HomeMy WebLinkAbout09-18-2012 c1 grand jury response-medical marijuanacouncil .0 j acenea aepoRt
C I T Y O F S A N L U I S O B I S P O
FROM :
Derek Johnson, Community Development Directo r
Prepared By :Brian Leveille, Associate Planne r
SUBJECT :RESPONSE TO 2012 GRAND JURY REPORT ON MEDICAL MARIJUAN A
DISPENSARIE S
RECOMMENDATION
Authorize the City Manager to submit a letter of response to the report on behalf of the City Council ,
as required by the Grand Jury .
DISCUSSION
In June 28, 2012, the San Luis Obispo County Grand Jury issued a report that analyzed issue s
associated with medical marijuana facilities in the seven cities and County of San Luis Obisp o
(Attachment 1). The report briefly summarizes the difficulties that local jurisdictions face in enforcin g
the State law and discusses several court cases involving medical marijuana . The report states there is a
need for local regulation of mobile marijuana collectives which operate in the County of San Lui s
Obispo and within the jurisdiction of incorporated cities within the County .
Grand Jury Finding s
The Grand Jury's report concluded that governing bodies should establish regulations to provid e
authorized patients with safe access to medical marijuana with specific and enforceable conditions o n
dispensaries and delivery services . The report states that with proper regulations, law enforcemen t
would have the tools to distinguish between legitimate state-authorized operations and those that ar e
illegitimate .
As it relates specifically to the City of San Luis Obispo, the Grand Jury report states : "The City of San
Luis Obispo is required to respond to Findings 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, and, 7, and recommendations 2, 3, 4, an d
5 ."
The report requires that the City respond to the Grand Jury and the Presiding Judge by September 24 ,
2012 . To meet the deadline, staff has prepared the following responses to the report contingent o n
Council review and concurrence .
Response to Grand Jury Findings and Recommendation s
Finding 2. Each incorporated city in the county has an ordinance prohibiting brick and morta r
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 medica l
teeing Dat e
September 18, 201 2
Item Number ca.
C1-1
Response to 2012 Grand Jury Report on Medical Marijuana Dispensaries Page 2
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 exceptio n
of Atascadero .
Response :Agree in part . As discussed above under Finding #2, the City of San Luis Obisp o
does not have a land use designation for medical marijuana collectives, and the City also does not hav e
a land use designation for collective delivery services . Since these land uses are not provided for in th e
Municipal Code, medical marijuana uses including medical marijuana collective delivery services ar e
prohibited .
Finding 4 .Business licenses are required for all businesses operating in the incorporated an d
unincorporated areas of the county .
Response :Agree in part . San Luis Obispo Municipal Code Section 5 .01 .102 requires an y
person to procure a business license to transact and carry on any business in the City . Section 5 .01 .10 4
of the City of San Luis Obispo Municipal Code does not authorize the issuance of a business licens e
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 an d
federal law .
Finding 5.Many medical marijuana mobile collective delivery services operate in the incorporate d
and unincorporated areas of the county without a business license .
Response :Disagree in part. The City of San Luis Obispo is unaware of such service s
operating within the City. San Luis Obispo cannot comment on whether such services operate in othe r
cities in the county .
Finding 6.There is currently no way to determine the exact number of medical marijuana mobil e
collective delivery services operating in the incorporated and unincorporated areas of the county or o n
the Cal Poly campus .
Response :Agree .
Finding 7. There is no protocol for medical marijuana mobile collective delivery servic e
recordkeeping .
Response :Disagree in part . The City of San Luis Obispo is unaware of such protocols withi n
the City . San Luis Obispo cannot comment on whether there are such protocols in other cities in th e
county.
Recommendation 2. The county and incorporated cities in the county should develop an ordinanc e
regarding medical marijuana mobile collective delivery services within their respective jurisdictions .
C1-2
•
•
Response to 2012 Grand Jury Report on Medical Marijuana Dispensaries Page 3
Response :The recommendation will not be implemented because it is not warranted . There i s
no evidence demonstrating that mobile delivery services as described in the Report are developing wit h
such frequency and regularity within the City of San Luis Obispo as to mandate the adoption of a n
ordinance and subsequent enforcement of such an ordinance . Operation of a medical marijuan a
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 conflictin g
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 t o
possess a business license and seller's permit .
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 the y
are prohibited from operating in any zone of the City, and their operation would be in violation of th e
City's Municipal Code and federal law .
Recommendation 4. Using business license records, seller's permits and sales taxes, the county an d
each incorporated city in the county should compile a list of medical marijuana mobile collectiv e
delivery services operating within their jurisdictions .
Response :The recommendation will not be implemented because it is not warranted . The City
of San Luis Obispo has not issued any licenses and will not issue business licenses for activities tha t
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 kee p
any records, since they are prohibited from operating in any zone of the City, and are in violation o f
federal law .
FISCAL IMPAC T
There is no fiscal impact to the City resulting from the City's response to the Grand Jury Report .
ALTERNATIVE S
If Council does not concur with the above responses, the Council should provide direction to staff as t o
how to revise the final response to the Grand Jury .
ATTACHMENT S
1.Grand Jury Report titled "Out of Sight, Out of Mind : Medical Marijuana in San Luis Obispo County "
2.City Council letter of response to the Grand Jury's report
C1-3
Attachment 1
OUT OF SIGHT, OUT OF MIND :
MEDICAL MARIJUAN A
IN SAN LUIS OBISPO COUNT Y
SUMMARY
Medical marijuana is legal in California, but regulation of the dispensing of medical marijuana i n
San Luis Obispo County is subjective and inconsistent . A county ordinance governing medica l
marijuana brick and mortar dispensaries has been approved, but the County Board of Supervisor s
has repeatedly rejected the applications of such dispensaries . Moreover, an unknown number o f
unregulated medical marijuana delivery services are active in both the cities and th e
unincorporated areas of the county . These delivery services have created a "gray" market tha t
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 an d
oversight would support healthcare providers and optimize patient safety and well-being b y
ensuring safe access to medical marijuana for those legally authorized, while limiting it s
diversion to recreational use .
INTRODUCTIO N
This Grand Jury report is intended to be an overview of how medical marijuana is regulate d
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 loca l
jurisdictions in California . The U .S . Attorneys' recent emphasis on enforcement of federal law i n
California adds another layer of confusion . The fact that federal law does not consider marijuan a
medically beneficial further complicates the situation . Ultimately, the courts may resolve thes e
issues .
Page 1
•
•
C1-4
Attachment 1
The findings presented in this report are meant to inform ; the recommendations are meant t o
suggest that local governments have the ability to create order amid the current chaos throug h
regulation and oversight . Local regulation and oversight could make medical marijuana at th e
local level safer for those who are legally authorized to use it and less available to those wh o
abuse it .
Finally, this report is not to be construed as advocating the use of marijuana in any form .
AUTHORIT Y
Section 925 of the California Penal Code provides statutory authority for Grand Jury reports .
ORIGI N
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 th e
Grand Jury to review the situation within San Luis Obispo County .
METHO D
The Grand Jury's inquiry included :
1.Review of Proposition 215 and SB 42 0
2.Interview with San Luis Obispo County Sheriff's Administratio n
3.Interviews with County Health Department staff
4.Interviews with local physicians familiar with the medical marijuana authorizatio n
process and related issue s
5.Interviews with local medical marijuana delivery service collective managers/owner s
6.Interview with an owner of a brick and mortar medical marijuana collective dispensary i n
another California county
•
7 . Interview with County Building and Planning Department staff
8 . A survey of city managers within the county
Page 2
C1-5
Attachment 1
9.Review of city municipal codes relevant to medical marijuan a
10.Interview with County Drug and Alcohol Services staff
11.Review of a sampling of hydroponics and "smoke shop" retail venue s
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 Canad a
NARRATIV E
In 1996, over 55% of California voters passed Proposition 215, legalizing the medical use o f
marijuana. Proposition 215 states that its purposes are :
•"To ensure that seriously ill Californians have the right to obtain and use marijuana fo r
medical purposes where that medical use is deemed appropriate and has bee n
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 fo r
medical purposes upon the recommendation of a California licensed physician are no t
subject to criminal prosecution or sanction ." (see Online Sources in Appendix A )
In addition, Proposition 215 decriminalizes the possession and cultivation of marijuana b y
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 patien t
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 physicia n
that the patient has been diagnosed with a serious medical condition and that the medicinal use o f
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, an d
Page 3
•
•
•
C1-6
Attachment 1
any other chronic or persistent medical symptom that either substantially limits the ability of th e•
person to conduct one or more major life activities or if not alleviated, may cause serious harm t o
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 diseas e
may not recommend a specific medical marijuana dispensary and may not authorize a certai n
dosage .
Obtaining Medical Marijuana Authorization in San Luis Obispo Count y
The Grand Jury interviewed local physicians familiar with marijuana policies, including one wh o
does not issue medical marijuana authorizations and two whose practices involve medica l
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 an d
county regulations are too vague, making it difficult to determine whether a physician is failin g
to provide an acceptable standard of care .
Those physicians granting medical marijuana authorizations differ widely in how they evaluat e
patients . Not all of these physicians are members of recognized professional organizations ,
however, The physicians interviewed are familiar with the guidelines published by the Californi a
Medical Association (CMA), and the two physicians who do issue authorizations claim that the y
are following those guidelines, as well as all related laws . They sign a medical marijuan a
authorization that states the patient has a "serious disease" and is authorized to legally posses s
marijuana. These two physicians do not recommend a specific medical marijuana dispensar y
and do not authorize a certain dosage . Both of these physicians believe that medical marijuan a
can treat anxiety, insomnia, chronic pain, depression, panic attacks, and migraines .
Page 4
•
C1-7
Attachment 1
The Role of the County Health Departmen t
The language of SB 420 imposed "various duties upon county health departments relating to th e
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 car d
program
•processing completed application s
•maintaining certain record s
•following state implementation protocols, an d
•issuing Department of Public Health (DPH) ID cards to approved applicants or their
designated primary caregiver s
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 fro m
Sacramento, processes fees, and maintains a record of applications . There is no provision fo r
checking criminal record s
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 annua l
payment of the fee .
The primary intent of the California Medical Marijuana ID Card is to provide information to la w
enforcement officers who may want to verify the identity and authorization of a medica l
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 o r
possess medical marijuana .
Since 2006, the county has issued 408 cards . The highest yearly total issued was 128 in 2010 ; i n
2011, the count decreased to 48 . County staff could not attribute the drop to anything i n
Page 5
•
•
•
C1-8
Attachment 1
•
particular, except that patients may not have wanted to pay the fee because the card is no t
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 regar d
to medical marijuana . The contaminants, pesticide content, and potency of the marijuan a
distributed to authorized citizens of the county are not addressed . Edible medical marijuan a
products are not monitored or regulated by the county health agencies (nor by the state) as ar e
other commercially distributed edible products . The Director of the San Luis Obispo Count y
Health Agency stated in an interview that the County Health Department would "probably" hav e
jurisdiction over marijuana edibles . The Department is researching the issue .
Appropriate testing and regulating of medical marijuana, including edibles, by the county o r
incorporated cities would undoubtedly be expensive, but not necessarily a non-recoverabl e
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 thre e
percent of all business taxes collected in the city that year .
City and County Ordinance s
Each incorporated city in the county has an ordinance prohibiting medical marijuan a
dispensaries .
On February 6, 2007, the County Board of Supervisors approved an ordinance requiring a Mino r
Use Permit for medical marijuana dispensaries . It was authored by County Building an d
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 fee t
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
Page 6
•
•
C1-9
Attachment 1
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 th e
vicinity of the dispensary.
7.The Sheriff's Department shall be notified of the dispensary name, location and contac t
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 Plannin g
Commission . The Planning Commission convenes a public hearing and may approve o r
disapprove the application for a Minor Use Permit . The Planning Commission may als o
recommend conditions and move the Conditional Use Permit to the Board of Supervisors fo r
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 wa s
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 th e
Board of Supervisors and the Board upheld the appeal, thereby denying the application, o n
March 6, 2012 .
Brick and Mortar Dispensaries/Collective s
"Collective" is the legal term for a dispensary. The purpose of these dispensaries/collectives is t o
provide safe and secure access to medical marijuana . In a collective, marijuana received fro m
growers and manufactured edibles may be tested for contaminants (including pesticides) and
THC levels . Edibles can also be labeled for potency by the manufacturer .
Page 7
C1-10
•
•
•
Attachment 1
On January 18, 2012 the California Supreme Court voted unanimously to review how cities an d
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 medica l
marijuana dispensary ordinance was pre-empted by the federal Controlled Substance s
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 medica l
marijuana dispensaries .
•Traudt v. City of Dana Point involves a Court of Appeals decision concerning a n
individual's standing to bring a lawsuit alleging a violation of state law with respect to a
medical marijuana collective .'
Mobile Delivery Collective s
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 collective s
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 i n
exchange for the medical marijuana . Several of these collectives advertise in San Luis Obisp o
County, in the local media and online .
The Grand Jury heard testimony that as many as 40 delivery services currently operate within th e
incorporated and unincorporated areas of the county . Medical marijuana mobile deliver y
collectives are more difficult to regulate because they operate in multiple jurisdictions, whic h
adds to law enforcement's challenges .
Cities within San Luis Obispo County and the county itself have ordinances prohibiting o r
regulating brick and mortar medical marijuana dispensaries, but there are no regulation s
League of California Cities . "California Supreme Court Grants Review of Four Medical Marijuana Cases," Januar y
•20, 2012 . www.cacities .org/Top/News/News-Articles/2012/January .
Page 8
C1-11
Attachment 1
affecting medical marijuana mobile delivery collectives, with one exception. The city o f
Atascadero has approved an ordinance prohibiting mobile delivery collectives .
The lack of ordinances and regulations governing mobile delivery collectives at the local leve l
has led to a chaotic situation . The Attorney General of California has issued General Guideline s
regarding medical marijuana, but there are no local regulations to which mobile deliver y
collectives must adhere . As a result, law enforcement officials have few tools to evaluat e
whether mobile delivery collectives are operating legitimately .
Some collectives make a serious attempt to comply with Proposition 215 and SB 420, and th e
Attorney General Guidelines regarding medical marijuana ; others pay little or no attention . Th e
minimum age required to become a member of the collective varies ; some allow members a s
young as 18, others have a minimum age of 21 . Some collectives keep close records of thei r
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 deliver y
driver, and to the collective member, and even weigh it at each stage, to ensure that there is n o
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, th e
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 advertise d
delivery services in city records showed very few with business licenses . All city managers an d
Cal Poly law enforcement were asked how many medical marijuana delivery services operate d
within their jurisdiction . All answered none to their knowledge .
Page 9
C1-12
•
•
•
Attachment 1
•
Local governments are simply not aware of the number of medical marijuana mobile collectiv e
delivery services operating in their jurisdictions and make no attempt to regulate thes e
businesses . It is possible, however, for the county and the cities to take steps to require busines s
licenses and fees for mobile delivery services . Additional revenue could then be generated fo r
the county and the cities .
All the mobile collective delivery service managers interviewed by the Grand Jury operat e
within incorporated and unincorporated areas of the county, and one operates in a tri-county area .
Membership agreements, recordkeeping and verification of physician authorizations wer e
consistent for these collectives . Possession of a Sellers Permit and a Business License, a s
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 tha t
attempt to comply with legal mandates out of business . The "grays and blacks" do not kee p
•
records or pay sales tax, thereby undercutting reputable mobile collective delivery services i n
pricing .
All of the managers interviewed agreed that testing for quality and potency would be appropriat e
and should be required . However, additional costs for testing would require higher prices tha t
would likely drive their clients to the black market competition .
The Biggest Challenge : Enforcing the La w
California law enforcement agencies face a challenge in interpreting Proposition 215 fo r
enforcement purposes . The law lacks clarity for agencies that are required to operate within "th e
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 increasingl y
difficult to separate the legal from the illegal .
Page 1 0
•
C1-13
Attachment 1
For example, in December 2010, a San Luis Obispo County Narcotics Task Force operatio n
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 wa s
a lack of consistency in the municipal requirement of a business license, seller's permit o r
incorporation as a California Mutual Benefit Non-Profit operation .
One of the county's high-ranking law enforcement officers approached the Governor (who in hi s
former position as Attorney General formulated the Proposition 215 Guidelines) with th e
question, "What makes a `collective' illegal?" The answer was "profits" but a definitiv e
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 t o
bring "certainty and consistency" to law enforcement, the medical marijuana collectives an d
authorized patients . Areas to be addressed include : defining the contours of the right to collectiv e
and cooperative cultivation ; what constitutes a "dispensary ;" a definition of non-profit operatio n
as it applies to providers ; and, requirements for edible medical marijuana products .
At present, local governments that apply conflicting rules and regulations largely govern medica l
marijuana . A proposed November 2012 initiative would establish a medical marijuana
enforcement bureau in the California Department of Consumer Affairs . This could be a ste p
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 invasion s
to medical marijuana. Some medical marijuana is diverted to non-patients, young people, an d
the black market . For public safety, it is important that law enforcement have guidelines to hel p
determine who is a legal provider or user of medical marijuana .
Page 11
C1-14
•
•
•
Attachment 1
CONCLUSIO N
Accurate medical marijuana usage estimates cannot be made due to the lack of regulator y
reporting . County and most municipal officials are either uninformed or they ignore the mobil e
collective delivery services .
San Luis Obispo County has an ordinance allowing brick and mortar medical marijuan a
dispensaries, but the Board of Supervisors has denied all applications to date . Incorporated citie s
have ordinances that ban brick and mortar collectives, but most have no ordinance governin g
mobile delivery services in their communities, similar to the county . Unregulated mobil e
collective delivery services driving through our county and its communities with unknown sum s
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 condition s
•
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 government s
could receive business license revenue . Also, law enforcement would have the means t o
distinguish between legitimate, state-authorized operations and those that are illegitimate, i n
other words, distinguish between "the good guys" and "the bad guys ."
Page 12
C1-15
Attachment 1
FINDING S
Finding 1 : San Luis Obispo County has an ordinance allowing brick and mortar medica l
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 morta r
medical marijuana collectives within its city limits .
Finding 3 : The county and incorporated cities in the county have not adopted an ordinanc e
regarding medical marijuana mobile collective delivery services operating within thei r
jurisdictions, with the exception ofAtascadero .
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 th e
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 marijuan a
mobile collective delivery services operating in the incorporated and unincorporated areas of th e
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 Healt h
Department .
Finding 9 : Home invasions and homicides have resulted from medical marijuana being presen t
or grown in homes .
Page 13
•
•
C1-16
Attachment 1
•
Finding 10 : The County Health Department is designated to administer the medical marijuan a
ID program and it satisfies the requirements set forth in Proposition 215 and SB 420 .
RECOMMENDATION S
Recommendation 1 : The County Board of Supervisors should convene a committee comprise d
of the County Sheriff, County Building and Planning staff, local public health officials, th e
County Tax Collector, the County Planning Commission, brick and mortar medical marijuan a
collective and mobile collective delivery service managers, medical marijuana physicia n
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 provid e
authorized patients with safe access to contaminant-free medical marijuana in accordance wit h
California law .
Recommendation 2 : The county and incorporated cities in the county should develop a n
•
ordinance regarding medical marijuana mobile collective delivery services within thei r
respective jurisdictions .
Recommendation 3 : By code or ordinance, the county and each incorporated city in the count y
should require medical marijuana mobile collective delivery services operating within thei r
jurisdiction to possess a business license and seller's permit .
Recommendation 4 : Using business license records, seller's permits and sales taxes, the count y
and each incorporated city in the county should compile a list of medical marijuana mobil e
collective delivery services operating within their jurisdictions .
Recommendation 5 : By code or ordinance, the county and each incorporated city in the count y
should require medical marijuana collectives and mobile collective delivery services to kee p
current records .
Page 1 4
•
C1-17
Attachment 1
Recommendation 6 : The County Health Department should consider establishing standards for
edible medical marijuana sold in the county .
REQUIRED RESPONSE S
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 th e
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, an d
Recommendations 2, 3, 4, and 5 . The responses shall be submitted to the Presiding Judge of th e
San Luis Obispo County Superior Court by September 24, 2012 . Please provide a paper cop y
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 th e
San Luis Obispo County Superior Court by September 24, 2012 . Please provide a paper cop y
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, an d
Recommendations 2, 3, 4, and 5 . The responses shall be submitted to the Presiding Judge of th e
San Luis Obispo County Superior Court by September 24, 2012 . Please provide a paper cop y
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, an d
Recommendations 2, 3, 4, and 5 . The responses shall be submitted to the Presiding Judge of th e
San Luis Obispo County Superior Court by September 24, 2012 . Please provide a paper cop y
and an electronic version of all responses to the Grand Jury as well .
Page 15
C1-18
•
•
•
Attachment 1
The City of Paso Robles is required to respond to Findings 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, and 7, an d
Recommendations 2, 3, 4, and 5 . The responses shall be submitted to the Presiding Judge of th e
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 th e
San Luis Obispo County Superior Court by September 24,2012 .Please provide a paper cop y
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, an d
Recommendations 2, 3, 4, and 5 . The responses shall be submitted to the Presiding Judge of th e
San Luis Obispo County Superior Court by September 24, 2012 .Please provide a paper cop y
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 a n
electronic version of all responses to the Grand Jury as well . The mailing addresses for deliver y
are :
Presiding Judge Grand Jury
Presiding Judge Barry T . LaBarbera
Superior Court of Californi a
1050 Monterey Stree t
San Luis Obispo, CA 93408
San Luis Obispo County Grand Jury
San Box 491 0
San Luis Obispo, CA 93402
The e-mail address for the Grand Jury is : GrandJury@co .slo .ca .u s
Page 1 6
•
•
C1-1 9
Attachment 1
APPENDIX A
ONLINE SOURCES *
CA Attorney General Guidelines :
www.ag .ca.gov/cros_attachments/press/pdfs/n 1601 _medicalmarijuanaguidelines .pdf
Medical Marijuana Identification Card Program :
www.slocounty.ca.gov/health/publichealthImmic_ht m
Driving Miss Mary Jane,David Freed, January/February 2012 :
www.Miller-Mcune .co m
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/hscI1362_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 .co m
Marijuana Addiction and Medical Marijuana Patients :
www.cannabisdoctorsnetwork .com/marijuana-addiction-symptons .php
www.cmanet .org/medicalmarijuan a
www.mbc .ca .gov/media/releases_2004 05_13_marijuana .html
http ://sanlui sobi spo . areaconnect . com/doctors
http ://en.wikipedia .org/wiki/California_proposition_15_(1996 )
CA Attorney General's Letter to Lawmakers, December 21, 2011 :
www. californiaprogres sreport .com/site/attorney-general-issues-letter-lawmakers-medical-marijuan a
Page 17
•
•
•
C1-20
Attachment 1
•Regulation of Medical Marijuana Dispensaries to be considered by the California Supreme Court:
www . sanluisobispo .com/2012/01 / 19/ 1913 641 /marijuana-dispensaries-califomi a-html#storylink=cp y
Delivery Services Map :
www .californiawatch .org/public-safety/map-medical-marij uana-delivery-services-califomia
Delivery Services by Zip :
www .weedmaps .com
Marijuana Edibles :
www.fhwcc .org/edibles /
Medical Marijuana: Inhalation vs . Edibles :
www.marij uanamedicine .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/medicalmarijuan a
http ://reason . com/blog/2012/03/05/us-attorney-in-colorado-says-all-state-1
Mendocino County :
www.mendocinosheriff.com
www.mendocinocountry.com/ ndependent/1 cannabis/2policy/9 .31 passes .htm l
*To be useful, these links may best be copied and pasted into a browse r
Page 1 8
•
•
C1-21
Attachment 2
<City Letterhead>
September 19, 201 2
Presiding Judge Barry T . LaBarber a
Superior Court of Californi a
1050 Monterey Street
San Luis Obispo, California 9340 8
Re : Grand Jury Report entitled "Out of Sight, Out of Mind—Medical Marijuana i n
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 m
San Luis Obispo County" (hereinafter the
Re
_" port") This response is submitted i n
compliance with Penal Code Section 933(c).A copy of this response is concurrently bein g
transmitted to the Grand Jury .
The Report sets forth ten findings, and six recommendations . The City of San Lui s
Obispo has been required to respond to Findings 2 through 7, inclusive,and
Recommendations 2 through 5, inclusive .
Finding 2.Each incorporated city in th e.county has an'ordinance prohibiting brick an d
mortar medical marijuana collectives within city limits .
Response :Agree iil part . The City of San Luis Obispo Municipal Code does no t
contain a land use designation for medical marijuana collectives and therefore does no t
provide for medical marijuana collectives within the City jurisdiction . Since the Municipa l
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 ordinanc e
regarding medical marijuana collective delivery services operating within their jurisdictions ,
with the exception ofAtascader o
Response : Agree in part. As discussed above under Finding #2, the City of Sa n
Luis Obispo does not have a land use designation for medical marijuana collectives, and th e
City also does not have a land use designation for collective delivery services . Since thes e
land uses are not provided for in the Municipal Code, medical marijuana uses includin g
medical marijuana collective delivery services are prohibited .
Finding 4.Business licenses are required for all businesses operating in the incorporate d
and unincorporated areas of the county .
C1-22
•
•
•
Attachment 2
Response :Agree in part . San Luis Obispo Municipal Code Section 5 .01 .10 2
requires any person to procure a business license to transact and carry on any business in th e
City. Section 5 .01 .104 of the City of San Luis Obispo Municipal Code does not authoriz e
the issuance of a business license that is prohibited by city policies, regulations o r
ordinances' or any state or federal statute, law, rule, order or regulation . Because medica l
marijuana collectives are not an expressly allowed use, they are prohibited and the issuanc e
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 th e
incorporated and unincorporated areas of the county without a business license .
Response :Disagree in part . The City of San Luis Obispo is unaware of suc h
services operating within the City . San Luis Obispo cannot comment on whether suc h
services operate in other cities in the county .
Finding 6. There is currently no way to determine the exact number of medical marijuan a
mobile collective delivery services operating in the incorporated and unincorporated area s
of the county or on the Cal Poly campus .
Response :Agree .
Finding 7. There is no protocol fo
recordkeeping .
arijuana rrzabile collective delivery servic e
•
Response :Disagreein part . The city of San Luis Obispo is unaware of suc h
protocols within the City . San Luis Obispo cannot comment on whether there are suc h
protocols in other crtiesincthe county .
Recomm"endatior 2 ,The eta
ordinance regarding rpi dica
respective jurisdictions .
Response :The re nimendatitn will not be implemented because it is not
warranted. There is no evidence demonstrating that mobile delivery services as described i n
the Report are developing with such frequency and regularity within the City of San Lui s
Obispo as to mandate the adoption of an ordinance and subsequent enforcement of such a n
ordinance . Operation of 'dical marijuana collective delivery service is not allowed an d
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 thi s
area create continuing uncertainty around regulation .
Recommendation 3 .By code or ordinance, the county and each incorporated city in th e
county should require medical marijuana mobile collective delivery services operating withi n
their jurisdictions to possess a business license and seller's permit .
ratjl cities in the county should develop a n
e collective delivery services within thei r
C1-23
Attachment 2
Response:The recommendation will not be implemented because it is no t
warranted. The City of San Luis Obispo will not issue business licenses to medica l
marijuana dispensaries, since they are prohibited from operating in any zone of the City, an d
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, th e
county and each incorporated city in the county should compile a list of medical marijuan a
mobile collective delivery services operating within their jurisdictions .
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 no t
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 th e
county should require medical marijuana collective and mobile collective delivery services t o
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 mobil e
or fixed, to keep any records,since they are prohibited from operating in any zone of th e
City, and are in violation of federal law .
C1-2 4
cc :
San.Luis Obispo County Grand Jury
P .O'B,ox 491 0
San Luis Obispo, California 93402
sr ,
Katie Lielrtig,'CityyManag e
City of San Luis Obispo
•
•
•