San Bernardino County To Vote On BS MMJ ORD Feb 3 Please read!!

[greenstop]

>Date: Sun, 30 Jan 2011 15:35:12 -0800 (GMT-08:00)

>Hi Everyone,
>
>One week before the scheduled Feb. 3 hearing before their Planning
>Commission and almost two years since a medical marijuana collective
>moratorium was put in place so staff can have adequate time to
>research and develop regulations and licensing requirements, San
>Bernardino County has released their proposed ordinance.
>
>Not content to undermine state law with a total ban on medical
>marijuana collectives, the ordinance also bans all outdoor grows and
>makes any private patient indoor grow of more than two patients
>illegal. Such a draconian and illegal ordinance is really not that
>surprising for a county that prides itself on being the most corrupt
>and malicious county in California.
>
>That the SB Co. Board of Supervisors would delight in this piece of
>crap (POC) ordinance is a given due to their obsequious genuflection
>before SB Co. law enforcement whose reefer madness mentality is only
>out done by the unethical and possibly criminal actions of their
>current DA Michael Ramos and abetted by Sheriff Rod Hoops.
>
>I envision SB Co. Planning Director Jim Squire and Senior Planner
>Judy Tatman, who wrote the ordinance and completely ignored any
>concerns or rights of patients, looking themselves in the mirror
>each morning thinking "wow - drafting this POC is why I went to
>college and eagerly sought this line of work- I am so proud of
>myself and what I have done."
>
>The ordinance is chock full of evasions, distortions, equivocations
>and outright lies. From claiming that collectives are magnets for
>crimes and destroy the communities in which they live to the health
>dangers of edibles, the ordinance is full of sky-is-falling
>hyperbole.
>
>Adding insult to injury is that the ordinance is submitted by Josie
>Gonzales, the SB Supervisor who at the Board meeting following SB
>County's loss of their lawsuit to have Prop. 215 ruled
>unconstitutional literally stood up declaring she was in support of
>medical marijuana and patient's rights with a tearful poignant story
>of how her Aunt used marijuana to treat her aching body after
>working in the fields on her hands and knees all day. Has she no
>shame?
>
>If any of you want to see this POC ordinance, send me an email and I
>will send it to you as an attachment.
>
>The ordinance will go before the SB Co. Planning Commission this
>Thursday, Feb. 3 at 9 a.m. Until last week, we had no knowledge
>about this. The only reason we found out about is because Wanda
>Smith received a notice in the mail about the Planning Commission
>hearing. As far as I know, no one else had any knowledge that a
>hearing was scheduled.
>
>Although I have written that going before these kangaroo hearings is
>a pathetic waste of time akin to talking to a wall, it is critical
>that we go as the little publicized and intentionally hidden public
>notice of the hearing contained the following ominous warning:
>
>"If you challenge any decision regarding the proposal, you may be
>limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at
>the public hearing described in this notice or in written
>correspondence delivered to the Planning Commission at, or prior to,
>the public hearing."
>
>Although the above statement is legally suspect, it would be
>foolhardy for us to refuse to participate in their charade. We need
>to put in the record every reason we can muster why this POC is
>wrong. Besides any legal reason, it is also empowering and provides
>us with a much needed cathartic release as we watch them squirm and
>cringe over an extended length of time as patient after patient
>after patient castigates and admonishes them for their inhumane
>indifference to pain and suffering as well as disregarding the rule
>of law and democratic processes.
>
>The hearing before the San Bernardino County Planning Commission
>will be this Thursday, Feb. 3 beginning at 9 a.m. I think they are
>expecting a lot of us to attend as the meeting is being held in the
>County Council chambers. Let's not disappoint them.
>
>We will meet and rally at 8:30 a.m. With impassioned speeches from
>patients and activists we will be primed and enthused as we enter
>the Council Chambers at 9 a.m. to engage the Planning Commission
>with our eloquence and passion.
>
>I know very little of the Planning Commission members background.
>What there is indicates that a plurality of them may be perfectly
>reasonable people amenable to our rational, reasonable arguments,
>but since they were all appointed by members of the arguably most
>corrupt Board of Supervisors in the state of California, their
>reasonableness, rationality and respect for law are suspect.
>
>However, let us not assume because you know what happens when you assume.
>
>Plan now to join patients, advocates and supporters at the San
>Bernardino County Government Center building at 385 N. Arrowhead
>Ave., in downtown San Bernardino 92415.
>
>The rally starts at 8:30 a.m. Bring signs if you can, but most
>importantly bring yourself. At 9 a.m. we will go into the Council
>Chambers and wince as we hear a cattle-call of county officials
>pontificate on the horrors of medical marijuana collectives and how
>our youth and communities will be imperiled and corrupted if they
>are allowed to exist. We will be outraged and mortified at the lies
>and deceits concocted by paid government employees done at the
>bidding of police and government prosecutors who fear us more than
>they fear any murderer, bank robber or rapist they have ever
>imagined in their most nightmarish dreams.
>
>It will then be our turn. I encourage every single one of you to
>exercise your civic responsibility and show your respect for our
>legal and government institutions by taking your three minutes to
>tell them how wrong this ordinance is. Don't worry if you are little
>confused by this whole POC ordinance - you don't have to speak about
>legal issues. It is most important that they hear why you use
>marijuana and why it is important for your health. You need to let
>them know that access is important to you as well as being required
>by Prop. 215. This is how we establish standing to sue and sue we
>will.
>
>It is also important that written communication be sent in as well
>as personal phone contact made. After I get all the proper email
>addresses and phone numbers together, I will be sending out another
>email asking you to write and call. Please watch for this email and
>then take quick action.
>
>It just so happens that the regular monthly MAPP meeting in
>Riverside is the evening before the SB Co. Planning Commission
>hearing. Final preparations for the rally and participation in the
>Planning Commission hearing will be made at the meeting. Along with
>speakers and discussions, we will be making signs for the rally and
>preparing presentations. It will be a firebrand of a meeting, so
>plan on being there.
>
>So here's the dates and info to put on your calendar for the SB
>ordinance protest.
>
>Wednesday, Feb. 2 at 7:30 p.m. - MAPP meeting to prepare for rally
>at Planning Commission hearing - THCF Medical Clinic, 647 Main St.,
>Riverside 92501. The meeting will start promptly at 7: 30 a.m. and
>end promptly at 9 p.m. Refreshments will be provided and if you
>would like to bring a non-medicated treat or two, that would be much
>appreciated.
>
>Thursday, Feb. 3 at 8:30 a.m. - Rally at San Bernardino County
>Government Center, 385 N. Arrowhead Ave. in downtown San Bernardino
>92415.
>
>I look forward to joining with you as we protect our rights to
>medicinal marijuana. If YOU don't fight for them, who will?

 

[greenstop]

Bull Guano

Here is a link to the new Bull Guano that San Bernardino County wants us to fertilize with this year SBBanordinance020311.pdf

All I can say is from here on out. San Bernardino County Image we are not hurting anybody.

 

[spiderman]

Here is a link to the new Bull Guano that San Bernardino County wants us to fertilize with this year SBBanordinance020311.pdf

All I can say is from here on out. San Bernardino County Image we are not hurting anybody.

Action taken by the Planning Commission on this item may be appealed to the Board. Yes No X
Note: Recommendations to the Board of Supervisors are not appealable.
Revised 12/15/95
LAND USE SERVICES DEPARTMENT
PLANNING STAFF REPORT
HEARING DATE: February 3, 2011 AGENDA ITEM NO: 4
Project Description:
BACKGROUND:
The Controlled Substances Act (CSA) (21 U.S.C. §§ 801 et seq.) was enacted by
Congress in 1970 as the federal policy under which the manufacture, importation,
possession, use and distribution of certain substances is regulated. Drugs regulated by
the CSA are grouped in five schedules based on criteria such as potential for abuse and
acceptance for medical use. Marijuana is a Schedule I substance, the most severely
regulated category, meaning that it has high potential for abuse and does not currently
have an accepted medical use. Similarly in California, the possession (Health and Safety
Code (hereafter “H&S”) § 11357) and cultivation (H&S § 11358) of marijuana have long
been outlawed.
Despite the severe restrictions of the CSA and California law, in 1996, Proposition 215 was
passed by California voters and codified as the Compassionate Use Act (CUA) (H&S §
11362.5). The proposition was an initiative authorizing the limited possession, cultivation,
and use of marijuana by seriously ill patients and their care providers for medicinal
purposes when recommended by a physician. The CUA was supplemented by the
Legislature’s enactment of Senate Bill 420, the Medical Marijuana Program Act (MMP) (HS
§§ 11362.7 et seq.), that became effective in 2004. The MMP was the legislative attempt
to clarify the scope of the CUA, including providing guidance to local government.
In 2006, San Bernardino County (County) and the San Bernardino County Sheriff
(“Sheriff”) (joined by some other California public entities) filed a lawsuit challenging the
CUA and MMP as being in direct conflict with the CSA. The trial court and, on appeal, the
appellate court, upheld California’s medical marijuana laws. Petitions to the California
Supreme Court and the United States Supreme Court were both denied, the last coming in
May, 2009.
Applicant: Land Use Services Department
Proposal: An ordinance to amend Title 8 of the County Code to ban medical
marijuana dispensaries, to regulate the cultivation of medical marijuana,
and to require the registration of certain state licensed facilities that are not
included in the definition of dispensaries; and to amend Title 1 of the
County Code to add a registration fee for those facilities.
Community: Countywide
Location: Countywide
Project No: P200900378
Staff: Judy Tatman
Development Code Amendment – Medical Marijuana Dispensaries
February 3, 2011, Item #4
Page 2 of 5
Due to this litigation challenging the application of the state’s medical marijuana laws
within the County, the County did not institute the Medical Marijuana Identification Card
Program under the MMP until June 2009. In addition, it was determined that medical
marijuana dispensaries had proliferated in varying degrees in jurisdictions that have
actively accommodated the California medical marijuana laws. The growth of these uses
across the state prompted various reports from law enforcement agencies about the
secondary adverse effects of this proliferation. These effects are more fully discussed in
the Sheriff’s memoranda accompanying this staff recommendation.
Because of the complexity of the issues involved with this topic, on June 23, 2009 (Item
155), the Board of Supervisors (Board) adopted Urgency Interim Ordinance 4083 that
established a temporary moratorium on the issuance of permits for the establishment of
medical marijuana dispensaries. The Board wanted to allow staff sufficient time for the
review of possible amendments to the County Development Code relative to the siting of
these uses. This moratorium was extended by the Board on August 4, 2009, with the
adoption of Urgency Interim Ordinances 4086. On June 15, 2010, a second and final
extension was approved by the Board with the adoption of Urgency Interim Ordinance
4110. No further extension of the moratorium is allowed under California law.
During the moratorium period, staff has continued its review of the legal and policy issues
involved in regulating medical marijuana dispensaries. This review has included
evaluation of regulations adopted by other California cities and counties. This review has
involved multiple meetings among County departments likely to be involved in such
regulations. Planning has also received and has evaluated numerous written viewpoints
from members of the public and representatives of various advocacy groups.
In the course of this review, staff has found that other jurisdictions in California that have
allowed or legally permitted the establishment of medical marijuana dispensaries, other
storefront distribution operations, or other facilities to distribute marijuana, have
experienced an increase in crime, such as loitering, theft, burglary, robbery, homicide and
sale of illegal drugs in the areas immediately surrounding such facilities. Further, staff
found that such distribution facilities are often being located in close proximity to residential
areas, schools, churches, day care centers, and other sensitive areas.
The Development Code by its permissive nature, does not allow facilities that distribute
medical marijuana. With minor exception not applicable here, “Any use not specifically
allowed shall be prohibited . . . .” (Development Code § 81.02.020) In addition, the County
does not currently have any Development Code provisions or design standards that are
reasonably appropriate and applicable to the review and analysis for the siting of these
uses. Thus, staff believes that in spite of the moratorium in place since 2009, the lack of
such controls over such medical marijuana dispensaries and distribution facilities is leading
to their proliferation. Code Enforcement has cited approximately 16 storefront
dispensaries within the unincorporated portions of the County. Four of these facilities have
been closed and numerous arrests made after the Sheriff determined that these facilities
were storefront operations engaged in illegal possession and distribution of marijuana. In
these cases, a substantial amount of marijuana, cash and firearms were seized,
suggestive that marijuana was being sold illegally. Staff suggests that further regulations
Development Code Amendment – Medical Marijuana Dispensaries
February 3, 2011, Item #4
Page 3 of 5
are required to protect the general public, homes and businesses adjacent to and near
such businesses, and the patients or clients of such establishments. Based on the
adverse secondary impacts experienced by other cities and counties and the lack of any
regulatory program in the County regarding these facilities, it is reasonable to conclude
that negative effects on the public health, safety, and welfare may occur in the County as a
result of the proliferation of facilities distributing marijuana.
Surrounding jurisdictions have recently taken actions to curtail the spread of these illegal
distribution facilities, including the Counties of Los Angeles and Orange, and the County
and City of Riverside. In addition, a review of the 24 incorporated cities and towns within
the County reveals that four have moratoria currently in place and 19 have permanently
prohibited dispensaries. Only one jurisdiction seems to have no moratorium or other
regulation in place. This could well mean that unless that County acts to aggressively and
specifically regulate these facilities, that it could become a dumping ground for those
seeking to illegally divert medical marijuana, for those attempting to use dispensaries as
fronts for the illegal distribution of marijuana, and for those otherwise operating to
circumvent the provisions of the CUA and MMP.
Because of the issues described above, staff has prepared an ordinance for consideration
by the Planning Commission to recommend for adoption by the Board. This ordinance has
been prepared to do the following:
 Defines a medical marijuana dispensary as any facility or location, whether fixed or
mobile, where marijuana is cultivated, made available, and/or distributed by or to
three or more persons within the following categories: a primary caregiver, a
qualified patient, or a patient with an identification card, as those terms are defined
in the CUA and MMP.
 Prohibits or bans the siting of medical marijuana dispensaries, except for certain
medical care facilities that are otherwise lawful and are licensed and regulated by
the state and specifically identified in the MMP as primary caregivers:
o An in-patient “health facility,” which, by definition includes such operations as
a general acute care hospital, acute psychiatric hospital, skilled nursing
facility, and intermediate care facility (Health and Safety Code § 1250);
o A “residential care facility for persons with chronic life-threatening illness”
1568.01;
o A “residential care facility for the elderly” (Health and Safety Code § 1569)
o A “home health agency,” meaning organizations that provide skilled nursing
services to patients in the home (Health and Safety Code § 1725), including
hospices that are licensed as home health agencies.
 Requires those state licensed facilities not included in the definition of a dispensary
to register annually with Environmental Health-Land Use Services to ensure that
law and code enforcement officers are properly apprised of these locations and
operations. The ordinance also establishes a fee for such registration. This fee
shall be required for an initial registration and for an annual renewal that shall be
Development Code Amendment – Medical Marijuana Dispensaries
February 3, 2011, Item #4
Page 4 of 5
required to be completed no later than 30 days prior to a facility’s state license
expiration date.
 Limits the cultivation or growing of medical marijuana that may be allowed under the
CUA and MMP to indoors only.
For the benefit of the Planning Commission in considering staff’s recommended ordinance,
three memoranda are also attached. The first is Staff’s memorandum dated June 8, 2010,
addressed to the Board at the time when the final moratorium extension was adopted. In
addition to an overview of the reasons leading up to the adoption of the moratorium, this
memorandum also discusses some of the legal uncertainties, some of which have
resolved (e.g., Proposition 19 was defeated at the ballot in November 2010), but others of
which remain. The second memorandum is from the County Sheriff’s office and discusses
some of the law enforcement issues encountered within the County and which exist
throughout the state. The third memorandum is from Environmental Health Services,
which discusses issues related to medical marijuana edibles and the difficulties that state
and local agencies have encountered in regulating the negative effects associated with
food products produced without typical food safety regulations.
FINDINGS FOR THE DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENT:
1. The ordinance is necessary for and will protect the health, safety, and welfare of those
within the County and is a reasonable exercise of the County’s police powers;
2. The proposed amendment is consistent with the General Plan and any applicable
community plan or specific plan;
3. The proposed amendment would not be detrimental to the public interest, health,
safety, convenience, or welfare of the County;
4. The proposed amendment is internally consistent with other applicable provisions of
this Development Code; and
5 The proposed amendment is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act
(CEQA) in accordance with Section 15061(b)(3) of the CEQA Guidelines as the
proposed change does not have the potential to cause a significant effect on the
environment.
RECOMMENDATION: The Planning Commission recommends that the Board of
Supervisors:
A. ADOPT the proposed ordinance to amend Title 8 of the County Code to ban
medical marijuana dispensaries, to regulate the cultivation of medical marijuana,
and to require the registration of certain state licensed facilities that are not included
in the definition of dispensaries, and to amend Title 1 to add a registration fee for
those facilities.
Development Code Amendment – Medical Marijuana Dispensaries
February 3, 2011, Item #4
Page 5 of 5
B. ADOPT the findings as contained in the staff report;
C. FILE the Notice of Exemption.
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Proposed Ordinance
2. Memorandum from Dena M. Smith, Director of Land Use Services, dated June 8,
2010
3. Memorandum from Sheriff Hoops, dated January 27, 2011
4. Memorandum from Terri Williams, Chief of Environmental Health Services Division,
dated January 26, 2011
5. Notice of Exemption

 

[GanjaAL]

Is this not in violation of state law where patients are allowed to collectively grow and provide marijuana to its members????

 

[GanjaAL]

Yes it is directly in violation of state law where it states that people may come together in order to collectively or cooperatively cultivate physician recommended marijuana!

 

[Seamaiden]

Is this not in violation of state law where patients are allowed to collectively grow and provide marijuana to its members????

Yes it is directly in violation of state law where it states that people may come together in order to collectively or cooperatively cultivate physician recommended marijuana!

No, it is not in violation of state law. It is still currently quite legal for a county or municipality to outlaw collective and cooperative model. I happen to live in one of those counties and there ain't a damn thing I can do about it outside of becoming a county supervisor or moving. It is also not a violation of state law to outlaw dispensaries.

 

[Seamaiden]

My county has been able to not only maintain its ban on collectives and cooperatives, but the two cities that previously had ordinances allowing dispensaries just last year moved to ban them after receiving requests for permits to operate.

http://www.ledger-dispatch.com/news/newsview.asp?c=274659
(Can't seem to locate the article on Jackson's ban, around the same time.)

It sure would be nice to think that citizens have some recourse or legal footing, unfortunately, that requires money. This vote came after the partial strike of SB420.

 

[paulycali]

SBC is one tough county. I dont even like to legally medicate there. The sheriffs are tough asses. Remember SBC is the largest county in the entire country too. So i could see it being tough for officers to patroll the areas where collectives might spring up. I think not allowing collectives is ok since the county is so huge. It goes from LA all the way to the state border. Huge area. Not allowing patients to grow outdors is pretty ridiculous and only 2 growers per residence. C'mon give the county residents some better options here. It could be worse even though its pretty bad. Good luck SBC and hope all turns out well for all the patients of SBC

 

[GanjaAL]

My county has been able to not only maintain its ban on collectives and cooperatives, but the two cities that previously had ordinances allowing dispensaries just last year moved to ban them after receiving requests for permits to operate.

http://www.ledger-dispatch.com/news/newsview.asp?c=274659
(Can't seem to locate the article on Jackson's ban, around the same time.)

It sure would be nice to think that citizens have some recourse or legal footing, unfortunately, that requires money. This vote came after the partial strike of SB420.

Dispensaries can be banned yes... but to lable a collective or a coop as a dispensary is what is illegal under the guidlines set forth. This has been the problem all along as people think a collective or coop is a dispesary as they are not. They under the current law can not stop you from collectively or cooperatively provide or cultivate mmj for use by its members... this is where this ordinance breaks California law. However... they can and have the right to ban Dispensaries.

 

[spiderman]

Dispensaries can be banned yes... but to lable a collective or a coop as a dispensary is what is illegal under the guidlines set forth. This has been the problem all along as people think a collective or coop is a dispesary as they are not. They under the current law can not stop you from collectively or cooperatively provide or cultivate mmj for use by its members... this is where this ordinance breaks California law. However... they can and have the right to ban Dispensaries.

and sbc's definition of a dispensary is 3 or more people with rec's in one location. this means that a household with 3 rec's in it, is by their definition a dispensary and illegal. so this family can no longer grow their own medicine!
i do hope this shit gets thrown out in court!

 

[GanjaAL]

That is where they are messing up as they have no state constitutional right to make up their own def as to what a dispensary is. I hope someone takes them to court.

I hear you brother... down with these fuckers in SBC!

 

[GanjaAL]

So is it official yet???? They were set to vote on it today at 10am. Just wondering if anyone has heard anything.

 

[spiderman]

done deal.
nazi's!

 

[crom]

So what is the final word? I read a lot but not everything. I'm just curious if someone can break it down for SBC Farmers?

Cheers,
Crom

 

[GanjaAL]

Basically like everyone else... they made up their own def. of what a dispensary is. It is a collective def. as 3 or more people. You can not collectively grow in an unincorporated area or city in SB county.

 

[Seamaiden]

Wow... so if you cannot grow in unincorporated areas OR incorporated areas collectively, then you cannot grow collectively, period.

 

[GanjaAL]

Sorry... what I meant to say. No store front disensaries allowed in the county. As far as I know you can still grow collectively in incorporated areas in SB county but this county really sucks and does what it want too.

 

[Seamaiden]

No storefronts are allowed in my county, either, and they have also outlawed all collective and cooperative models for growing. We are on our own.

That said, my county's a hell of a lot prettier than San Berdoo.

Just sayin'.

 

[spiderman]

Sorry... what I meant to say. No store front disensaries allowed in the county. As far as I know you can still grow collectively in incorporated areas in SB county but this county really sucks and does what it want too.

You were right the first time:
"they made up their own def. of what a dispensary is. It is a collective def. as 3 or more people. You can not collectively grow in an unincorporated area or city in SB county."

 

[GreenMercy]

Basically the county has outlawed ANY type of grow that exceeds a small handful of plants... I don't think it'll be too hard to prove a case that the county is infringing upon a patients safe-haven rights afforded by prop 215. However, unfortunately it is going to take someone(s) having to get pinched & fight it out in court to prove this theory of mine....