of May 2014, AND FINALLY ADOPTED by the Council of the City of San Luis Obispo on the 20th day of May 2014, on the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ____________________________________ Mayor Jan Marx ATTEST: ____________________________________ Anthony Mejia City Clerk APPROVED AS TO FORM: _____________________________________ J. Christine Dietrick City Attorney t:\council agenda reports\2014\2014-05-06\medical marijuana (johnson)\attachment 1-marijuana ordinance.doc PH1 - 11 Attachment 3 VIOLENT MARIJUANA RIP-OFF SYNOPSIS The following incidents were recalled by the involved investigators as there is no way in Spillman to search specifically for what we are looking for. It is possible that there were other similar incidents during this time period. 090120017 January 20, 2009 11357 Los Osos Valley Rd- Two masked suspects enter residence and forcibly restrain the resident while a large quantity of marijuana is stolen. 090127062 January 27, 2009 1262 Murray- Residents held at gun point while a large quantity of marijuana is stolen. Also taken was cash and electronics. 090630071 June 30, 2009 105 Mustang #210- Suspects force entry and bind residents with duct tape and are held at gun point. Large quantity of marijuana, cash, and electronics are stolen. 100613027 June 13, 2010 1624 Huasna- Four armed suspects force entry and hold residents at gun point while large quantity of marijuana and cash are stolen. 111229040 January 29, 2011 1206 Galleon- Three masked suspects force entry and bind the residents while a large quantity of marijuana and cash are taken. 121107003 November 7, 2012 Santa Rosa Park- Suspects assault the victim, steal a large quantity of marijuana from him, then shoot the victim in the back as he tries to flee the area. 121129055 November 29, 2012 Santa Rosa Park- Suspect brandishes a firearm and steals a large quantity of marijuana from the victims. PH1 - 12 Notice of Exemption To: □ Office of Planning and Research 1400 Tenth Street, Room 121 Sacramento, CA 95814 □ County Clerk County of San Luis Obispo 1144 Monterey Street, Suite A San Luis Obispo, CA, 93408 From: City of San Luis Obispo Community Development Department 990 Palm Street San Luis Obispo, CA, 93401-3249 Project Title: Adoption of a medical marijuana ordinance. Project Location - Specific: San Luis Obispo Project Location - City: San Luis Obispo Project Location - County: San Luis Obispo Description of Nature, Purpose, and Beneficiaries of Project: An ordinance regulating the cultivation of medical marijuana for personal use, prohibiting the cultivation of medical marijuana, except for personal use, prohibiting Medical Marijuana Dispensaries, prohibiting the processing of medical marijuana for commercial sale. Name of Public Agency Approving Project: City of San Luis Obispo Name of Person or Agency Carrying Out Project: City of San Luis Obispo/Community Development Department Exempt Status: □ Ministerial (Sec. 21080(b)(1); 15268); □ Declared Emergency (Sec. 21080(b)(3); 15269(a)); □ Emergency Project (Sec. 21080(b)(4); 15269(b)(c));  Categorical Exemption. State type and section number: 15060(c)(2), 15061(b)(3), and 15321 □ Statutory Exemptions. State code number: Reasons why project is exempt: The adoption and application of the medical marijuana ordinance is not subject to CEQA because it is an ordinance that clarifies existing city regulations to expressly prohibit the use of property in a way that constitutes a nuisance. The project will have no foreseeable direct or indirect physical impact upon the environment, therefore it is not subject to CEQA in accordance to Section 15060(c)(2) of the CEQA Guidelines, that states a project is exempt if it will not result in a direct or reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment. Attachment 4 PH1 - 13 Attachment 4 Pursuant to Section 15061(b)(3), of the CEQA Guidelines the adoption of the medical marijuana ordinance is covered by the general rule that CEQA applies only to projects which have the potential for causing effect on the environment. The project is not subject to CEQA because the ordinance clarifies existing restrictions on public nuisances, such as medical marijuana dispensaries, and therefore the ordinance will have no effect on the environment. The adoption of the marijuana ordinance is Categorically Exempt from CEQA review because it implements enforcement action of existing restrictions on medical marijuana dispensaries which is consistent with CEQA’s Class 21, Enforcement Actions by Regulatory Agencies, that states that actions by regulatory agencies to enforce a law, general rule, standard, or objective are categorically exempt from CEQA review as stated in Section 15321, of the CEQA Guidelines. Lead Agency Contact Person: Derek Johnson Area Code/Telephone/Extension: (805) 781-7187 If filed by applicant: 1. Attach certified document of exemption finding. 2. Has a Notice of Exemption been filed by the public agency approving the project? □ Yes □ No Signature: Date: Title: Community Development Director □ Signed by Lead Agency □ Date received for filing at OPR: □ Signed by Applicant PH1 - 14 Page 1 OUT OF SIGHT, OUT OF MIND: MEDICAL MARIJUANA IN SAN LUIS OBISPO COUNTY SUMMARY Medical marijuana is legal in California, but regulation of the dispensing of medical marijuana in San Luis Obispo County is subjective and inconsistent. A county ordinance governing medical marijuana brick and mortar dispensaries has been approved, but the County Board of Supervisors has repeatedly rejected the applications of such dispensaries. Moreover, an unknown number of unregulated medical marijuana delivery services are active in both the cities and the unincorporated areas of the county. These delivery services have created a “gray” market that local government is ignoring. As a result, safe access for those legally authorized for medical marijuana use is not ensured, thereby placing the safety of the community at risk. Well-defined governmental regulation and oversight would support healthcare providers and optimize patient safety and well-being by ensuring safe access to medical marijuana for those legally authorized, while limiting its diversion to recreational use. INTRODUCTION This Grand Jury report is intended to be an overview of how medical marijuana is regulated within the boundaries of our county. It analyzes the confusing, conflicting, and ineffective laws, policies, and practices regarding the dispensing of medical marijuana that so frustrate local jurisdictions in California. The U.S. Attorneys’ recent emphasis on enforcement of federal law in California adds another layer of confusion. The fact that federal law does not consider marijuana medically beneficial further complicates the situation. Ultimately, the courts may resolve these issues. Attachment 5 PH1 - 15 Page 2 The findings presented in this report are meant to inform; the recommendations are meant to suggest that local governments have the ability to create order amid the current chaos through regulation and oversight. Local regulation and oversight could make medical marijuana at the local level safer for those who are legally authorized to use it and less available to those who abuse it. Finally, this report is not to be construed as advocating the use of marijuana in any form. AUTHORITY Section 925 of the California Penal Code provides statutory authority for Grand Jury reports. ORIGIN The widely reported abuses to the intent of Proposition 215 - The Compassionate Use Act of 1996 - and SB 420 - The Medical Marijuana Program Act - created a perceived need for the Grand Jury to review the situation within San Luis Obispo County. METHOD The Grand Jury’s inquiry included: 1. Review of Proposition 215 and SB 420 2. Interview with San Luis Obispo County Sheriff’s Administration 3. Interviews with County Health Department staff 4. Interviews with local physicians familiar with the medical marijuana authorization process and related issues 5. Interviews with local medical marijuana delivery service collective managers/owners 6. Interview with an owner of a brick and mortar medical marijuana collective dispensary in another California county 7. Interview with County Building and Planning Department staff 8. A survey of city managers within the county Attachment 5 PH1 - 16 Page 3 9. Review of city municipal codes relevant to medical marijuana 10. Interview with County Drug and Alcohol Services staff 11. Review of a sampling of hydroponics and “smoke shop” retail venues 12. Review of current research and literature concerning medical marijuana 13. Review of federal statutes 14. Review of medical marijuana policies in Mendocino County, Colorado, and Canada NARRATIVE In 1996, over 55% of California voters passed Proposition 215, legalizing the medical use of marijuana. Proposition 215 states that its purposes are:  “To ensure that seriously ill Californians have the right to obtain and use marijuana for medical purposes where that medical use is deemed appropriate and has been recommended by a California licensed physician who has determined that a person’s health would benefit from the use of marijuana…  “To ensure that patients and their primary caregivers who obtain and use marijuana for medical purposes upon the recommendation of a California licensed physician are not subject to criminal prosecution or sanction.” (see Online Sources in Appendix A) In addition, Proposition 215 decriminalizes the possession and cultivation of marijuana by seriously ill individuals or their primary caregivers upon a California-licensed physician’s recommendation for approval. The law stipulates that to receive medical marijuana a patient must see a doctor and receive an authorization (not a prescription). On January 1, 2004, the California legislature enacted SB 420 to clarify Proposition 215. It states that a patient’s medical records must contain written documentation by the attending physician that the patient has been diagnosed with a serious medical condition and that the medicinal use of cannabis is appropriate. (Cannabis is the scientific name for marijuana.) A “serious medical condition is defined to include: AIDS, anorexia, arthritis, cachexia, cancer, chronic pain, glaucoma, migraine, persistent muscle spasms (multiple sclerosis), seizures, severe nausea, and Attachment 5 PH1 - 17 Page 4 any other chronic or persistent medical symptom that either substantially limits the ability of the person to conduct one or more major life activities or if not alleviated, may cause serious harm to the patient’s safety or physical or mental health.” Implementation of SB 420 calls for the attending physician to fulfill a number of requirements, including licensing, examinations, and diagnoses, documentation of condition, medical records, and medical release forms. Physicians who authorize medical marijuana for a serious disease may not recommend a specific medical marijuana dispensary and may not authorize a certain dosage. Obtaining Medical Marijuana Authorization in San Luis Obispo County The Grand Jury interviewed local physicians familiar with marijuana policies, including one who does not issue medical marijuana authorizations and two whose practices involve medical marijuana examinations and authorizations. There are some similarities among the physicians. All are licensed to practice medicine in the State of California. All agreed that the state law and county regulations are too vague, making it difficult to determine whether a physician is failing to provide an acceptable standard of care. Those physicians granting medical marijuana authorizations differ widely in how they evaluate patients. Not all of these physicians are members of recognized professional organizations, however, The physicians interviewed are familiar with the guidelines published by the California Medical Association (CMA), and the two physicians who do issue authorizations claim that they are following those guidelines, as well as all related laws. They sign a medical marijuana authorization that states the patient has a “serious disease” and is authorized to legally possess marijuana. These two physicians do not recommend a specific medical marijuana dispensary and do not authorize a certain dosage. Both of these physicians believe that medical marijuana can treat anxiety, insomnia, chronic pain, depression, panic attacks, and migraines. Attachment 5 PH1 - 18 Page 5 The Role of the County Health Department The language of SB 420 imposed “various duties upon county health departments relating to the issuance of identification cards, creating a state mandated local program.” It became mandatory that all counties participate in a new identification card (ID) program by:  providing applications upon request to individuals seeking to join the identification card program  processing completed applications  maintaining certain records  following state implementation protocols, and  issuing Department of Public Health (DPH) ID cards to approved applicants or their designated primary caregivers For the County Health Department, the medical marijuana ID program is strictly administrative. The Vital Records staff verifies identity, medical authorizations, and the authorizing physician’s California medical license. Staff also takes the ID card photo, requests the ID card from Sacramento, processes fees, and maintains a record of applications. There is no provision for checking criminal records The fee is $135 of which half goes to the state and half to the county. There is a reduced fee of $67.50 for Medi-Cal recipients. The card expires after one year and is renewable with annual payment of the fee. The primary intent of the California Medical Marijuana ID Card is to provide information to law enforcement officers who may want to verify the identity and authorization of a medical marijuana patient. It is not mandatory for the patient to obtain an ID card, however. By law, an authorization by a California-licensed physician is all that is required for a patient to buy or possess medical marijuana. Since 2006, the county has issued 408 cards. The highest yearly total issued was 128 in 2010; in 2011, the count decreased to 48. County staff could not attribute the drop to anything in Attachment 5 PH1 - 19 Page 6 particular, except that patients may not have wanted to pay the fee because the card is not mandatory. The county has never denied an application for an ID card. Currently, the Health Department does not concern itself with matters of public health in regard to medical marijuana. The contaminants, pesticide content, and potency of the marijuana distributed to authorized citizens of the county are not addressed. Edible medical marijuana products are not monitored or regulated by the county health agencies (nor by the state) as are other commercially distributed edible products. The Director of the San Luis Obispo County Health Agency stated in an interview that the County Health Department would “probably” have jurisdiction over marijuana edibles. The Department is researching the issue. Appropriate testing and regulating of medical marijuana, including edibles, by the county or incorporated cities would undoubtedly be expensive, but not necessarily a non-recoverable expense. For example, the City of Oakland taxes medical marijuana. It reported that $1.4 million in business taxes was collected in 2011 from medical marijuana dispensaries, nearly three percent of all business taxes collected in the city that year. City and County Ordinances Each incorporated city in the county has an ordinance prohibiting medical marijuana dispensaries. On February 6, 2007, the County Board of Supervisors approved an ordinance requiring a Minor Use Permit for medical marijuana dispensaries. It was authored by County Building and Planning staff and centered on the following design and operational standards: 1. The location must be outside the central business district and a minimum of 1000 feet from any school, library, park or recreation area. 2. Limitation on use. a. Hours of operation are limited to 11:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. seven days per week. b. No person under the age of 18 permitted. c. No retail sales of paraphernalia Attachment 5 PH1 - 20 Page 7 d. No cultivation permitted at or on dispensary property. 3. Staff/employees must be 21 years of age or older. 4. A security plan must be submitted. 5. A notice must be posted that persons under the age of 18 are not allowed. 6. A notice must be posted that consumption of medical marijuana is prohibited in the vicinity of the dispensary. 7. The Sheriff’s Department shall be notified of the dispensary name, location and contact information. The process begins with an application to the County Building and Planning Department. County Building and Planning staff produces a report with a recommendation to the Planning Commission. The Planning Commission convenes a public hearing and may approve or disapprove the application for a Minor Use Permit. The Planning Commission may also recommend conditions and move the Conditional Use Permit to the Board of Supervisors for approval. The public may appeal the Planning Commission’s decision to the Board of Supervisors. There have been three applications for collective dispensaries since the county ordinance was passed. The first two applications were denied. The last application to go before the Planning Commission was heard on November 3, 2011. Staff recommended denial of the application, but the Planning Commission granted a Conditional Use Permit. The approval was appealed to the Board of Supervisors and the Board upheld the appeal, thereby denying the application, on March 6, 2012. Brick and Mortar Dispensaries/Collectives “Collective” is the legal term for a dispensary. The purpose of these dispensaries/collectives is to provide safe and secure access to medical marijuana. In a collective, marijuana received from growers and manufactured edibles may be tested for contaminants (including pesticides) and THC levels. Edibles can also be labeled for potency by the manufacturer. Attachment 5 PH1 - 21 Page 8 On January 18, 2012 the California Supreme Court voted unanimously to review how cities and counties regulate medical marijuana dispensaries based on four medical marijuana cases:  Pack v. City of Long Beach involves a Court of Appeal ruling that Long Beach's medical marijuana dispensary ordinance was pre-empted by the federal Controlled Substances Act.  City of Riverside v. Inland Patient's Health & Wellness Center, Inc. and People v. G3 Holistic concern Court of Appeal decisions upholding ordinances that banned medical marijuana dispensaries.  Traudt v. City of Dana Point involves a Court of Appeals decision concerning an individual’s standing to bring a lawsuit alleging a violation of state law with respect to a medical marijuana collective.1 Mobile Delivery Collectives Proposition 215 did not stipulate that all collective operations emanate from a “brick and mortar” collective, thereby leaving room for mobile delivery collectives. Mobile delivery collectives register medical marijuana patients as members and deliver medical marijuana to the members, usually at home. The members’ obligation to the collective is the cash they contribute in exchange for the medical marijuana. Several of these collectives advertise in San Luis Obispo County, in the local media and online. The Grand Jury heard testimony that as many as 40 delivery services currently operate within the incorporated and unincorporated areas of the county. Medical marijuana mobile delivery collectives are more difficult to regulate because they operate in multiple jurisdictions, which adds to law enforcement’s challenges. Cities within San Luis Obispo County and the county itself have ordinances prohibiting or regulating brick and mortar medical marijuana dispensaries, but there are no regulations 1League of California Cities. “California Supreme Court Grants Review of Four Medical Marijuana Cases,” January 20, 2012. www.cacities.org/Top/News/News-Articles/2012/January. Attachment 5 PH1 - 22 Page 9 affecting medical marijuana mobile delivery collectives, with one exception. The city of Atascadero has approved an ordinance prohibiting mobile delivery collectives. The lack of ordinances and regulations governing mobile delivery collectives at the local level has led to a chaotic situation. The Attorney General of California has issued General Guidelines regarding medical marijuana, but there are no local regulations to which mobile delivery collectives must adhere. As a result, law enforcement officials have few tools to evaluate whether mobile delivery collectives are operating legitimately. Some collectives make a serious attempt to comply with Proposition 215 and SB 420, and the Attorney General Guidelines regarding medical marijuana; others pay little or no attention. The minimum age required to become a member of the collective varies; some allow members as young as 18, others have a minimum age of 21. Some collectives keep close records of their members and amounts disbursed, and verify physician authorizations for medical marijuana; others do not. A few collectives track medical marijuana from grower to collective to delivery driver, and to the collective member, and even weigh it at each stage, to ensure that there is no loss; others do not. Some collectives obtain local business licenses; most do not. Although medical marijuana is authorized by physicians to treat certain conditions, it is not a prescription drug and is, therefore, subject to tax. Not all mobile delivery services, however, collect and pay sales taxes. Finally, mobile delivery services conduct no testing of the product they sell. As a result, the quality of medical marijuana delivered can vary widely. All city managers were asked if all businesses in their jurisdiction needed a business license. All answered in the affirmative, with Atascadero requiring a business tax. A search of the advertised delivery services in city records showed very few with business licenses. All city managers and Cal Poly law enforcement were asked how many medical marijuana delivery services operated within their jurisdiction. All answered none to their knowledge. Attachment 5 PH1 - 23 Page 10 Local governments are simply not aware of the number of medical marijuana mobile collective delivery services operating in their jurisdictions and make no attempt to regulate these businesses. It is possible, however, for the county and the cities to take steps to require business licenses and fees for mobile delivery services. Additional revenue could then be generated for the county and the cities. All the mobile collective delivery service managers interviewed by the Grand Jury operate within incorporated and unincorporated areas of the county, and one operates in a tri-county area. Membership agreements, recordkeeping and verification of physician authorizations were consistent for these collectives. Possession of a Sellers Permit and a Business License, as specified in the Attorney General Guidelines, however, was not consistent. One interviewee stated that the local business environment actually encouraged creation of a growing “gray” or “black market” by forcing reputable mobile collective delivery services that attempt to comply with legal mandates out of business. The “grays and blacks” do not keep records or pay sales tax, thereby undercutting reputable mobile collective delivery services in pricing. All of the managers interviewed agreed that testing for quality and potency would be appropriate and should be required. However, additional costs for testing would require higher prices that would likely drive their clients to the black market competition. The Biggest Challenge: Enforcing the Law California law enforcement agencies face a challenge in interpreting Proposition 215 for enforcement purposes. The law lacks clarity for agencies that are required to operate within “the letter of the law.” Initially, the Attorney General issued guidelines that proved helpful; over time, however, with legal challenges and various suggested interpretations, it has become increasingly difficult to separate the legal from the illegal. Attachment 5 PH1 - 24 Page 11 For example, in December 2010, a San Luis Obispo County Narcotics Task Force operation resulted in the arrest of twelve local medical marijuana collective delivery service providers. This operation involved an undercover officer posing as a medical marijuana patient. Issues emerged at the trial as a result of the investigation and interpretation of the law. There was a lack of consistency in the municipal requirement of a business license, seller’s permit or incorporation as a California Mutual Benefit Non-Profit operation. One of the county’s high-ranking law enforcement officers approached the Governor (who in his former position as Attorney General formulated the Proposition 215 Guidelines) with the question, “What makes a ‘collective’ illegal?” The answer was “profits” but a definitive definition of “profit” in regard to collectives has not been provided by the state. In 2011, the California Attorney General formally asked the legislature to clarify state law to bring “certainty and consistency” to law enforcement, the medical marijuana collectives and authorized patients. Areas to be addressed include: defining the contours of the right to collective and cooperative cultivation; what constitutes a “dispensary;” a definition of non-profit operation as it applies to providers; and, requirements for edible medical marijuana products. At present, local governments that apply conflicting rules and regulations largely govern medical marijuana. A proposed November 2012 initiative would establish a medical marijuana enforcement bureau in the California Department of Consumer Affairs. This could be a step forward in assisting peace officers to perform their duties more efficiently and effectively. Law enforcement officials in the county have linked two homicides and a dozen home invasions to medical marijuana. Some medical marijuana is diverted to non-patients, young people, and the black market. For public safety, it is important that law enforcement have guidelines to help determine who is a legal provider or user of medical marijuana. Attachment 5 PH1 - 25 Page 12 CONCLUSION Accurate medical marijuana usage estimates cannot be made due to the lack of regulatory reporting. County and most municipal officials are either uninformed or they ignore the mobile collective delivery services. San Luis Obispo County has an ordinance allowing brick and mortar medical marijuana dispensaries, but the Board of Supervisors has denied all applications to date. Incorporated cities have ordinances that ban brick and mortar collectives, but most have no ordinance governing mobile delivery services in their communities, similar to the county. Unregulated mobile collective delivery services driving through our county and its communities with unknown sums of money and large quantities of medical marijuana invite potentially tragic consequences. Safe access for authorized medical marijuana patients is the issue, and regulation is the key. Codes and ordinances could place specific, reviewable, measurable, and enforceable conditions on dispensaries, as well as delivery services. If governing bodies in the county would acknowledge these issues and act to mitigate them, authorized patients might then have safe access to medical marijuana and local governments could receive business license revenue. Also, law enforcement would have the means to distinguish between legitimate, state-authorized operations and those that are illegitimate, in other words, distinguish between “the good guys” and “the bad guys.” Attachment 5 PH1 - 26 Page 13 FINDINGS Finding 1: San Luis Obispo County has an ordinance allowing brick and mortar medical marijuana collectives, but the Board of Supervisors has rejected all applications to date. Finding 2: Each incorporated city in the county has an ordinance prohibiting brick and mortar medical marijuana collectives within its city limits. Finding 3: The county and incorporated cities in the county have not adopted an ordinance regarding medical marijuana mobile collective delivery services operating within their jurisdictions, with the exception of Atascadero. Finding 4: Business licenses are required for all businesses operating in the incorporated and unincorporated areas of the county. Finding 5: Many medical marijuana mobile collective delivery services operate in the incorporated and unincorporated areas of the county without a business license. Finding 6: There is currently no way to determine the exact number of medical marijuana mobile collective delivery services operating in the incorporated and unincorporated areas of the county or on the Cal Poly campus. Finding 7: There is no protocol for medical marijuana mobile collective delivery service recordkeeping. Finding 8: Medical marijuana, including edibles, is not regulated by the County Health Department. Finding 9: Home invasions and homicides have resulted from medical marijuana being present or grown in homes. Attachment 5 PH1 - 27 Page 14 Finding 10: The County Health Department is designated to administer the medical marijuana ID program and it satisfies the requirements set forth in Proposition 215 and SB 420. RECOMMENDATIONS Recommendation 1: The County Board of Supervisors should convene a committee comprised of the County Sheriff, County Building and Planning staff, local public health officials, the County Tax Collector, the County Planning Commission, brick and mortar medical marijuana collective and mobile collective delivery service managers, medical marijuana physician providers, and community representatives. The purpose of the committee should be to develop a fair and viable local ordinance for brick and mortar medical marijuana collectives that provide authorized patients with safe access to contaminant-free medical marijuana in accordance with California law. Recommendation 2: The county and incorporated cities in the county should develop an ordinance regarding medical marijuana mobile collective delivery services within their respective jurisdictions. Recommendation 3: By code or ordinance, the county and each incorporated city in the county should require medical marijuana mobile collective delivery services operating within their jurisdiction to possess a business license and seller’s permit. Recommendation 4: Using business license records, seller’s permits and sales taxes, the county and each incorporated city in the county should compile a list of medical marijuana mobile collective delivery services operating within their jurisdictions. Recommendation 5: By code or ordinance, the county and each incorporated city in the county should require medical marijuana collectives and mobile collective delivery services to keep current records. Attachment 5 PH1 - 28 Page 15 Recommendation 6: The County Health Department should consider establishing standards for edible medical marijuana sold in the county. REQUIRED RESPONSES The San Luis Obispo County Board of Supervisors is required to respond to Findings 1, 3, 4, 5, 6, and 7, and Recommendations 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5. The responses shall be submitted to the Presiding Judge of the San Luis Obispo County Superior Court by September 24, 2012. Please provide a paper copy and an electronic version of all responses to the Grand Jury as well. The City of Arroyo Grande is required to respond to Findings 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, and 7, and Recommendations 2, 3, 4, and 5. The responses shall be submitted to the Presiding Judge of the San Luis Obispo County Superior Court by September 24, 2012. Please provide a paper copy and an electronic version of all responses to the Grand Jury as well. The City of Atascadero is required to respond to Findings, 2, 4, 5, 6, and 7, and Recommendations 3, 4, and 5. The responses shall be submitted to the Presiding Judge of the San Luis Obispo County Superior Court by September 24, 2012. Please provide a paper copy and an electronic version of all responses to the Grand Jury as well. The City of Grover Beach is required to respond to Findings 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, and 7, and Recommendations 2, 3, 4, and 5. The responses shall be submitted to the Presiding Judge of the San Luis Obispo County Superior Court by September 24, 2012. Please provide a paper copy and an electronic version of all responses to the Grand Jury as well. The City of Morro Bay is required to respond to Findings 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, and 7, and Recommendations 2, 3, 4, and 5. The responses shall be submitted to the Presiding Judge of the San Luis Obispo County Superior Court by September 24, 2012. Please provide a paper copy and an electronic version of all responses to the Grand Jury as well. Attachment 5 PH1 - 29 Page 16 The City of Paso Robles is required to respond to Findings 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, and 7, and Recommendations 2, 3, 4, and 5. The responses shall be submitted to the Presiding Judge of the San Luis Obispo County Superior Court by September 24, 2012. Please provide a paper copy and an electronic version of all responses to the Grand Jury as well. The City of Pismo Beach is required to respond to Findings 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, and 7, and Recommendations 2, 3, 4, and 5. The responses shall be submitted to the Presiding Judge of the San Luis Obispo County Superior Court by September 24, 2012. Please provide a paper copy and an electronic version of all responses to the Grand Jury as well. The City of San Luis Obispo is required to respond to Findings 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, and 7, and Recommendations 2, 3, 4, and 5. The responses shall be submitted to the Presiding Judge of the San Luis Obispo County Superior Court by September 24, 2012. Please provide a paper copy and an electronic version of all responses to the Grand Jury as well. The San Luis Obispo County Health Department is required to respond to Findings 8 and 10, and Recommendation 6. The responses shall be submitted to the Presiding Judge of the San Luis Obispo County Superior Court by August 27, 2012. Please provide a paper copy and an electronic version of all responses to the Grand Jury as well. The mailing addresses for delivery are: Presiding Judge Grand Jury Presiding Judge Barry T. LaBarbera Superior Court of California 1050 Monterey Street San Luis Obispo, CA 93408 San Luis Obispo County Grand Jury P.O. Box 4910 San Luis Obispo, CA 93402 The e-mail address for the Grand Jury is: GrandJury@co.slo.ca.us Attachment 5 PH1 - 30 Page 17 APPENDIX A ONLINE SOURCES* CA Attorney General Guidelines: www.ag.ca.gov/cms_attachments/press/pdfs/n1601_medicalmarijuanaguidelines.pdf Medical Marijuana Identification Card Program: www.slocounty.ca.gov/health/publichealth/mmic_htm Driving Miss Mary Jane, David Freed, January/February 2012: www.Miller-Mcune.com Medical Marijuana Raid In SLO County Raises Questions: www.sanluisobispo/2011/01/08/1436280/medical-marijuana-raid.html Proposition 215, Health & Safety Code 11362.5: www.cannorml.org/laws/hsc11362_5.html Senate Bill 420, Health and Safety Code 11362.7: www.potdoc/bill_sb_420.html Testing for Contaminants and Potency in Medical Marijuana: www.Halent.com Marijuana Addiction and Medical Marijuana Patients: www.cannabisdoctorsnetwork.com/marijuana-addiction-symptons.php www.cmanet.org/medicalmarijuana www.mbc.ca.gov/media/releases_2004_05_13_marijuana.html http://sanluisobispo.areaconnect.com/doctors http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_proposition_15_(1996) CA Attorney General’s Letter to Lawmakers, December 21, 2011: www.californiaprogressreport.com/site/attorney-general-issues-letter-lawmakers-medical-marijuana Attachment 5 PH1 - 31 Page 18 Regulation of Medical Marijuana Dispensaries to be considered by the California Supreme Court: www.sanluisobispo.com/2012/01/19/1913641/marijuana-dispensaries-california-html#storylink=cpy Delivery Services Map: www.californiawatch.org/public-safety/map-medical-marijuana-delivery-services-california Delivery Services by Zip: www.weedmaps.com Marijuana Edibles: www.fhwcc.org/edibles/ Medical Marijuana: Inhalation vs. Edibles: www.marijuanamedicine.com/2009/06/medical-marijuana-inhalation-vs-edibles-why-is-it-so-different/ Cannabis Doctors Network: www.cannabisdoctorsnetwork.com/marijuana-addiction-symptoms.php Canada: www.hc-sc.gc.ca/dhp-mps/marihuana/about-apropos/faq-eng.php Colorado: www.cdphe.state.co.us/hs/medicalmarijuana http://reason.com/blog/2012/03/05/us-attorney-in-colorado-says-all-state-1 Mendocino County: www.mendocinosheriff.com www.mendocinocountry.com/independent/1cannabis/2policy/9.31passes.html *To be useful, these links may best be copied and pasted into a browser Attachment 5 PH1 - 32 1111111 1:1 I City 0~ san luiS OBispo Community Development Department • 919 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401-3218 Presiding Judge Barry T. LaBarbera Superior Court of California 1050 Monterey Street San Luis Obispo, California 93408 September 19, 2012 Re: Grand Jury Report entitled "Out of Sight, Out of Mind-Medical Marijuana in San Luis Obispo County" Dear Judge LaBarbera: This letter constitutes the response of the City of San Luis Obispo to the San Luis Obispo County Grand Jury report entitled "Out of Sight, Out of Mind-Medical Marijuana in San Luis Obispo County" (hereinafter the "Report") This response is submitted in compliance with Penal Code Section 933(c). A copy of this response is concurrently being transmitted to the Grand Jury. The Report sets forth ten findings, and six recommendations. The City of San Luis Obispo has been required to respond to Findings 2 through 7, inclusive, and Recommendations 2 through 5, inclusive. Finding 2. Each incorporated city in the county has an ordinance prohibiting brick and mortar medical marijuana collectives within city limits. Response: Agree in part. The City of San Luis Obispo Municipal Code does not contain a land use designation for medical marijuana collectives and therefore does not provide for medical marijuana collectives within the City jurisdiction. Since the Municipal Code does not provide for medical marijuana uses, they are prohibited. Finding 3. The county and incorporated cities in the county have not adopted an ordinance regarding medical marijuana collective delivery services operating within their jurisdictions, with the exception of Atascadero. Response: Agree in part. As discussed above under Finding #2, the City of San Luis Obispo does not have a land use designation for medical marijuana collectives, and the City also does not have a land use designation for collective delivery services. Since these land uses are not provided for in the Municipal Code, medical marijuana uses including medical marijuana collective delivery services are prohibited. Finding 4. Business licenses are required for all businesses operating in the incorporated and unincorporated areas of the county. The City of San Luis Obispo is committed to include the disabled in all of its services, programs and activities. Telecommunications Device for the Deaf (805) 781-7410. Attachment 6 PH1 - 33 Response: Agree in part. San Luis Obispo Municipal Code Section 5.01.102 requires any person to procure a business license to transact and carry on any business in the City. Section 5.01.1 04 of the City of San Luis Obispo Municipal Code does not authorize the issuance of a business license that is prohibited by city policies, regulations or ordinances' or any state or federal statute, law, rule, order or regulation. Because medical marijuana collectives are not an expressly allowed use, they are prohibited and the issuance of a business license would be contrary to the City's municipal code and federal law. Finding 5. Many medical marijuana mobile collective delivery services operate in the incorporated and unincorporated areas of the county without a business license. Response: Disagree in part. The City of San Luis Obispo is unaware of such services operating within the City. San Luis Obispo cannot comment on whether such services operate in other cities in the county. Finding 6. There is currently no way to determine the exact number of medical marijuana mobile collective delivery services operating in the incorporated and unincorporated areas of the county or on the Cal Poly campus. Response: Agree. Finding 7. There is no protocol for medical marijuana mobile collective delivery service recordkeeping. Response: Disagree in part. protocols within the City. San Luis protocols in other cities in the county. The City of San Luis Obispo is unaware of such Obispo cannot comment on whether there are such Recommendation 2. The county and incorporated cities in the county should develop an ordinance regarding medical marijuana mobile collective delivery services within their respective jurisdictions. Response: The recommendation will not be implemented because it is not warranted. There is no evidence demonstrating that mobile delivery services as described in the Report are developing with such frequency and regularity within the City of San Luis Obispo as to mandate the adoption of an ordinance and subsequent enforcement of such an ordinance. Operation of a medical marijuana collective delivery service is not allowed and would be a citable violation of the City's municipal code. Moreover, conflicts between state and federal law and the continuing high volume and conflicting nature of litigation in this area create continuing uncertainty around regulation. Recommendation 3. By code or ordinance, the county and each incorporated city in the county should require medical marijuana mobile collective delivery services operating within their jurisdictions to possess a business license and seller's permit. Attachment 6 PH1 - 34 Response: The recommendation will not be implemented because it is not warranted. The City of San Luis Obispo will not issue business licenses to medical marijuana dispensaries, since they are prohibited from operating in any zone of the City, and their operation would be in violation of the City's Municipal Code and federal law. Recommendation 4. Using business license records, seller's permits and sales taxes, the county and each incorporated city in the county should compile a list of medical marijuana mobile collective delivery services operating within theirjurisdictions. Response: The recommendation will not be implemented because it is not warranted. The City of San Luis Obispo will not issue business licenses for activities that are not allowed under the City's municipal code and are contrary to federal laws. Recommendation 5. By code or ordinance, the county and each incorporated city in the county should require medical marijuana collective and mobile collective delivery services to keep current records. Response: The recommendation will not be implemented because it is not warranted. The City of San Luis Obispo will not require medical marijuana dispensaries, whether mobile or fixed, to keep any records, since they are prohibited from operating in any zone of the City, and are in violation of federal law. Respc~~-'Zect, K ie Lichtig,~a ager of San Luis Obisp cc: San Luis Obispo County Grand Jury P.O. Box 4910 San Luis Obispo, California 93402 Attachment 6 PH1 - 35 Page intentionally left blank. PH1 - 36 Mejia, Anthony From: Marx, Jan Sent: Saturday, May 03, 2014 12:02 PM To: Mejia, Anthony Subject: FW: Today's article agenda correspondence Jan Marx Mayor GK'S Y k, CMOF .� SHRLMSOBISPO Office of the City Council 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 -3249 E jmarx @slocity.org T 805.781.7120 slocity.org COUNCIL MEETING: o'ot 1ZO 14 ITEM NO.: ?VA - MAY 0 5 2014 From: Brett Bargenquast [brett @audioengineusa.com] Sent: Saturday, May 03, 2014 11:57 AM To: Marx, Jan; Ashbaugh, John; Carpenter, Dan; Smith, Kathy; Christianson, Carlyn; Codron, Michael; Leff, Mike & Denise Shandroff; Hermann, Greg; rion— belt(&sbcglobal.net; trebel(cbcharter.net; Morgan; Johnson, Derek; Gesell, Steve; Bledsoe, John; Storton, Keith; Staley, Chris; Dietrick, Christine Subject: Today's article I just read today's article in the Tribune. First of all, thanks to Mike and Denise for having the courage to stand up to keep our neighborhood clean and safe. Most people wouldn't take that stand and actually get something done. The six points I made below aren't a hypothetical or some far fetched theory. This is reality. This little pot farm is a microcosm of what is to come if these grows are unrestrained (please read the article below for another dose of frightening reality). The unintended consequences will reshape this beautiful place we call home slowly but surely, just as it did on Leff Street with a SINGLE house. Imagine dealing with dozens of these pot houses all over the city. Koory's analogy of the genie in the bottle is a good one but he is wrong. The genie isn't out. At least not yet in SLO. I'm sure you will all feel a great deal of pressure from the pro -pot groups and their attorneys to allow this business to continue- and it is a business. They are a vocal minority. I encourage you to continue to stand your ground and protect the property owners and residents who have a vested interest in keeping our community safe. Thank you for your leadership. It means a great deal to us that the city council and law enforcement has the courage to tackle this problem before it gets out of control. Regards, Brett Bargenquast 805.878.0870 iittp_:l /america.aliazeera.com/ articles /201.411/30/ armed - Farmers- combatillegaicaliforni amari uanafarms.html "But this boom has brought so much crime to Fresno County — nine murders since 2012 — and complaints from neighboring farmers that the county Board of Supervisors this month passed the strictest ban in the state: no marijuana cultivation, indoor or out. The law is expected to be challenged. The county had already banned all marijuana dispensaries." On Oct 15, 2013, at 3:39 PM, Brett Bargenquast <brettkaudioengineusa.com> wrote: Hello, My name is Brett Bargenquast and I own the property on the corner of Leff and Nipomo. My wife and I attended the city council meeting a few weeks back and listened to Mike and Denise Shandroff ( Nipomo St residents) speak about the marijuana grow house located between our properties. Here are a few things you need to be aware of as leaders of our community: 1. A major nuisance is created by the constant stench of weed all day long as the tenants grow 12 giant pot plants. 2. Hawthorne school is 3 blocks away. Kids walk by the drug house daily on their way to /from school. 3. The day care center direct behind the drug house shut down for a day because they though there was some kind of dangerous gas leak, but it was the smell created by the drug house. 4. Diminution of values. As owners, we must disclose this situation. What buyer or tenant who has a family wants to live next to this? Would you want to? 5. A 17 year old minor lives in the drug house and is cultivating and using marijuana. He lives in the back yard in a tent so he can protect his plants. 6. Safety /crime threat due to a house full of either weed or cash. They harvest, use, and are able to accept "donations" for what's left of the 12 pot plants (i.e. sell). Understand that it not only affects us as adults, but this situation clearly puts children at risk. We now have broken bottles in the street, pit bulls barking and fighting in the backyard, sleazy people constantly coming and going and the threat of crime in our neighborhood due to the presence of drugs and the people growing and using them. You have the opportunity to nip this problem in the bud (so to speak) before these "home grows" get out of control. This is not what we want for our beautiful community so we ask you to lead on this issue. Lastly, I have a simple question. Would you feel comfortable with your kids playing outside next to a drug house like this? Regards, Brett Bargenquast 805.878.0870 COUNCIL MEETING: co S; I oG 1 20 I `-1 ITEM NO.: P H Mejia, Anthony From: Randy Dale <cannaexpress @live.com> Sent: Monday, May 05, 2014 8:16 AM To: Mejia, Anthony Subject: Letter for City Council Meeting on May 6, 2014 Attachments: Canna Express Letter to City of San Luis Obispo.doc MAY 0 5 2014 May 5, 2014 Dear Anthony Mejia, City of San Luis Obispo Clerk: Attached is a letter for the City Council meeting on May 6, 2014. Subject: Consideration of an ordinance prohibiting medical marijuana cultivation, processing and distribution. Sincerely, Randy Dale, Director Canna Express 805 - 433 -3838 cannaexpress.org Canna Express is a California Nonprofit Mutual Benefit Corporation. Canna Express is a nonprofit medical cannabis delivery service in compliance with California Proposition 215, California Senate Bill 420 and California Attorney General Guidelines. Canna Express A California Nonprofit Mutual Benefit Corporation May 5, 2014 San Luis Obispo City Council 990 Palm Street San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 Re: San Luis Obispo City Council Meeting of May 6, 2014 Subject: Consideration of an Ordinance Prohibiting Medical Marijuana Cultivation, Processing and Distribution Dear San Luis Obispo City Council: Introduction Canna Express is a nonprofit medical marijuana delivery service. We deliver medical marijuana to qualified patients in San Luis Obispo County. We are a membership organization. Members are qualified patients. Qualified patients have a recommendation from a physician to use medical marijuana for the treatment of a medical condition. We receive donations from members for overhead costs and operating expenses. We operate a nonprofit medical marijuana delivery service in compliance with California Proposition 215, California Senate Bill 420 and California Attorney General Guidelines. In 1996, the California voters approved Proposition 215, also known as the Compassionate Use Act of 1996, codified as California Health and Safety Code Section 11362.5. In 2003, the California State Legislature approved Senate Bill 420, also known as the Medical Marijuana Program Act, codified as California Health and Safety Code Section 11362.7 et seq. In 2008, the California Attorney General issued "Guidelines for the Security and Non - Diversion of Marijuana Grown for Medical Use." Discussion The City of San Luis Obispo is considering an ordinance prohibiting medical marijuana cultivation, processing and distribution. An ordinance is not necessary because there are existing laws and guidelines regarding the cultivation, processing and distribution of medical marijuana. There are existing cultivation laws, as follows: Page 1 of 3 In 2003, the City of San Luis Obispo established medical marijuana possession and cultivation guidelines by default as per California Health and Safety Code Sections 11362.5 and 11362.77. A qualified patient may possess no more than 8 ounces of dried marijuana and may cultivate no more than 6 mature or 12 immature marijuana plants. If these guidelines are not sufficient to meet a qualified patient's medical needs, then a qualified patient may possess and cultivate an amount of marijuana consistent with a physician's recommendation. We are committed to protecting the health, safety and welfare of the community. We provide safe and secure access to medical marijuana. We deliver medical marijuana in a discrete and professional manner. We provide employment and support businesses in the community. If the City of San Luis Obispo prohibits the cultivation, processing and distribution of medical marijuana, then qualified patients would have to acquire medical marijuana in surrounding communities. Qualified patients would have to acquire medical marijuana in parking lots from medical marijuana delivery services. This method of acquiring medical marijuana is a hardship on qualified patients, especially qualified patients with mobility impairment. The City of San Luis Obispo could regulate cultivation, processing and distribution of medical marijuana. The city could develop regulations for storefront medical marijuana dispensaries. The city could require medical marijuana delivery services to obtain business licenses. In 2012, the San Luis Obispo Grand Jury issued a report "Out of Sight, Out of Mind: Medical Marijuana in San Luis Obispo County." The report recommends that the county and incorporated cities develop regulations for safe and secure access to medical marijuana. Excerpts from the Grand Jury report, as follows: "Safe access for authorized medical marijuana patients is the issue, and regulation is the key. Codes and ordinances could place specific, reviewable, measurable, and enforceable conditions on dispensaries, as well as delivery services." "The county and incorporated cities in the county should develop an ordinance regarding medical marijuana mobile collective delivery services within their respective jurisdictions." "By code or ordinance, the county and each incorporated city in the county should require medical marijuana mobile collective delivery services operating within their jurisdiction to possess a business license and seller's permit." Medical marijuana is a natural herb with a long history of medical use. Medical marijuana has been shown to alleviate suffering from a large number of medical conditions and symptoms. Medical marijuana is used as either a complement or an alternative to pharmaceutical medications. Page 2 of 3 In the United States, 21 states and the District of Columbia have legalized medical marijuana. Two of those states, Colorado and Washington, have legalized recreational marijuana. Other states, Alabama, Florida, Mississippi and Utah, have legalized non - psychoactive medical marijuana. Federal Law In 1970, the United States Congress approved the Controlled Substances Act. Medical and recreational marijuana are illegal under the Controlled Substances Act. Recently, the United States Attorney General issued guidelines for medical and recreational marijuana. In 2009, the United States Attorney General issued a "Memorandum for Selected United States Attorneys: Investigations and Prosecutions in States Authorizing the Medical Use of Marijuana." This memorandum stated that United States Attorneys should not focus federal resources on persons whose actions are in clear and unambiguous compliance with existing state laws providing for the medical use of marijuana. In 2013, the United States Attorney General issued a "Memorandum for All United States Attorneys: Guidance Regarding Marijuana Enforcement." This memorandum stated that United States Attorneys should not interfere with persons in states that have enacted laws legalizing the use, possession, cultivation or distribution of marijuana, unless such persons engage in distribution of marijuana to minors, distribution of marijuana revenue to criminal enterprises, gangs and cartels, diversion of marijuana to other states, using state authorized marijuana activities as a cover for trafficking of illegal drugs or illegal activity, violence or use of firearms in cultivation and distribution of marijuana, driving under the influence of marijuana, cultivation of marijuana on public lands, use and possession of marijuana on federal property. There is an exception for use and possession of medical marijuana under laws of the United States. Since 1978, it is legal for approved patients to use and possess medical marijuana under the Compassionate Investigational New Drug Program of the Food and Drug Administration. Each patient receives 300 medical marijuana cigarettes per month. The medical marijuana cigarettes are obtained from the National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA). The medical marijuana is cultivated, harvested, processed and stored at the University of Mississippi. The medical marijuana is rolled and packaged at the Research Triangle Institute in North Carolina. The NIDA is the only legal source of medical marijuana for approved patients under laws of the United States. In addition, the NIDA is the only legal source of medical marijuana for approved scientific studies and research projects under the laws of the United States. Sincerely, Randy Dale, Director 805.433.3838 cannaexpress @live.com cannaexpress.org Page 3 of 3 COUNCIL MEETING: _ G3 ._ c' MAY 0 2 2014 ITEM NO.: 1 Mejia, Anthony From: Don Duncan <don @safeaccessnow.org> Sent: Friday, May 02, 20141:55 PM To: Ashbaugh, John; Carpenter, Dan; Christianson, Carlyn; Codron, Michael; Dietrick, Christine; Lichtig, Katie; Marx, Jan; Smith, Kathy; Mejia, Anthony Subject: Reject the ban on medical cannabis Dear City Council Members, I am the California Director of Americans for Safe Access (ASA), the nation's leading medical cannabis patients' advocacy organization. I am writing on behalf of sixty ASA members and other medical cannabis patients and advocates in San Luis Obispo to urge you to reject a proposed ban on most medical cannabis cultivation, processing, and distribution. Instead, I invite you to work with ASA and other stakeholders to find a better solution for patients and the community at large. Research conducted by ASA and the experience from nearly ten years of local ordinances show that regulations reduce crime, and complaints around medical cannabis facilities. Greater detail about the outcomes of local regulation of medical cannabis can be found in our report, updated in 2011, entitled Medical Cannabis Dispensing Collectives and Local Regulation. Elected officials and law enforcement officers interviewed for this report acknowledged that regulating medical cannabis activity is beneficial for the community as a whole, so encouraging regulation is sound public policy. Download the report at http : / /www.safeaccessnow.org /asa reports or call (916) 449 -3975 for a hardcopy. Another report recently issued by the University of Colorado Denver School of Public Affairs about the impact of medical cannabis dispensaries in Colorado similarly found that medical cannabis dispensing operations do not harm local communities. You can read the abstract for "Do medical marijuana centers behave like locally undesirable land uses? Implications for the geography of health and environmental justice," Lyndsay N. Boggess, et al., 2014, at http : / /tinvurl.com /Univ -CO -Study While local bans on medical cannabis activity are arguably permitted under state law, adopting a ban is a poor public policy choice. Patients relay on personal cultivation, dispensaries, and delivery services for access to the medicine they need to treat the symptoms of serious conditions. There is nothing to be gained from denying access and forcing undue hardship of residents who are obeying state law. Doing so may force patients back into the unregulated, and potentially dangerous, illicit market. ASA works in partnership with state, local and national legislators to overcome barriers and create policies that improve access to cannabis for patients and researchers. We would be happy to work with you to find a solution that protects the interests of legal patients and the community at large. Thank you, Don Duncan Don Duncan I California Director Americans for Safe Access office: 916.449.3975 1 mobile: 323.326.6347 1 email: donasafeaccessnow.org 770 L Street I Suite 950 1 Sacramento, CA 95814 www. America nsforSafeAccess. orcq Me"embip Drive SPntl9 in -o M�emb�erSi�ip� April 18 • Mey 31st 2014 Take advantage of the spring savings & access to eedudve bawgb i away Become a Member of ASA Today! Spring into Membership! Jour or Renew your membershr ,Q between April 18 - May 31, 2014 & take advantage of our special membership incentives! COUNCIL MEETING: l7 L(o 1201 y ITEM NO.: 1-1- I Mejia, Anthony .��. From: Marx, Jan I i�s`_C�::��1'a,l� Sent: Sunday, May 04, 2014 8:51 PM To: justingravett @cox.net MAY 0 5 2014 Cc: Mejia, Anthony Subject: RE: Opposition to Proposed Ordinance to Ban Medical Marijuana. Thank you for your message. I am including the city clerk in this response, so that it becomes part of the public record. Jan Marx Mayor Office of the City Council City of San Luis Obispo 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 -3249 E Imarx @slocity.org T 805.781.7120 slocity.org From: [justingravett @cox.net] Sent: Sunday, May 04, 2014 7:53 PM To: Smith, Kathy; Marx, Jan; Ashbaugh, John; Carpenter, Dan; Christianson, Carlyn Subject: Opposition to Proposed Ordinance to Ban Medical Marijuana Attention: City Council Members On May 6th, 2014 the subject of the consideration of an ordinance prohibiting medical marijuana cultivation, processing, and distribution will be discussed at the City Council meting (item number PH1). As a patient currently benefiting from the use of medical marijuana, I stand in strong opposition to this proposal. I would like to voice my opinion in regard to several reasons why medical marijuana should continue to be allowed in San Luis Obispo. First, I do not believe that this ordinance reflects the majority opinion of the community. I was not even aware of this proposition until a few days ago and am now struggling to even let others know about it. Throughout California, there is a majority of citizens that believe that medical marijuana should be allowed to those that can benefit from it. Additionally, many states, including California, have allowed for the use of medical marijuana, with some even legalizing recreational use. Medical marijuana recommendations have been issued by doctors, and patients have been allowed by the state of California to consume, produce, and share medical marijuana among themselves. Medical marijuana has been scientifically tested and shown to have positive effects to combat numerous ailments much more effectively than other medicines. It is also a much less harmful medicine when compared to many pharmaceuticals. The patients that I have known and myself are typically much better members of society due to the benefits that medical marijuana has on their lives. The opposition to medical marijuana bases much of their argument on the potential for users of medical marijuana to pose a safety or health risk to those around them. I disagree with this, and have only experienced users to be very aware of their presence around others. I do not believe that patients harm those around them, and rarely ever cause a nuisance. Overall, this ordinance will only cause harm to the members of the community that are already suffering from ailments that in many cases are best relieved with medical marijuana. If this ordinance passes, many will be left to simply use other methods to receive their treatment, possibly even by contacting drug dealers or similar sources. This would essentially lead to a shift from the safe, reliable, and legal distribution of medicine to a dangerous and illegal black market trade, increasing crime and danger in San Luis Obispo. I urge the City Council to consider these arguments against the proposed ordinance. There are many additional reasons on top of these as well, and I would happily answer any questions or concerns about all of this. I hope that this e-mail helps in the decisions made on May 6th, since I will be unable to attend the meeting. Thank you for your time, consideration, and continual support of the community of San Luis Obispo. Please do not hesitate to contact me for any reason. Sincerely, Goodwin, Heather From: Mejia, Anthony Sent: Tuesday, May 06, 2014 4:03 PM To: Goodwin, Heather; Kremke, Kate Subject: FW: Cannabis Agenda Item - May 6, 2014 AGENDA CORRESPONDENCE Date 5 _ io " Item# From: Wendy Johnson [mailto:wjgshcc @gmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, May 06, 2014 3:54 PM To: Ashbaugh, John; Carpenter, Dan; Christianson, Carlyn; Codron, Michael; Dietrick, Christine; Lichtig, Katie; Marx, ]an; Smith, Kathy; Mejia, Anthony Subject: Cannabis Agenda Item - May 6, 2014 SLO City Council Members, My name is Wendy Greene and I am a current resident in the city of San Luis Obispo. I am writing concerning the proposed agenda item relating to cannabis cultivaton in the city of San Luis Obispo. The agenda item proposes to ban cultivation and distribution of cannabis within the city limits. I am cuncerned and a bit surprised that this vote will take place in a closed session without the oportunity for residents of the city the opportunity to comment. While this is said to prevent bias, this seems to present bias instead. Let me first state that I do not use cannabis for medical or recreational reasons, I am strongly against this proposal. While I do not want my neighbor to be cultivating cannabis in my neighborhood, the outright banning of cannabis as it is fast approaching a broad legal status seems counterproductive to the heath of the city. I think that the proposal as it is writtten does not provide enough detail and is detrimental to those already in production LEGALLY in the city of San Luis Obispo. It would seem wiser to step back and take the time to write and adopt a proposal with more detail providing for legal grow operations within commercial areas within the city and laying out specific guidelines for the protection of the pulib and business owners. As we have seen in Colorado, the legal cannabis industry is a great oppportunity for income for the city throuh tourism and taxes. Why eliminate this potential opportunity and drive the cannabis underground? As with prohibition, I am concerned that a broad ban of cannabis cultivation within San Luis Obispo may lead to an increase in crime and violence as producers are driven underground and forced to take extreme measure to both cultivate and distribute their goods. I have great appreciation for a city council that is taking the interest and safety of their citizens to heart, and i think that this proposal is meant for the protection of residents of San Luis Obispo. However, I humbly implore the city council to resider rejecting this proposal as I believe this is the safest path. Thank you, Wendy Greene, resident COUNCIL MEETING: -USED � W I LI ITEM NO.: 1-i - Mejia, Anthony From: Diane Gregory <dianefreesia2001 @yahoo.com> Sent: Sunday, May 04, 2014 6:37 PM To: Mejia, Anthony Subject: Fw: Las Vegas heavy hitters vie for medical marijuana licenses I Las Vegas Review - Journal RECEVED Hypocrisy. MAY 0 5 2014 On Sunday, May 4, 2014 2:35 PM, Diane Gregory <dianefreesia2001(a)-yahoo.com> wrote: This is how it's going. Big money and politicians jumping in. A little ridiculous! ! On Sunday, May 4, 2014 1:07 PM, Diane Gregory <dianefreesia2001 a)yahoo.com> wrote: On Sunday, May 4, 2014 11:09 AM, Judiah Hoffman <iudiah.hoffman(@cimail.com> wrote: http: / /m. review'ou rnal.com/ news /nevada- and- westllas- vegas- heavy - hitters- vie - medical- marijuana- licenses Sent from my Phone COUNCIL MEETING: tP I ITEM NO.: M Mejia, Anthony From: Diane Gregory <dianefreesia2001 @yahoo.com> Sent: Friday, May 02, 2014 5:54 PM To: Mejia, Anthony MAY 0 5 2014 Dear Sirs, The person operating a grow house in San Luis Obispo should suffer some consequences for their behavior. However, I know of many people that are careful, respectable and very capable of growing mmj indoors for those patients in need. I do believe that SLO should try to figure out a reasonable location and take applications for a legitimate brick and mortar location. There are many qualified business people in SLO that have knowledge to operate such a business. This does not include many of the delivery services operating in the area. I have had numerous occasions to interact with some of these services. There are some very reputable and some that are not. What will happen to those needing medicine in SLO? Will they have to drive outside the city limits to a location to meet the delivery service? Will this be any safer? These services should be limited in number, true. They should operate in a responsible and businesslike manner.Any grower that has too much product and can't sell it gets the notion to open a delivery service so many are "fly by night ". There are very few violent situations as mentioned in your report due to medical marijuana in our community. Somehow, our community needs to deal with mmj in a responsible, effective way and set an example with communities that have overreached and created more havoc. Thanks for attempting to solve a perplexing issue. Sincerely, Diane Gregory COUNCIL MEETING: ITEM NO.: VtA • i Mejia, Anthony From: Carrie Harwood <cnharwood @gmail.com> Sent: Monday, May 05, 2014 12:39 PM To: Ashbaugh, John; Carpenter, Dan; Christianson, Carlyn; Codron, Michael; Dietrick, Christine; Lichtig, Katie; Marx, Jan; Smith, Kathy; Mejia, Anthony,_ Subject: Regarding the Proposed Medical Marijuana Ordinance MAY 05 2014 To the San Luis Obispo City Council: I As a San Luis Obispo citizen, and active voter, I would like to encourage you to reject the proposed ordinance prohibiting medical marijuana cultivation, processing, and distribution. While I agree that residential and commercial growing operations should be regulated for the safety of our community, I believe that much of this ordinance will increase crime, limit safe and legal access, and negatively impact our economy. The banning of medical marijuana delivery services, and cultivation cooperatives, will burden the sick with the the cultivation their own medicine while asking them to take on unnecessary personal risk. Or simply go without. This is cruel. It will also force many law abiding citizens to the black market, increasing crime and cost to our city. Furthermore, the ordinance fails to include any details as to how many people are using these delivery services, how many delivery services are operating in the city, the number and scope of large scale cultivation operations, even how many of our citizens legally hold a Medical Marijuana Identification Card. Without these vital statistics it is impossible to measure the true impact to our community. A vote on this ordinance, as written, without considering these factors, is irresponsible. In a time when attitudes, and laws, regarding legalization are rapidly changing, this type of hasty, over - reaching regulation is antiquated. This ordinance is in embarrassing opposition to the progressive spirit of our city and represents a missed opportunity to be a leader on this important issue. Thank you for your consideration. Carolyn Harwood 758 Toro St San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 cnharwood @p,mail.com 408 -234 -0500 Kremke, Kate From: Sent: To: Subject: Attachments: Anthony J. Mejia I City Clerk 999 F'alrn Street San [ Leis Obispo, (-.A 931,01 tef 1 8055 781,/'102 Mejia, Anthony Tuesday, May 06, 2014 12:09 PM Kremke, Kate FW: Marijuana Grow Ordinance Pot Ordinance Letter.docx From: Marx, Jan Sent: Tuesday, May 06, 2014 11:24 AM To: Mejia, Anthony Subject: FW: Marijuana Grow Ordinance Agenda correspondence MAY 0 6 2014 AGENDA CORRESPONDENCE Date f - L Item #--eb-I From: Connie Hasley [ mailto :connie.hasley@cimail.com] Sent: Tuesday, May 06, 2014 9:52 AM To: Marx, Jan; Ashbaugh, John; Carpenter, Dan; Smith, Kathy; Christianson, Carlyn; Codron, Michael; 'michael and denise shandroff; rion - belt @sbcglobal.net; 'Trisha Rebel'; morgan @audioengineusa.com; Johnson, Derek; Gesell, Steve; Bledsoe, John; Storton, Keith; Staley, Chris; Dietrick, Christine; Hermann, Greg Subject: Marijuana Grow Ordinance Please see attached letter from another concerned family. I May 4, 2014 Dear Mayor Marx, City Council and all, My family purchased and moved into our home on Leff Street in 1998. We love our neighborhood and our community, feeling, as most people do, that San Luis Obispo is a wonderful place to live and raise our children. We consider everyone on our regular dog -walk loop to be a neighbor - -- and know many of them by name. They know our children and add a level of comfort for us, knowing we share the responsibilities and privileges of life together in a small town. We have kept ourselves informed about the situation on Leff and Nipomo, with the ever increasing problems (crime, lack of safety, general "acceptance" of a drug selling house as a way of life)associated with the marijuana plant business established there. We have deep concerns on many levels: There are two minors living in the house with the pot production business. Quite simply, I am concerned for their general welfare. This is a neighborhood with an elementary school and a daycare within a few blocks. The mobile dispensaries seem to be a huge part of the problem. They serve as another piece of the well - established business, getting their 'cut' and adding to the number of unsavory people coming to the neighborhood whose only interest is a drug transaction. Not exactly a healthy situation in any manner of speaking. Drugs, money, people acting under pressure and /or the influence of controlled substances, not a good combination. • Home values. This is a less important (for us) but nonetheless very real, concern. It would be difficult to sell a home within the immediate radius of a known "grow house ". As stated by another concerned resident, "What buyer or tenant ...wants to live next to this? Would you want to ?" Well, maybe if you could start your own business... It seems pretty easy to get a card and a few plants in SLO... • Quantity. We have empathy for persons who choose to use marijuana for medical purposes. We cannot fathom any one person needing 6 full size trees for their own personal use, let alone two people requiring 12 trees in the same household. Is it even possible to smoke that much? So there are "excesses" —and there you have your business opportunity. Not rocket science. We are not, as some would propose, wishing to "step back in time" or "return to the underground drug deal ". We are simply asking for appropriate consideration. Although the Shandroffs might seem to be the only concerned citizens (the Tribune rarely quotes anyone else), this is not so. There are hundreds of people affected by this situation and we are concerned. We are relying on the logic and intelligence of our public servants to do what is right: protect our rights as citizens, homeowners, and human beings, hear our concerns and pass this ordinance which serves all the people of our city. Sincerely, Ty DATE: mEmouanbum May 5, 2014 MAY 0 5 2014 Q, d AGENDA CORRESPONDENCE Date Item# LP I( TO: Mayor and City Council FROM: Derek Johnson, Community D velo went Director VIA: Katie Lichtig, City Manage • PREPARED BY: Greg Hermann, Special Projects Manager SUBJECT: CONSIDERATION OF AN ORDINANCE PROHIBITING MEDICAL MARIJUANA CULTIVATION, PROCESSING AND DISTRIBUTION This memorandum is in response to several questions posed regarding the public hearing agenda item, Consideration of an Ordinance Prohibiting Medical Marijuana Cultivation, Processing and Distribution, scheduled for the May 6th, 2014 City Council Meeting. 1. Could the City's existing Mobile Vendor Ordinance apply to mobile medical marijuana dispensaries? The Mobile Vendor Ordinance (Municipal Code chapter 5.16) addresses sales occurring in the public right of way and states that mobile vendors operating in the City must have a permit issued by the Police Chief. One of the determinations that the Police Chief must make is that "the goods and /or services the applicant proposes to offer or sell from the vehicle are legal under both state and federal law." Marijuana is an illegal substance under the Federal Controlled Substances Act, 21 U.S.C. 801 et seq. As such, mobile medical marijuana dispensaries would not be allowed as mobile vendors. The mobile vendor regulations do not regulate vending on private property. 2. Why include the prohibition of mobile medical marijuana dispensaries in the proposed ordinance? The proposed ordinance aligns with recommendations from the 2012 Grand Jury Report citing the need for cities to develop ordinances regarding mobile medical marijuana dispensaries and the City's response to those recommendations, approved by the City Council, stating that "medical marijuana uses including medical marijuana collective delivery services are prohibited." The proposed ordinance seeks to make the existing prohibition on such uses that maintain physical addresses in the City more explicit, create clarity and consistency as it relates to businesses that might not maintain their physical business location within the City, and provide limited exceptions for qualified patients and primary caregivers. Agenda Correspondence (PHI — Medical Marijuana) Page 2 3. Are "brick and mortar" medical marijuana dispensaries currently allowed in the City? The City has always taken the position that medical marijuana dispensaries are not allowed in City and reaffirmed this in the City's response, approved by the City Council, to the 2012 Grand Jury Report. The San Luis Obispo Municipal Code does not contain a land use designation for medical marijuana dispensaries and therefore does not provide for medical marijuana dispensaries within the City jurisdiction. Since the Municipal Code does not provide for medical marijuana uses, they are prohibited. 4. Does this ordinance prohibit all cultivation, processing and distribution of medical marijuana in the City? The proposed ordinance is not a strict prohibition, but rather attempts to provide a balance between the needs of those who can possess and use medical marijuana in accordance with state law and concerns about neighborhood quality of life voiced by residents in the community. Under the proposed ordinance, qualified patients or primary caregivers will not violate the ordinance by cultivating medical marijuana: - at their place of residence as specified in the ordinance - for personal medical use - indoors - in an area no larger than 50 square feet - without visible exterior evidence - without creating a nuisance condition Also, qualified patients and primary caregivers who distribute medical marijuana to no more than two other qualified patients are not subject to enforcement under the ordinance. 5. How will the proposed ordinance be enforced? The proposed ordinance would be enforced under the civil and administrative enforcement provisions of the Municipal Code and otherwise applicable law. Staff would intend enforcement to be complaint driven, unless otherwise directed by Council. Certain activities related to medicinal marijuana are protected (with some exceptions) from criminal prosecution under State law for individuals that are qualified patients or primary caregivers and the proposed ordinance is attempting to balance those interests and avoid potential conflicts with State law. Given that State law protection, violations of the ordinance result in civil and administrative, rather than criminal, penalties. The City will retain its ability to serve administrative inspection warrants, obtain evidence of violations, levy fines, and seek injunctions against prohibited conduct. The proposed ordinance allows enforcement to be carried out by either police officers or code enforcement staff. 6. Would mobile medical marijuana dispensaries located outside of the City jurisdiction be allowed to conduct business in the City? Agenda Correspondence (PHI — Medical Marijuana) Page 3 No. The proposed ordinance would prohibit any person, association, organization, collective, cooperative, or company or entity of any kind from operating or establishing the operation of any Mobile Medical Marijuana Dispensary in any area of the City. This is consistent with the City's response, approved by the City Council, to the 2012 Grand Jury Report. 7. Is the proposed ordinance consistent with the City Council direction on this issue? The proposed ordinance reflects the City Council's direction to receive information related medical marijuana cultivation in the City. In addition, it clarifies the City's policies and previous statements regarding other aspects of medical marijuana use presenting a comprehensive framework for addressing the issue. The Council did not expressly direct staff to address the mobile dispensary issue, but rather gave broader direction to return to Council with regulatory options surrounding these issues in light of significant recent legal decisions in this area. 8. Is the CEQA exemption valid for the proposed ordinance? Concerns regarding adverse health impacts of patients and the potential of increased illegal activity are speculative and fall outside of the CEQA analysis. Existing regulations are in place regarding the inability of a mobile medical marijuana dispensary to establish physical operations in the city given the lack of a land use designation for mobile medical marijuana delivery services. Staff does not see evidence at this point that the exemption is inapplicable. As noted, the proposed regulations are intended to clarify existing regulations and ensure consistency in treatment for mobile dispensaries, regardless of whether they are physically located within the City boundaries. T: \Council Agenda Reports\2014\2014 -05 -06 \Medical Marijuana (Johnson)\Medical Marijuana Agenda Correspondence. docx COUNCIL MEETING: O S o Io I W) ITEM NO.: P �A . Mgia, Anthony From: Marx, Jan Sent: Monday, May 05, 2014 3:18 PM — To: Mejia, Anthony; Goodwin, Heather Subject: FW: Medical marijuana, MAY 05 2014 Agenda correspondence - - - -- Original Message---- - From: Roberta Hesser [mailto:sloRoberta @aol.com] Sent: Monday, May 05, 2014 10:33 AM To: Ashbaugh, John; Carpenter, Dan; Marx, Jan; Smith, Kathy; Christianson, Carlyn; Lichtig, Katie Subject: Medical marijuana, Council Members, I am so happy that you are pain free or able to take regular pain relievers, but we are all not so lucky. I am a 68 year old woman. I have endured two lumpectomies, two mastectomies and chemo. In addition I have assorted forms of arthritis. All in all everyday is a painful one ..... I am not complaining ....... i'm happy to be alive ...... i am just explaining, When I tried to take regular pain meds I started to bleed internally. My system just can not do them. I don't mind the painful days, I have accepted them and work around it. It's the nights that are the problem. The not being able to sleep, the constantly waking myself up Outing was horrible. Then a friend told me about medical marijuana, and suggested I try it before bedtime. I went to a doctor, got a prescription, called a delivery service, tried the muffin, and was amazed. I found that if I took a small pinch of a muffin an hour before bedtime I could actually get a few hours of sleep. It has made an unbelievable difference in my quality of life, and now you want to take that away. You are making me so sad and afraid. Fighting cancer is an exhausting, full time job when a person is rested, it is horrible when the mind and body are made weaker from lack of sleep and pain. If you change the law in SLO you will be hurting many sick, in pain, in need people of all ages. Please please think this through before you take any action. Hopeful in San Luis, Roberta Hesser Kremke, Kate From: Sent: To: Subject: Anthony J. Mejia I City Clerk City of San Luis Obispo 990 Palm Street San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 tel 1 805.781.7102 Mejia, Anthony Tuesday, May 06, 2014 12:10 PM Kremke, Kate FW: Keeping marihuana legal - - - -- Original Message---- - From: Marx, Jan Sent: Tuesday, May 06, 2014 11:31 AM To: Mejia, Anthony Subject: FW: Keeping marihuana legal Agenda correspondence MAY 06 2014 AGENDA CORRESPONDENCE Date. 5 .b - ! I Item #—J2L4-1— - - - -- Original Message---- - From: Wil And Lori Mail [ma i Ito: mesa plyr @yahoo.comj Sent: Monday, May 05, 2014 9:48 PM To: Marx, Jan; Smith, Kathy; decarpent @slocity.org; Ashbaugh, John; Christianson, Carlyn Subject: Keeping marihuana legal I am writing to beg you to keep marihuana delivery services available for those patients in need!!! I suffer from epilepsy & bipolar. It not only helps control my seizures, but it helps my mania too!!! 1 DO NOT want to have to drive to LA or beyond to get my MEDICINE!!! Keep the tax base local & support the wishes & votes of the people of California. Thank you for your time and consideration. Sincerely- Lori Anderson 805 - 710 -4475 Jan Marx Mayor Office of the City Council City of San Luis Obispo 990 Palm Street, San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 -3249 E Imarx @slocity.org T 805.781.7120 slocity.org 1 Kremke, Kate From: Sent: To: Subject: Anthony J. Mejia I City Clerk City of San Luis Obispo 990 Palm Street San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 tel 1 805.781.7102 Mejia, Anthony Tuesday, May 06, 2014 12:10 PM Kremke, Kate FW: Do Not Pass Marijuana Ban - - - -- Original Message---- - From: Marx, Jan Sent: Tuesday, May 06, 2014 11:26 AM To: Mejia, Anthony Subject: FW: Do Not Pass Marijuana Ban Agenda correspondence MAY 06 2014 I i AGENDA CORRESPONDENCE Date I Item# - - - -- Original Message---- - From: Joe [mailto:ioe @browsetoioe.com] Sent: Tuesday, May 06, 2014 9:21 AM To: Marx, Jan; Smith, Kathy; Christianson, Carlyn; Carpenter, Dan; Ashbaugh, John Subject: Do Not Pass Marijuana Ban Hello, I strongly urge the city council to dismiss the ban on medical marijuana. My aunt relies on it, as well as so many other slo county residents. Please, get with the times and let's help these people in a reasonable way than make them goto the street for their medication. Thank you, Joe Miller 1 Me ia, Anthon Subject: RE: Medical Marijuana COUNCIL MEETING: r75 �0 281 L( ITEM NO.: _P 4 From: Paul Ogren [paulogren @fromwartopeace.com] MAY 0 5 2014 Sent: Saturday, May 03, 2014 10:58 AM To: Marx, ]an Subject: Medical Marijuana Mayor Marx, I do not know you well, but I am a citizen of San Luis Obispo living at 1055 Capistrano Court. I am writing in response to the proposed ordinance limiting the growing and mobile distribution of medical marijuana in our city. Some years ago the citizens of California, in a freely held election, determined that the allowance to grow and use marijuana should be available to those who had a legitimate medical need for its use. Our city and county seem to have done everything in their power to thwart the intent and utilization of that lawful initiative. That is a shame. When my late wife Sandra - a Vice President at Cal Poly - was dying of insidious cancer, she experienced extraordinary nausea from both chemotherapy and the ravages of the cancer itself. The anti - nausea drugs then available took quite a bit of time upon administration before they mitigated her nausea, and had, as well, unwished for side effects. She found that taking a simple toke of marijuana had immediate anti - nausea effect, without those side effects. Sandra was granted a legal medical marijuana prescription from a doctor, and attempted to secure marijuana locally to no avail. She and I had to drive literally a hundred miles either south or north to find legal access to marijuana. Quite an inconvenience for a person in severe pain who faced imminent death. I remember well driving Sandra to Santa Barbara one morning to visit a medical marijuana dispensary. This was just a month or so before her death in 2010. She was weak and nauseated, but pleased to go out for the drive and rather excited to access marijuana as a help for her nausea. When we arrived at the dispensary we were greeted by a sign on the door: "We are closed until 10:00 AM tomorrow morning, due to a Federal Government raid upon several medical marijuana dispensaries in Santa Barbara earlier this morning. We apologize for the inconvenience. " We visited several other dispensaries that day, and all were closed. Sandra broke down in tears, and we drove home to San Luis Obispo without having secured any help for her nausea. I was ashamed of President Obama and Attorney General Eric Holder that day, and ashamed of the small- mindedness that hurt a wonderful woman in desperate need. I understand that Denise and Mike Shandroff have complained about marijuana plants growing in a yard adjacent to their downtown business, and that the SLO City Council is considering an ordinance banning such cultivation in response. Apparently the smell of the plants was quite offensive to the Shandroff s. I understand further that you are considering banning the mobile dispensation of marijuana in San Luis Obispo as well. It is a shame that such mobile, legal distribution was not available to Sandra when she was still alive. It would have helped her a great deal. Our town has thousands of male mulberry and olive trees that dispense copious amounts of allergenic pollen every spring, sickening thousands of San Luis Obispo residents. If you're are inclined to help our community, why don't you ban the growing of those mulberry and olive trees rather than a plant that helps make life bearable for many sick people in a variety of ways? Jan, I'll leave you with this: you seem to be a nice woman and a competent mayor. However, if you support an ordinance limiting either the growing of or access to medical marijuana in our community I will actively oppose you in the next election and for the rest of your political career. I will do the same for every other member of the city council who tries to abridge the legal and moral rights of those who need the help medical marijuana can provide. Paul Ogren Founder, From War to Peace pau 1 o gren (af From W arTo Peace. com www.FromWarToPeace.com Cell: 805- 305 -3710 COUNCIL MEETING: O ITEM NO.:�1 - 1 Mejia, Anthony From: Benjamin <bowens @nachtlich.org> Sent: Saturday, May 03, 2014 2:06 PM To: Ashbaugh, John; Carpenter, Dan; Christianson, Carlyn; Codron, Michael; Dietrick, Christine; Lichtig, Katie; Marx, Jan; Smith, Kathy; Mejia, Anthony Subject: Cannabis cultivation & delivery in San Luis Obispo I MAY 0 5 2014 To the San Luis Obispo city council: j ,I s I am writing to voice my opposition to the proposal that would prohibit cannabis cultivation or delivery in the city. While there are many concerns related to cannabis I believe they are unfounded or exaggerated; since the introduction of California Proposition 215 the crime rate statewide and in San Luis Obispo has declined. I think the city and its residents would be better served by enforcing existing laws regarding public nuisances like odors, noise, or bright lights. By passing this amendment the city will push those with the means to do so to travel to other parts of our state and those without the means will be left with only the illicit market that the city is trying to prevent. Cannabis has been medically available for 18 years in California and in that time none of the threatened dangers have emerged, and hundreds of thousands of Californians have peacefully, legally enjoyed its benefits. Respectfully, Benjamin Owens San Luis Obispo, CA Kremke, Kate From: Sent: To: Subject: Anthony J. Mejia I City Clerk c;lt.A! of ot3 spo 9 4o PaIrn Strieet. San Luis Obispo, CA 93401 tel 1805 781 E)2' Mejia, Anthony Tuesday, May 06, 2014 12:12 PM Kremke, Kate FW: proposed ban on medical marijuana MAY 0 6 2014 AGENDA CORRESPONDENCE From: Bradford peters [ma i Ito: bradfordsglassClg mail .com] Date. 5 _ i, 1 Item# pig I Sent: Tuesday, May 06, 2014 11:48 AM To: Ashbaugh, John; Carpenter, Dan; Christianson, Carlyn; Codron, Michael; Dietrick, Christine; Lichtig, Katie; Marx, Jan; Smith, Kathy; Mejia, Anthony Subject: proposed ban on medical marijuana My name is Bradford Peters. I work in the medical marijuana industry. I'm writing in response to the proposed ban on medical marijuana cultivation, processing, and distribution in San Luis Obispo. I've read the proposal and I agree with with your motives. However, I am under the opinion that steps the city council is considering will not mitigate the issues that are of concern to the council. Nobody wants people sleeping in their yards with guns or people being bound and robbed. However, these situation occur because of the 'black market" still available for the cannabis. There is a demand for cannabis in SLO and that demand will be met. This ordinance will do little more than force those who want cannabis back on to the black market and increase the number of incidents that the ordinance is trying to mitigate. Attachment 3 summarizes several violent marijuana crimes. What you do not see in any of those scenarios are professionals in the industry. You do not see any commercial growing operations. You do not see any delivery service robberies. You don't see or hear of any professional medial marijuana individuals committing crimes or being victim of any crimes. This ordinance is targeting those who are not the cause of your valid concerns! Also, It appears to me that the council doesn't understand the scope of the industry. On page 2 of the Council Agenda Report, it states that there will be "no fiscal impact associated with the recommended action ". I'm not sure if this is meant to address the fiscal impact that it will have on the community or just any cost associated with implementation of the ordinance, but the medical marijuana industry in SLO provides much needed jobs in the area and a significant about of tax revenue. In 2012, I was approached by Herbal Elements (a SLO delivery service) to see if I would be interested in taking over their non - profit collective. I had an accountant look over their books to see the viability of their business. Herbal Elements bough over $500k worth of products from local vendors, sold all of it's inventory at a 125% markup, and paid taxes on all of it. I feel it would be unreasonable to turn away from said tax revenue and allow that money to remain in the black market and in the hands of criminals. Furthermore, ask your fire chief if he wants an additional several hundred (possibly several thousand) new cannabis closet grows. The infrastructure it takes to cultivate cannabis properly is significant and probably beyond the abilities of your average layperson. Fires happen all the time from people overloading their electrical circuits with grow lights and fans. This will be your next big issue. Please understand that I applaud what you're trying to do. I am just under the opinion that you're doing it wrong. thank you for your consideration. Bradford Peters Mejia, Anthony Subject: RE: PH -1 Agenda COUNCIL MEETING: ©S �� 14 ITEM NO.: P From: Richard Schmidt [slobuild @yahoo.com] Sent: Saturday, May 03, 2014 8:42 PM To: Marx, Jan; Ashbaugh, John; Smith, Kathy; Carpenter, Dan; Christianson, Carlyn Subject: PH -1 Agenda Dear Council Members, Please see attached letter on this matter. RS F-P, *- - MAY 0 5 2014 May 3, 2014 Re: PH -1: "medical marijuana" regulation Dear Council Members: I do not use medical marijuana, I do not grow it, I have no loved ones who do either, so literally don't have a dog in that race. am, however, a resident of this city, and am amazed that the city can find a way to respond to every minor slight with a nasty Procrustean armory full of repression and oppression. I am also a resident gardener who has experienced the repression of your out of control neighborhood cops coming after my garden and gardening, using the barest pretext of the law to harass and harangue and make my life miserable over an extended period of months. So, I see problems brewing for others in this proposed ordinance, and would like to help you head those off. Some thoughts: 1. The Leff Street grow, which is the poster for this proposed repression, and the city's response to it. • This type of "operation" is an outlier. It is not typical in any way of personal patient grows. Therefore, using it as a pretext for large scale prohibition is disingenuous on the city's part. • On its face, if the testimony of the neighbors is even half correct, this situation was a public nuisance, and the city already has ample means to deal with bonafide public nuisances. (So do the neighbors on their own, for that matter.) Why didn't you deal with it as a public nuisance and rid the neighbors of their problem? Hey, somebody was camping in the yard — isn't that against one of your laws too? Did the city do anything at all? Did you contact the landlord? (What sort of landlord would be stupid enough to knowingly allow this to go on, risking loss of the property should the feds take interest ?) It appears not. Those neighbors shouldn't have had to live with what they were living with — a good city would see to it that they didn't have to by using its resources appropriately. Of course, for those of us who still try to live here the city's indifference is old news: you go after the fluff, but let the serious stuff continue to drag the neighborhood down. Instead of helping the neighbors, the city (meaning staff) kicked the can down the road, and came up with a draconian prohibition via this ordinance. • If the photo in the newspaper was the actual grow, this clearly wasn't a person raising medical marijuana for personal use. It was a commercial operation of considerable size and scale raising marijuana for sale. It was, in other words, a business. Businesses are permitted in residential zones only with a home occupation business permit. Did this business have one? If not, why didn't the city do something about that fact, like shut it down or tell it to move? • Etc. The city left the neighbors to hang in the wind, then used them as an excuse to concoct yet another augmentation of Police State d'Obispo, of which you all are the titular head. Leff Street simply doesn't pass the smell test as an excuse for what's proposed. 2. Prohibition on outdoor growing. • This shows the meanness and ungodliness of those who came up with this ordinance. • Following God's way of growing marijuana is to recognize that it is a photosynthetic plant that takes inputs from soil, and energy (heat and light) from the sun, to produce one of God's wonders, a green thing that thrives and produces goods and services the Natural Way. This is also the most sustainable way to grow anything green — using God's miracle of photosynthesis and the Natural energies provided for that purpose. Isn't this supposedly a sustainable city? • So, Police State d'Obispo's way is to move the "grow" out of soil and sun, and to put it indoors, where it will be nourished (inferiorly) by chemical fertilizers made from oil or natural gas, transported thousands of miles, given a dose of Grow Lite fueled by nuclear fission or burning fossil fuel, both of which threaten to take the world to perdition within the lives of those alive today, and given warmth from some other fossil source. This isn't sustainable — it's brown. And it's hypocritical for a city that claims to be sustainable to even be contemplating requiring such a thing. • It's unclear what the city's intent actually is. Is it to harangue and harass people who need medical marijuana to the point they can't grow their own (thus making them patronize the quasi - criminal network you force them to go to if they can't grow their own)? Is it to create a de facto prohibition on all home - growing so that the quasi - criminal networks, which probably belong to some Chamber of Commerce for the "respectability" thus derived, can thrive? What, exactly, is your intent? Whatever it is, clearly the intent is not the welfare of the patient, who is one of your constituents. • The outdoor grow prohibition just makes no sense. It appears to be an excuse for some unspoken larger city program. 3. The Police Log listing "proofs" this ordinance is needed. • Please, tell me this is the product of some provocateur in the police department, some Monty Python -like reefer madness routine? Because none of the seven citations support what's being proposed. • Drugs + large amounts of cash: What's that tell you? What we learn from the "log" is that a number of people who were apparently dealing drugs, or were flaunting them before others so that "the word" got around, have had unfortunate experiences. And at that, it's a mere seven episodes over many years' time. On any scale of actual civic threats, this is unimpressive "evidence." • A medical marijuana patient with a discreet backyard grow of a plant or two would not likely be the target of criminals intent on valuable booty. • If this list was provided as serious evidence, it speaks to a disappointing dullness on the part of those who submitted it as such. 4. The Grand Jury report. • That this is included is completely baffling. What the Grand Jury says is that the safety of medical marijuana patients is of concern, and that cities need to do things to promote greater patient safety. • What exactly does this proposed instrument of harassment do to promote their safety? It appears it would force them to deal with the quasi - criminal and distinctly sleazy- seeming network of commercial medical drug providers, all of whom are proudly prohibited by the city, so that means they'd have to turn to the criminal drug network for their medical supplies. How does that promote their safety? • Adding to the perplexing inclusion of this report is the city's included response to it. Again and again, the response to the Grand Jury's recommendations, signed by Ms. Lichtig, states "The recommendation will not be implemented because it is not warranted." And one by one those "not warranted" matters suggested by the Grand Jury are included in the present ordinance before you. Well, well. Can we spell h -y -p- o-c-r-i-s-y? 5. Weird provisions of the ordinance. • How's it enforced? It's really unclear what this ordinance is, or how it would be enforced. What is it? It's called a nuisance ordinance. Reference is made to its provisions being enforceable by means of any other law? Do any of you have any clue what this means? Are you going to enact yet another in your string of over- reachingly vague punitive ordinances that staff then "interprets" and uses to harangue and harass residents who probably aren't breaking the law? Once enacted, you're turning staff loose to ratchet up Police State d'Obispo's reign of terror against residents in any manner they wish, just as you did by telling them to regulate "neighborhood wellness" and just as you did by telling them to busybody the placement of 70,000 garbage cans. When is enough enough? • Humidity and mold. One of my favorite indicators of either the ignorance or the ill -will of the author of this ordinance is its prohibition on increased indoor humidity or conditions that might produce mold as a result of moving "grows" indoors. Say what? How do you grow anything, let alone one of these tree -sized things, inside without raising humidity and creating conditions that might produce mold? That's impossible. Maybe the author's lived a sheltered SLO life and never been inside a greenhouse — quite possible since one of the obvious deficiencies of this town is a municipal conservatory. Anyway, it would be very interesting to hear staff explain in public how in the world the city would even attempt to enforce a prohibition on humidity and mold. Therein might lie enough intrusiveness into the private lives of residents to stir the hackles of even the most apolitical of citizens. Conclusion. As a long term resident of this city, when I read the sort of stuff being put before you in this report, I don't know whether to cry or to laugh. This is a very sad indicator of the lack of creative problem solving skills among your staff. It is an indictment of their inability to marshal evidence, then to think in a straight line to a reasonable conclusion. I think your top staff are providing extremely poor leadership over and guidance for those they've hired to do the grunt work, and this ordinance and its staff report are a prime exhibit of that sad fact. Of course you shouldn't pass this thing. But of course you will, because you'll do whatever staff tells you to do. Prove me wrong for once by just saying NO! Richard Schmidt Goodwin, Heather MAY 0 6 2014 r� l -r From: Mejia, Anthony Sent: Monday, May 05, 2014 9:01 PM To: Goodwin, Heather; Kremke, Kate Subject: Fwd: Cancer patients beg you: Do not shut down legal cannabis growers in SLO Agenda correspondence for item PH -1 AGENDA CORRESPONDENCE Date��`t Item #�� Begin forwarded message: From: "PS Scott, LMFT" <slotherapistkgmail.com> Date: May 5, 2014 at 6:24:08 PM PDT To: "Ashbaugh, John" <jashbaug_gslocit .org >, "Carpenter, Dan" <dcarpentkslocity.org >, "Christianson, Carlyn" <cchristigslocity.org >, "Codron, Michael" <mcodronnslocity.org >, "Dietrick, Christine" <cdietricga slocit�org >, "Lichtig, Katie" <klichtigga,slocity.org>, "Marx, Jan" <jmarxgslocity .or g >, "Smith, Kathy" <ksmithkslocity.org >, "Mejia, Anthony" <amej iagslocity. org> Subject: Cancer patients beg you: Do not shut down legal cannabis growers in SLO I have had cancer last year, and am undergoing brain surgery on 5/14. I have had to utilize medical cannabis for pain control, and am very grateful for our licensed professional growers and distributors. All have been courteous, professional, and helpful. Maintaining access is critically important to those of us in the community with chronic medical conditions. Shutting down legal commercial growers will ensure that those who will grow illicitly will flourish without regulation. Thank you, Pamela S. Scott, LMFT Mejia, Anthony Subject: RE: Support for SLO pot ordinance -- - - - - -- Original message -- - - - - -- From: michael and denise shandroff Date:05 /04/2014 5:23 PM (GMT- 08:00) COUNCIL MEETING: QS 6(A 12014 ITEM NO.: FP H 1 fF 1 /I--0 MAY 0 2014 To: letters�c),theh •tbune:icws.com, " Marx, Jan , "Ashbaugh, Jo ,Carpenter, Dan ,Smith, Kathy , "Christianson, Carlyn" , "Codron, Michael" , michael and denise shandroff , "Hermann, Greg" ,Doug Debbie Neighbors ,trebel @charter.net, "Morgan (" , "Johnson, Derek" , "Gesell, Steve" , "Bledsoe, John" , "Storton, Keith" , "Staley, Chris" , "Dietrick, Christine" ,hsweasey @gmail.com Subject: Support for SLO pot ordinance To the Tribune Editor, our City leaders and our SLO City neighbors, After the Tribune's Saturday article on the proposed Medical Marijuana Ordinance and our recent neighborhood experiences, we find ourselves cast as instigators by reporter AnnMarie Comejo. We would like to explain the circumstances in an attempt to share with our neighbors some of the things we have learned about the Compassionate Use Act, which we voted for and continue to support. Why we got involved: With a large grow next door, we decided to take a complaint to City officials based on four things. 1. Nuisance: the inescapable stench of skunk -weed. 2. Safety: we did not feel safe in our own home and yard, with a marijuana grow of 12 large plants next door valued at appx. $90,000 retail. 3. Property Value: the commercial use of a residential property effecting all of our neighborhood property values. 4. Concern: the grow was conducted by a 16 year -old (now 17) with a "passion for the botany of cannabis," a medical marijuana card, and a younger sibling residing in the house. When we decided to go public: After the Fire Marshall showed up at our house, and questioned our house painter (while we were out of town) about a foul odor, we realized we weren't the only ones in the neighborhood being negatively impacted. The painter told the Fire Marshall he was likely smelling the marijuana garden next door. On that day the CAPSLO Headstart Toddler School had sent their students and staff home due to what they thought was possibly a chemical or gas leak. The fence of their playground is only 60 ft. from the fence of the marijuana grow. We started doing research and talking with neighbors. We read the SLO 2012 Grand Jury report which includes seven real examples of "Violent Marijuana Rip- Offs" in SLO city. The report is a sobering read of the unintended consequences of SLO's lack of regulation of the local pot trade. We and a few of our neighbors went to the October City Council Meetings and spoke about the problems in our neighborhood. This is not Reefer Madness 1936: This is San Luis Obispo 2014 (population 45,000 city, 274,000 county). Grown in late Summer - early Fall 2013, the marijuana crop next door grew to an appx. value of $90,000. The neighbors had two Medical Marijuana Cards, so SLO City Police and Code Enforcement would not use nuisance laws to stop it for fear of a lawsuit. We were told by a local dispensary that neighborhood growers work in collaboration with the local dispensaries who then buy the weed from the grower to sell to their members. Of the 30+ (weedmaps.com) SLO county mobile dispensaries, SLO's Ethno Botanica /PotDeli.com states they alone have 1400 SLO county members. So, if each of the 30+ dispensaries has 1400 members, does that mean SLO county has 42,000 legitimately sick patients using medical marijuana? I doubt it, but that's a lot of possible customers. With big money to be made, how long will it take for organized crime, gangs and more violence to move in? In Fresno, after farmer complaints and nine murders attributed to cultivation, all marijuana grows and dispensaries have been banned in the County. (see link: http: / /america.alj zeera.corn /articles/2014 /l/30 /armed- farmers- combatille galcalifomiamarij uanafarms.html. Here's some weed -math: One healthy outdoor plant will yield 500 grams (theweedblog.com). Ethnobotanica /PotDeli.org (SLO) charges $15 per gram. That's $7,500 per plant, six plants per card equals $45,000 retail per card per harvest. SLO growers get two harvests per year ($90,000 per card, retail value). One plant per year (500 grams) with national average use of .8 grams per joint (High Times) equals 625 joints. That's roughly 13/4 joints per day all year long from one plant, one harvest! The proposed City Ordinance allows enough space (50 square feet) for patients to continually grow at least two plants indoors. Yield equals "an average of around 250 to 500 grams per plant (1000 for advanced growers) with a 1000- watt HPS lamp in a grow room that measures 5 x 5 x 8 ft" - theweedblog.com AnnMarie Comejo missed the point in her Tribune story Saturday. The issue is not about banning the distribution of medicine, or preventing sick patients from growing their medicine. The proposed SLO City ordinance allows for that. The issue is about illegal, un -taxed and unregulated local businesses: growers and mobile dispensaries who are abusing the Compassionate Use Act for big profit at the expense of our safety and our beautiful community. It's about our City leaders trying to manage the need for compassionate care with neighborhood safety. The dispensaries, growers and their attorneys will be at the 4:00 pm Tuesday City Council hearing trying to shut down the proposed ordinance. Please help keep SLO the happy, clean and low crime town that it is. Help define a way forward for the Compassionate Use Act in SLO. Come to the hearing at City Hall on Tuesday 5/6 at 4:00 pm to support the draft ordinance. Please feel free to forward this to your friends and neighbors in order to get people to the meeting to tell the residents side of this story. Your neighbors, Mike & Denise -Shandroff 575 Leff St., SLO 805 -541 -3503 COUNCIL MEETING: _0 S �6 &, �I ITEM NO.: PH - Mejia, Anthony From: Marx, Jan Sent: Saturday, May 03, 2014 5:58 PM To: Mejia, Anthony Subject: Fwd: PRO -Pot Ordinance meeting Tuesday- Police? Agenda correspondence Sent from my Verizon Wireless 4G LTE Smartphone -- - - - - -- Original message -- - - - - -- From: michael and denise shandroff Date:05/03/2014 4:42 PM (GMT- 08:00) MAY 0 5 2014 CLERK To: "Marx Jan" "Ashbaugh John" "Carpenter, Dan" "Smith Kathy" "Christianson Carlyn" "Codron Michael" , michael and denise shandroff, "Hermann, Greg" ,Doug Debbie Neighbors ,trebel @charter.net,morgan @a udioengineusa.com, "Johnson, Derek" , "Gesell, Steve" , "Bledsoe, John" , "Storton, Keith" , "Staley, Chris" , "Dietrick, Christine" Cc: symensl2 @gmail.com,brett @audioengineusa.com Subject: PRO -Pot Ordinance meeting Tuesday- Police? Hello from Leff St. in the Happiest Town on Earth, We are wondering if the City Police will be at the meeting Tuesday to shed light on the violent incidents surrounding Home Pot Growing in our community? We still keep our gates and doors locked at all times due to the drug activity on our block. We no longer feel safe in our own home here in SLO -Town. The proposed ordinance is a fair way forward for our community. Gregg Hermann and the city staff have done a good job crafting a document that helps define compassionate care in SLO, and gives the city a way to deal with those who would abuse the intent of the compassionate care law. The Grand Jury report of 2012, included in the ordinance packet, is very clear in dealing with this issue describing the effects and dangers of allowing this pot commerce to continue unchecked. It's a danger to patients, delivery boys and neighbors. Please stay strong in your support of a safe community by passing the ordinance. We will attend and speak at the meeting to help explain the consequences of these neighborhood grows. Thank you for your service, Mike Shandroff property owner, landlord, business owner and resident of SLO for 17 years From: brett @audioengineusa.com Subject: Today's article Date: Sat, 3 May 2014 11:57:20 -0700 To: jmarx @slocity.org; jashbaug @slocity.org; dcarpent @slocity.org; ksmith @slocity.org; cchristi @slocity.org; mcodron @slocity.org; mdshandroff @hotmail.com; GHermann @slocity.org; rion - belt @sbcglobal.net; trebel @charter.net; morgan @audioengineusa.com; djohnson @slocity.org; sgesell @slocity.org; jbledsoe @slocity.org; kstorton @slocity.org; cstaley @slocity.org; cdietric @slocity.org I just read today's article in the Tribune. First of all, thanks to Mike and Denise for having the courage to stand up to keep our neighborhood clean and safe. Most people wouldn't take that stand and actually get something done. The six points I made below aren't a hypothetical or some far fetched theory. This is reality. This little pot farm is a microcosm of what is to come if these grows are unrestrained (please read the article below for another dose of frightening reality). The unintended consequences will reshape this beautiful place we call home slowly but surely, just as it did on Leff Street with a SINGLE house. Imagine dealing with dozens of these pot houses all over the city. Koory's analogy of the genie in the bottle is a good one but he is wrong. The genie isn't out. At least not yet in SLO. I'm sure you will all feel a great deal of pressure from the pro -pot groups and their attorneys to allow this business to continue- and it is a business. They are a vocal minority. 1 encourage you to continue to stand your ground and protect the property owners and residents who have a vested interest in keeping our community safe. Thank you for your leadership. It means a great deal to us that the city council and law enforcement has the courage to tackle this problem before it gets out of control. Regards, Brett Bargenquast 805.878.0870 http:/ lamerica.aliazeera.com /articies /2014 /11`30 /armed- farmers- combatilipgalc_al_iforniamari uanafarms.html "But this boom has brought so much crime to Fresno County — nine murders since 2012 — and complaints from neighboring farmers that the county Board of Supervisors this month passed the strictest ban in the state: no marijuana cultivation, indoor or out. The law is expected to be challenged. The county had already banned all marijuana dispensaries." On Oct 15, 2013, at 3:39 PM, Brett Bargenquast <brett @audioengineusa.com> wrote: Hello, My name is Brett Bargenquast and I own the property on the corner of Leff and Nipomo. My wife and I attended the city council meeting a few weeks back and listened to Mike and Denise Shandroff ( Nipomo St residents) speak about the marijuana grow house located between our properties. Here are a few things you need to be aware of as leaders of our community: 1. A major nuisance is created by the constant stench of weed all day long as the tenants grow 12 giant pot plants. 2. Hawthorne school is 3 blocks away. Kids walk by the drug house daily on their way to /from school. 3. The day care center direct behind the drug house shut down for a day because they though there was some kind of dangerous gas leak, but it was the smell created by the drug house. 4. Diminution of values. As owners, we must disclose this situation. What buyer or tenant who has a family wants to live next to this? Would you want to? 5. A 17 year old minor lives in the drug house and is cultivating and using marijuana. He lives in the back yard in a tent so he can protect his plants. 6. Safety /crime threat due to a house full of either weed or cash. They harvest, use, and are able to accept "donations" for what's left of the 12 pot plants (i.e. sell). Understand that it not only affects us as adults, but this situation clearly puts children at risk. We now have broken bottles in the street, pit bulls barking and fighting in the backyard, sleazy people constantly coming and going and the threat of crime in our neighborhood due to the presence of drugs and the people growing and using them. You have the opportunity to nip this problem in the bud (so to speak) before these "home grows" get out of control. This is not what we want for our beautiful community so we ask you to lead on this issue. Lastly, I have a simple question. Would you feel comfortable with your kids playing outside next to a drug house like this? Regards, Brett Bargenquast 805.878.0870 Goodwin, Heather From: Sent: To: Subject: Anthony J. Mejia I City Clerk ';I(' of -;.are lint czw spo 9f)o P<alrn Street San Luis Obispo, CA 9340) tel 1805 78.1.71oz Mejia, Anthony Tuesday, May 06, 2014 1:26 PM Goodwin, Heather FW: Regarding Banning Medicinal Marijuana From: Sean Shealy [mailto:sean.shealy(�)gmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, May 06, 2014 1:22 PM To: Mejia, Anthony Subject: Regarding Banning Medicinal Marijuana MAY 0 6 2014 AGENDA CORRESPONDENCE Date a -�-Item# lj j_ Dear Council: Please abandon this silly, medieval idea. Banning legitimate dispensaries is not going to make pot go away -- it would just prevent law abiding people who need it from getting it. The 'war on pot' was a sham from the outset. Surely everyone knows this by now? If you want to ban something harmful to people, ban religion. Millions have died because of religion. No one is dying because of pot. Please reconsider. Yours, Sean R. Shealy (805)710 -2529 Kremke, Kate From: Sent: To: Subject: Anthony J. Mejia I City Clerk CMV 0(-WI 101S OBIS1.)0 990 Fall Street. S,an Luis Obispo, CA 93401 tel1805� 781,7102 Mejia, Anthony Tuesday, May 06, 2014 12:08 PM Kremke, Kate FW: Medical Marijuana Ordinance j. MAY 0 6 ?_014 AGENDA CORRESPONDENCE From: Symens, Michael [mailto: MIS 1CQ)pge.com] Sent: Tuesday, May 06, 2014 10:56 AM To: Ashbaugh, John; Carpenter, Dan; Christianson, Carlyn; Codron, Michael; Dietrick, Christine; Lichtig, Katie; Marx, Jan; Smith, Kathy; Mejia, Anthony Subject: Medical Marijuana Ordinance City Council Members, I'm writing to you in support of the proposed Medical Marijuana Ordinance.As a thirty- year resident of San Luis Obispo,l'm quite concerned at the increased marijuana cultivation in our city.l'm not against people using marijuana,but I believe that,without proper regulation,it could lead to a number of issues that would be detrimental to our community. Public safety,criminal activity,nuisance odors,and the effect on property values where residential properties are used for commercial use, are all factors that would negatively impact San Luis Obispo. Please act prudently,and adopt the Medical Marijuana Ordinance. Thank -you for your service to our city. Respectfully submitted, Michael Symens San Luis Obispo PG &E is committed to protecting our customers' privacy. To learn more, please visit http: / /www.pge.com/ about /company /privacy /customer/ Kremke, Kate From: Sent: To: Subject: Anthony J. Mejia I City Clerk 990 Palm Stre.ot. Sara Luis Obispo, CA 9,,,W tel 1 805 7£31.7102 Mejia, Anthony Tuesday, May 06, 2014 12:09 PM Kremke, Kate FW: PRO -Pot Ordinance meeting Tuesday- Police? From: Marx, Jan Sent: Tuesday, May 06, 2014 11:22 AM To: Mejia, Anthony Subject: FW: PRO -Pot Ordinance meeting Tuesday- Police? Agenda correspondence MAY p 6 2014 AGENDA CORRESPONDENCE Date? Item#_fJLL From: michael symens [mailto:symens12 @gmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, May 06, 2014 10:10 AM To: Gesell, Steve Cc: michael and denise shandroff; Marx, Jan; Ashbaugh, John; Carpenter, Dan; Smith, Kathy; Christianson, Carlyn; Codron, Michael; Hermann, Greg; Doug Debbie Neighbors; trebel @charter. net; morgan @audioengineusa.com; Johnson, Derek; Bledsoe, John; Storton, Keith; Staley, Chris; Dietrick, Christine; brett@audioengineusa.com Subject: Re: PRO -Pot Ordinance meeting Tuesday- Police? San Luis Obispo City Council, In regards to the Marijauna plants being grown for medical use in our neighborhoods. This letter is not against the growth of marijuana for medical use. I attended the City council meeting on Tuesday May 6th 2014 and saw the pictures of a home where pot plants were being grown. I found it to be somewhat disturbing. That was more than I believe is allowed. The young teenage boy sleeping outside to protect his crop is also disturbing. I'm writing to support an ordinance to set limits on where and how much should be allowed. Lets nip this in the bud before it gets out of hand. Lets keep our city safe for all that reside in it. Thank you, Christi Symens On Sat, May 3, 2014 at 5:38 PM, Gesell, Steve <sgesell(a,slocity.org> wrote: Michael, to answer your question, we will be in the audience should Council members have any questions for us that may assist them in their deliberations. stevc Gesell (: hiefr)Fpoli€c `-,an I .t.tis Obi spt€ On May 3, 2014, at 4:42 PM, "michael and denise shandroff' <mdshandroffchotmail.com> wrote: Hello from Leff St. in the Happiest Town on Earth, We are wondering if the City Police will be at the meeting Tuesday to shed light on the violent incidents surrounding Home Pot Growing in our community? We still keep our gates and doors locked at all times due to the drug activity on our block. We no longer feel safe in our own home here in SLO -Town. The proposed ordinance is a fair way forward for our community. Gregg Hermann and the city staff have done a good job crafting a document that helps define compassionate care in SLO, and gives the city a way to deal with those who would abuse the intent of the compassionate care law. The Grand Jury report of 2012, included in the ordinance packet, is very clear in dealing with this issue describing the effects and dangers of allowing this pot commerce to continue unchecked. It's a danger to patients, delivery boys and neighbors. Please stay strong in your support of a safe community by passing the ordinance. We will attend and speak at the meeting to help explain the consequences of these neighborhood grows. Thank you for your service, Mike Shandroff property owner, landlord, business owner and resident of SLO for 17 years From: brett e,audioengineusa.com Subject: Today's article Date: Sat, 3 May 2014 11:57:20 -0700 To: jmarx ,slocity.or ; p hbaug_gslocity.org; dcarpentkslocit�org; ksmithgslocity.org; cchristigslocity.org; mcodronkslocity.org; mdshandroffkhotmail.com; GHermannkslocity.org; rion- beltcr�,sbcglobal.net; trebel(&charter.net; morgannaudioengineusa.com; djohnson ,slocity.org; s eg sell(a,slocit}�org; jbledsoegslocity.org; kstortonkslocity.org; cstaley_gslocity.org; cdietric ,slocity.org I just read today's article in the Tribune. First of all, thanks to Mike and Denise for having the courage to stand up to keep our neighborhood clean and safe. Most people wouldn't take that stand and actually get something done. The six points I made below aren't a hypothetical or some far fetched theory. This is reality. This little pot farm is a microcosm of what is to come if these grows are unrestrained (please read the article below for another dose of frightening reality). The unintended consequences will reshape this beautiful place we call home slowly but surely, just as it did on Leff Street with a SINGLE house. Imagine dealing with dozens of these pot houses all over the city. Koory's analogy of the genie in the bottle is a good one but he is wrong. The genie isn't out. At least not yet in SLO. I'm sure you will all feel a great deal of pressure from the pro -pot groups and their attorneys to allow this business to continue- and it is a business. They are a vocal minority. I encourage you to continue to stand your ground and protect the property owners and residents who have a vested interest in keeping our community safe. Thank you for your leadership. It means a great deal to us that the city council and law enforcement has the courage to tackle this problem before it gets out of control. Regards, Brett Bargenquast 805.878.0870 http: / /america.a Iiazeera.com /articles /2014 /1/30 /armed -fa rmers- combatillegalcaliforn iama ril uanafa rms.html "But this boom has brought so much crime to Fresno County — nine murders since 2012 — and complaints from neighboring farmers that the county Board of Supervisors this month passed the strictest ban in the state: no marijuana cultivation, indoor or out. The law is expected to be challenged. The county had already banned all marijuana dispensaries." On Oct 15, 2013, at 3:39 PM, Brett Bargenquast <brettkaudioengineusa.com> wrote: Hello, My name is Brett Bargenquast and I own the property on the corner of Leff and Nipomo. My wife and I attended the city council meeting a few weeks back and listened to Mike and Denise Shandroff ( Nipomo St residents) speak about the marijuana grow house located between our properties. Here are a few things you need to be aware of as leaders of our community: 1. A major nuisance is created by the constant stench of weed all day long as the tenants grow 12 giant pot plants. 2. Hawthorne school is 3 blocks away. Kids walk by the drug house daily on their way to /from school. 3. The day care center direct behind the drug house shut down for a day because they though there was some kind of dangerous gas leak, but it was the smell created by the drug house. 4. Diminution of values. As owners, we must disclose this situation. What buyer or tenant who has a family wants to live next to this? Would you want to? 5. A 17 year old minor lives in the drug house and is cultivating and using marijuana. He lives in the back yard in a tent so he can protect his plants. 6. Safety /crime threat due to a house full of either weed or cash. They harvest, use, and are able to accept "donations" for what's left of the 12 pot plants (i.e. sell). Understand that it not only affects us as adults, but this situation clearly puts children at risk. We now have broken bottles in the street, pit bulls barking and fighting in the backyard, sleazy people constantly coming and going and the threat of crime in our neighborhood due to the presence of drugs and the people growing and using them. You have the opportunity to nip this problem in the bud (so to speak) before these "home grows" get out of control. This is not what we want for our beautiful community so we ask you to lead on this issue. Lastly, I have a simple question. Would you feel comfortable with your kids playing outside next to a drug house like this? Regards, Brett Bargenquast 805.878.0870 COUNCIL MEETING: C S o (" I2o I q— ITEM NO.: P IA Melia, Anthony From: mle805 <mle805 @hotmail.com> Sent: Friday, May 02, 2014 9:37 PM To: Ashbaugh, John; Carpenter, Dan; Christianson, Carlyn; Codron; Michael, Dietrick, Christine; Lichtig, Katie; Marx, Jan; Smith, Kathy; Mejia, Anthony Subject: Medicinal cannabis cultivation in SLO County MAY 0 5 2014 Hello, _I I am writing to voice my disapproval on the ban of medical marijuana cultivation within San Luis Obispo County. I think stricter laws and regulations could be more of a help rather than banning cultivation all together. I am against this ban. I think the more experienced and educated growers can be regulated and perhaps a permit process could be set in place. Growers that are up to code and doing everything by the law should not have to be punished for the crimes committed by inexperienced amateur growers. Banning cultivation in SLO would just push it more into the black market and in turn causing more crimes committed, rather than permitting the growth and regulating it openly. I do agree that home grows also be regulated more closely in order to comply with residential ordinances, such as regulation of electricity, size of grow, etc. Please give the people who want to grow for the right reasons a chance to show San Luis Obispo that medicinal marijuana growth and cultivation can be done safely and legally with the right permit process. Thank you, Emily Vickers San Luis Obispo resident Sew from my Verizon Wireless 4G LTE smatlphone