Staff Report. Valerie J. Barone, City Manager

Transcription

1 11.b Staff Report Date: October 24, 2017 To: From: Reviewed by: Prepared by: Subject: City Council Valerie J. Barone, City Manager Andrea Ouse, Director of Community & Economic Development Laura Simpson, Planning Manager Michael P. Cass, Principal Planner (925) Pedro Garcia, Economic Development Specialist (925) Leslye Asera, Community Relations Manager (925) Considering introduction of Ordinance No to amend the Municipal Code and Development Code to ban all marijuana (cannabis) uses, except for personal indoor cultivation and delivery of medical marijuana from licensed dispensaries located outside the City to qualified patients, by reading of the title only and waiving further reading; receive a presentation on the marijuana survey results; and provide direction to staff on creating a work plan, if necessary, for developing additional regulations and forms of public outreach related to marijuana uses. CEQA: Not a project under Public Resources Code 21065, Guidelines Sections 15060(c)(2), 15060(c)(3), 15061(b)(3), or 15378; in the alternative, is categorically exempt pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section Actions by Regulatory Agencies for Protection of the Environment. Page 1 of 204

2 City Council Agenda Report Agenda Item No. 11.b October 24, 2017 Report in Brief On November 8, 2016, the Control, Regulate, & Tax Adult Use of Marijuana Act ( AUMA ) was approved by California voters with the passage of Proposition 64. Effective November 9, 2016, the AUMA legalizes the use and cultivation for personal use of non-medical marijuana for persons 21 years or older. The AUMA permits local jurisdictions to regulate and/or ban non-medical (adult or recreational use) marijuana related to the cultivation, distribution and delivery, transportation, manufacturing, testing laboratories, dispensaries, and micro-marijuana facilities. On June 27, 2017, the Governor signed SB 94, entitled the Medicinal and Adult-Use Cannabis Regulation and Safety Act ( MAUCRSA or also referred to as the trailer bill ). MAUCRSA essentially combines the previous medical marijuana acts (the 2015 MMRSA and 2016 MCRSA laws) with the AUMA and establishes a State system for the regulation and administration of both medical and recreational marijuana use. As part of MAUCRSA, the State s Bureau of Cannabis Control ( BCC ) is charged with the responsibility of preparing the regulatory framework for issuing licenses for twenty (20) classified uses by January 2, However, as it is anticipated that these regulations will not be developed to meet this deadline, the State has determined that it may issue temporary state licenses to operations that hold valid local permits and are currently engaged in lawful cannabis activities or are otherwise authorized to operate. The State also is considering adopting emergency regulations to implement the licensing program in November to meet the January 2, 2018 deadline. On June 27, 2017, staff gave a presentation to the City Council on federal, state, and local regulations for medical and non-medical marijuana, which specifically provided: an update on pending legislation; an overview on the types of marijuana uses; and, an overview of potential policy considerations, such as timing, taxation, economic impact, crime, life safety, odor, and environmental issues. Staff also solicited feedback on a potential ban on marijuana uses, community outreach options, and additional information necessary for the Council to formalize policy direction to staff. In light of the upcoming January 2, 2018 implementation of the State s licensing program, the majority of the City Council directed staff to draft a ban for all marijuana (cannabis) uses, except for personal indoor cultivation and delivery of medical marijuana from licensed dispensaries located outside the City to qualified patients. The ban protects the community s regulatory control and creates time for the Council and the community to explore what marijuana related uses are appropriate in Concord. If the City does not enact the ban by January 2018, then the State would become the sole licensing authority, and local control would be pre-empted. The ban can be modified in the future should the City move forward with allowing additional marijuana uses. Page 2 of 204

3 City Council Agenda Report Agenda Item No. 11.b October 24, 2017 Additionally, the Council directed staff to work with a consultant on a statistically valid survey. On July 12, 2017, the Council Committee on Policy Development & Internal Operations ( PD&IO ) provided direction to Godbe Research to conduct a survey to address which marijuana uses the public would support, including dispensaries, manufacturing, testing laboratories, indoor commercial cultivation, and outdoor personal cultivation. Bryan Godbe will present the survey results at the City Council meeting. Recommended Action 1. Introduce Ordinance No (Attachment 1) to amend the Municipal Code and Development Code to ban all marijuana (cannabis) uses, except for personal indoor cultivation and delivery of medical marijuana from licensed dispensaries located outside the City to qualified patients by reading of the title only and waiving further reading. 2. Receive a presentation by Bryan Godbe of Godbe Research on the statistically valid survey results from the 2017 Marijuana Planning Survey of Concord residents. 3. Provide direction to staff on creating a work plan for developing additional regulations and recommended forms of public outreach related to marijuana uses. Background City Council Meeting On June 27, 2017, the majority of the City Council directed staff to draft a ban for all marijuana (cannabis) uses, except for personal indoor cultivation and delivery of medical marijuana from licensed dispensaries located outside the City to qualified patients, Several Councilmembers noted concerns over pending legislation and unknown information from the State. Additionally, the Council directed staff to work with a consultant on a statistically-valid survey because they wanted to better understand the sentiment on these topics in the community. Further, Council noted that the ban protects the community s regulatory control and creates time for the Council and the community to explore what marijuana related uses are appropriate in Concord. If the City does not enact the ban by January 2018, then the State would become the sole licensing authority, and local control would be pre-empted. The ban can be modified in the future should the City move forward with allowing additional marijuana uses. PD&IO Meeting On July 12, 2017, the Council Committee on Policy Development & Internal Operations ( PD&IO ) provided direction to Godbe Research to conduct a survey to address which marijuana uses the public would support, including dispensaries, manufacturing, testing laboratories, indoor commercial cultivation, and outdoor personal cultivation. The Committee s recommendations were incorporated as part of the statistically-valid survey, which was conducted in late August Page 3 of 204

4 City Council Agenda Report Agenda Item No. 11.b October 24, 2017 Planning Commission Meeting On September 6, 2017, the Planning Commission conducted a public hearing on marijuana regulations, where 30 members of the public largely spoke in favor of allowing medical marijuana uses, particularly non-storefront dispensaries. After deliberation, the Commission unanimously adopted Resolution No PC (Attachment 2), recommending the City Council amend the Municipal Code and Development Code to ban all marijuana (cannabis) uses, except for personal indoor cultivation and delivery of medical marijuana from licensed dispensaries located outside of Concord to qualified patientsas marijuana laws become settled, and marijuana regulations are established, the City intends to study and potentially establish a comprehensive program and regulations relating to marijuana uses. Further, the Planning Commission recommended that the uses for non-storefront medical marijuana delivery services and testing laboratories be strongly considered to be excluded from the ban and that Council consider non-storefront medical marijuana delivery services as a first priority in any work plan. Analysis Marijuana Ban In accordance of the provisions within the AUMA allowing for the personal cultivation of up to six plants within a private residence by a person 21 years or older and delivery of medical marijuana to qualified patients from licensed dispensaries located outside the City; the City may choose to prohibit all forms of medical and non-medical marijuana activities. Both the City Council and the Planning Commission recommended the ban of marijuana uses/activities except those required by State law and deliveries of medical marijuana, for the following reasons: Timing and Legal Non-Conforming Uses. The State intends to start issuing licenses on January 2, 2018 and local jurisdictions must either adopt regulations and/or ban marijuana uses in order to retain local control. As stated above, the BCC has yet to finalize its regulatory framework to issue licenses for each marijuana use but also plans on issuing temporary licenses to those operations that already have permits or are authorized by a local jurisdiction to operate (a grandfathering clause). Therefore, unless specifically banned, there is a risk that some uses may be deemed authorized by the City (see discussion below regarding permissive zoning) and that these uses could become a legal nonconforming use through the issuance of a temporary license from the State. Also, if the City decides to permit a certain marijuana use before the BCC has finalized its regulations, there is a risk that a later-instituted State regulation could open the door to another unforeseen use, which could, in turn, become a legal non-conforming use. Permissive Zoning. The City has a permissive zoning Development Code, which means that if a use is not specifically enumerated in the Code, the use is Page 4 of 204

5 City Council Agenda Report Agenda Item No. 11.b October 24, 2017 presumptively prohibited. However, the League of California Cities has cautioned cities from relying on permissive zoning as a method of prohibiting non-medical marijuana uses and recommends an explicit ban on specific marijuana uses instead. The League s recommendation is based on a rationale that although MMRSA preserved a city s ability to rely on permissive zoning to ban medical marijuana uses, the AUMA did not include similar protective language that cities could use to rely on silent prohibition of adult or non-medical marijuana uses. In addition, the League has pointed out that the AUMA has designated nonmedical marijuana as an agriculture product. Therefore, if not explicitly prohibited, it could be argued that marijuana cultivation is allowed in any zoning district that allows any agriculture uses. Finally, the effect of the newly passed MAUCRSA bill is uncertain as to whether the City may rely on permissive zoning to prohibit non-medical uses. Therefore, staff recommends that the City adopt express prohibitions to effectuate a ban on all or some non-medical marijuana activities. Pending Legislation / State Regulations. In addition to the regulatory licensing scheme yet to be developed by the State, there are more than 50 pending State laws regarding marijuana that staff will continue to monitor and provide periodic updates to the City Council and via the City s new marijuana landing page ( on the City s website. Statistically-Valid Survey Pursuant to the direction of the City Council, the City contracted Godbe Research to conduct the 2017 Marijuana Planning Survey of Concord residents. Results from the survey will assist the City Council and staff in developing policies acceptable to the community. The survey was conducted in late August On September 29, 2017, the City posted the survey questions and topline survey results (Attachment 3) on the City s marijuana landing page. Survey results will be formally presented by Bryan Godbe of Godbe Research at the City Council meeting. Marijuana Work Plan Staff recommends that the City provide feedback to staff on what marijuana uses it desires to study for potential regulations. Additionally, given workload implications, staff recommends Council prioritize the order each potential new marijuana use should undergo review. This will create a phased approach, where each potential new marijuana use/activity would be studied and regulations considered separately. Staff believes this will ultimately result in a faster process. Additionally, incremental development of a regulatory approach will provide the public and decision-makers with a more detailed understanding of potential impacts and benefits and create opportunities for robust public input. Also, the phased approach will allow the City to develop a business selection process appropriate for particular marijuana uses, solicit input, and modify as necessary. Each discrete area of study, including development and adoption of regulations allowing the new use, is expected to take four to six months. Page 5 of 204

6 City Council Agenda Report Agenda Item No. 11.b October 24, 2017 On September 6, 2017, the Planning Commission strongly recommended against the prohibition of non-storefront medical marijuana delivery services and testing laboratories, and asked the Council to consider regulation of non-storefront medical marijuana delivery services as the highest priority in a City Council-approved work plan. The proposed language of the attached ordinance includes a ban on non-storefront medical marijuana delivery services. Staff does not recommend excluding this use from the ban as the City has not yet developed any regulations related to this use. Were Council to prioritize non-storefront medical marijuana delivery services for consideration for permitting, it would take approximately four to six months to develop and adopt an Ordinance. If the City Council wishes to consider legalizing marijuana uses/activities within Concord, then Staff recommends that the City Council develop priorities within a work plan based upon the following evaluation criteria: Survey results on voter preference; Potential to generate new tax revenue; Level of City staff effort and time; Potential impacts on crime and safety; Potential number of new jobs in Concord; Development opportunity of vacant parcels or distressed buildings Impacts of potential new State Legislative and County regulations; and Planning Commission recommendation. The Interdepartmental Working Group (consisting of staff representing City Management, City Attorney, Police, Finance, Public Works, Planning, and Economic Development) developed the following table as a high-level guide to assist the Council when prioritizing various marijuana uses/activities. Below the table, staff explains it in more detail. Use Ballot Tax Measure Non- Storefront Dispensaries Testing Laboratories / Tax Revenue Generation Potential Staff Effort & Time Crime & Safety Impacts Potential # of New Jobs Impacts by Potential State or County Regulations N/A High None None None Low Low (Testing) / High High Medium / High Low / Medium Low Low High Low Medium / High Page 6 of 204

7 City Council Agenda Report Agenda Item No. 11.b October 24, 2017 Manufacturing Storefront Dispensaries Commercial Cultivation Micro- Business (Manufacturing) Low / Medium High Medium Low / Medium Low Medium / High Medium Medium Low High Low / Medium High (But all others will be low, if this is tackled first) Medium Low Low Tax Revenue Generation Effective January 2, 2018, all medical and non-medical marijuana retail sales are subject to a 15% excise tax in addition to the existing regular state and local sales tax. The AUMA also imposes a cultivation tax of $9.25/ounce dry-weight for flowers or $2.75/ounce dry-weight for leaves. The City is permitted to impose additional business taxes on facilities that are cultivating, manufacturing, processing, selling, distributing, providing, storing, or donating non-medical marijuana. The AUMA prohibits additional state and local sales taxes on medical marijuana when the qualified patient has a Stateissued medical marijuana card; marijuana cultivated for personal use is exempt from taxation. The earliest that the City could place an additional tax measure on the ballot is November Based upon the statistically-valid survey responses, 83.3% of participants support a local tax on marijuana businesses in Concord. Pursuant to the new law, tax revenues generated by retail sales will be allocated to the California Marijuana Tax Fund where proceeds will be directed towards repaying State agencies for regulatory costs not covered by license fees, and for funding grants to California public universities to study and evaluate the implementation of the act. Remaining tax revenues will be distributed with 60% to youth programs, substance abuse education, prevention and treatment; 20% to environmental cleanup and remediation; and 20% to programs to reduce DUIs and negative health impacts resulting from marijuana legislation. The estimated cumulative tax rate for non-medical marijuana is approximately 35%. Local governments may not be eligible for grant funding outlined above if they prohibit certain marijuana uses, including indoor and outdoor personal cultivation. It is unknown to what extent a local jurisdiction must permit marijuana activities in order to be eligible for State revenue. The State is tentatively scheduled to provide additional clarity on this issue in November During the November 2016 election, 37 California cities and counties passed a local excise tax measure on marijuana uses. However, estimated figures from other cities and counties should not be used to estimate Concord s potential for new revenue Page 7 of 204

8 City Council Agenda Report Agenda Item No. 11.b October 24, 2017 through non-medical marijuana sales as there are many variables. The wide difference in marijuana tax revenues between these cities illustrates how nearby markets can vary significantly depending upon level of consumer demand, market saturation, and a possible underground market to avoid paying taxes. These are all factors that could impact potential revenue in Concord. To provide some context for what might be possible in regards to producing revenue through a local tax, staff consulted with HdL Companies. They have stated that the City could generate approximately $900,000 to $1.5 million in annual revenue, if eight to twelve commercial marijuana uses were established, assuming the City adopted a local tax of 4-6%. Staff Effort & Time Staff anticipates the review process to develop regulations with input from the community and review by the PD&IO, Planning Commission and City Council would take four to six months for each marijuana use/activity. Additionally, the new regulations may be subject to the California Environmental Quality Act, which could add additional time, depending upon the level and complexity of review. For each marijuana use, the City will need to make a number of policy decisions, such as: Locations and zoning districts the use is allowed or not allowed; Quantity of permitted uses; Buffer zones from other sensitive uses, such as residences and similar uses; Review process, submittal requirements, and fees to establish and/or revoke use; and Development standards to address potential noise, safety, traffic, parking, or other environmental impacts. Certain uses will require less staff time to develop regulations, such as testing laboratories and manufacturing facilities, as the existing Development Code outlines where similar uses would be allowed and the State-mandated buffers substantially limit where the marijuana use may be permitted. Other uses, such as storefront dispensaries, and non-storefront dispensaries will take significantly more staff time, as there is a potential for a greater impact on surrounding properties and there are more required policy decisions. Crime & Safety Impacts Since the beginning of compassionate or medical use allowances, the Concord Police Department has had many interactions with marijuana users, cultivators, and distributers. Between January 2015 and June 2017, Code Enforcement received 27 complaints about outdoor cultivation. Additionally, the Major Crimes Unit investigated 19 marijuana transportation and mobile dispensary robberies. In general, the Police Department found that smaller personal and commercial marijuana operations (including manufacturing and testing laboratories) tend to involve Page 8 of 204

9 City Council Agenda Report Agenda Item No. 11.b October 24, 2017 less risk for criminal activities while larger, more visible operations (such as dispensaries) have greater risk. Outdoor cultivation tends to generate odor, theft and trespass complaints, while indoor cultivation, processing, and distribution has a higher risk for thefts, burglaries, and robberies. Based on Concord Police experience, residential and small-scale commercial operations tend to fall victim to violent armed, takeover-style robberies. As a result, Concord s Police Chief believes it is imperative that any marijuana cultivation or processing operation be subject to crime prevention conditions, use of security, and consistent regulatory monitoring. This would need to be defined further, should the City pursue additional marijuana uses. Potential Number of New Jobs The potential number of new jobs generated in Concord varies widely for each marijuana use/activity. Similar to any other industry, when breaking down the commercial marijuana uses, there is a norm within the number of jobs that retail brings to a city. Retail uses (non-storefront dispensaries, storefront dispensaries and microbusiness) generally generate fewer jobs. Commercial cultivation potentially will generate jobs that require special certifications for cultivators and management staff. However, in ratio to the amount of gross floor area required for this use, it is not a large employer. Testing laboratories / manufacturers will potentially generate a number of high wage jobs, due in part to the multi-level structure of a manufacturing facility where management and higher education levels are demanded. State-Imposed Deadlines After the State begins issuing licenses on January 2, 2018, there are no additional State-imposed deadlines for marijuana uses/activities. However, if the Council wishes to place a local tax measure on the November 2018 ballot, the Council must adopt a resolution by August Failure to meet this deadline would require the City to wait until the next election where a Council seat is up for election, likely in November Impacts of Potential County Regulations On July 18, 2017, the Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors met to discuss a preliminary regulatory framework for options of cannabis uses within incorporated Contra Costa County. As part of the discussion, three maps were presented which represented three different types of uses and where they could be allowed based on a preliminary zoning analysis and proposed buffer requirements to protect sensitive receptors. The maps indicate possible areas for: 1) commercial indoor and outdoor cultivation, 2) distribution, manufacturing, testing, retail delivery, and 3) dispensaries. The maps are attached to this report for review (Attachment 4), and represent all three uses proposed along various borders of Concord City limits. At the July 18 th meeting, the Board of Supervisors directed staff to prepare an ordinance prohibiting all commercial uses and prohibiting personal cultivation except for indoor cultivation, to prevent the default State regulations. The maps demonstrate that the County is evaluating whether to permit the majority of marijuana uses/activities in the unincorporated areas immediately outside of North Concord. Page 9 of 204

10 City Council Agenda Report Agenda Item No. 11.b October 24, 2017 Public Outreach To date, the City has conducted various forms of public outreach, including: Conducting a statistically valid survey Maintaining an e-notification list of interested parties, Hosting multiple public meetings, and Developing a marijuana landing page on the City s website, and populating the page with relevant information. Alternatives 1. Support the Planning Commission s recommendation that non-storefront medical marijuana delivery services and testing laboratories be given strong consideration by the Council for exclusion from the ban and prioritize developing regulations for non-storefront medical marijuana dispensaries. Such an action would require that Council direct staff to explore exclusion of testing laboratories and manufacturing facilities from the ban and bring information back to Council and that the public hearing be continued to November 14, Rather than utilizing a phased-implementation approach, the City Council could undertake a comprehensive update to all marijuana uses / activities. Staff estimates doing so would require an extensive amount of work and could take a year to complete. 3. Instead of approving a ban, the City could immediately start developing regulations after the October 24, 2017 meeting. 4. The City could defer developing regulations pending the result of a potential tax measure on November 2018 ballot. This option would allow the City to be transparent with potential tax implications on new businesses and allow the State to finalize their regulations, prior to the City developing local requirements. Financial Impact If the City prohibits certain commercial marijuana-related activities, there is a potential that specific grant funding from the State would not be made available to the City and no new tax revenue or business license fees would be generated. The League of California Cities has requested clarification from the State about what marijuana uses must be permitted in order for cities to be eligible for grant funding. Staff will update the City Council on this topic as soon as additional clarity is provided. Page 10 of 204

11 City Council Agenda Report Agenda Item No. 11.b October 24, 2017 Whether or not the City permits commercial marijuana activities, the establishment of illicit or unpermitted marijuana-related activities is expected and the cost of enforcement would be borne solely by the City if the City is not eligible for State grants. The amount of state funding that might be made available to the City for enforcement is uncertain at this time. Adoption of an ordinance permitting and regulating various marijuana-related commercial activities, as well passage of a tax measure or imposition of new fees, could result in additional revenues for the City, in addition to qualifying the City to access to grant funding from the State. Environmental Determination Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970, Public Resources Code 21000, et seq., as amended and implementing State CEQA Guidelines, Title 14, Chapter 3 of the California Code of Regulations (collectively, CEQA ), the proposed changes to the Municipal and Development Code do not constitute a project within the meaning of the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970 (CEQA) Guidelines Section 15060(c)(2) because there is no potential that these code changes will result in a direct or reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment and CEQA Guidelines Section because it has no potential for either a direct physical change to the environment, or a reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment. Moreover, even if the Ordinance does comprise a project for CEQA analysis, it falls within the general rule CEQA exemption set forth in CEQA Guidelines Section 15061(b)(3), excluding projects where it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the activity in question may have a significant effect on the environment. In the alternative, the Amendments are categorically exempt pursuant to Section of the CEQA Guidelines because these changes are actions taken by the City, as authorized by the State or local ordinance, to ensure protection of the environment. Public Contact The City Council Agenda was posted. All appropriate public notices of this agenda item have been posted. An advertisement was posted in the East Bay Times in accordance with the public notification requirements. Additionally staff e-notified interested parties. Attachments 1. Ordinance No Planning Commission Resolution No PC 3. Marijuana Survey Results 4. Contra Costa County Maps 5. Public Comments Page 11 of 204

12 Attachment ORDINANCE NO AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE MUNICIPAL CODE AND DEVELOPMENT CODE TO BAN ALL MARIJUANA (CANNABIS) USES, EXCEPT FOR PERSONAL INDOOR CULTIVATION AND DELIVERY OF MEDICAL MARIJUANA TO QUALIFIED PATIENTS WHEREAS, in 1970, Congress enacted the Controlled Substances Act (CSA), which, among other things, makes it illegal to import, manufacture, distribute, possess, or use marijuana in the United States; and WHEREAS, in 1996, the voters of the State of California approved Proposition 215, known as the Compassionate Use Act (CUA), codified as California Health and Safety Code Section The CUA creates a limited exception from criminal liability for seriously ill persons who are in need of medical marijuana for specified medical reasons and who obtain and use medical marijuana under limited, specified circumstances; and WHEREAS, in 2004, the State legislature adopted the Medical Marijuana Program Act (MMPA), codified as California Health and Safety Code Section et seq., to clarify the scope of the CUA and to allow cities and other governing bodies to adopt and enforce rules and regulations consistent with the MMPA. The CUA expressly anticipates the enactment of additional local legislation and provides that (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. (Health and Safety Code Section ); and WHEREAS, on September 27, 2005, the City Council adopted Ordinance 05-9, amending the Concord Municipal Code by prohibiting the establishment of medical marijuana dispensaries, fixed or mobile, due to the inconsistencies between Federal and State law and to protect the public health, safety, and general welfare; and WHEREAS, on April 9, 2013, the City Council adopted Ordinance 13-1, amending the Concord Development Code, prohibiting outdoor cultivation of medical marijuana to provide for the public health, safety, and welfare, to limit odor caused by marijuana from impacting adjacent properties, and to prevent the attractive nuisance created by marijuana cultivation, which creates the risk of burglary, trespass, robbery, and armed robbery, posing the threat of serious injury or death, and Ord. No Page 12 of 204

13 requiring the expenditure of scarce police and public safety resources; and WHEREAS, on November 8, 2016, the Control, Regulate, & Tax Adult Use of Marijuana Act (AUMA) was approved by California voters through the passing of Proposition 64. Effective November 9, 2016, the AUMA legalizes for persons 21 years or older the right to: (1) smoke or ingest marijuana or marijuana products, (2) possess, process, transport, purchase, obtain, give away without compensation to persons 21 years or older 28.5 grams of marijuana or 8 grams of concentrated marijuana, and (3) possess, plant, cultivate, harvest, dry, or process up to six living marijuana plants per legal dwelling unit for personal use. Additionally, the AUMA will create a state regulatory and licensing system governing the commercial cultivation, testing, and distribution of non-medical marijuana, and the manufacturing of non-medical marijuana products, which the State anticipates will become effective as of January 2, 2018; and WHEREAS, on January 10, 2017, the City Council adopted Ordinance 16-9, which (among other things) prohibited outdoor cultivation of medical and non-medical marijuana. The City Council also directed the Council Committee on Policy Development and Internal Operations ( PD&IO ) to comprehensively study potential regulations for medical and non-medical marijuana uses; and WHEREAS, on May 24, 2017, the PD&IO Committee held a public meeting on marijuana regulations and recommended that the City Council consider an ordinance removing any prohibitions or bans on delivery of medical marijuana from licensed dispensaries, while keeping the existing restrictions and bans on marijuana cultivation and dispensaries (fixed or mobile) in place; and WHEREAS, in June 2017, the California Legislature passed Senate Bill 94, which effectively repealed the Medical Cannabis Regulation and Safety Act and incorporated certain provisions of MCRSA in the licensing provisions of the AUMA, and replaced it with the Medical and Adult Use Cannabis Regulation and Safety Act ( MAUCRSA ); and WHEREAS, on June 27, 2017, the City Council directed staff to develop a ban on all marijuana uses and activities, except for uses that are required by the AUMA, to allow the Council and the community time to explore its options and develop any desired new regulations after the State commences the licensing of marijuana uses as of January 2, 2018; and 28 Ord. No Page 13 of 204

14 WHEREAS, on July 25, 2017, the City Council adopted Ordinance No , which amended the Concord Municipal Code to allow delivery of medical marijuana from licensed dispensaries to qualified patients. The Council recognized the adverse effects and impacts of marijuana processing, cultivation and dispensing activities, while also respecting the right of qualified patients to use medical marijuana for relief of their ailments. The Council found that allowing delivery of medical marijuana from licensed dispensaries located outside the City to qualified patients located in the City would be the least onerous method of affording access of medical marijuana to qualified patients within the City; and WHEREAS, the adoption of text amendments (collectively referred to as Amendment, attached as Exhibit A) to the Concord Municipal Code ( CMC ) including the CMC Chapter 18, referred to as the Development Code will ban all marijuana (cannabis) uses, except for personal indoor cultivation and delivery of medical marijuana to qualified patients from licensed dispensaries located outside the City; WHEREAS, pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970, Public Resources Code 21000, et seq., as amended and implementing State CEQA Guidelines, Title 14, Chapter 3 of the California Code of Regulations (collectively, CEQA ), the proposed changes to the Municipal and Development Code do not constitute a project within the meaning of the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970 (CEQA) Guidelines Section 15060(c)(2) because there is no potential that it will result in a direct or reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment and CEQA Guidelines Section because it has no potential for either a direct physical change to the environment, or a reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment. Moreover, even if the Ordinance does comprise a project for CEQA analysis, it falls within the common sense CEQA exemption set forth in CEQA Guidelines Section 15061(b)(3), excluding projects where it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the activity in question may have a significant effect on the environment. In the alternative, the Amendments are categorically exempt pursuant to Section of the CEQA Guidelines because these changes are actions taken by the City, as authorized by the State or local ordinance, to ensure protection of the 28 Ord. No Page 14 of 204

15 environment; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission, after giving all public notices required by State Law and the Concord Municipal Code, held a duly noticed public hearing on September 6, 2017, on the proposed Amendment and adopted Resolution No PC, recommending City Council adoption of an ordinance to amend the Development Code and Municipal Code; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission recommended that the uses for non-storefront medical marijuana delivery services and testing laboratories be strongly considered to not be banned and to consider non-storefront medical marijuana delivery services as a first priority in any work plan approved by the City Council; and WHEREAS, the City Council, after giving all public notices required by State Law and the Concord Municipal Code, held a duly noticed public hearing on October 24, 2017, on the proposed Amendment and declared their intent to approve and adopt the Amendment. THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CONCORD DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. All of the facts set forth in the Recitals are true and correct and are hereby incorporated and adopted as findings of the City Council as if fully set forth herein. Section 2. Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970, Public Resources Code 21000, et seq., as amended and implementing State CEQA Guidelines, Title 14, Chapter 3 of the California Code of Regulations (collectively, CEQA ), the proposed changes to the Municipal and Development Code do not constitute a project within the meaning of the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970 (CEQA) Guidelines Section 15060(c)(2) because there is no potential that it will result in a direct or reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment and CEQA Guidelines Section because it has no potential for either a direct physical change to the environment, or a reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment. Moreover, even if the Ordinance does comprise a project for CEQA analysis, it falls within the common sense CEQA exemption set forth in CEQA Guidelines Section 15061(b)(3), excluding projects where it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the activity in question may have a significant effect on the environment. In the alternative, the Amendments are 28 Ord. No Page 15 of 204

16 categorically exempt pursuant to Section of the CEQA Guidelines because these changes are actions taken by the City, as authorized by the State or local ordinance, to ensure protection of the environment. Section 3. The Concord Municipal Code (including the Development Code) is hereby amended as outlined in Exhibit A, attached hereto and made a part hereof. Section 4. This ordinance shall become effective thirty (30) days following passage and adoption. In the event a summary of said Ordinance is published in lieu of the entire Ordinance, a certified copy of the full text of this Ordinance shall be posted in the office of the City Clerk at least five (5) days prior to its adoption and within fifteen (15) days after its adoption, including the vote of the Councilmembers. Additionally, a summary prepared by the City Attorney s Office shall be published once at least five (5) days prior to the date of adoption of this Ordinance and once within fifteen (15) days after its passage and adoption, including the vote of the Councilmembers, in the East Bay Times, a newspaper of general circulation in the City of Concord. ATTEST: Laura M. Hoffmeister Mayor By: Joelle Fockler, MMC City Clerk (Seal) 28 Ord. No Page 16 of 204

17 Ordinance No was duly and regularly introduced at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Concord held on October 24, 2017, and was thereafter duly and regularly passed and adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council held on, 2017, by the following vote: AYES: Councilmembers - NOES: Councilmembers - ABSTAIN: Councilmembers - ABSENT: Councilmembers - I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing is a true and correct copy of an ordinance duly and regularly introduced, passed, and adopted by the City Council of the City of Concord, California By: Joelle Fockler, MMC City Clerk Exhibit A: Strikethrough & Underlined Version of Amendments Ord. No Page 17 of 204

18 Concord Municipal Code MARIJUANA REGS. Exhibit A to Attachment 1 Page 1/18 Title 5 BUSINESS LICENSES AND REGULATIONS Chapter 5.80 MARIJUANA Sections: Definitions Medical Mmarijuana dispensary as a prohibited use Outdoor marijuana cultivation (personal, non-medical, medical, or commercial) prohibited Commercial, retail, and industrial marijuana use prohibited Miscellaneous provisions Definitions. Accessory building or structure means a building or structure that is not part of the principal dwelling unit on the parcel, the use of which is incidental and subordinate to the use of the principal dwelling. Examples of accessory buildings or structures include, but are not limited to: garages, tool shed, storage shed, carport, greenhouse, pool cabana, and other outbuildings and structures. AUMA means the Control, Regulate and Tax Adult Use of Marijuana Act. Commercial, retail, and industrial marijuana use shall have the same meaning as the term commercial cannabis activity as defined in the California Business and Professions Code Section 26001(k), or any successor statute thereto, including the cultivation, possession, manufacture, distribution, processing, storing, laboratory testing, packaging, labeling, transportation, delivery or sale of marijuana and marijuana products. Cultivation means any activity involving the planting, growing, harvesting, drying, curing, grading, or trimming of marijuana and also includes agricultural uses (such as crop production, orchard, vineyard, or community gardens). Delivery shall have the same meaning as the term delivery as defined in California Business and Professions Code Section 26001(p) (m) for medical marijuana delivery, or any successor statue thereto, including the commercial transfer of medical cannabis or medical cannabis products from a dispensary, up to an amount determined by the State to a primary caregiver or qualified patients. Delivery also includes the use by a dispensary of any technology platform owned or controlled by the dispensary, or independently licensed by the State, which enables qualified patients or primary caregivers to arrange for of facilitate the commercial transfer by a licensed dispensary of medical cannabis or medical cannabis products. Indoor means any location that is within a fully enclosed nonresidential building or structure, or private residence. License shall have the same meaning as the term license as defined in California Business and Professions Code Section 26001(y), or any successor statute thereto, including a license issued by the State for a marijuana use or activity and any applicable approval or permit issued by a local jurisdiction. Marijuana or cannabis shall have the same meaning as defined in California Health and Safety Code Sections 11018, or any successor statute thereto, including but not limited to all parts of the plant Cannabis sativa L., whether growing or not; the seeds thereof; the resin extracted from any part of the plant; and every compound, manufacture, salt, derivative, mixture, or preparation of the plant, its seeds or resin. It does not include the mature stalks of the plant, fiber produced from the stalks, oil or cake made from the seeds of the plant, any other compound, manufacture, salt, derivative, mixture, or preparation of the mature stalks (except the resin extracted therefrom), fiber, oil, or cake, or the sterilized seed of the plant which is incapable of germination; (1) industrial hemp, as defined in Health and Safety Code Section or any successor statute thereto; or (2) the weight of any ingredient combined with cannabis marijuana to prepare topical or oral administrations, food, drink, or other product. All references to marijuana include and equally apply to cannabis. The Concord Municipal Code is current through Ordinance 17-8, passed June 13, Page 18 of 204

19 Concord Municipal Code MARIJUANA REGS. Page 2/18 Marijuana dispensary or dispensary refers to any Medical Marijuana Dispensary and any Non-Medical Marijuana Dispensary, as those terms are defined below.. Marijuana product means marijuana that has undergone a process whereby the plant has been transformed into a concentrate, including but not limited to, concentrated cannabis, or an edible or topical product containing marijuana or concentrated cannabis and other ingredients, as defined in California Health and Safety Code Section , or any successor statute thereto. MAUCRSA means the Medical and Adult Use Cannabis Regulation and Safety Act. MCRSA means the Medical Cannabis Regulation and Safety Act. Medical marijuana or medical marijuana use means the use of marijuana for the purposes set forth in the Compassionate Use Act and the Medical Marijuana Program Act, as defined in California Health and Safety Code Section , or any successor statute thereto. Medical Marijuana Dispensary or Dispensary means any facility or location, as defined by California Business and Professions Code Section (n), or any successor statute thereto, whether fixed or mobile, where medical marijuana is made available to or distributed by or distributed to one (1) or more of the following: a primary caregiver, a qualified patient, or a patient with an identification card. All three of these terms are identified in strict accordance with California Health and Safety Code Section et seq., or any successor statute thereto. A medical marijuana dispensary shall not include the following uses, as long as the location of such uses is otherwise regulated by this code or applicable law: A clinic licensed pursuant to Chapter 1.05 of Division 2 of the Health and Safety Code; A healthcare facility licensed pursuant to Title 2 of Divisions 2 of the Health and Safety Code; A facility licensed pursuant to Title 2 of Division 2 of the Health and Safety Code; A residential care facility for persons with chronic life-threatening illness licensed pursuant to Chapter 3.01 of Division 2 of the Health and Safety Code; A residential care facility for the elderly licensed pursuant to Chapter 3.2 of Division 2 of the Health and Safety Code; A residential hospice, or a home health agency licensed pursuant to Chapter 8 of Division 2 of the Health and Safety Code, as long as such use complies strictly with applicable law, including but not limited to, Health and Safety Code Section et seq. The term medical marijuana dispensary also means a medical marijuana retailer, with a storefront establishment or building or non-storefront business. Non-medical marijuana or non-medical marijuana use means all uses of marijuana not included within the definition of medical marijuana use, or as defined by state law. The term non-medical is also referred to as recreational, personal, or adult marijuana uses and are used interchangeably. Non-medical marijuana dispensary means any facility or location, whether fixed or mobile, retail storefront or wholesale component of any establishment, cooperative or collective that delivers, dispenses, distributes, exchanges, transmits, transports, sells or provides non-medical marijuana to any person for any reason, including members of any marijuana cooperative or collective, as those terms are defined in California Business & Professions Code Sections 26001, or any successor statute thereto. The term non-medical marijuana dispensary is also referred to as non-medical marijuana retailer, with a storefront establishment or building or non-storefront business. Outdoor means any location within the city that is not within a fully enclosed nonresidential building or structure, or within a private residence. Parcel means any parcel of real property that may be separately sold in compliance with the Subdivision Map Act (California Government Code Section et seq.). A parcel may or may not be improved, including but not limited to: buildings, structures, and/or private residences. Person includes any individual, firm, co-partnership, joint venture, association, corporation, limited liability company, estate, trust, business trust, received, syndicate, or any other group or combination acting as a unit, and the plural as well as the singular. Primary caregiver means an individual, who is at least 18 years of age, designated by a qualified patient or by the person with an identification card, who has consistently assumed responsibility for the housing, health, or safety of that patient or person, as defined in Health and Safety Code Section , or any successor statute thereto. The Concord Municipal Code is current through Ordinance 17-8, passed June 13, Page 19 of 204

20 Concord Municipal Code MARIJUANA REGS. Page 3/18 Private residence means a house, an apartment unit, a mobile home, or other similar dwelling. To the extent allowed by law, private residence shall mean a fully enclosed and secure house, apartment unit, mobile home, or other similar dwelling. To the extent allowed by law, a private residence must be currently, presently, and lawfully utilized as the primary dwelling of one or more natural persons. Qualified patient means a patient, who has verified his or her identity and address to a delivering dispensary, that uses or ingests medical marijuana as that term is defined in California Health and Safety Code Section , or any successor statutes thereto Medical mmarijuana dispensary as a prohibited use. A medical marijuana dispensary or non-medical marijuana dispensary as defined in Section is prohibited in all zones and no stamp, signature or other notation on approved plans, business license, zoning clearance, administrative permit, minor use permit, conditional use permit, or other regulatory approval shall be issued therefore. (a) Exception of deliveries from licensed marijuana dispensaries. Medical marijuana dispensaries are prohibited in the City; however, delivery of medical marijuana from marijuana dispensaries located outside of the City of Concord may be allowed to qualified patients or primary caregivers, subject to the following restrictions: (1) Only marijuana dispensaries that are licensed under the applicable laws of the State of California, including but not limited to the MCRSA and MAUCRSA, and are operating in compliance with the applicable laws and regulations of the local jurisdiction in which the marijuana dispensary is located shall be allowed to provide medical marijuana delivery to a qualified patient or primary caregiver in the City of Concord; and (2) Prior to commencing medical marijuana deliveries to qualified patients or primary caregivers in the City of Concord, the marijuana dispensary shall register with the Concord Police Department and provide proof that the marijuana dispensary is licensed under the applicable laws of the State of California and operating in compliance with the applicable laws and regulations of the local jurisdiction in which the marijuana dispensary is located; and (3) Prior to commencing medical marijuana deliveries to qualified patients or primary caregivers in the City of Concord, the marijuana dispensary shall provide the Concord Police Department with the names, ages, and driver s license numbers of all persons who will be conducting the deliveries. The marijuana dispensary shall notify the Concord Police Department of any changes in the identifies of the persons conducting the deliveries within twenty-four (24) hours of any change in that information; and (4) Thereafter, on an annual basis and prior to July 1 of each year, the marijuana dispensary shall provide the Concord Police Department with proof that the marijuana dispensary continues to be licensed under the applicable laws of the State of California and is authorized to operate in the local jurisdiction in which the marijuana dispensary is located. In addition to this annual reporting requirement, the marijuana dispensary shall promptly report any thefts ofr personal property, marijuana, or money, or damage to real property, related to the delivery of medical marijuana in the City of Concord to the Concord Police Department Outdoor marijuana cultivation (personal, non-medical, medical, or commercial) prohibited. (a) Purpose and intent. It is the purpose and intent of this provision to limit marijuana cultivation for personal use to locations within a private residence or inside an accessory building or structure on a parcel developed with a private residence, within a fully enclosed, secure, locked space, and so as not to be visible to the general public, to provide for the health, safety and welfare of the public, to limit odor created by marijuana from impacting adjacent properties, and to prevent the attractive nuisance created by marijuana cultivation, which creates the risk of burglary, trespass, robbery, and armed robbery, posing the threat of serious injury or death, and requiring the expenditure of scarce police and public safety resources. Outdoor marijuana cultivation for any purpose is expressly prohibited. (b) Prohibitions. (1) No person owning, renting, leasing, occupying or having charge or possession of any parcel shall cause or allow such parcel to be used for the outdoor cultivation of marijuana, either for personal or commercial purposes. The Concord Municipal Code is current through Ordinance 17-8, passed June 13, Page 20 of 204

21 Concord Municipal Code MARIJUANA REGS. Page 4/18 (2) Indoor Personal Cultivation. No person owning, renting, leasing, occupying, or having charge or possession of any parcel, building, or structure shall cause or allow indoor cultivation of marijuana on such parcel, or within any building or structure thereon, except within a private residence or inside an accessory building or structure on a parcel developed with a private residence, within a fully enclosed, secure, locked space, for noncommercial use/purposes consistent with AUMA, the Compassionate Use Act (California Health and Safety Code Section ) and/or the Medical Marijuana Program Act (California Health and Safety Code Section et seq.), or successor statutes. (3) No person owning, renting, leasing, occupying, or having charge or possession of any parcel, building, or structure shall cause or allow indoor cultivation of marijuana on such parcel or within any building or structure thereon to be visible by normal unaided vision from any public place including any street, sidewalk, or other place freely accessible by the public. (4) Indoor marijuana cultivation for any purpose other than personal use as specified above is expressly prohibited Commercial, retail, and industrial marijuana uses prohibited. (a) Purpose and Intent. It is the purpose and intent of this provision to prohibit all commercial, retail, and industrial activities and uses of or for recreational, personal and non-medical marijuana in order to provide for the health, safety and welfare of the public, to limit odor created by marijuana from impacting adjacent properties, and to prevent the attractive nuisance created by commercial or retail use or sale of marijuana, which creates the risk of burglary, trespass, robbery, and armed robbery, posing the threat of serious injury or death, and requiring the expenditure of scarce police and public safety resources. (b) Prohibitions. No use permit, minor use permit, zoning clearance, variance, exception, building permit, license, or other applicable entitlement or approval shall be granted for the following activities or businesses: (1) Any commercial, retail, or industrial marijuana activity or use, which includes but is not limited to the following uses involving marijuana: operating as dispensaries (storefront or non-storefront), collectives, microbusinesses, home-based businesses, cultivating, manufacturing, processing, laboratory testing, labeling, storing, dispensing, transporting, non-medical delivery, wholesale, distribution, sale, retail of marijuana and marijuana products, and any other uses or activities for which the State of California issues marijuana licenses. These uses are expressly prohibited is every zoning district within the City. (c) Exceptions. (1) Deliveries. This Chapter does not apply to delivery of medical marijuana, as the term delivery is defined in California Business and Professions Code Section 26001(p) or any successor statute, from marijuana dispensaries located outside the City of Concord to qualified patients in the City of Concord, subject to the restrictions in Section Miscellaneous provisions. (a) Violations declared nuisance. Any violation of this chapter is hereby declared to be a public nuisance and may be abated pursuant to the provisions of Code of Civil Procedure Section 731. Any violation of this chapter shall also be subject to any of the enforcement remedies available under Chapter 1.05 (General Provisions) such as monetary fines charged for infractions and misdemeanors. These remedies are in addition to any other remedy provided by law, including the provisions of the Concord Municipal Code. (b) Conflicts. In the event of any conflict with other provisions of the Concord Municipal Code, the more restrictive standards shall apply. (f) Severability. If any section, subsection, clause, phrase, or portion of this chapter is for any reason held to be invalid or unconstitutional by the decision of any court of competent jurisdiction, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this chapter. The City Council hereby declares that it would have adopted the ordinance codified in this chapter and each section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase or portion thereof, The Concord Municipal Code is current through Ordinance 17-8, passed June 13, Page 21 of 204

22 Concord Municipal Code MARIJUANA REGS. Page 5/18 irrespective of the fact that any one or more sections, subsections, clauses, phrases or portions be declared invalid or unconstitutional. Title 9 PUBLC PEACE, MORALS AND WELFARE Chapter 9.05 OFFENSES AND MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS Sale and display of prohibited substances and other paraphernalia. (a) No owner, manager, proprietor, or other person in charge of any room in any place of business shall allow or permit the sale or display of prohibited substances. (b) Display or sale in rooms to which persons under the legally permitted age are admitted. No owner, manager, proprietor, or other person in charge of any room in any place of business selling any paraphernalia shall allow or permit to be, remain in, enter, or visit such room any person who is under the legally permitted age. (c) Persons excluded from rooms used for sale or display. A person under the legally permitted age shall not be, remain in, enter, or visit any room in any place used for the sale of paraphernalia. (d) Requirements for sale and display rooms. A person shall not maintain, in any place of business to which the public is invited, the display for sale of paraphernalia unless within a separate room or enclosure to which persons under the legally permitted age are excluded. Each entrance to such a room shall have a sign posted in visible and legible words to that effect. For the purpose of this section, an enclosure shall mean an area of a room separated in such a manner that no material regulated by this section shall be visible from any area of the room open to persons under the legally permitted age. (e) Violations declared nuisance. Any violation of this section is hereby declared to be a public nuisance and may be abated pursuant to the provisions of Code of Civil Procedure Section 731. This remedy is in addition to any other remedy provided by law, including the penalty provisions of the Concord Municipal Code. (f) Penalty. Violation of this section shall constitute a misdemeanor. (g) Definitions. As used in this section: AUMA means the Control, Regulate and Tax Adult Use of Marijuana Act. Ingest means smoking, inhaling, injecting, ingesting, consuming, or otherwise ingesting, inhaling, or otherwise introducing prohibited substances into the human body or an animal body. Legally permitted age means (1) under the age of 18 years unless accompanied by one of his/her/their parents or a legal guardian, or (2) the minimum age set by the AUMA MAUCRSA (currently 21 years); provided, however, that to the extent allowed by law, the more restrictive standard shall apply. Marijuana, marijuana products, marijuana accessories, and the verb smoke are as defined in the AUMA. Marijuana or cannabis shall have the same meaning as defined in California Health and Safety Code Section 11018, or any successor statute thereto, including but not limited to all parts of the plant Cannabis sativa L., whether growing or not; the seeds thereof; the resin extracted from any part of the plant; and every compound, manufacture, The Concord Municipal Code is current through Ordinance 17-8, passed June 13, Page 22 of 204

23 Concord Municipal Code MARIJUANA REGS. Page 6/18 salt, derivative, mixture, or preparation of the plant, its seeds or resin. It does not include the mature stalks of the plant, fiber produced from the stalks, oil or cake made from the seeds of the plant, any other compound, manufacture, salt, derivative, mixture, or preparation of the mature stalks (except the resin extracted therefrom), fiber, oil, or cake, or the sterilized seed of the plant which is incapable of germination; (1) industrial hemp, as defined in Health and Safety Code Section or any successor statute thereto; or (2) the weight of any ingredient combined with cannabis to prepare topical or oral administrations, food, drink, or other product. All references to marijuana include and equally apply to cannabis. Marijuana product means marijuana that has undergone a process whereby the plant has been transformed into a concentrate, including but not limited to, concentrated cannabis, or an edible or topical product containing marijuana or concentrated cannabis and other ingredients, as defined in California Health and Safety Code Section , or any successor statute thereto. MAUCRSA means the Medical and Adult Use Cannabis Regulation and Safety Act. Paraphernalia means any device, contrivance, instrument, marijuana accessories, roach clips and rollers designed for the smoking any prohibited substance, or any item used, altered, or modified for the purpose of ingesting any prohibited substance, other paraphernalia used, altered, or modified for the purpose of ingesting prohibited substances. Prescription drugs. To the extent allowed by law, marijuana and marijuana products shall be excluded from the term prescription drugs even if prescribed under the AUMA, Compassionate Use Act (California Health and Safety Code Section ), the Medical Marijuana Program Act (California Health and Safety Code Section et seq.), and/or otherwise. Prohibited substances means any narcotics, marijuana, marijuana products, PCP, similar substances, any controlled substance as defined in the Health and Safety Code of the state, or any products or substances derived from any of the foregoing, other than prescription drugs. Notwithstanding the foregoing, to the extent allowed by law, prohibited substances shall include marijuana and marijuana products even if prescribed under the AUMA, Compassionate Use Act (California Health and Safety Code Section ), the Medical Marijuana Program Act (California Health and Safety Code Section et seq.), and/or additional substances prohibited under federal, state, or local law. Sale or selling means the sale, administering, furnishing, giving away, exhibition, display, or offering of prohibited substances and/or paraphernalia. (h) In the event of any conflict with other provisions of the Concord Municipal Code, the more restrictive standards shall apply. (i) If any section, subsection, clause, phrase, or portion of this section is for any reason held to be invalid or unconstitutional by the decision of any court of competent jurisdiction, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this section. The City Council hereby declares that it would have adopted the ordinance codified in this section and each section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase or portion thereof, irrespective of the fact that any one or more sections, subsections, clauses, phrases or portions be declared invalid or unconstitutional. The Concord Municipal Code is current through Ordinance 17-8, passed June 13, Page 23 of 204

24 Concord Municipal Code MARIJUANA REGS. Page 7/18 Title 18 DEVELOPMENT CODE Chapter GENERAL TERMS Article I. Use Classifications Use classifications. Marijuana Uses Commercial, retail, and industrial marijuana use. See Chapter Indoor Personal Marijuana Cultivation. See Chapter Medical Marijuana Delivery. See Chapter Medical Marijuana Dispensary. See Chapter Medical Marijuana Use. See Chapter Non-Medical Marijuana Dispensary. See Chapter Non-Medical Marijuana Use. See Chapter Medical Services. Hospital, medical center means hospitals and similar facilities engaged primarily in providing diagnostic services, and extensive medical treatment, including surgical and other hospital services. These establishments have an organized medical staff, inpatient beds for overnight stays, emergency services, and equipment and facilities to provide complete health care. These facilities may also include accessory uses such as on-site clinics, laboratories, emergency heliports, nursing facilities, extended care facilities, physical therapy, gift shops, retail pharmacies, cafeterias or restaurants, and related uses operated primarily for the benefit of patients, staff, and visitors and on-site ambulance dispatch facilities. Medical Marijuana Dispensary. See CMC Medical clinic means an outpatient facility operated by one or more physician, dentist, or other licensed health care practitioner that provides medical, dental, or counseling services to the public generally at reduced cost. Medical and Dental Offices. (See Medical and dental under Offices. ) Nursing facility/extended care means state-licensed residential facilities that provide 24-hour nursing and health-related care as a primary use with inpatient beds. Examples include board and care homes, convalescent hospitals, rest homes, extended care facilities, and skilled nursing facilities. Long-term personal care facilities that do not emphasize medical treatment are included under residential care facility. Urgent care facility means state-licensed facilities other than a hospital that provide medical care services and treatment on an outpatient basis, with an emphasis on minor emergency care. These facilities may also include The Concord Municipal Code is current through Ordinance 17-8, passed June 13, Page 24 of 204

25 Concord Municipal Code MARIJUANA REGS. Page 8/18 incidental medical laboratories. This classification does not include private medical and dental offices (see Medical and dental under Offices ). Article II. Definitions Definitions AUMA means the Control, Regulate and Tax Adult Use of Marijuana Act. Cultivation means any activity involving the planting, growing, harvesting, drying, curing, grading, or trimming of marijuana, and also includes agricultural uses (such as crop production, orchard, vineyard, or community gardens). Indoor means any location that is within a fully enclosed nonresidential building or structure, or private residence. Marijuana or cannabis shall have the same meaning as defined in California Health and Safety Code Section 11018, or any successor statute thereto, including but not limited to all of the plant Cannabis sativa L., whether growing or not; the seeds thereof; the resin extracted from any part of the plant; and every compound, manufacture, salt, derivative, mixture, or preparation of the plant, its seeds or resin. It does not include the mature stalks of the plant, fiber produced from the stalks, oil or cake made from the seeds of the plant, any other compound, manufacture, salt, derivative, mixture, or preparation of the mature stalks (except the resin extracted therefrom), fiber, oil, or cake, or the sterilized seed of the plant which is incapable of germination; (1) industrial hemp, as defined in Health and Safety Code Section or any successor statute thereto; or (2) the weight of any ingredient combined with cannabis to prepare topical or oral administrations, food, drink, or other product. All references to marijuana include and equally apply to cannabis. Marijuana product means marijuana that has undergone a process whereby the plant has been transformed into a concentrate, including but not limited to, concentrated cannabis, or an edible or topical product containing marijuana or concentrated cannabis and other ingredients, as defined in California Health and Safety Code Section , or any successor statute thereto. MAUCRSA means the Medical and Adult Use Cannabis Regulation and Safety Act. MCRSA means the Medical Cannabis Regulation and Safety Act. Outdoor means any location within the city that is not within a fully enclosed nonresidential building or structure, or within a private residence. Parcel means any parcel of real property that may be separately sold in compliance with the Subdivision Map Act (California Government Code Section et seq.). A parcel may or may not be improved, including but not limited to: buildings, structures, and/or private residences. Primary caregiver means an individual, who is at least 18 years of age, designated by a qualified patient or by the person with an identification card, who has consistently assumed responsibility for the housing, health, or safety of that patient or person, as defined in Health and Safety Code Section , or any successor statute thereto. Private residence means a house, an apartment unit, a mobile home, or other similar dwelling. To the extent allowed by law, private residence shall mean a fully enclosed and secure house, apartment unit, mobile home, or other similar dwelling. To the extent allowed by law, a private residence must be currently, presently, and lawfully utilized as the primary dwelling of one or more natural persons. Qualified patient means a patient, who has verified his or her identity and address to a delivering dispensary, that uses r ingests medical marijuana as that term is defined in California Health and Safety Code Section , or any successor statutes thereto. The Concord Municipal Code is current through Ordinance 17-8, passed June 13, Page 25 of 204

26 Concord Municipal Code MARIJUANA REGS. Page 9/18 Division II. Zoning Districts Uses and Standards Chapter DEVELOPMENT AND LAND USE APPROVALS Prohibited uses. A. Medical Marijuana Dispensary. A medical marijuana dispensary or marijuana dispensary, as defined in Chapter CDC, General Terms, is a prohibited use in all zones in the city of Concord. No use permit, minor use permit, zoning clearance, variance, exception, building permit, license, or other applicable entitlement or approval temporary permit, or permit of any nature shall be issued for a prohibited land use. B. Medical Marijuana Cultivation (Indoor or Outdoor). 1. Purpose and Intent. It is the purpose and intent of this provision to prohibit any commercial, personal, or other cultivation of marijuana (indoor or outdoor) in all zones in the City of Concord and to limit medical personal marijuana cultivation as permitted by State law to indoors or enclosed, occupied dwellings, dwelling units and housing units, so as not to be visible to the general public, to provide for the health, safety and welfare of the public, to limit odor created by marijuana plants from impacting adjacent properties, and to prevent the attractive nuisance created by outdoor medical marijuana cultivation, which creates the risk of burglary, trespass, and armed robbery, posing the threat of serious injury or death, and requiring the expenditure of scarce police and public safety resources. 2. Applicable Definitions. a. Cultivation. The planting, growing, harvesting, drying or processing of any marijuana plants or any part thereof, for medical use consistent with the Compassionate Use Act (California Health and Safety Code Section ) and the Medical Marijuana Program Act (California Health and Safety Code Section et seq.). b. Parcel. Any parcel of real property that may be separately sold in compliance with the Subdivision Map Act (California Government Code Section et seq.). c. Occupied. Currently, presently, and lawfully utilized as the primary dwelling of one or more persons. d. Outdoor. Any location within the city that is not within a fully enclosed, occupied (as defined in this section) dwelling, dwelling unit or housing unit, as defined in CDC Prohibitions. a. Outdoor cultivation. No person owning, renting, leasing, occupying or having charge or possession of any parcel shall cause or allow such parcel to be used for the outdoor cultivation of any marijuana plant, either for personal, commercial, or other purposes. b. Indoor cultivation. No person owning, renting, leasing, occupying, or having charge or possession of any parcel shall cause or allow indoor cultivation of marijuana as permitted by State law on such parcel to be visible from any street, sidewalk, or other place freely accessible by the public. 43. Compliance with Building, Fire Code and Permitting Requirements. Any person(s) cultivating indoor medical personal marijuana with the use of grow lights, fans, ventilation devices or any other electrical or mechanical equipment shall comply with all applicable building and fire code requirements adopted by the city of Concord, and shall obtain all permits required for such installation. The Concord Municipal Code is current through Ordinance 17-8, passed June 13, Page 26 of 204

27 Concord Municipal Code MARIJUANA REGS. Page 10/ Enforcement. Violations of this provision shall be considered a public nuisance, and may be enforced according to the procedures set forth in CDC and by the enforcement remedies conferred upon the city by Civil Code Section 3494, Code of Civil Procedure Section 731, Government Code Section 38773, or other lawful authority. Nothing in this provision is intended to impair any viable legal defense to a person using or in possession of medical marijuana pursuant to the Compassionate Use Act (California Health and Safety Code Section ) or the Medical Marijuana Program Act (California Health and Safety Code Section et seq.), Medical Cannabis Regulation & Safety Act, Medical and Adult Use Cannabis Regulation and Safety Act, or successor statutes. Nothing in this chapter is intended to authorize the cultivation, possession or use of marijuana for nonmedical purposes in violation of state or federal law. C. Commercial, retail, or industrial marijuana use. 1. Purpose and Intent. It is the purpose and intent of this provision to prohibit all commercial, retail, and industrial marijuana activity or use in all zones of the City in order to provide for the health, safety and welfare of the public, to limit odor created by marijuana from impacting adjacent properties, and to prevent the attractive nuisance created by commercial or retail use or sale of marijuana, which creates the risk of burglary, trespass, robbery, and armed robbery, posing the threat of serious injury or death, and requiring the expenditure of scarce police and public safety resources. 2. Prohibitions. No use permit, minor use permit, zoning clearance, variance, exception, building permit, license, or other applicable entitlement or approval shall be granted for the following activities or businesses: a. Any commercial, retail, or industrial marijuana activity or use, which includes but is not limited to the following uses involving marijuana: dispensaries (storefront or non-storefront), microbusinesses, distributors, homebased businesses, cultivating, manufacturing, processing, laboratory testing, labeling, storing, dispensing, transporting, non-medical delivery, clubs, bars, collectives, vending machines, drive-through, facilities, wholesale, distribution, sale, and retail of marijuana and marijuana products. These uses are expressly prohibited is every zoning district within the City. 3. Exceptions. a. Deliveries. This Chapter does not apply to delivery of medical marijuana, as the term delivery is defined in California Business and Professions Code Section 26001(p), or any successor statute, from marijuana dispensaries located outside the City of Concord to qualified patients in the City of Concord, subject to the restrictions in Section Chapter RESIDENTIAL DISTRICTS (RR, RS, RL, RM AND RH) Table Residential districts Allowed uses and permit requirements. Table identifies the uses allowed by the development code in each residential zoning district and the type of permit required to establish each use. See CDC (B) or Division VII of this title (Permits and Permit Procedures). Additional requirements may apply pursuant to Division IV (Development Standards) and Division V (Standards for Specific Uses) of this title. The Concord Municipal Code is current through Ordinance 17-8, passed June 13, Page 27 of 204

28 Concord Municipal Code MARIJUANA REGS. Page 11/18 Table Residential Districts Allowed Uses and Permit Requirements ZC = Permitted Use, Zoning Clearance AP = Administrative Permit Required MP = Minor Use Permit Required UP = Use Permit Required ADU = Accessory Dwelling Unit Application = Use Not Allowed Land Use Classifications Marijuana Uses Commercial, Retail, and Industrial Marijuana Use Permit Required by District RR RS RL RM RH Additional Requirements Medical Marijuana Delivery ZC ZC ZC ZC ZC Only permitted from licensed dispensaries, subject to the restrictions in Section Medical Marijuana Dispensary Medical Marijuana Use Indoor Personal Marijuana Cultivation Non-Medical Marijuana Dispensary Use Non-Medical Marijuana Medical Services ZC ZC ZC ZC ZC Up to 6 plants per residence, pursuant to State law. - Hospital, Medical Center Medical Marijuana Dispensary Medical Clinic Nursing Facility/Extended Care UP MP Urgent Care Facility Chapter NORTH TODOS SANTOS DISTRICT (NTS) Table North Todos Santos district Allowed uses and permit requirements. A. Applicability. Table identifies the uses allowed in the NTS zoning district and the type of permit required to establish each use. See CDC (B) or Division VII of this title (Permits and Permit Procedures). Additional requirements may apply pursuant to Division IV (Development Standards) and Division V (Standards for Specific Uses) of this title. The Concord Municipal Code is current through Ordinance 17-8, passed June 13, Page 28 of 204

29 Concord Municipal Code MARIJUANA REGS. Page 12/18 Table North Todos Santos District Allowed Uses and Permit Requirements ZC = Permitted Use, Zoning Clearance Required AP = Administrative Permit Required MP = Minor Use Permit Required UP = Use Permit Required ADU = Accessory Dwelling Unit Application = Use Not Allowed Land Use Classifications Permit Required by District Additional Requirements Marijuana Uses Commercial, Retail, and Industrial Marijuana Use - Medical Marijuana Delivery ZC Only permitted from licensed dispensaries, subject to the restrictions in Section Medical Marijuana Dispensary -- Medical Marijuana Use Indoor Personal Marijuana Cultivation ZC Up to 6 plants per residence or as permitted by State law. Non-Medical Marijuana Dispensary -- Non-Medical Marijuana Use -- Medical Services Hospital, Medical Center Medical Marijuana Dispensary Medical Clinic Nursing Facility, Extended Care UP Urgent Care Facility Chapter OFFICE AND COMMERCIAL DISTRICTS (CO, CMX, NC, SC, AND RC) Table Office and commercial districts Allowed uses and permit requirements. A. Applicability. Table identifies the uses allowed by the development code in each office and commercial zoning district and the type of permit required to establish each use. See CDC (B) or Division VII of this title (Permits and Permit Procedures). Additional requirements may apply pursuant to Division IV (Development Standards) and Division V (Standards for Specific Uses) of this title. Table Office and Commercial Districts Allowed Uses and Permit Requirements ZC Permitted Use, Zoning Clearance AP Administrative Permit Required MP Minor Use Permit Required UP Use Permit Required ADU Accessory Dwelling Unit Application Use Not Allowed Land Use Classifications Permit Required by District Additional Requirements The Concord Municipal Code is current through Ordinance 17-8, passed June 13, Page 29 of 204

30 Concord Municipal Code MARIJUANA REGS. Page 13/18 CO CMX NC SC RC Marijuana Uses Commercial, Retail, and Industrial Marijuana Use Medical Marijuana Delivery Medical Marijuana Dispensary ZC ZC ZC ZC ZC Only permitted from licensed dispensaries, subject to the restrictions in Section Medical Marijuana Use Indoor Personal Marijuana Cultivation Non-Medical Marijuana Dispensary Use Non-Medical Marijuana Medical Services ZC ZC ZC ZC ZC Up to 6 plants per residence or as permitted by State law. - Hospital, Medical Center Medical Marijuana Dispensary Medical Clinic ZC ZC (2) ZC (2) ZC Nursing Facility/Extended Care UP UP UP Urgent Care Facility ZC ZC (4) ZC (2) ZC ZC Chapter DOWNTOWN DISTRICTS (DP, DMX, AND WMX) Table Downtown districts Allowed uses and permit requirements. A. Applicability. Table identifies the uses allowed by the development code in each downtown zoning district and the type of permit required to establish each use. See CDC (B) or Division VII of this title (Permits and Permit Procedures). Additional requirements may apply pursuant to Division IV (Development Standards) and Division V (Standards for Specific Uses) of this title. Table Downtown Districts Allowed Uses and Permit Requirements ZC = Permitted Use, Zoning Clearance AP = Administrative Permit Required MP = Minor Use Permit Required UP = Use Permit Required ADU = Accessory Dwelling Unit Application = Use Not Allowed Land Use Classifications Marijuana Uses Permit Required by District DP DMX WMX Additional Requirements The Concord Municipal Code is current through Ordinance 17-8, passed June 13, Page 30 of 204

31 Concord Municipal Code MARIJUANA REGS. Page 14/18 Table Downtown Districts Allowed Uses and Permit Requirements ZC = Permitted Use, Zoning Clearance AP = Administrative Permit Required MP = Minor Use Permit Required UP = Use Permit Required ADU = Accessory Dwelling Unit Application = Use Not Allowed Land Use Classifications Commercial, Retail, and Industrial Marijuana Use Permit Required by District DP DMX WMX Additional Requirements Medical Marijuana Delivery Medical Marijuana Dispensary ZC ZC ZC Only permitted from licensed dispensaries, subject to the restrictions in Section Medical Marijuana Use Indoor Personal Marijuana Cultivation Non-Medical Marijuana Dispensary Use Non-Medical Marijuana Medical Services ZC ZC ZC Up to 6 plants per residence or as permitted by State law. Hospital, Medical Center Medical Marijuana Dispensary Medical Clinic Nursing Facility/Extended Care UP Urgent Care Facility ZC Chapter BUSINESS PARK AND INDUSTRIAL DISTRICTS (OBP, IBP, IMX, AND HI) Table Business park and industrial districts Allowed uses and permit requirements. A. Applicability. Table identifies the uses allowed by the development code in each business park and industrial district and the type of permit required to establish each use. See CDC (B) or Division VII of this title (Permits and Permit Procedures). Additional requirements may apply pursuant to Division IV (Development Standards) and Division V (Standards for Specific Uses) of this title. Table Business Park and Industrial Districts (7) Allowed Uses and Permit Requirements ZC = Permitted Use, Zoning Clearance Required AP = Administrative Permit Required MP = Minor Use Permit Required UP = Use Permit Required ADU = Accessory Dwelling Unit Application = Use Not Allowed The Concord Municipal Code is current through Ordinance 17-8, passed June 13, Page 31 of 204

32 Concord Municipal Code MARIJUANA REGS. Page 15/18 Land Use Classifications Marijuana Uses Commercial, Retail, and Industrial Marijuana Use Permit Required by District OBP IBP IMX (7) HI Additional Requirements Medical Marijuana Delivery Medical Marijuana Dispensary ZC ZC ZC ZC Only permitted from licensed dispensaries, subject to the restrictions in Section Medical Marijuana Use Indoor Personal Marijuana Cultivation Non-Medical Marijuana Dispensary Use Non-Medical Marijuana Medical Services ZC ZC ZC ZC Up to 6 plants per residence or as permitted by State law. Hospital, Medical Center Medical Marijuana Dispensary Medical Clinic AP AP Nursing Facility/Extended Care Urgent Care Facility MP (1) MP (1) Chapter PUBLIC / QUASI-PUBLIC DISTRICT (PQP) Table Public/quasi-public district Allowed uses and permit requirements. Table identifies the uses allowed by the development code in each public/quasi-public zoning district and the type of permit required to establish each use. See CDC (B) or Division VII of this title (Permits and Permit Procedures). Additional requirements may apply pursuant to Division IV (Development Standards) and Division V (Standards for Specific Uses) of this title. Table Public/Quasi-Public District Allowed Uses and Permit Requirements ZC = Permitted Use, Zoning Clearance Required AP = Administrative Permit Required MP = Minor Use Permit Required UP = Use Permit Required ADU = Accessory Dwelling Unit Application = Use Not Allowed Land Use Classifications Permit Required by District Additional Requirements Marijuana Uses Commercial, Retail, and Industrial Marijuana Use - The Concord Municipal Code is current through Ordinance 17-8, passed June 13, Page 32 of 204

33 Concord Municipal Code MARIJUANA REGS. Page 16/18 Table Public/Quasi-Public District Allowed Uses and Permit Requirements ZC = Permitted Use, Zoning Clearance Required AP = Administrative Permit Required MP = Minor Use Permit Required UP = Use Permit Required ADU = Accessory Dwelling Unit Application = Use Not Allowed Land Use Classifications Permit Required by District Additional Requirements Medical Marijuana Delivery ZC Only permitted from licensed dispensaries, subject to the restrictions in Section Medical Marijuana Dispensary Medical Marijuana Use Indoor Personal Marijuana Cultivation ZC Up to 6 plants per residence or as permitted by State law. Non-Medical Marijuana Dispensary Non-Medical Marijuana Use Medical Services Hospital, Medical Center UP Medical Marijuana Dispensary Medical Clinic AP Nursing Facility, Extended Care AP Urgent Care Facility MP Chapter COMMUNITY LAND USE DISTRICTS (OS, PR, RLC, AND WRC) Table Community land districts Allowed uses and permit requirements. Table identifies the uses allowed by the development code in each community land zoning district and the type of permit required to establish each use. See CDC (B) or Division VII of this title (Permits and Permit Procedures). Additional requirements may apply pursuant to Division IV (Development Standards) and Division V (Standards for Specific Uses) of this title. Table Community Land Districts Allowed Uses and Permit Requirements ZC = Permitted Use, Zoning Clearance Required AP = Administrative Permit Required MP = Minor Use Permit Required UP = Use Permit Required ADU = Accessory Dwelling Unit Application = Use Not Allowed Land Use Classifications Marijuana Uses Commercial, Retail, and Industrial Marijuana Use Permit Required by District OS PR RLC WRC Additional Requirements The Concord Municipal Code is current through Ordinance 17-8, passed June 13, Page 33 of 204

34 Concord Municipal Code MARIJUANA REGS. Page 17/18 Table Community Land Districts Allowed Uses and Permit Requirements ZC = Permitted Use, Zoning Clearance Required AP = Administrative Permit Required MP = Minor Use Permit Required UP = Use Permit Required ADU = Accessory Dwelling Unit Application = Use Not Allowed Land Use Classifications Permit Required by District OS PR RLC WRC Additional Requirements Medical Marijuana Delivery Medical Marijuana Dispensary ZC ZC ZC ZC Only permitted from licensed dispensaries, subject to the restrictions in Section Medical Marijuana Use Indoor Personal Marijuana Cultivation Non-Medical Marijuana Dispensary Use Non-Medical Marijuana Medical Services ZC ZC ZC ZC Up to 6 plants per residence or as permitted by State law. Hospital, Medical Center Medical Marijuana Dispensary Medical Clinic Nursing Facility/Extended Care Urgent Care Facility Division IV. Development Standards Chapter SIGNS Prohibited signs. The following types and locations of signs or advertising devices are prohibited, except where exempted by CDC , Temporary signs, or allowed by Table : P. All commercial signs advertising or depicting any paraphernalia, prohibited substances, marijuana products, marijuana uses (including but not limited to commercial, retail, and industrial, indoor personal cultivation, medical delivery, medical dispensary, medical use, non-medical dispensary, or non-medical marijuana uses), and/or any other uses or activities for which the State of California issues marijuana licenses are prohibited. The Concord Municipal Code is current through Ordinance 17-8, passed June 13, Page 34 of 204

35 Concord Municipal Code MARIJUANA REGS. Page 18/18 Q. All commercial signs advertising or depicting any use or activity which is prohibited by local, state, or federal law. The Concord Municipal Code is current through Ordinance 17-8, passed June 13, Page 35 of 204

36 Attachment BEFORE THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF CONCORD, COUNTY OF CONTRA COSTA, STATE OF CALIFORNIA A RESOLUTION RECOMMENDING CITY COUNCIL AMEND THE MUNICIPAL CODE AND DEVELOPMENT CODE TO BAN ALL MARIJUANA (CANNABIS) USES, EXCEPT FOR PERSONAL INDOOR CULTIVATION AND DELIVERY OF MEDICAL MARIJUANA TO QUALIFIED PATIENTS, UNTIL SUCH TIME THAT THE CITY HAS THE OPPORTUNITY TO STUDY AND ESTABLISH A COMPREHENSIVE PROGRAM AND REGULATIONS RELATING TO MARIJUANA USES Resolution No PC / WHEREAS, in 1970, Congress enacted the Controlled Substances Act (CSA), which, among other things, makes it illegal to import, manufacture, distribute, possess, or use marijuana in the United States; and WHEREAS, in 1996, the voters of the State of California approved Proposition 215, known as the Compassionate Use Act (CUA), codified as California Health and Safety Code Section The CUA creates a limited exception from criminal liability for serious ill persons who are in need of medical marijuana for specified medical reasons and who obtain and use medical marijuana under limited, specified circumstances; and WHEREAS, in 2004, the State legislature adopted the Medical Marijuana Program Act (MMPA), codified as California Health and Safety Code Section et seq., to clarify the scope of the CUA and to allow cities and other governing bodies to adopt and enforce rules and regulations consistent with the MMPA. The CUA expressly anticipates the enactment of additional local legislation and provides that (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 nonmedical purposes. (Health and Safety Code Section ); and WHEREAS, on September 27, 2005, the City Council adopted Ordinance 05-9, amending the Concord Municipal Code by prohibiting the establishment of medical marijuana dispensaries, fixed or mobile, due to the inconsistencies between Federal and State law and to protect the public health, 28 Page 1 Page 36 of 204

37 safety, and general welfare; and WHEREAS, on April 9, 2013, the City Council adopted Ordinance 13-1, amending the Concord Development Code, prohibiting outdoor cultivation of medical marijuana to provide for the public health, safety, and welfare, to limit odor caused by marijuana from impacting adjacent properties, and to prevent the attractive nuisance created by marijuana cultivation, which creates the risk of burglary, trespass, robbery, and armed robbery, posing the threat of serious injury or death, and requiring the expenditure of scarce police and public safety resources; and WHEREAS, on November 8, 2016, the Control, Regulate, & Tax Adult Use of Marijuana Act (AUMA) was approved by California voters through the passing of Proposition 64. Effective November 9, 2016, the AUMA legalizes for persons 21 years or older to: (1) smoke or ingest marijuana or marijuana products, (2) possess, process, transport, purchase, obtain, give away without compensation to persons 21 years or older 28.5 grams of marijuana or 8 grams of concentrated marijuana, and (3) possess, plant, cultivate, harvest, dry, or process up to six living marijuana plants per legal dwelling unit for personal use. Additionally, the AUMA will create a state regulatory and licensing system governing the commercial cultivation, testing, and distribution of nonmedical marijuana, and the manufacturing of nonmedical marijuana products, which the State anticipates will become effective as of January 2, 2018; and WHEREAS, on January 10, 2017, the City Council adopted Ordinance 16-9, which (among other things) prohibited outdoor cultivation of medical and nonmedical marijuana. The City Council also directed the Council Committee on Policy Development and Internal Operations ( PD&IO ) to comprehensively study potential regulations for medical and nonmedical marijuana uses; and WHEREAS, on May 24, 2017, the PD&IO Committee held a public meeting on marijuana regulations and recommended that the City Council consider an ordinance removing any prohibitions or bans on delivery of medical marijuana from licensed dispensaries, while keeping the existing restrictions and bans on marijuana cultivation and dispensaries (fixed or mobile) in place; and WHEREAS, in June 2017, the California Legislature passed Senate Bill 94, which effectively repealed the Medical Cannabis Regulation and Safety Act and incorporated certain provisions of 28 Page 2 Page 37 of 204

38 MCRSA in the licensing provisions of the AUMA, and replaced it with the Medical and Adult Use Cannabis Regulation and Safety Act ( MAUCRSA ); and WHEREAS, on June 27, 2017, the City Council directed staff to develop a ban on all marijuana uses and activities, except for uses that are required by the AUMA, to allow the Council and the community time to explore its options and develop any desired new regulations after the State commences the licensing of marijuana uses as of January 2, 2018; and WHEREAS, on July 25, 2017, the City Council adopted Ordinance No , which amended the Concord Municipal Code to allow delivery of medical marijuana from licensed dispensaries to qualified patients. The Council recognized the adverse effects and impacts of marijuana processing, cultivation and dispensing activities, while also respecting the right of qualified patients to use medical marijuana for relief of their ailments. The Council found that allowing delivery of medical marijuana from licensed dispensaries located outside the City to qualified patients located in the City would be the least onerous method of affording access of medical marijuana to qualified patients within the City; and WHEREAS, the City Council intends to continue its efforts to conduct a comprehensive study on the potential regulations for medical and nonmedical marijuana uses; and WHEREAS, the adoption of text amendments (collectively referred to as Amendment, attached as Exhibit A) to Concord Municipal Code and Municipal Code to ban all marijuana (cannabis) uses, except for personal indoor cultivation and delivery of medical marijuana to qualified patients from licensed dispensaries located outside the City, until such time that the City has the opportunity to study and establish a comprehensive program and regulations relating to marijuana uses is necessary and proper to maintain and protect the public health, safety, and welfare of the citizens of Concord; and WHEREAS, Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970, Public Resources Code 21000, et seq., as amended and implementing State CEQA Guidelines, Title 14, Chapter 3 of the California Code of Regulations (collectively, CEQA ), the proposed changes to the Municipal and Development Code do not constitute a project within the meaning of the California 28 Page 3 Page 38 of 204

39 Environmental Quality Act of 1970 (CEQA) Guidelines Section 15060(c)(2) because there is no potential that it will result in a direct or reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment and CEQA Guidelines Section because it has no potential for either a direct physical change to the environment, or a reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment. Moreover, even if the Ordinance does comprise a project for CEQA analysis, it falls within the common sense CEQA exemption set forth in CEQA Guidelines Section 15061(b)(3), excluding projects where it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the activity in question may have a significant effect on the environment. In the alternative, the Amendments are categorically exempt pursuant to Section of the CEQA Guidelines because these changes are actions taken by the City, as authorized by the State or local ordinance, to ensure protection of the environment; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission, after giving all public notices required by State Law and the Concord Municipal Code, held a duly noticed public hearing on September 6, 2017, on the proposed Amendment and adopted Resolution No PC, recommending City Council adoption of an ordinance to amend the Development Code and Municipal Code; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission recommended that the uses for non-storefront medical marijuana delivery services and testing laboratories be strongly considered to not be banned and to consider non-storefront medical marijuana delivery services as a first priority in any work plan approved by the City Council. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED AS FOLLOWS: Recitals 1. The Planning Commission of the City of Concord does hereby make the following findings: a. The recitals above are true and correct and are incorporated herein by reference. b. The Amendment is consistent with the General Plan Policy LU which states Pursue neighborhood planning strategies to conserve and enhance neighborhood livability and safety, and eliminate adverse characteristics that lead to neighborhood decline. The Amendment is 28 Page 4 Page 39 of 204

40 also consistent with policy LU-1.2.1, which states Provide opportunities for neighborhood participation in the land use decision-making process. By temporarily banning certain marijuana uses, the City will allow for neighborhood participation through the public outreach processes established by the City Council and ensure that neighborhood livability and safety are not unduly impacted while the City studies the issue. c. The Amendment would not be detrimental to the public interest, health, safety, convenience, or welfare of the City, as the proposed amendment prohibits certain marijuana uses until such time that the City has the opportunity to study and establish a comprehensive program and regulations pertaining to marijuana uses. General 1. The Planning Commission has reviewed, considered, and evaluated all of the Amendment Information prior to acting upon Amendment. 2. The documents and other materials that constitute the record of proceedings upon which the Planning Commission has based its recommendation are located in and may be obtained from the City of Concord Planning Division, 1950 Parkside Drive, Concord, CA CEQA 3. Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970, Public Resources Code 21000, et seq., as amended and implementing State CEQA Guidelines, Title 14, Chapter 3 of the California Code of Regulations (collectively, CEQA ), the proposed changes to the Municipal and Development Code do not constitute a project within the meaning of the California Environmental Quality Act of 1970 (CEQA) Guidelines Section 15060(c)(2) because there is no potential that it will result in a direct or reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment and CEQA Guidelines Section because it has no potential for either a direct physical change to the environment, or a reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment. Moreover, even if the Ordinance does comprise a project for CEQA analysis, it falls within the common sense CEQA exemption set forth in CEQA Guidelines Section 15061(b)(3), excluding projects where it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the activity in question may have a 28 Page 5 Page 40 of 204

41 significant effect on the environment. In the alternative, the Amendments are categorically exempt pursuant to Section of the CEQA Guidelines because these changes are actions taken by the City, as authorized by the State or local ordinance, to ensure protection of the environment. Amendment 4. The Planning Commission does hereby recommend that the City Council adopt an Ordinance, attached hereto as Attachment 1, to approve the Amendment. This resolution shall become effective immediately upon its passage and adoption. PASSED AND ADOPTED this 6 th day of September, 2017 by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: Aliano, Barbour, Laub, Mercurio, Weinmann None None None Attachments: 1. Draft Ordinance No. 17-XX Laura Simpson, AICP Planning Manager 28 Page 6 Page 41 of 204

42 Attachment 3 CITY OF CONCORD 2017 Cannabis Planning Survey Topline Report n=1, minutes Likely November 2020 Voters September 27, Northern California and Corporate Offices 1575 Old Bayshore Highway, Suite 102 Burlingame, CA Nevada 59 Damonte Ranch Parkway, Suite B309 Reno, NV Pacific Northwest th Avenue NE, Suite 1900 Bellevue, WA Page 42 of 204

43 Godbe Research City of Concord 2017 Cannabis Planning Survey METHODOLOGY Sample Universe: - 52,156 Likely Voters Sample Size: n=1,155 Data Collection: Landline, Cell Phone & Online Interviewing from invitation Landline=112 Cell phone=72 Invite=289 Text Invite=682 Languages: English n=1,151 & Spanish n=4 Marin of Error: % Interview Dates: August 22 to August 29, 2017 CONCORD CLIMATE 1. Overall, how would you rate the quality of life in Concord today? Is it excellent, good, just fair, or poor? Column N % Count Mean Excellent 17.8% 206 Good 60.2% 695 Just fair 17.6% 204 Poor 4.1% 47 DK/NA 0.4% 4 Page 43 of 204 Topline Report 9/27/2017 Page 1

44 Godbe Research City of Concord 2017 Cannabis Planning Survey GENERAL AWARENESS & SUPPORT OR OPPOSITION 2. Do you support or oppose the sale of medical marijuana in Concord? 3. Do you support or oppose the sale of recreational marijuana in Concord? Column N % Count Mean Strongly support 46.0% 531 Somewhat support 23.0% 265 Somewhat oppose 8.0% 92 Strongly oppose 20.3% 235 DK/NA 2.7% 31 Total Support 69.0% 797 Total Oppose 28.3% 327 Strongly support 31.6% 365 Somewhat support 18.9% 218 Somewhat oppose 10.4% 120 Strongly oppose 35.4% 409 DK/NA 3.7% 42 Total Support 50.5% 584 Total Oppose 45.8% 529 Page 44 of 204 Topline Report 9/27/2017 Page 2

45 Godbe Research City of Concord 2017 Cannabis Planning Survey PERMITTING & LOCATION OF MARIJUANA FACILITIES IN CONCORD Column N % Count Mean 4. Do you support or oppose each of the following medical marijuana activities in Concord? Strongly Support 39.8% 460 Somewhat Support 26.0% 301 Somewhat Oppose 6.4% 74 4A. Testing labs Strongly Oppose 20.5% 236 DK/NA 7.3% 84 Total Support 65.8% 760 Total Oppose 26.9% 311 Strongly Support 34.6% 399 Somewhat Support 24.3% 281 Somewhat Oppose 11.2% 130 4B. Shipping and distribution facilities Strongly Oppose 25.0% 289 DK/NA 4.9% 57 Total Support 58.8% 680 Total Oppose 36.2% 418 Strongly Support 36.2% 418 Somewhat Support 23.7% 274 Somewhat Oppose 9.9% 114 4C. Indoor commercial cultivation facilities Strongly Oppose 26.2% 303 DK/NA 4.0% 47 Total Support 59.9% 692 Total Oppose 36.1% 417 Strongly Support 27.2% 315 Somewhat Support 19.5% 225 Somewhat Oppose 12.3% 143 4D. Outdoor commercial cultivation facilities Strongly Oppose 36.1% 417 DK/NA 4.9% 56 Total Support 46.7% 540 Total Oppose 48.4% 559 Strongly Support 35.1% 405 Somewhat Support 22.9% 264 Somewhat Oppose 9.5% 110 4E. Manufacturing of marijuana products Strongly Oppose 27.0% 312 DK/NA 5.4% 63 Total Support 58.0% 670 Total Oppose 36.6% 422 Strongly Support 47.0% 543 Somewhat Support 21.7% 250 Somewhat Oppose 8.3% 96 4F. Medical dispensaries Strongly Oppose 20.2% 233 DK/NA 2.8% 32 Total Support 68.7% 793 Total Oppose 28.5% 330 Page 45 of 204 Topline Report 9/27/2017 Page 3

46 Godbe Research City of Concord 2017 Cannabis Planning Survey Column N % Count Mean 4F. Medical dispensaries A. Testing labs C. Indoor commercial cultivation facilities B. Shipping and distribution facilities E. Manufacturing of marijuana products D. Outdoor commercial cultivation facilities Do you support or oppose each of the following recreational marijuana activities in Concord? Strongly Support 32.2% 372 Somewhat Support 19.5% 226 Somewhat Oppose 9.7% 112 5A. Testing labs Strongly Oppose 32.2% 372 DK/NA 6.3% 72 Total Support 51.8% 598 Total Oppose 42.0% 485 Strongly Support 29.1% 336 Somewhat Support 18.2% 210 Somewhat Oppose 9.9% 114 5B. Shipping and distribution facilities Strongly Oppose 38.9% 449 DK/NA 4.0% 46 Total Support 47.3% 546 Total Oppose 48.8% 563 Strongly Support 29.3% 338 Somewhat Support 19.9% 229 Somewhat Oppose 9.8% 113 5C. Indoor commercial cultivation facilities Strongly Oppose 36.8% 425 DK/NA 4.3% 50 Total Support 49.1% 568 Total Oppose 46.6% 538 Strongly Support 23.8% 275 Somewhat Support 15.3% 177 Somewhat Oppose 12.0% 138 5D. Outdoor commercial cultivation facilities Strongly Oppose 44.9% 518 DK/NA 4.0% 46 Total Support 39.1% 452 Total Oppose 56.9% 657 Strongly Support 29.2% 338 Somewhat Support 16.2% 188 Somewhat Oppose 11.1% 128 5E. Manufacturing of marijuana products Strongly Oppose 39.4% 456 DK/NA 4.0% 46 Total Support 45.5% 525 Total Oppose 50.5% 584 Page 46 of 204 Topline Report 9/27/2017 Page 4

47 Godbe Research City of Concord 2017 Cannabis Planning Survey 5F. Recreational marijuana dispensaries 5G. Adult marijuana clubs Column N % Count Mean Strongly Support 30.7% 354 Somewhat Support 18.4% 213 Somewhat Oppose 7.8% 90 Strongly Oppose 40.0% 462 DK/NA 3.1% 35 Total Support 49.1% 567 Total Oppose 47.8% 552 Strongly Support 23.8% 275 Somewhat Support 16.3% 188 Somewhat Oppose 12.0% 139 Strongly Oppose 40.0% 462 DK/NA 7.9% 91 Total Support 40.1% 463 Total Oppose 52.0% 601 5A. Testing labs C. Indoor commercial cultivation facilities 5F. Recreational marijuana dispensaries 5B. Shipping and distribution facilities 5E. Manufacturing of marijuana products 5G. Adult marijuana clubs 5D. Outdoor commercial cultivation facilities 6. Do you support or oppose allowing personal outdoor cultivation of 6 or fewer marijuana plants in Concord? 7. Do you support or oppose allowing personal outdoor cultivation of 3 or fewer marijuana plants in Concord? Strongly Support 31.1% 359 Somewhat Support 20.0% 231 Somewhat Oppose 12.7% 146 Strongly Oppose 31.6% 365 DK/NA 4.5% 52 Total Support 51.1% 591 Total Oppose 44.3% 512 Strongly Support 35.6% 411 Somewhat Support 19.1% 220 Somewhat Oppose 11.2% 129 Strongly Oppose 29.7% 343 DK/NA 4.5% 52 Total Support 54.7% 632 Total Oppose 40.9% Page 47 of 204 Topline Report 9/27/2017 Page 5

48 Godbe Research City of Concord 2017 Cannabis Planning Survey 8. For each of the following areas in Concord, do you support or oppose allowing medical marijuana dispensaries? 8A. Downtown 8B. Local shopping centers 8C. Residential neighborhoods 8D. Near the police department 8E. Regional shopping centers 8F. Industrial areas Column N % Count Mean Strongly Support 27.0% 312 Somewhat Support 24.5% 283 Somewhat Oppose 10.2% 117 Strongly Oppose 35.2% 407 DK/NA 3.1% 35 Total Support 51.6% 595 Total Oppose 45.4% 524 Strongly Support 23.8% 275 Somewhat Support 21.2% 244 Somewhat Oppose 13.6% 158 Strongly Oppose 37.9% 437 DK/NA 3.5% 41 Total Support 44.9% 519 Total Oppose 51.5% 595 Strongly Support 10.7% 124 Somewhat Support 10.5% 121 Somewhat Oppose 15.0% 174 Strongly Oppose 61.3% 708 DK/NA 2.5% 29 Total Support 21.2% 245 Total Oppose 76.3% 881 Strongly Support 43.3% 500 Somewhat Support 21.6% 249 Somewhat Oppose 9.3% 107 Strongly Oppose 23.1% 267 DK/NA 2.8% 32 Total Support 64.9% 749 Total Oppose 32.4% 374 Strongly Support 25.1% 290 Somewhat Support 19.3% 223 Somewhat Oppose 15.0% 173 Strongly Oppose 35.7% 412 DK/NA 4.9% 57 Total Support 44.4% 513 Total Oppose 50.7% 585 Strongly Support 35.4% 409 Somewhat Support 27.4% 317 Somewhat Oppose 7.1% 82 Strongly Oppose 26.6% 307 DK/NA 3.5% 41 Total Support 62.8% 725 Total Oppose 33.7% 389 Page 48 of 204 Topline Report 9/27/2017 Page 6

49 Godbe Research City of Concord 2017 Cannabis Planning Survey 8G. Office buildings Column N % Count Mean Strongly Support 23.3% 269 Somewhat Support 20.5% 237 Somewhat Oppose 13.1% 151 Strongly Oppose 37.9% 438 DK/NA 5.2% 60 Total Support 43.8% 506 Total Oppose 51.0% 589 8D. Near the police department F. Industrial areas A. Downtown 8E. Regional shopping centers 8B. Local shopping centers 8G. Office buildings 8C. Residential neighborhoods 9. For each of the following areas in Concord, do you support or oppose allowing recreational marijuana dispensaries? 9A. Downtown 9B. Local shopping centers 9C. Residential neighborhoods 9D. Near the police department Strongly Support 23.5% 271 Somewhat Support 15.7% 181 Somewhat Oppose 11.9% 138 Strongly Oppose 46.4% 536 DK/NA 2.5% 29 Total Support 39.2% 452 Total Oppose 58.4% 674 Strongly Support 21.6% 250 Somewhat Support 13.5% 156 Somewhat Oppose 13.2% 152 Strongly Oppose 48.5% 560 DK/NA 3.2% 37 Total Support 35.2% 406 Total Oppose 61.7% 712 Strongly Support 10.2% 118 Somewhat Support 6.6% 76 Somewhat Oppose 12.8% 148 Strongly Oppose 67.7% 781 DK/NA 2.7% 31 Total Support 16.8% 194 Total Oppose 80.5% 929 Strongly Support 34.8% 401 Somewhat Support 17.9% 206 Somewhat Oppose 10.1% 116 Strongly Oppose 34.8% 402 DK/NA 2.5% 29 Total Support 52.6% 608 Total Oppose 44.9% Page 49 of 204 Topline Report 9/27/2017 Page 7

50 Godbe Research City of Concord 2017 Cannabis Planning Survey 9E. Regional shopping centers 9F. Industrial areas 9G. Office buildings Column N % Count Mean Strongly Support 22.4% 259 Somewhat Support 14.4% 167 Somewhat Oppose 11.5% 133 Strongly Oppose 48.1% 556 DK/NA 3.5% 40 Total Support 36.8% 425 Total Oppose 59.7% 689 Strongly Support 28.2% 325 Somewhat Support 18.7% 216 Somewhat Oppose 9.6% 111 Strongly Oppose 39.6% 458 DK/NA 3.9% 46 Total Support 46.8% 541 Total Oppose 49.2% 569 Strongly Support 19.1% 221 Somewhat Support 13.5% 156 Somewhat Oppose 14.7% 170 Strongly Oppose 49.6% 573 DK/NA 3.2% 37 Total Support 32.6% 376 Total Oppose 64.3% 742 9D. Near the police department F. Industrial areas 9A. Downtown 9E. Regional shopping centers 9B. Local shopping centers 9G. Office buildings 9C. Residential neighborhoods 10. How many marijuana dispensaries should be allowed in the City of Concord? 1 to % to % to 9 5.9% or more 11.0% 127 None 23.6% 273 DK/NA 9.6% Page 50 of 204 Topline Report 9/27/2017 Page 8

51 Godbe Research City of Concord 2017 Cannabis Planning Survey Column N % Count Mean Not near schools 7.4% 86 Not in the city of concord/my neighborhood/don't allow it 5.1% 59 Controlled/Obey laws/rules/regulations 4.6% 53 Regulate like cigarettes/alcohol/bars 4.5% 52 Require prescription/doctor issued/medical card 4.5% 52 Not in public/family areas/venues 4.1% 48 Not in residential areas 3.7% 43 No sales to minors/21 plus 3.6% 41 ID require for purchase 3.1% 36 Opposed to recreation marijuana 3.0% 35 Keep away from children 2.8% 32 Medical marijuana is OK 2.8% 32 Opposed to marijuana 2.0% 23 Security/Police at dispensaries 1.9% 22 Driving while high/accidents/need 1.7% 20 punishment Need test for sobriety/dui with marijuana 1.7% Are there any requirements or regulations regarding medical Dispense at or recreational marijuana that you want to see in place in the City pharmacy/hospital/doctors 1.7% 19 of Concord? office Crime/Increased crime/homeless 1.6% 19 Concerns of smell/second hand smoke/coming into apartment 1.6% 18 Tax it/city can benefit financially 1.3% 15 Funding for education/treatment/programs/ 1.1% 13 City projects No loitering around dispensaries 1.1% 13 Not near parks 1.0% 12 Periodic review/inspections/police 1.0% 11 checks/oversight Record keeping of sales 0.9% 10 Limit hours of operation 0.8% 9 Unhealthy/Dangerous 0.8% 9 Not downtown 0.7% 8 Consumed at home 0.7% 8 Close to police department 0.7% 8 Don't over regulate it 0.7% 8 Limit store front advertisement 0.6% 7 Dispense like prescription/labels/warnings 0.6% 7 Page 51 of 204 Topline Report 9/27/2017 Page 9

52 Godbe Research City of Concord 2017 Cannabis Planning Survey Column N % Count Mean Concerned about other things 0.6% 6 Reduces quality of like/hurt community 0.5% 6 Limit amout purchased per week/month 0.5% 6 Product quality/tested/safe 0.5% 6 Background checks on owners/employees 0.5% 5 Environment/water/soil 0.5% 5 No toxins/chemicals/pesticides 0.4% 5 Illegal/Federal drug laws 0.4% 5 In warehouses/industrial areas/city outskirts 0.4% 4 Cultivation for personal use 0.3% 3 Protections for personal growers/users 0.2% 3 Positive relationship between city/businesses 0.2% Are there any requirements or regulations regarding medical Owned/Operated by Concord or recreational marijuana that you want to see in place in the City residents 0.2% 2 of Concord? (continued) Limit number of stores/dispensaries 0.2% 2 No way to enforce regulations 0.2% 2 Banking access/not keep cash on site 0.1% 1 Sales only to Concord residents 0.1% Are you concerned with increased crime associated with marijuana dispensaries and deliveries in Concord? 13. How concerned are you? Provision to pay for additional police services 0.1% 1 Provide places to smoke/shops/lounge 0.1% 1 Not all users are responsible 0.0% 0 Users be registered 0.0% 0 Other Mention - Positive 0.1% 1 Other Mention - Negative 0.2% 3 No/None/Nothing 15.1% 175 Other 0.1% 1 DK/NA/Not sure 30.1% 348 Yes 50.8% 586 No 42.7% 493 DK/NA 6.6% 76 Extremely concerned 45.1% 264 Very concerned 30.2% 177 Somewhat concerned 24.6% 144 DK/NA 0.1% 1 Page 52 of 204 Topline Report 9/27/2017 Page 10

53 Godbe Research City of Concord 2017 Cannabis Planning Survey 14. If the Concord City Council and the Police Department agree on a location for a medical marijuana dispensary in Concord, would you support or oppose that decision? Column N % Count Mean Strongly Support 48.7% 563 Somewhat Support 20.1% 232 Somewhat Oppose 6.6% 76 Strongly Oppose 16.5% 191 DK/NA 8.1% 93 Total Support 68.8% 795 Total Oppose 23.1% 267 Page 53 of 204 Topline Report 9/27/2017 Page 11

54 Godbe Research City of Concord 2017 Cannabis Planning Survey GROSS RECIEPTS TAX 15. In addition to the City's efforts to create a comprehensive marijuana program, the City may also consider the local taxation of marijuana. Would you support a local tax on marijuana businesses in Concord? Column N % Count Mean Definitely Yes 69.8% 806 Probably Yes 13.5% 156 Probably No 2.7% 31 Definitely No 9.8% 114 DK/NA 4.2% 48 Total Yes 83.3% 962 Total No 12.5% 144 Page 54 of 204 Topline Report 9/27/2017 Page 12

55 Godbe Research City of Concord 2017 Cannabis Planning Survey DEMOGRAPHICS A. Respondent's Gender B. Age C. Ethnic Surname D. Homeownership Status E. Survey Type F. Party G. Household Party Type Column N % Count Mean Male 45.9% 530 Female 53.3% 616 Other 0.8% % % % % % 304 Not coded 0.0% 0 Japanese 0.5% 6 Chinese 1.0% 12 Hispanic 8.0% 92 Jewish 1.3% 15 Armenian 0.1% 2 Vietnamese 0.4% 5 Italian 2.7% 31 Korean 0.1% 1 African American 0.0% 0 Not Coded 85.8% 991 Owner 63.4% 732 Renter 36.6% 423 Cell phone 24.9% 288 Landline 24.9% 288 to online 24.9% 288 Text to online 25.2% 291 Democrat 50.8% 586 Republican 23.4% 270 Other 4.7% 54 DTS 21.1% 244 Dem % 293 Dem % 186 Rep 1 8.3% 96 Rep % 96 Other % 159 Other % 47 Dem & Rep 5.7% 66 Dem & Other 9.3% 107 Rep & Other 6.6% 76 Dem, Rep & Other 2.5% 29 Page 55 of 204 Topline Report 9/27/2017 Page 13

56 Godbe Research City of Concord 2017 Cannabis Planning Survey H. Registration Date Column N % Count Mean 2013 to % to % to % to % to % to % to % or before 7.1% 82 Not Coded 0.0% 0 I. Voting History see detailed crosstabs J. Times Voted in Last Elections K. Absentee Voter L. Likely November 2020 Voter % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % % 0 Yes 100.0% 1155 No 0.0% 0 Page 56 of 204 Topline Report 9/27/2017 Page 14

57 Godbe Research City of Concord 2017 Cannabis Planning Survey M. Likely June 2020 Voter N. Likely November 2018 Voter O. Likely June 2018 Voter P. Permanent Absentee Voter Q. Likely Absentee Voter Column N % Count Mean Yes 61.7% 713 No 38.3% 442 Yes 77.8% 898 No 22.2% 257 Yes 43.3% 500 No 56.7% 655 Yes 63.4% 732 No 36.6% 423 Yes 47.8% 552 No 52.2% 603 Page 57 of 204 Topline Report 9/27/2017 Page 15

58 CITY OF CONCORD 2017 Cannabis Planning Survey Topline Report Addendum n=1, minutes Likely November 2020 Voters October 5, Northern California and Corporate Offices 1575 Old Bayshore Highway, Suite 102 Burlingame, CA Nevada 59 Damonte Ranch Parkway, Suite B309 Reno, NV Pacific Northwest th Avenue NE, Suite 1900 Bellevue, WA Page 58 of 204

59 Godbe Research City of Concord 2017 Cannabis Planning Survey ADDENDUM METHODOLOGY Sample Universe: - 52,156 Likely Voters Sample Size: Q2 Support n=797 Q3 Support n=584 Marin of Error: Q2 Support % Q3 Support % SUPPORT FOR DISPENSARY LOCATION BY SUPPORT FOR MARIJUANA 8. For each of the following areas in Concord, do you support or oppose allowing medical marijuana dispensaries? 8A. Downtown 8B. Local shopping centers 8C. Residential neighborhoods 8D. Near the police department 8E. Regional shopping centers Subset of those who supported medical marijuana in Q2 * Subset of those who supported recreational marijuana in Q3 * Column N % Count Column N % Count Strongly Support 38.1% % 274 Somewhat Support 33.5% % 184 Somewhat Oppose 11.2% % 57 Strongly Oppose 14.4% % 56 DK/NA 2.8% % 13 Total Support 71.6% 78.4% Total Oppose 25.6% 19.3% Strongly Support 34.0% % 261 Somewhat Support 27.8% % 168 Somewhat Oppose 16.1% % 81 Strongly Oppose 18.7% % 55 DK/NA 3.4% % 18 Total Support 61.8% 73.6% Total Oppose 34.8% 23.3% Strongly Support 15.2% % 118 Somewhat Support 14.8% % 106 Somewhat Oppose 20.0% % 117 Strongly Oppose 47.8% % 225 DK/NA 2.2% % 17 Total Support 30.0% 38.5% Total Oppose 67.8% 58.6% Strongly Support 59.0% % 371 Somewhat Support 24.1% % 124 Somewhat Oppose 7.3% % 34 Strongly Oppose 7.0% % 40 DK/NA 2.6% % 15 Total Support 83.1% 84.7% Total Oppose 14.3% 12.7% Strongly Support 35.5% % 271 Somewhat Support 25.5% % 154 Somewhat Oppose 17.6% % 89 Strongly Oppose 16.4% % 46 DK/NA 5.0% % 24 Total Support 61.0% 72.8% Total Oppose 33.9% 23.1% Page 59 of 204 Topline Report - Addendum 10/5/2017 Page 1

60 Godbe Research City of Concord 2017 Cannabis Planning Survey 8F. Industrial areas 8G. Office buildings Subset of those who supported medical marijuana in Q2 * Subset of those who supported recreational marijuana in Q3 * Column N % Count Column N % Count Strongly Support 50.0% % 339 Somewhat Support 34.3% % 171 Somewhat Oppose 4.2% % 19 Strongly Oppose 7.9% % 34 DK/NA 3.7% % 21 Total Support 84.3% 87.4% Total Oppose 12.1% 9.1% Strongly Support 33.3% % 230 Somewhat Support 27.9% % 163 Somewhat Oppose 14.7% % 78 Strongly Oppose 18.4% % 76 DK/NA 5.7% % 38 Total Support 61.2% 67.3% Total Oppose 33.1% 26.3% 9. For each of the following areas in Concord, do you support or oppose allowing recreational marijuana dispensaries? 9A. Downtown 9B. Local shopping centers 9C. Residential neighborhoods 9D. Near the police department Strongly Support 33.6% % 266 Somewhat Support 22.3% % 147 Somewhat Oppose 13.6% % 68 Strongly Oppose 28.4% % 90 DK/NA 2.1% % 13 Total Support 55.9% 70.6% Total Oppose 41.9% 27.2% Strongly Support 31.0% % 242 Somewhat Support 19.1% % 139 Somewhat Oppose 16.1% % 99 Strongly Oppose 30.7% % 85 DK/NA 3.1% % 19 Total Support 50.1% 65.3% Total Oppose 46.8% 31.4% Strongly Support 14.5% % 118 Somewhat Support 9.5% % 73 Somewhat Oppose 17.0% % 114 Strongly Oppose 56.7% % 262 DK/NA 2.3% % 17 Total Support 24.0% 32.7% Total Oppose 73.6% 64.3% Strongly Support 48.0% % 346 Somewhat Support 21.2% % 128 Somewhat Oppose 9.7% % 41 Strongly Oppose 18.5% % 54 DK/NA 2.5% % 15 Total Support 69.3% 81.1% Total Oppose 28.2% 16.4% Page 60 of 204 Topline Report - Addendum 10/5/2017 Page 2

61 Godbe Research City of Concord 2017 Cannabis Planning Survey 9E. Regional shopping centers 9F. Industrial areas 9G. Office buildings Subset of those who supported medical marijuana in Q2 * Subset of those who supported recreational marijuana in Q3 * Column N % Count Column N % Count Strongly Support 32.1% % 254 Somewhat Support 20.0% % 146 Somewhat Oppose 14.1% % 75 Strongly Oppose 30.0% % 86 DK/NA 3.8% % 24 Total Support 52.0% 68.5% Total Oppose 44.2% 27.5% Strongly Support 40.2% % 313 Somewhat Support 24.2% % 151 Somewhat Oppose 9.4% % 40 Strongly Oppose 22.1% % 51 DK/NA 4.2% % 29 Total Support 64.4% 79.5% Total Oppose 31.4% 15.5% Strongly Support 27.2% % 217 Somewhat Support 18.6% % 131 Somewhat Oppose 17.4% % 104 Strongly Oppose 33.7% % 109 DK/NA 3.0% % 22 Total Support 45.8% 59.7% Total Oppose 51.2% 36.5% * Subset of those who supported medical (Q2) or recreational (Q3) marijuana is defined as those who said they "strongly support" plus those who said they "somewhat support" in each question respectively. The specific wording of each question was: Q2: Do you support or oppose the sale of medical marijuana in Concord? Q3: Do you support or oppose the sale of recreational marijuana in Concord? Page 61 of 204 Topline Report - Addendum 10/5/2017 Page 3

62 ATTACHMENT A Attachment 4 CONTRA COSTA COUNTY PRELIMINARY ZONING ANALYSIS FOR CANNABIS USES July 18, COMMERCIAL OUTDOOR AND INDOOR CANNABIS CULTIVATION The control and regulation of commercial cannabis cultivation is a major consideration within Proposition 64. Under Proposition 64 local jurisdictions are authorized to prohibit or regulate all commercial cannabis cultivation activities. If local jurisdictions fail to prohibit or regulate commercial cultivation activities prior to the issuance of licenses by the state, which is expected to start at the beginning of 2018, then the state will become the sole licensing authority for the commercial cultivation activities within that jurisdiction. At the April 25, 2017 Cannabis Workshop, the Board of Supervisors expressed an interest in permitting and regulating the commercial cultivation of cannabis. In response staff has analyzed and identified the zoning districts in which both outdoor and indoor commercial cannabis cultivation is potentially suitable. Based on the contrasting needs of outdoor cultivation and indoor cultivation, they have been classified separately. a. Zoning for Commercial Outdoor Cultivation There are a significant number agricultural parcels within the unincorporated areas of the county located within prime farmland, as well as small and large tracts of underutilized land in former industrial areas that are suitable for commercial outdoor cannabis cultivation. Most of the agricultural parcels are located within one of the agricultural (A- ) zoning districts. However, there are also industrial properties located within former redevelopment areas such as North Richmond and Bay Point, both of which are located within Planned Unit District (P-1) zoning districts, which may also be suitable. Staff recommends that greenhouse and nursery commercial uses be considered as outdoor cultivation for the purposes of crafting regulation. Based on staff s initial analysis of the zoning districts where commercial outdoor cannabis cultivation could be considered compatible, staff is recommending that the following zoning districts be evaluated further for eligibility: - General Agricultural (A-2) - Heavy Agricultural (A-3) - Agricultural Preserve (A-4)(with contract amendment) Page 62 of 204

63 - Exclusive Agricultural (A-20; A-40 and A-80) - Planned Unit District (P-1) with Commercial, Industrial, Mixed-Use and Agricultural General Plan Designations only - Potentially Permitted in the Heavy-Industrial (H-I), Light-Industrial (L-I) and Controlled-Manufacturing (C-M) zoning districts) b. Zoning for Indoor Commercial Cultivation Statewide, most legally established indoor commercial cannabis cultivation facilities operate from within existing small to medium sized industrial or commercial buildings. Due to the additional security measures and potential odor issues related to indoor cultivation, indoor cultivation is not considered compatible with typical high traffic retail center/strip mall uses and should therefore be restricted to other industrial and commercial areas. Commercial and industrial buildings that meet the size, location and configuration needs of commercial indoor cannabis cultivation operations are likely to be located in one of the many commercial and industrial areas found throughout the County. Due to the fact that commercial indoor cultivation would likely require access to public utilities such as water and wastewater services, no commercial indoor cultivation is recommended outside of the County Urban Limit Line (ULL). Based on staff s initial analysis of the zoning districts where commercial indoor cannabis cultivation could be considered compatible, staff is recommending that the following zoning districts be evaluated further for eligibility: - Light Industrial (L-I) - Heavy Industrial (H-I) - Controlled Manufacturing (C-M) - Planned Unit Development (P-1) with Commercial, Industrial and Mixed-Use General Plan Designations only c. Sensitive Receptor Buffers In order to ensure outdoor or indoor commercial cannabis cultivation does not occur near the identified sensitive receptors, or impact nearby properties, buffer zones from the uses are recommended. Sensitive receptors include residential zoning districts, schools, playgrounds, neighborhood and community parks, libraries and drug treatment centers. d. Mapping 2 Page 63 of 204

64 Preliminary zoning maps for commercial indoor and outdoor cultivation have been prepared utilizing the zoning districts and buffers identified above. In order to provide the Board with a range of options as well as to provide some context on the impact buffer zones have on the number of parcels meeting the proposed criteria for commercial cannabis cultivation, three separate zoning maps have been prepared for comparison purposes. Map #1a depicts the most restrictive scenario and identifies all of the eligible parcels for commercial outdoor and indoor cultivation utilizing the zoning districts listed above (outdoor cultivation within the Heavy-Industrial (H-I), Light-Industrial (L-I) and Controlled-Manufacturing (C-M) zoning districts is not included) with a 2,000-foot buffer from schools, parks, playgrounds, libraries and drug treatment centers and 1,000-foot buffer from residential zoning districts. Map #1b depicts all of the eligible parcels for commercial cultivation utilizing the zoning districts listed above including the Under-Discussion parcels where outdoor cultivation within the P-1, Heavy-Industrial (H-I), Light-Industrial (L-I) and Controlled-Manufacturing (C-M) zoning districts, with a 1,000-foot buffer from schools, parks, playgrounds, libraries and drug treatment centers and 500- foot buffer from residential zoning districts. Map #1c depicts all eligible parcels for commercial outdoor and indoor cultivation utilizing the listed zoning districts without any buffers (buffers of some size are recommended, but this map does provide context on the effect of buffers on the map). e. Additional Potential Restrictions for Commercial Outdoor Cultivation Since this will be the County s first time regulating commercial outdoor cultivation of cannabis, restrictions on cultivation area are suggested. The restrictions on cultivation area have been added in order to control potential negative impacts to communities and neighboring properties that could result from extensive commercial cultivation activities. The restrictions on cultivation area could be relaxed or further restricted (for future permits) in the future if found necessary. The proposed restrictions on cultivation areas are as follows: Lots less than 5 acres, maximum 5,000 square feet of canopy area; Lots between 5 and 10 acres, maximum 10,000 square feet of canopy area; Lots larger than 10 acres, maximum 20,000 square feet of canopy area. f. Cannabis Microbusiness 3 Page 64 of 204

65 Another category of commercial cannabis cultivation that could be considered is the establishment of cannabis microbusinesses. A cannabis microbusiness is a small retailer that sells cannabis and cannabis products at the same location where the cannabis is grown, with a maximum cultivation area of 10,000 square feet. Cannabis microbusinesses are similar in nature to the many farm/grower stands found throughout the eastern parts of the County. Microbusinesses cultivation sites for cannabis can be indoor or outdoor and therefore could theoretically be established in both agricultural and commercial/industrial areas of the County. However, staff recommends a cautious approach on microbusiness a this use could lead to retail sales and manufacture in remote locations that would be difficult to regulate, particularly at the outset. (SEE MAPS ON NEXT PAGE) 4 Page 65 of 204

66 MAP 1a - COMMERCIAL INDOOR AND OUTDOOR CULTIVATION SMALLER AREA ALLOWED Smaller # Medium NOTE: The information presented on this map is preliminary. It presents an estimate of which areas could be eligible to apply for a discretionary permit if the County were to change its regulations to allow commercial cannabis uses according to the criteria described in the map legend. The County currently prohibits all commercial cannabis uses. Larger # # 5 Pittsburg Pinole Hercules Martinez Richmond Oakley Antioch Concord San Pablo Richmond 4 Pleasant Hill 1 El Cerrito Brentwood Clayton Walnut Creek Lafayette 2 Proposed Outdoor Cultivation Allowed with a Land Use Permit (Greenhouses are considered outdoor) Orinda General Agricultural (A-2) Heavy Agricultural (A-3) Agricultural Preserve (A-4 with contract amendment) Exclusive Agricultural (A-20; A-40; and A-80) 3 Moraga Danville Proposed Indoor Cultivation with a Land Use Permit Planned Unit Development (P-1) (Commercial and Industrial uses) Controlled Manufacturing (C-M) Light Industrial (L-I) Heavy Industrial (H-I) San Ramon Preliminary Parcel Analysis Proposed Not Allowed 1,000 ft from any residential zoning district 2,000 ft from sensitive sites including schools, community parks/playground, libraries, and drug treatment centers District Supervisorial District Boundaries Outdoor District 2 Outdoor Indoor City Limits Indoor Incompatible Zoning District or General Plan Land Use Designation Note: the green indicates eligible areas. The following maximum cultivation area are proposed per parcel: Lots < 5 acres: 5,000 sq. ft. of canopy area Lots between 5-10 acres: 10,000 sq. ft. of canopy area Lots > 10 acres 10,000 sq. ft. per acre Number of Parcels Estimated Acres District 1 District 3 Outdoor District 4 Outdoor Indoor Miles 10 Map Created on July 13, 2017 by Contra Costa County Department of Conservation and Development Indoor District 5 Outdoor Indoor , Page of

67 MAP 1b - COMMERCIAL INDOOR AND OUTDOOR CULTIVATION MEDIUM AREA ALLOWED Smaller # Medium NOTE: The information presented on this map is preliminary. It presents an estimate of which areas could be eligible to apply for a discretionary permit if the County were to change its regulations to allow commercial cannabis uses according to the criteria described in the map legend. The County currently prohibits all commercial cannabis uses. Larger # # 5 Pittsburg Pinole Hercules Martinez Richmond Oakley Antioch Concord San Pablo Richmond 4 Pleasant Hill 1 El Cerrito Brentwood Clayton Walnut Creek Lafayette 2 Proposed Outdoor Cultivation Allowed with a Land Use Permit (Greenhouses are considered outdoor) Orinda General Agricultural (A-2) Heavy Agricultural (A-3) Agricultural Preserve (A-4 with contract amendment) Exclusive Agricultural (A-20; A-40; and A-80) 3 Moraga Danville Proposed Indoor Cultivation with a Land Use Permit Potential to allow Outdoor Cultivation, especially in greenhouses Planned Unit Development (P-1) (Commercial and Industrial Uses) Controlled Manufacturing (C-M) Light Industrial (L-I) Heavy Industrial (H-I) Proposed Not Allowed 500 ft from any residential zoning district 1,000 ft from sensitive sites including schools, community parks/playground, libraries, and drug treatment centers San Ramon Preliminary Parcel Analysis District Supervisorial District Boundaries Outdoor District 2 Outdoor Indoor City Limits Indoor Incompatible Zoning District or General Plan Land Use Designation Note: the green indicates eligible areas. The following maximum cultivation area are proposed per parcel: Lots < 5 acres: 5,000 sq. ft. of canopy area Lots between 5-10 acres: 10,000 sq. ft. of canopy area Lots > 10 acres 10,000 sq. ft. per acre Number of Parcels Estimated Acres District 1 District 3 Outdoor District 4 Outdoor Indoor Miles 10 Map Created on July 13, 2017 by Contra Costa County Department of Conservation and Development Indoor District 5 Outdoor Indoor , Page of , ,

68 MAP 1c - COMMERCIAL INDOOR AND OUTDOOR CULTIVATION LARGER AREA ALLOWED Smaller # Medium NOTE: The information presented on this map is preliminary. It presents an estimate of which areas could be eligible to apply for a discretionary permit if the County were to change its regulations to allow commercial cannabis uses according to the criteria described in the map legend. The County currently prohibits all commercial cannabis uses. Larger # # 5 Pittsburg Pinole Hercules Martinez Richmond Oakley Antioch Concord San Pablo Richmond 4 Pleasant Hill 1 El Cerrito Brentwood Clayton Walnut Creek Lafayette 2 Proposed Outdoor Cultivation Allowed with a Land Use Permit (Greenhouses are considered outdoor) Orinda General Agricultural (A-2) Heavy Agricultural (A-3) Agricultural Preserve (A-4 with contract amendment) Exclusive Agricultural (A-20; A-40; and A-80) 3 Moraga Danville Proposed BOTH Indoor and Outdoor Cultivation Allowed with a Land Use Permit Planned Unit Development (P-1) (Commercia and Industrial Uses) Controlled Manufacturing (C-M) Light Industrial (L-I) Heavy Industrial (L-I) San Ramon Preliminary Parcel Analysis District Proposed Not Allowed Incompatible Zoning District or General Plan Land Use Designation District 1 Number of Parcels Estimated Acres Outdoor Supervisorial District Boundaries Both District 2 Outdoor 315 5,825 City Limits District 3 Outdoor District 4 Outdoor Both Note, the green indicates eligible areas. The following maximum cultivation area are proposed per parcel: Lots < 5 acres: 5,000 sq. ft. of canopy area Lots between 5-10 acres: 10,000 sq. ft. of canopy area Lots > 10 acres 10,000 sq. ft. per acre Both Miles 10 Map Created on July 13, 2017 by Contra Costa County Department of Conservation and Development Both District 5 Outdoor Both Page of , , ,525 4,800

69 2. CANNABIS DISTRIBUTION, MANUFACTURING, TESTING AND RETAIL DELIVERY a. Description of Uses After analyzing the needs and impacts of commercial cannabis manufacturing, distribution, testing and retail delivery, staff has determined that the potentially suitable zoning districts and buffer zones for the mentioned uses are similar and therefore can be combined and discussed together in terms of eligible zoning districts and buffers. A brief description of each of the uses is provided below. i. Cannabis Distribution: A commercial cannabis distribution facility is a facility where commercial cannabis and cannabis products are received from licensed cultivators and manufacturers and distributed to licensed dispensaries. Per state law (AUMA), all cannabis and cannabis products must be delivered to dispensaries from licensed cannabis distribution centers, making distribution centers a necessary use in the supply chain. Based on research, commercial cannabis distribution centers will likely operate out of warehouse/distribution center type buildings typically found in commercial and industrial zoning districts. These types of buildings, and properties where these types of buildings would be appropriate, can be found within various industrial and commercial areas throughout the County. ii. iii. Cannabis Manufacturing: A cannabis manufacturing facility is a facility that produces, prepares, propagates, or compounds manufactured cannabis or cannabis products. The size of cannabis manufacturing businesses could vary significantly from small mom and pop operations to larger manufacturing facilities with numerous employees, equipment and vehicles. Cannabis Testing: A cannabis testing facility is a business where tests are performed on cannabis and cannabis products to determine potency, purity and other characteristics of the products. Properly regulated, testing facilities could be discrete operations with minimal external impacts. A comparable use would be medical testing/laboratory facilities. iv. Delivery-Only Dispensary: State law permits the establishment of delivery only dispensaries which operate from a fixed location without a storefront. If permitted, any proposed County ordinance permitting delivery only dispensaries could prohibit all outward signage or advertisements of the business. Properly regulated delivery only dispensaries are likely to have little negative impact on surrounding uses. 5 Page 69 of 204

70 b. Zoning Since commercial cannabis manufacturing, distribution, testing and retail delivery do not involve onsite cultivation or direct retail sales at a fixed location, staff is recommending that all of these uses be considered for the same or similar zoning districts and buffers. Based on preliminary analysis of the appropriate zoning districts where cannabis distribution, manufacturing and testing facilities as well as delivery only dispensaries could be considered compatible and appropriate, staff has determined that the following zoning districts should be evaluated further for eligibility: - Light-Industrial (L-I) - Heavy Industrial (H-I) - Controlled-Manufacturing (C-M) - Commercial (C) - Planned Unit District (P-1) within the ULL with Commercial, Industrial and Mixed-Use (M-5 and M-5) General Plan Designations only c. Sensitive Receptor Buffers In order to ensure that the listed commercial cannabis uses do not occur near sensitive receptors, or impact nearby properties, buffer zones from the uses are recommended. Sensitive receptors include residential zoning districts, schools, playgrounds, neighborhood and community parks, libraries and drug treatment centers. d. Mapping Preliminary zoning maps for the commercial cannabis uses listed above have been prepared utilizing the identified zoning districts and buffers. In order to provide the Board with a range of options as well as to provide some context on the impact buffer zones have on the number of parcels meeting the proposed criteria for the specific commercial cannabis uses, three separate zoning maps have been prepared for comparison purposes. Map #2a depicts all of the eligible parcels for commercial cannabis distribution, manufacturing, testing and delivery utilizing the zoning districts listed above, and with a 2,000-foot buffer zone from schools, parks, playgrounds, libraries and drug treatment centers and 1,000-foot buffer from residential zoning districts. Map #2b depicts all of the eligible parcels for commercial cannabis distribution, manufacturing, testing and delivery utilizing the zoning districts listed above, with 6 Page 70 of 204

71 a 1,000-foot buffer zone from schools, parks, playgrounds, libraries and drug treatment centers and 500-foot buffer from residential zoning districts. Map #2c depicts all of the eligible parcels for commercial cannabis distribution, manufacturing, testing and delivery utilizing the zoning districts listed above, without any buffer zones (buffers of some size are recommended, but this map does provide context on the effect of buffers on the map). (SEE MAPS ON NEXT PAGE) 7 Page 71 of 204

72 Map 2a - DISTRIBUTION, MANUFACTURING, TESTING AND RETAIL DELIVERY SMALLER AREA ALLOWED Smaller # Medium Larger # NOTE: The information presented on this map is preliminary. It presents an estimate of which areas could be eligible to apply for a discretionary permit if the County were to change its regulations to allow commercial cannabis uses according to the criteria described in the map legend. The County currently prohibits all commercial cannabis uses. # 5 Pittsburg Pinole Hercules Martinez Oakley San Pablo Antioch Concord 4 Pleasant Hill Richmond 1 El Cerrito Clayton Brentwood Walnut Creek Lafayette 3 Orinda Moraga Proposed Allowed with a Land Use Permit 2 Light Industrial (L-I) Heavy Industrial (H-I) Controlled Manufacturing (C-M) General Commercial (C) Planned Unit Development (P-1) - (Industrial and Commercial Uses) Danville San Ramon Preliminary Parcel Analysis District Proposed Not Allowed 1,000 ft from any residential zoning district 2,000 ft from sensitive sites including schools, community parks/playground, libraries, and drug treatment centers Areas with Incompatible Zoning District or General Plan Land Use Designation Areas outide of the Urban Limit Line District 1 Number of Parcels Estimated Acres Supervisorial District Boundaries District 2 - City Limits 1 District District 4 - District Miles 10 Map Created on July 13, 2017 by Contra Costa County Department of Conservation and Development - Page 72 of ,082

73 Map 2b - DISTRIBUTION, MANUFACTURING, TESTING AND RETAIL DELIVERY MEDIUM AREA ALLOWED Smaller # Medium Larger # NOTE: The information presented on this map is preliminary. It presents an estimate of which areas could be eligible to apply for a discretionary permit if the County were to change its regulations to allow commercial cannabis uses according to the criteria described in the map legend. The County currently prohibits all commercial cannabis uses. # 5 Pittsburg Pinole Hercules Martinez Oakley San Pablo Richmond 1 Antioch Concord 4 Pleasant Hill El Cerrito Clayton Brentwood Walnut Creek Lafayette Orinda 3 Moraga Proposed Allowed with a Land Use Permit 2 Light Industrial (L-I) Heavy Industrial (H-I) Controlled Manufacturing (C-M) General Commercial (C) Planned Unit Development (P-1) - (Industrial and Commercial Uses) Danville San Ramon Preliminary Parcel Analysis District Proposed Not Allowed 500 ft from any residential zoning district 1,000 ft from sensitive sites including schools, community parks/playground, libraries, and drug treatment centers Areas with Incompatible Zoning District or General Plan Land Use Designation Areas outide of the Urban Limit Line District 1 Number of Parcels Estimated Acres Supervisorial District Boundaries District 2 City Limits District 3 14 District 4 1 District Miles 10 Map Created on July 13, 2017 by Contra Costa County Department of Conservation and Development - Page 73 of ,745

74 Map 2c - DISTRIBUTION, MANUFACTURING, TESTING AND RETAIL DELIVERY LARGER AREA ALLOWED Smaller # Larger Medium NOTE: The information presented on this map is preliminary. It presents an estimate of which areas could be eligible to apply for a discretionary permit if the County were to change its regulations to allow commercial cannabis uses according to the criteria described in the map legend. The County currently prohibits all commercial cannabis uses. # # 5 Pittsburg Pinole Hercules Martinez Oakley San Pablo 4 Pleasant Hill Richmond 1 Antioch Concord El Cerrito Clayton Brentwood Walnut Creek Lafayette 3 Orinda Moraga Proposed Allowed with a Land Use Permit 2 Light Industrial (L-I) Heavy Industrial (H-I) Controlled Manufacturing (C-M) General Commercial (C) Planned Unit Development (P-1) - (Industrial and Commercial Uses) Danville San Ramon Preliminary Parcel Analysis District Proposed Not Allowed Areas with Incompatible Zoning District or General Plan Land Use Designation Areas outide of the Urban Limit Line Number of Parcels Estimated Acres District District Supervisorial District Boundaries City Limits District 3 90 District 4 4 District Miles 10 Map Created on July 13, 2017 by Contra Costa County Department of Conservation and Development Page 74 of ,840

75 3. RETAIL CANNABIS DISPENSARIES a. Zoning Retail cannabis dispensaries are businesses where cannabis and cannabis products would be sold directly to adults over the age of 21 from a storefront location. In order to provide local access to cannabis and cannabis products, dispensaries are typically located in or near retail centers in urbanized areas. Staff recommends that is retail sales of cannabis is allowed at storefronts, that the business be dedicated solely to cannabis and cannabis related products (eg. no sales at liquor stores, etc.). Based on staff s initial analysis of the zoning districts where retail cannabis dispensaries could be considered compatible and appropriate with a land use permit, the following zoning districts should be evaluated further for eligibility: - Retail-Business (R-B) - Commercial (C) - Planned Unit District (P-1) inside the ULL with Commercial, Industrial and Mixed-Use (M-5 and M-10) General Plan Designations only - Potentially Permitted within the Controlled-Manufacturing (C-M); Light- Industrial (L-I) and Heavy-Industrial (H-I) zoning districts. b. Sensitive Receptor Buffers In order to ensure that dispensaries do not occur near sensitive receptors, or impact nearby properties, buffer zones from the uses are recommended. Sensitive receptors include residential zoning districts, schools, playgrounds, neighborhood and community parks, libraries and drug treatment centers. c. Mapping Preliminary zoning maps for cannabis dispensaries have been prepared utilizing the identified zoning districts and buffers. In order to provide the Board with a range of options as well as to provide some context on the impact buffer zones have on the number of parcels meeting the proposed criteria for dispensaries, three separate zoning maps have been prepared for comparison purposes. Map #3a depicts all of the eligible parcels for cannabis retail dispensaries utilizing the zoning districts listed above, outside the ULL, with a 2,000-foot buffer zone from schools, parks, playgrounds libraries and drug treatment centers and 1,000-foot buffer from residential zoning districts. Map #3b depicts all of the eligible parcels for retail dispensaries utilizing the zoning districts listed above, including the Under-Discussion zoning districts, 8 Page 75 of 204

76 Controlled-Manufacturing (C-M), Light-Industrial (L-I), and Heavy-Industrial (H-I), with a 1,000-foot buffer zone from schools, parks, playgrounds, libraries and drug treatment centers and 500-foot buffer from residential zoning districts Map #3c depicts all of the eligible parcels for retail dispensaries utilizing the zoning districts listed above, inside the ULL, without any buffers and permitted in the Controlled-Manufacturing (C-M), Light-Industrial (L-I), and Heavy-Industrial (H-I) zoning districts (buffers of some size are recommended, but this map does provide context on the effect of buffers on the map). (SEE MAPS ON NEXT PAGE) 9 Page 76 of 204

77 MAP 3a - DISPENSARIES SMALLER AREA ALLOWED Smaller # Medium NOTE: The information presented on this map is preliminary. It presents an estimate of which areas could be eligible to apply for a discretionary permit if the County were to change its regulations to allow commercial cannabis uses according to the criteria described in the map legend. The County currently prohibits all commercial cannabis uses. Larger # # 5 Pittsburg Pinole Hercules Martinez Oakley Richmond Pleasant Hill 1 Antioch Concord San Pablo El Cerrito 4 Clayton Brentwood Walnut Creek 3 Lafayette Proposed Allowed with a Land Use Permit Retail-Business (R-B) General Commercial (C) Planned Unit Development (P-1) (Commercial and Industrial Uses) Orinda Moraga 2 Danville Proposed Not Allowed 1,000 ft from any residential zoning district 2,000 ft from sensitive sites including schools, community parks/playground, libraries, and drug treatment centers Areas with Incompatible Zoning District or General Plan Land Use Designation Areas outide of the Urban Limit Line 500 feet from any parcel occupied by a cannabis dispensary Preliminary Parcel Analysis San Ramon District Supervisorial District Boundaries Number of Parcels 66 District 1 District 2 City Limits - 4 District Map Created on July 13, 2017 by Contra Costa County Department of Conservation and Development District District 3 Miles 10 Estimated Acres Page 77 of

78 MAP 3b - DISPENSARIES MEDIUM AREA ALLOWED Smaller # Medium NOTE: The information presented on this map is preliminary. It presents an estimate of which areas could be eligible to apply for a discretionary permit if the County were to change its regulations to allow commercial cannabis uses according to the criteria described in the map legend. The County currently prohibits all commercial cannabis uses. Larger # # 5 Pittsburg Pinole Hercules Martinez Oakley Richmond Pleasant Hill 1 Antioch Concord San Pablo El Cerrito 4 Clayton Brentwood Walnut Creek 3 Lafayette Proposed Allowed with a Land Use Permit Retail-Business (R-B) General Commercial (C) Planned Unit Development (P-1) (Commercial and Industrial Uses) Orinda Moraga 2 Under Discussion Danville Light Industrial (L-I) Heavy Industrial (H-I) Controlled Manufacturing (C-M) 500 ft from any residential zoning district 1,000 ft from sensitive sites including schools, community parks/playground, libraries, and drug treatment centers Areas with Incompatible Zoning District or General Plan Land Use Designation Areas outide of the Urban Limit Line 500 feet from any parcel occupied by a cannabis dispensary Preliminary Parcel Analysis San Ramon Proposed Not Allowed District Supervisorial District Boundaries District 1 District 2 City Limits District 3 Number of Parcels Estimated Acres Allowed Allowed - - Discussion - - Allowed 4 Allowed Discussion Miles 10 Map Created on July 13, 2017 by Contra Costa County Department of Conservation and Development District Discussion District 4 79 Discussion Allowed Discussion Page of ,720

79 MAP 3c - DISPENSARIES LARGER AREA ALLOWED Smaller # NOTE: The information presented on this map is preliminary. It presents an estimate of which areas could be eligible to apply for a discretionary permit if the County were to change its regulations to allow commercial cannabis uses according to the criteria described in the map legend. The County currently prohibits all commercial cannabis uses. Larger Medium # # 5 Pittsburg Pinole Hercules Martinez Oakley Richmond Pleasant Hill 1 Antioch Concord San Pablo El Cerrito 4 Clayton Brentwood Walnut Creek 3 Lafayette Proposed Allowed with a Land Use Permit Retail-Business (R-B) General Commercial (C) Planned Unit Development (P-1) (Commercial and Industrial Uses) Orinda Moraga 2 Light Industrial (L-I) Heavy Industrial (H-I) Controlled Manufacturing (C-M) Danville Preliminary Parcel Analysis San Ramon Proposed Not Allowed District Areas with Incompatible Zoning District or General Plan Land Use Designation Supervisorial District Boundaries Areas outide of the Urban Limit Line City Limits 500 feet from any parcel occupied by a cannabis dispensary Estimated Acres 267 District District District Miles 10 Map Created on July 13, 2017 by Contra Costa County Department of Conservation and Development Number of Parcels District 1 District 5 Page 79 of

80 PRELIMINARY COMMERCIAL CANNABIS LAND USE MATRIX JULY 2017 ZONING DISTRICT Indoor Cultivation Outdoor Cultivation (including nurseries and greenhouses) Distribution Center Manufacturing Testing Delivery Only (Fixed Location) Dispensary Planned Unit with Commercial, Industrial, Mixed-Use, Agricultural GP Designation (P-1) Agricultural Zoning Districts (A- ) Retail-Business (R-B) Neighborhood Business (N-B) Limited Office (O-1) General Commercial (C) Controlled Manufacturing (C-M) Light Industrial (L-I) Heavy Industrial (H-I) Unrestricted (U) Forestry Recreation (F-R) Proposed Eligible With Land Use Permit Not Eligible Potentially Eligible (not as suitable as zoning districts marked green ) NOTE: The information presented on this chart is preliminary. It presents zoning districts where applications for discretionary permits could be eligible if the County were to change its regulations to allow commercial cannabis uses. The County currently prohibits all commercial cannabis uses. Page 80 of 204

81 Attachment 5 From: Agathist [mailto:tim@theagathist.com] Sent: Thursday, July 06, :32 AM To: Concord City Council; Agathist Subject: Cannabis and Introductions Mayor and members of the Council-- We are writing to formally introduce ourselves. We are long-time residents of Concord and in June of 2015, we founded The Agathist Collective. The Agathist Collective: Is a cannabis consulting and mobile dispensary serving central Contra Costa County, providing the information and the products that our members need for relief from chronic and age-related illnesses. Provides in-home guidance to our members. We provide detailed information about the products, efficacy, benefits, and the adverse effects of cannabis. We help our members understand their treatment plans that they receive from their medical practitioner, discuss why specific cannabinoids, terpenes, and routes of administration can be effective at treating a specific condition or disease, and we help our members understand and apply their dosing instructions. Is governed by an established mutual benefit non-profit corporation in the State of California and is compliant with all State cannabis laws. All of our company partners are legally-formed organizations with the State of California. Carefully vets the products that we offer, and we associate only with companies who use safe, non-toxic extraction methods and ingredients. All of the companies whose products we promote test for mold, bacteria, and pesticides. At the last city council meeting on June 27, you heard from several of our members. You heard from Rita, a senior who is using cannabis to help treat shingles. You heard from Joe, a stage 4 cancer patient. You heard from Brenda, a nurse whose mother is using cannabis for chronic pain. And, you heard from Thelma, whose young daughter has leukemia. Thelma's daughter is using cannabis to help treat the symptoms related to her chemotherapy. We believe that we have a model that can help the City of Concord conservatively participate in the cannabis industry in By issuing cannabis licenses to home-based mobile dispensaries, Concord can avoid the NIMBY issues associated with store-front dispensaries. Home-based mobile dispensaries have no signage. They are discreet. The home address is associated with a non-profit organization and not the dispensary name, so even if someone were to perform an internet search on the dispensary name, no home address would be included in the search results. Permitting cannabis deliveries to home addresses in Concord was an important first step. However, there no cities in Contra Costa County---except Richmond---that intend to issue cannabis licenses in That means that Concord patients will be required to order cannabis from companies in Berkeley, Oakland, Richmond, Vallejo, or San Jose. In 2018, Concord residents will struggle to find companies to deliver to them, and our residents will face limited delivery times, minimum order amounts, excessive fees, and poorly trained drivers. Many dispensaries, such as Berkeley Patients Group, have eliminated their delivery services altogether. Many of our members, especially our seniors and our severely ill members, are on fixed incomes. They cannot afford fees or excessive minimum order amounts. We need home-based mobile dispensaries in Concord because these local companies can reduce consumer costs (by achieving lower overhead) and because these companies can provide access to patients who have no other options. We were disappointed that the subcommittee tasked with studying the impact of cannabis regulation in Concord included no representatives of industry. We are confident that we can help the City of Concord develop fair and reasonable cannabis regulations and we would welcome an opportunity to meet with members of the Council to discuss the challenges and opportunities. We are prepared to discuss issues related to patient needs, regulations, delivery logistics and business operations, products, routes of administration, the endocannabinoid system, or any other cannabis-related issue about which the Council seeks additional information. Thank you for your consideration. Timothy & Rebecca Byars Co-founders, The Agathist Collective Page 81 of 204

82 From: Michael McDermott Sent: Monday, July 10, :53 PM To: Cass, Michael Subject: Re: PD&IO Meeting July 12, 2017 Marijuana Survey Michael, Unfortunately I will be unable to attend the meeting on Wednesday concerning the Marijuana survey questions. I have spoken to the Council on a couple of occasions on this subject, and I believe a professional survey can help us understand whether and to what extent marijuana retail and commercial operations are appropriate for Concord. Please consider the following recommendations for survey questions. I think they might be useful in getting to a good understanding of public opinion. First I would suggest an opening survey statement something like this: The City of Concord is conducting a survey on public interest in expanding or restricting marijuana retail sales and commercial marijuana product development. Proposition 64 now allows cities to restrict or expand both medical and recreational marijuana uses within city limits. The city of Concord has recently authorized the delivery of medical marijuana to homes in Concord by registered delivery services, but all other forms of marijuana sale and use not explicitly authorized by Proposition 64 have been temporarily banned. Your response to these questions will help our City Council better understand the feelings of Concord residents regarding whether and to what extent this general ban should be modified. And here are some questions: 1) Do you support delivery of marijuana for recreational use to homes in Concord? 2) If delivery services were authorized for recreational use, would you be interested in using them to obtain marijuana for your personal use? * 3) Do you support indoor marijuana growing in areas of Concord zoned for commercial or agricultural activity? 4) Do you support outdoor marijuana growing in areas of Concord zoned for commercial activity? 5) Do you support safety inspections for those who choose to grow marijuana indoors in residential neighborhoods? 6) Do you support outdoor marijuana growing in Concord neighborhood residential areas? 7) If outdoor growing of marijuana were allowed in residential areas, would you be interested in growing marijuana for your personal use? * 8) Compared to current cigarette smoking restrictions in public places, should marijuana smoking be more restricted, less restricted, or treated exactly the same? 9) Should marijuana be allowed to be sold in stores within a mile of residential neighborhoods? 10) Should marijuana be allowed to be sold in commercial areas further than a mile from residential neighborhoods? 11) If businesses are permitted to sell marijuana in Concord, should the city enact restrictions on their ability to place signage or other forms of advertising? 12) Overall, do you think expanding marijuana production and availability in Concord would be a good thing for the city to do? 13) Would you like to see the current temporary ban on all marijuana production and retail sales (except medical marijuana delivery) be made permanent? Page 82 of 204

83 * I think asking individuals if they plan on using or growing recreational marijuana is an important point of information. We should have some idea of the potential demand for this product in order to determine impact on city services. Thanks!!! Mike McDermott MTMCDER@PACBELL.NET Cell: Page 83 of 204

84 From: Ryan The Lion Sent: Monday, July 10, :56 PM To: Cass, Michael Subject: Re: PD&IO Meeting July 12, 2017 Marijuana Survey Michael, I wanted to let you know that I gave a copy to Joelle regarding a booklet I received when I attended the Americans for Safe Access conference in Washington D.C. last month. The booklet is a guideline for policy making and ordinances from Maryland. I figure you can take the best and leave the rest and see what one looks like that's already created elsewhere when drafting one for Concord. I only have one copy and wanted to consult with you about adding the booklet to the meeting or not as a suggested agenda item from me. I asked for this in November and now it's coming to fruition. My only concern is that I may not be able to attend this Wednesday due to prior commitments before learning of this meeting. Will Wednesday's meeting start talking about ordinances or take in applications? If not and my absence is fine, there will be some NORML Public and Student chapter members attending to show support. Lastly as a DVC student, I'd like to offer an alternative survey option by starting a "student survey" as a project for students to survey the younger high school graduates and college student markets. Let me know if this may help and how I can start initiating it. This will also survey the need for "academic cannabis programs" that I mentioned previously. This survey should show if there is student interest in the new industry and if this will create an in increase in student recruitment in colleges across the county and state. I'm happy to help with any other questions you have. I have much to update you on what I've been doing on the public side of things. Thank you for representing us and helping us make history together! Ryan Doronila Page 84 of 204

85 From: Edi Birsan Sent: Tuesday, July 11, :18 PM To: Griffin, Sue Anne Cc: Barone, Valerie; Brown, Susanne Subject: For PDIO BENCHED ITEM FOR PDIO JULY 12 from Edi Birsan (VICE Mayor) PULSE OF CONCORD RECENT SURVEY ENDING APRIL 2017 SUMMARY The survey had over 310 respondents with 12% being outside of the city (mostly adjacent cities) and the results were nearly identical for residents and non residents except where noted. Within the city the division was by zip code: % % Page 85 of 204

86 % % 1. A Marijuana Dispensary north of Highway 4 (along Bates Ave. or north of the Golf Course) is acceptable. 33.6% Strongly Agree 19.4 Somewhat Agree 4.1 Somewhat Disagree 23.0 Strongly Disagree 19.8 Neither Agree or Disagree The exact same question was asked in a Pulse Poll 4 years ago and the shift was about 4% more favorable, except that 4 years ago there was a bias towards non-residents wanting it in Concord more than residents. However, this year the residents and non-residents are identical. This shows that the support for the concept has been fairly steady and slightly growing. The city approved Measure 64 by over 60% to allow Recreational use. The City Council rejected the idea in January of 2013 and will be reconsidering it in the Policy Committee on May 11. The Mayor of Page 86 of 204

87 Vallejo recently told me that the city gets over $1.2 million in yearly revenue from MEDICAL dispensaries. 2. Delivery of Marijuana into Concord, for Concord residents is acceptable. 34.5% Strongly Agree 20.8 Somewhat Agree 6.4 Somewhat Disagree 22.2 Strongly Disagree 16.9 Neither Agree or Disagree Cities are allowed to determine if it is deliverable to the residents in the city. Generally by private or personal delivery since the Post Office is a real mess regulation wise. Note that the strong disagree % on all marijuana questions is about the same around 24% indicating a base ideological view. I wonder if there is anything that can be shown to that base that will move them off that position. This is the classic problem of dealing with change in an emotional environment of ideological positions. Page 87 of 204

88 One massive way to generate revenue for a city is to have the ability to deliver their product into those cities that refuse to allow dispensaries in them. 3. Having a Green House Marijuana Grow (Commercial indoor) is acceptable in Concord. 29.5% Strongly Agree 16.3 Somewhat Agree 11.1 Somewhat Disagree 24.9 Strongly Disagree 18.2 Neither Agree or Disagree I small location in Massachusetts has set up a commercial grow that will generate $20 MILLION a year. That would be equal to a 25% increase in our budget and would eliminate our projected road and pension cost nightmare issues. That is just from a large Green House/warehouse. Does that kind of money change people's opposition, after all it is a legal product and someone is going to produce it? Page 88 of 204

89 From: Ryan The Lion Sent: Tuesday, July 11, :15 PM To: Cass, Michael Subject: 1st NORML Contra Costa County Chapter meeting Michael, Thank you for those kind words, I'm just enjoying this new journey towards civic engagement that started last year. I'm still learning how things work in a local city and county environment. This is a great time for me to gain exposure and experience from a public perspective. Some news to share: Special NORML Contra Costa chapter meeting today 7/11 at 4pm held in Horticulture We'll be holding our first public/student chapter meeting on campus! Top leaders from CaliforniaNORML will be guest speaking today, Deputy Director - Ellen Komp and Director - Dr. Dale Gieringer. New "Controlled environment cultivation" class approved by DVC this summer, Tuesdays and Thursdays 4pm-8pm (Lecture only, fee based). Ryan Doronila Page 89 of 204

90 Local chapter website For more information about California NORML Join CalNORML and help fight for our rights! Find California NORML on Facebook Follow us on Twitter *************************************************************************** The information contained in this (including any attachments) is intended only for the personal and confidential use of the recipient(s) named above. If you are not an intended recipient of this message, please notify the sender by replying to this message and then delete the message and any copies from your system. Any use, dissemination, distribution, or reproduction of this message by unintended recipients is not authorized and may be unlawful. *************************************************************************** Page 90 of 204

91 Page 91 of 204

92 Page 92 of 204

93 From: Wendy Hershey Subject: Re: Pulse of Concord July 2017 results Date: July 17, 2017 at 10:45:57 PM PDT To: Edi Birsan No. To help reduce carbon footprint in Concord, we should rescind ban on outdoor cannabis, since grow lights are hogs. :). Livestock production is another culprit so it would be powerful if our city council could get behind a Meatless Monday and maybe some local restaurants would create a few special all.plant items for diners on mondays. You possibly don't know that meat production creates tons and tons of greenhouse gases and other pollution of land, air, water. How do I read the yearly report? On Jul 17, 2017, at 8:26 AM, Edi Birsan wrote: Do you know that we have a section of a yearly report on reduction in Green House Gases and our carbon foot print? On Jul 17, 2017, at 7:50 AM, Wendy Hershey <cocoswendy@gmail.com> wrote: You have a great sense of humor! Is there an item on your survey asking if I feel Concord City Council should be showing strong leadership in the area of climate change? That would include making decisions that reflect an understanding of the urgency of the rising temperature of the ocean. Page 93 of 204

94 From: CALM On Behalf Of CALM Sent: Tuesday, July 25, :00 AM To: Concord City Council Subject: Dabbing: the crack cocaine of weed Not the pot of the 60's Dabbing is one of the more poplar ways to consume pot. It is also super concentrated with THC reaching over 90%. There is nothing remotely benign about dabbing and when you vote to legalize pot, you vote for dabbing as well. Media Contact Southern California, Scott Chipman Northern California, Carla Lowe Page 94 of 204

95 This is dabbing, an increasingly popular way to smoke ultra-potent marijuana. With a blowtorch and nearly pure THC resin, it's a far cry from the relatively low-thc joints of earlier decades. Hear from a Colorado high school student, his mother, a prosecutor and an adolescent addiction specialist. Plus learn about the impacts on Pueblo. CALM NEWS Page 95 of 204

96 Should We Welcome the Business of Drug Dealing? As marijuana has become more commercialized we see more and more examples of the business of marijuana. Is this good for our communities, business districts and neighboring businesses? PO Box 2995 Carmichael CA Phones: Northern CA Southern CA CALM is an all volunteer Political Action Committee dedicated to defeating any effort to legalize Marijuana Campaign ID # Page 96 of 204

97 From: Michael McDermott Sent: Friday, July 28, :51 AM To: Cass, Michael Cc: Asera, Leslye; Barone, Valerie; Walker, Victoria; Simpson, Laura; Trepa, Kathleen; Garcia, Pedro Subject: Re: PD&IO Meeting July 12, 2017 Marijuana Survey Hi Michael, Thank you for presenting my marijuana survey question suggestions to the July 12 Council Committee on Policy Development & Internal Operations. Were there any minutes taken at that meeting that I can review? Any follow-up meetings scheduled or a date set for review of the draft question set with the Council? This is an important issue and I would like to stay in the loop, even though I was unable to attend the July 12 meeting. I just recently read an article on the subject in the Concord Pioneer, and that article indicated the police department recommended Marijuana retail stores, if approved, be placed in locations like the Bel Air Shopping Center, Terminal Shopping Center, and Park and Shop. If the Survey questions are still being drafted, I would strongly suggest a question like #9 "Should marijuana be allowed to be sold in stores within a mile of residential neighborhoods?" Be made more specific. A question like: " Should marijuana be allowed to be sold in stores in the center of residential neighborhoods like the Bel Air shopping Center, The Terminal Shopping Center, or Park and Shop?" would be more appropriate, given the recommendation made by the Police Department. Thanks!!! Mike McDermott MTMCDER@PACBELL.NET Home Phone: Cell: Page 97 of 204

98 From: Edi Birsan Sent: Saturday, July 29, :45 PM To: Cass, Michael Subject: Fwd: Medical Cards I checked with Bude on the issue of Tax exempt patients *remember that have 300+ in concord. Edi For items related to the City of Concord Council, contact me at Edi.Birsan@CityOfConcord.org PS Please take the short survey at Begin forwarded message: From: Sal Villanueva <sal@budee.org> Subject: Re: Medical Cards Date: July 29, 2017 at 8:14:54 PM PDT To: Edi Birsan Right now we have 11,985 patients in California. We have 0 patients that are Tex exempt. Let me know if you need anymore numbers. On Jul 29, 2017, at 6:43 PM, Edi Birsan wrote: One of the negatives at the recent League of Cities was that there would be no sales tax on medical cannabis for people with state/county cards. The ones with doctors notes would still have to pay. Page 98 of 204

99 the question remains then of your 11,000 about what percentage have actual cards of your 300 in Concord what percentage have actual cards. I have to convince one of my colleagues that we can still make some money on a medical dispensary, Page 99 of 204

100 From: Michael McDermott Sent: Friday, July 28, :00 AM To: Cass, Michael Cc: Asera, Leslye; Barone, Valerie; Walker, Victoria; Simpson, Laura; Trepa, Kathleen; Garcia, Pedro Subject: Re: PD&IO Meeting July 12, 2017 Marijuana Survey Thank you Michael for your prompt response. From the annotated agenda you shared it does not look like the full city council will have a chance to review the survey questions in draft form before the survey is actually conducted. Is this true? If so I think this is a serious mistake. The draft question set should be reviewed with the full City Council by the survey developer, even if that means delaying the survey completion by a few weeks. Better to have a survey that has the buy in from the council than one which misses some key points or comes across as biased in one way or the other. I was happy to see the annotated agenda included instructions to the survey company to ask questions distinguishing public opinion between medical and recreational marijuana sales. That is a key issue, and as far as I know the state has not decided whether to allow medical and recreational sales from the same location. One more concern about the annotated agenda. The notes seem to encourage or presume survey questions will be using the biased term "dispensaries" when describing marijuana stores. Please allow me to explain: If the survey uses the term "dispensaries" to describe the retail sales locations of medical and recreational marijuana, that would bias the outcome. The definition of the term "dispensaries" is : " An office in a hospital, school, or other institution from which medical supplies, preparations, and treatments are dispensed." Use of the positive-bias "dispensary" term has been promoted by the marijuana industry as a way to engender positive feelings about their business. On the other side of the coin, the term "head shops" is a common negative stereotype for marijuana related businesses. Neither term is appropriate in a survey. A neutral term like marijuana shop or marijuana store should be used. Thanks!!! Mike McDermott MTMCDER@PACBELL.NET Home Phone: Cell: Page 100 of 204

101 From: Date: July 31, 2017 at 4:49:04 PM PDT To: Subject: Inquiry from Inquiry from the public Submitter Roland Cordova Phone Description City Manager, Attorney, and City Clerk, My name is Roland Cordova, and I am very interested in your thoughts about receptiveness to a solution to help with your upcoming Prop 64 requirements for inhome marijuana growing. I recently launched a new business with some great people and great investors, and our very first priority is making sure that any community we come in contact with is comfortable with our idea. So, you are the first person that we have reached out to for initial feedback (as you have probably guessed, it will be intertwined with State/City marijuana laws). In short, our company offers small 10 feet x 10 feet rentable rooms to utilize as a grow space for citizens/patients wishing to begin personal marijuana growing up to their six-plant limit (Prop 64); and all rooms are located in a single building. We would offer these rooms as an alternative to in-home setups of course, contingent upon your approval and any subsequent code/permitting/legislation. We really believe this solution provides some huge advantages to City officials all coming back to cost. The main advantage being that the City would only have to regulate this one facility to cover a huge number of residents. But, this is also seen as something residents would be delighted to have as an option especially if certain neighborhood associations would prefer to keep any marijuana cultivation out of their community through their own bylaws. This also would address any concerns that home insurance companies might have about the new risks posed by a small growing operation in one s house. Our name is U-Grow Rentals, and our website is Thank you for your time in reviewing this unsolicited . We look forward to hearing from you regarding your interest and feedback on this crucial decision. Thank you again, Roland Page 101 of 204

102 From: Roland Cordova Sent: Tuesday, August 08, :28 AM To: Concord City Council Subject: Dangers related to Prop. 64 Mandate to allow In-Home Cannabis Cultivation Dear Mayor, Prop 64 Mandate to allow cannabis to be grown in residential homes has serious danger concerns. We understand how busy you are and know that with Prop. 64 looming, you do not want to have more problems to deal with. We are very aware that very few people know what it takes to grow cannabis. Citizens going into a Hydroponic store will be told that this is the equipment needed to grow cannabis. Here is a list: Watt LED Lights (requiring a lot of electricity) 1 Air Conditioner (room must be kept between 72 and 78 degrees) 1 Humidifier 2 Fans (for circulation) 2 Timers (one for automated watering and 1 for automating lights) Ventilation system to extract heat created by lights (sending strong odors into the neighborhood) We are sharing this with you because of the mandate to allow in-home personal growing. Since this mandate has not been given much thought as it seems innocent enough, we want you to know that it is not. Allowing hundreds of untrained individuals to go to their garage and set up this kind of equipment which requires a considerable amount of power 24 hours a day comes with a high potential for a fire. There are many other dangers to consider, here are a few: Neighbor complaints due to the smell and disapproval of growing cannabis near their home Theft due to teenagers becoming aware of growth operation (due to strong odor) Guns being used by homeowners protecting their investment Homes being involved in a fire incident due to untrained installation and inadequate power source Home burglaries to steal finished crops Page 102 of 204

103 What is the cost to regulate in-home personal growing? What is the cost to not regulate? What pressure does this put on your Fire Dept., Police Dept., Code Enforcement, and the court system? Obviously, these are issues to consider in the regulation of this very sensitive issue. U-Grow Rentals has given this a lot of thought and we are not done helping. We sincerely want to aid cities with the difficult spot that the State of California has placed them in. We want this to be a win-win for the city and its citizens. Our facilities have thousands of small, leasable grow rooms for your citizens. It is a single, easily-monitored building that will: Require purchase of city permits to use facility ($ annually for an individual and $ for Caretakers) Consolidate the growing operation of many residents into a single location (lower the cost of regulatory resources) Remove the hazardous equipment risks from the homes (lower the volume of 911 calls and home insurance rates) Give the citizens a choice to grow in a controlled, expertly-staffed environment (give choices to the 'nimby' neighborhoods and the less sophisticated growers) U-Grow wants to continue to think it through with each city - what are we missing...? Let us work with you to bring life to an abandoned building, jobs to the people, and money to the treasurer Thank you for your time -- Page 103 of 204

104 From: Roland Cordova Sent: Wednesday, August 16, :46 AM To: Cass, Michael Subject: Re: Inquiry from Hello Micheal, Thank you for responding to our introduction of U-Grow Rentals. It is clear that a lot of cities have taken the time to come up with regulations addressing the cultivation of cannabis indoors. My only question to you is, "Does your city have the luxury of dismissing millions of dollars in revenue streams?" More importantly, with no liability to your law enforcement budget. U-Grow is only an option that the city would offer to its citizens in order to get the cost of medicine reduced and to also make sure it is high quality and organic, while taking the risk from in-house cultivation away. Please keep in mind that we are "partnering" (from start to finish) with the city to satisfy any and all issues that might be of concern. Here are a few benefits: All U-Grow Rentals clients must pay a fee to the city to use the facility ($ yr. per person and $ yr. for care givers) Do background checks on individuals for any outstanding debts to the city in form of parking tickets, fines, back taxes, etc.). The city would have keys to the facility with 24-hour access for unannounced inspections. are open 24/7, so there is access for inspections at any time. U-Grow facilities No client is allowed in the facility without an appointment, to reduce traffic. All medicines are handled by Master Growers whose city will be involved in the hiring process. U-Grow rentals purchases property in any area you designate, designs and builds a facility in a building that might be available or by using our own scalable buildings (all-site structures), and also handle buildout with your planning commission. The main focus of our marketing efforts is to patients who have found CBD's (Cannabidiol) to be very beneficial in countless indications. This type of cannabis does not have the THC that gives you the high feeling. This reduces the possibility of any type of theft or break-in as it has no street value. U-Grow Rentals believes that your citizens, given this option, would be extremely receptive getting this financial benefit, but also with the understanding of what it takes to grow high-quality cannabis and all the risks involved. Please remember, this does not have any effect on what you have already decided to put in place, it is an option that could add $$$ to your treasury with very little oversight. We are ready to start a dialog with your city and answer any and all concerns you may have. Thank you so much for your time. Page 104 of 204

105 From: Barone, Valerie Sent: Wednesday, August 23, :41 PM To: 'Eloise Theisen' Cc: Asera, Leslye; Cass, Michael Subject: RE: Cannabis Survey Dear Eloise, Thank you for reaching out and for your interest in marijuana policy in Concord. The survey you reference is a scientifically valid survey so unfortunately individuals cannot "self-select" to participate. However, if this is a topic you are interested in you are welcome to share information with the City staff team working with the Council on marijuana regulations. I'd suggest reaching out to Michael Cass one of our staff members working on this. His is in the cc list above. Also, we anticipate that the survey will be presented to Council on October 3rd at a public meeting, so you are welcome to attend that meeting and share your observations and provide input directly to Council that night as well. Last, we will likely be holding some community workshops on the topic of Concord marijuana policy. Through this , I'm asking Michael to add your name and to the list of individuals who are interested in knowing about any such workshops should they be scheduled. Again, thanks for your interest. Please stay engaged as this is an important policy conversation for Concord and the council is interested in hearing from community members. Valerie Valerie Barone City Manager, City of Concord Valerie.barone@cityofconcord.org 925/ Original Message----- From: Eloise Theisen [mailto:greenhealthconsultants@gmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, August 23, :21 AM To: Barone, Valerie <Valerie.Barone@cityofconcord.org> Subject: Cannabis Survey Hi Valerie I understand there is a survey going out to Concord residents about cannabis in the city. How can I participate as a Concord resident? I tried to find this information on the Concord website but had no luck Thank you for your help Best Eloise Theisen Page 105 of 204

106 From: LouisFernandez Date: Sun, Aug 27, 2017 at 2:34 PM Subject: retail stores in Cpncord that sell Marijuana To: sent by Louis Fernandez 1. to all the city of concord councilman and councilwomen 2. as a resident of concord for almost forty years, I would like to have all councilmebers vote NO on the city of Concord allowing retail sale of Marijuana. 3. Allowing these stores near residential neighborhoods is not good. 4. I will definitely be keeping my eye on the way councilmembers vote on this issue. Louis & Lucia M. Fernandez 1242 Summit View Drive Concord, CA Page 106 of 204

107 From: Beirne, Trish On Behalf Of Concord City Council Sent: Monday, August 28, :55 PM To: Barone, Valerie; Beirne, Trish; Cass, Michael; Garcia, Pedro; Brown, Susanne; Trepa, Kathleen Subject: FW: Cannabis regulations **This is being shared with the full Council** Mayor and Councilmembers: The below is an FYI. Please note that Michael will include it as part of public comments when the Marijuana Policy comes back to the Council. Kind regards, Trish Beirne Executive Assistant City of Concord Website: (925) From: Agathist Sent: Sunday, August 27, :59 PM To: Concord City Council; Agathist Subject: Cannabis regulations Council members-- An article published in Forbes Magazine in February of this year projects that by 2020 the legal cannabis market will create more than a quarter of a million jobs nationwide. According the Bureau of Labor Statistics, this is more than the expected jobs from manufacturing, utilities, and government jobs. (1) The legal cannabis market in California generated an estimated $2 billion in 2016 and is projected to grow at an annual rate of 17%. Cannabis is a major economic driver and job-creation engine for the California economy and has the potential to be a positive economic force in California at a time of potential economic decline. We have an opportunity right now to ensure that members our communities and not just large corporations and venture capitalist-backed businesses can benefit from this job growth. Let s open up opportunities for small businesses and residents of Concord and surrounding communities. Home-based businesses make up roughly half of all U.S. businesses they are the predominant form of small business. (2) Over two-thirds of all sole proprietorships, partnerships, and S corporations are home-based. Home-based businesses are incubators that provide start-ups with an entry point into the business world. Yet government regulations typically have a disproportionately large impact on these businesses. Studies have found that unit costs of complying with regulations are consistently higher for businesses with fewer than 20 employees than for businesses with over 500 employees that use similar compliance measures. (3) I'm confident that this Council understands the importance of delivery services they serve our most vulnerable populations. In order for us to ensure that delivery companies can operate, we need to regulate them differently than commercial retail stores. Delivery services and retail stores are two different business models that serve different demographics. They should be regulated differently, as well. Page 107 of 204

108 For the past 2 years, my wife and I have been running a small, home-based delivery service for about 500 seniors and chronically ill patients. We operate on very small margins (despite perceptions about the industry, neither of us have yet to take a salary or have received any type of compensation). We intentionally keep costs low because most of our members are on fixed incomes. Keeping costs low will be even more important next year when the state and cities begin gouging patients with excessive taxes. Currently, it s difficult for us to imagine how we stay in business next year if we have to compete for a limited number of commercial retail licenses, or if we are required to rent a space in a commercially zoned building. Combining small, home-based delivery services in the same commercial use classification as commercial retail stores will effectively limit participation to only corporate and vc-funded operations, and it will create barriers of access that will disproportionately impact small, local business owners. Home-based delivery services are discreet and can be reasonably regulated to ensure professionalism and safety but in a manner that ensures that Concord residents can continue to benefit from their services. I urge this Council to let the market naturally limit these services. Also, I urge this Council to create a distinct classification in the Concord Municipal Code for home-based delivery companies, to recognize these companies as distinct from commercial retail stores, and to create reasonable regulations that encourages participation of local, small business owners. Timothy Byars Cofounder The Agathist Collective (1) (2) (3) pdf Page 108 of 204

109 From: Kim Sherman Sent: Tuesday, August 29, :07 PM To: Concord City Council Subject: Please allow cannabis delivery services as an initial step to regulation August 29, 2017 Dear City Council Members, Currently, there are no cities east of the Caldecott tunnel that intend to issue business licenses to cannabis companies in Consequently, there will be no legal cannabis companies (including delivery services) in Contra Costa County next year. Patients living in Concord and surrounding areas will be forced to drive to or order delivery from companies located in cities such as Oakland, Berkeley, Richmond, and Vallejo. Many companies in these cities will not deliver to Contra Costa County. Those that do will charge a premium for the service, including delivery fees, minimum order amounts, and reduced schedules. I am an older adult patient currently being served by The Agathist Collective, a cannabis consulting and delivery company based out of Concord. I rely on The Agathist to provide me with information about the benefits, risks, and application methods for treating my health with cannabis products. The Agathist is professional, discreet, and knowledgeable, and is an important resource for me. I understand that you have many considerations as you determine how to proceed with the upcoming cannabis laws, which is why I m asking you to consider allowing delivery services as an initial step into regulation. Cannabis delivery services do not have storefronts, enabling them to operate discreetly and to keep costs down for patients who are experiencing relief from the products they provide. This is an important and unique resource for the elderly and the sick, and we need to make sure companies like The Agathist can continue to provide these services in 2018 and beyond. Thank you so much. Sincerely, Kim Sherman Page 109 of 204

110 From: nancy cassity Sent: Friday, September 01, :34 AM To: Cityinfo Subject: Marijuana Stores Good morning- I have never written to you before but I felt compelled to do so regarding the above. I have lived in Concord for 24 years and love it here. I feel that with the new project on Diamond Blvd. and the renovations at the Willow we have a future that is exciting and something for our City to be very proud of. I feel that Walnut Creek is targeting the wealthier citizens of the area leaving a lot of mid-range folks, still 100k plus, searching for new shops and restaurants. If we play our cards right we can pick up a lot of the overflow which will greatly increase revenues for our City. I don't think marijuana shops fill a need for our citizens. I would like to see a continuation of what has been accomplished at the Willows. I don't want to see any more Dollar Stores. As an aside, I am very, very disappointed in what was done at Sun Valley Mall. It brought in an undesirable element and I no longer enjoy shopping there. Thank you for your time. Nancy Cassity Page 110 of 204

111 From: Dick Offerman Sent: Sunday, September 03, :06 PM To: Cass, Michael Subject: Concord Marijuana Bans Please share this with the Planning Commissioners before the Sep 6th meeting. Thanks. Dear Planning Commissioners, My name is Dick Offerman and I have been a Pleasant Hill resident for the past 33 years during which time I had worked for over 10 years in Concord. My wife and I often shop & dine in Concord. I am writing to you to discuss the new state law on recreational marijuana, effective in Concord as of January First - it is critical that the Commission understand that in the 2016 state election, Concord residents voted to approve recreational marijuana in your city. A majority of 29,736 of 48,779 Concord voters want recreational marijuana to be allowed by January That is 64% of the total voters, a clear majority and don t be mistaken, that it is a very clear mandate to your city officials. Please understand that Concord voters approved recreational marijuana and not to have you now impose an unlimited ban on their legal rights. I also ask you to protect our new state mandated right to cultivate 6 plants, indoors or outdoors. Many Concord residents may face financial hardships if you try to change their state mandated right to cultivate 6 plants outdoors for personal use. The most important item I want to discuss is the rarely mentioned aspect of the new state law regarding recreational marijuana. The law states that if a city bans any part of the new recreational marijuana law, then the state will not allow that city to receive any of the huge state tax revenues from marijuana businesses. You just need to remove all bans so your city positions itself for the opportunity to participate in these large tax revenues. Concord has an estimated 5,500 legal medical patients who have their right to local, reasonably priced cannabis medicine. Your bans throw their legal rights under the bus as you ponder your next move without any deadlines set. So please remove all the bans, protect the state rights of all residents to cultivate 6 plants both indoors and outdoors, and most importantly, do what Concord voters mandated you to do protect all of their recreational marijuana rights to reasonable access in January Thank you. Dick Offerman Page 111 of 204

112 From: Birsan, Edi Sent: Thursday, September 7, :32 PM To: Barone, Valerie Subject: Fwd: Re: Text for Mobile Dispensary Arguement Please pass on We will need to cover non storefront dispensaries Forwarded message From: Edi Birsan Date: Sep 7, :30 PM Subject: Re: Text for Mobile Dispensary Arguement To: timothy byars Cc: Edi Birsan Thanks. Will work on this. On Sep 4, :37 PM, timothy byars wrote: Edi-- Thanks for your time this morning. I'm pasting below our position advocating for mobile dispensaries. Rebecca and I believe that it's a good model for the City of Concord. Tim In 2018, when a cannabis business submits a license application to the state, the state will contact the city in which the company exists to determine whether the proposed operations will be in compliance with local law. If the city does not respond within 60 days, the state will presume compliance. If the city responds that the applicant is not in compliance, or if the city has an existing ban on cannabis businesses, the state will deny the application. California state licenses will recognize both storefront and non-storefront dispensary companies. Storefront dispensaries are retail stores that are open to the pubic. Non-storefront dispensaries are businesses that are not open to the public. Non-storefront dispensaries operate as delivery-only businesses they package orders at a single location and deliver the packages to patients homes. Non-storefront dispensaries are also known as mobile dispensaries. Delivery services meet the needs our most vulnerable populations patients who are not able to travel to storefront dispensaries or for whom the storefront dispensary model is not a good fit. In 2018, there will be no legal delivery services in Contra Costa County because no cities intend to issue permits for this type of service. If delivery services are not allowed to originate in Concord, legal access to cannabis will be effectively eliminated for residents who are immobile, elderly, sick, or poor. In addition to allowing medical cannabis deliveries from companies outside of the city, we want the City of Concord to: Page 112 of 204

113 Define and regulate non-storefront dispensaries differently than storefront dispensaries. Delivery services and retail stores are two different business models that serve different demographics. They should be regulated differently, as well. Concord should create a distinct classification in the Municipal Code for non-storefront dispensaries and create reasonable regulations that encourage participation of local, small business owners. Place few restrictive limits on the number of non-storefront dispensaries. These businesses are discreet and can be reasonably regulated to ensure professionalism and safety but in a manner that ensures that Concord residents can continue to benefit from their services. We urge the City of Concord to let the market naturally limit the companies that provide these services. Combining small, non-storefront dispensaries in the same license commercial use classification as storefront dispensaries will effectively limit participation to only corporate and venture capitalist-funded storefront operations and will create barriers of access that will disproportionately impact small, local business owners. Most importantly, it will effectively eliminate access for patients who need it most those who are using medical cannabis to treat age-related and chronic illness. Page 113 of 204

114 From: Lynn Whelan Sent: Saturday, September 09, :55 PM To: Concord City Council Subject: Oct 3rd meeting I am not sure if I will be able to attend the meeting at 6:30 but in the event that I cannot I need to let you know how important Agathist Collective is to the population who I serve. I am an independent Medicare Physical Therapy provider and I treat patients in their homes. These patient are primarily, but not exclusively, seniors and they are unable to get transportation to outpatient PT services. There are a significant number of these patient who rely on the medical cannibis provided by Agathist Collective to control pain, anxiety, insomnia, muscular spasticity and a host of other medical symptoms/complications with which they are dealing. This population needs a voice and I am addiing mine for those who need the delivery services, few though they are, that are available. This population has no way to be provided with this medical treatment which their doctor has ordered and which is part of what is keeping them in their homes and functional. Please hear my voice if you cannot hear theirs and let your conscience guide you in allowing this service to continue. Tim and Rebecca Byars, Co-founders of the Agathist Collection, are well-educated and informed, wellintentioned, and dedicated individuals who want nothing more then the very best for the citizens they serve in Contra Costa County. Please allow the service they provide to continue. Most Sincerely, Lynn Whelan, PT Page 114 of 204

115 From: Terry Osburn Sent: Saturday, September 09, :38 PM To: Concord City Council Subject: Re: non store dispensaries for Cannabis As a cancer patient I depend on medicinal cannabis for nausea, pain relief and appetite. I know there are hundreds more who depend on same in our area. Please Allow for the non store front dispensaries in Concord. For me it would create great hardship to have to go to Alameda for cannabis. I understand the need for oversight but the benefits to thousands across the country as well as our area is greatly needed. Obviously medical doctors recognize its significance-the oncologist encourages such and I received prescription for it. Many years ago when I worked in medical field one of the radiologists use to bake cannabis in brownies and give to breast cancer patients to help w nausea. There are significantly more complications w prescription medications. Cannabis offers relief w little or no side effects The medicinal cannabis does not contain the ingredient that causes euphoria but does greatly help w anxiety, pain and nausea among many other significant positives w various ailments. Thank you for your time consideration. A cancer patient in need. Terry Osburn Sent from my iphone Please excuse any typos! Have a great real estate day! Page 115 of 204

116 From: Karen Leonard Sent: Sunday, September 10, :48 PM To: Concord City Council Subject: Proposed Ban of Non-Storefront dispensaries To the Members of the Concord City Council: Please reconsider with empathy and careful consideration, the City's proposed ban of non-storefront cannabis dispensaries operating out of Concord. I urge all of you to pay particular attention to the concerns of the seniors and others who depend on delivery services of medical cannabis to support and sustain their quality of life. A 72 year old woman, I was diagnosed with a severe anxiety disorder and chronic depression in my early 20's. These diagnoses triggered insomnia and dramatically affected my day to day life. Traditional Western medicine offered me treatment that included talk therapy combined with various anti-depressant and anti-anxiety medications. Unfortunately every medication I was prescribed either did not work at all, worked for a short time and then stopped working or produced side effects that were intolerable. Eventually, my prescribing psychiatrists advised me that there was nothing else to try. Last Spring, a close friend referred me to Eloise Theisen of Green Health Consultants who confirmed my diagnosis. I was issued a medical cannabis letter and referred to the Agathist Collective. Subsequently, I met with Timothy and Rebecca Byars and my life began to change dramatically. I take a CBD tincture twice a day for anxiety and an edible at bed time for sleep. My anxiety has significantly improved and I sleep well for the first time in decades. As a result of these improvements, my depression has lessened and the quality of my life has distinctly improved. The Agathist delivery service is convenient, professional, safe, and discreet. I could not ask for more. Without the Agathist delivery service, I would have to obtain my products from a dispensary in Oakland or Richmond. Quite honestly, driving to either of those locations is probably not something my anxiety would allow me to do. As members of the Concord City Council, please reconsider the City's proposed ban on non-storefront dispensaries that operate in Concord. There are many, many of us who depend on the Agathist Collective, and other similar organizations for our medical cannabis products. These natural products provide us with relief from pain, insomnia, anxiety, depression as well as other medical conditions and do so without negative side effects. As our lives improve, we regain the ability to contribute to our families, friends and communities. Thank you for your attention and consideration. Karen Ann Leonard Page 116 of 204

117 From: Dan Rabin Sent: Monday, September 11, :36 PM To: Concord City Council Subject: Support For The Agathist Collective Dear members of the Concord City Council, I'm writing to you to voice my support The Agathist Collective and urge you to allow nonstorefront dispensaries to operate out of Concord. Unfortunately I'm not able to attend the meeting on October 3 to voice my support for this much needed service to the residents of Concord but as a life long resident of the Bay Area I feel it's imperative to allow services like the Agathist Collective to operate and help those most in need. This organization does only good for people, please allow them to continue their work. Best, Dan Rabin Page 117 of 204

118 On Sep 11, 2017, at 2:45 PM, "Cass, Michael" wrote: Mr. Whitaker, Non-storefront is a new term that originated with the passage of Senate Bill 94. However, all medical marijuana dispensaries (whether or not there is a storefront) are currently not permitted, pursuant to Section of the Municipal Code. Additionally, non-medical dispensaries are currently not permitted, as the State will not begin issuing licenses until January 2, Thank you. Michael P. Cass Principal Planner: Long-Range & Sustainability Policy City of Concord Website: (925) Michael.Cass@cityofconcord.org 1950 Parkside Drive, M/S 53, Concord, CA How are we doing? Please take a moment to fill-out our customer satisfaction form here! From: Eric Whitaker [mailto:ewhitaker@abcolabs.com] Sent: Monday, September 11, :38 PM To: Cass, Michael Subject: Re: Currently there is a ban on non store front dispensaries, right? Currently there is a ban on non store front dispensaries, right? Eric Whitaker Executive Vice President ABCO Laboratories, Inc. <image001.jpg> South Watney Way Fairfield, CA Office: (707) Cell: (707) On Sep 11, 2017, at 2:28 PM, "Cass, Michael" <Michael.Cass@cityofconcord.org> wrote: Mr. Whitaker, To further clarify, on June 27 th, the majority of the City Council directed staff to prepare a ban on marijuana uses, except for indoor personal cultivation and deliveries of medical marijuana to qualified patients from licensed dispensaries outside of Concord, to allow time to develop regulations. Subsequently, on September 6, 2017, the Planning Commission forwarded a recommendation to the City Council to ban all marijuana uses, except for indoor personal cultivation Page 118 of 204

119 and deliveries of medical marijuana to qualified patients from licensed dispensaries outside of Concord, to allow time to develop regulations. The Planning Commission recommended not including testing laboratories or non-storefront dispensaries as part of the ban. If that was not feasible, the Commission recommended including non-storefront dispensaries and then testing laboratories as the first priorities. The Planning Commission does not adopt regulations and serves as a recommendation body to the City Council. The City Council will tentatively consider the ban on October 3 rd. Thank you. Michael P. Cass Principal Planner: Long-Range & Sustainability Policy City of Concord Website: (925) Michael.Cass@cityofconcord.org 1950 Parkside Drive, M/S 53, Concord, CA How are we doing? Please take a moment to fill-out our customer satisfaction form here! From: Eric Whitaker [mailto:ewhitaker@abcolabs.com] Sent: Monday, September 11, :14 PM To: Cass, Michael Subject: Re: Did they place a ban on testing facilities as well? HI, You mean the planning commission not the city council, right? Did they place a ban on testing facilities as well? Thank you, Eric Whitaker Executive Vice President ABCO Laboratories, Inc. <image001.jpg> South Watney Way Fairfield, CA Office: (707) Cell: (707) On Sep 11, 2017, at 12:27 PM, "Cass, Michael" <Michael.Cass@cityofconcord.org> wrote: Mr. Whitaker, Page 119 of 204

120 Thank you for your about last week s Planning Commission meeting. It is not appropriate for me to provide my personal opinion, so instead, I will respond factually and based upon the recommendations of the City Council. Following please find brief responses to your questions: The majority of the City Council recommended a ban to allow the City time to develop permanent regulations. Other interested dispensaries, delivery services, manufacturers, cultivators, and a variety of other uses have approached the City. However, the City is maintaining only one list of interested parties as there is often overlap between the uses and many individuals do not distinguish their interest(s). After the City Council adopts regulations for a particular use, then staff will outreach with all interested parties (from our NOPH list) and outline the necessary steps to establish a particular commercial marijuana use in Concord. The process will be one of the areas that the City Council provides direction. As was indicated at the meeting, enforcement is handled by the Police Department as they deem appropriate and on a complaint basis. The next marijuana meeting is scheduled for October 3 rd. Thank you. Michael P. Cass Principal Planner: Long-Range & Sustainability Policy City of Concord Website: (925) Michael.Cass@cityofconcord.org 1950 Parkside Drive, M/S 53, Concord, CA How are we doing? Please take a moment to fill-out our customer satisfaction form here! From: Eric Whitaker [mailto:ewhitaker@abcolabs.com] Sent: Monday, September 11, :23 AM To: Cass, Michael Subject: What did you make of that meeting? Hello Mr. Cass, That planning meeting was very surprising. Did you expect such a response from the elderly residents? Unbelievable. I never saw that coming. Did the planning department recommend a ban? Is there anyone other than me asking for an MMD in Concord? Or do they just want to deliver? Looks like a bunch of people are operating without licenses and are asking to be grandfathered. What do you make of that? The ban wouldn't really be a ban if nobody is listening. It just bans the people who follow the rules, like me. Love to hear what your thinking after that meeting. Regards, Page 120 of 204

121 Eric Whitaker Executive Vice President ABCO Laboratories, Inc. <image001.jpg> South Watney Way Fairfield, CA Office: (707) Cell: (707) Page 121 of 204

122 -----Original Message----- From: Betty Yates Sent: Tuesday, September 12, :04 AM To: Concord City Council Subject: Ban on Cannabis As a senior resident of Concord for many years, I am writing to urge you to allow cannabis deliveries from Concord from non-storefront locations. I know Tim and Rebecca Byars of The Agathist Collective, and they are highly regarded and respected. Thanks for your consideration. Betty Yates 3685 Rosebrook Ct. Concord, Ca Sent from my ipad Page 122 of 204

123 From: Eric Whitaker Sent: Tuesday, September 12, :07 AM To: Cass, Michael Subject: Re: Testing Facility Hello Michael, Any chance I could invite you to our current FDA licensed facility in Fairfield? We are next to jelly Belly and Budweiser, in 200,000 sq ft with over 100 employees. There are two critical pieces of equipment that is needed to run a testing facility; one is a mass spec, and the other is HPLC. They are very expensive. I could have you see our current micro and analytical labs that our technicians and doctors use. They could explain the equipment and how it would help with testing raw materials and finished products as well as providing guidelines for an audit. It takes years to learn how to work with the FDA and you have us [me] already here wanting to return to work in Concord. You may not know that we used to run an FDA licensed drug manufacturing company on Stanwell. The very site I am recommending for the testing facility. We would use them to test for quality as well as known adulterants like heavy metals and pesticides. This is the very thing that the residents were talking about, knowing that there medicine is safe. I could have a testing facility up and running in 2 months. Since the planning department is recommending that testing is not banned it would make sense to get up to speed on what that means and what the operation would look like. Thoughts? Eric Whitaker Executive Vice President ABCO Laboratories, Inc South Watney Way Fairfield, CA Office: (707) Cell: (707) Page 123 of 204

124 From: Kit M [mailto:sanfrankit@gmail.com] Sent: Tuesday, September 12, :09 PM To: Concord City Council Subject: Senior Citizens Rely on M.M. September 12, 2017 To Concord City Council: I am a senior living at Rossmoor. I have suffered for 25 years with terrible back pain from a crooked spine. The doctors only answer has always been big pharma pain pills with bad side effects and I have refused to take them. The result has been living in pain 24/7. When I learned that the CBD extracted from the marijuana plant has strong anti inflammatory properties with NO side effects and NO high, I decided to try it. The result of taking a tincture twice a day has been nothing short of a miracle for me. Since March I have had no back pain. The constant pain is gone!!! There is no downside. I cannot believe these beneficial products are not easily available over-thecounter for everyone. It is insane that people are pushed into taking harmful, costly drugs that cause addiction and harm to the liver, stomach or kidneys when gentle solutions are possible. Please make access easily available for this wonderful treatment. Sincerely, Kit Miller 6104 Horsemans Canyon Dr. Walnut Creek, CA Page 124 of 204

125 From: Kit M [mailto:sanfrankit@gmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, September 13, :29 AM To: Cass, Michael Subject: Re: Senior Citizens Rely on M.M. Thank you for your response. These new products are so NOT the same as sitting around getting high like some did back in our youth. Last night heard Ph.D. pharmacist who has done wonderful work with patients at UCSF for all sorts of treatment without the horrible side effects of the opioid products our country is battling with. I understand this is all new to those who aren t following the current research and knowledge. For example; there is no high from marijuana until it is heated. That one was new to me. Thanks again. Kit Page 125 of 204

126 From: Wendy Hershey Sent: Wednesday, September 13, :34 PM To: Cass, Michael Subject: Re: Upcoming Schedule for Cannabis Regulations, Survey Results, & Work Plan Thank you, Michael. I feel so lucky not to have missed the Planning Commission meeting last week. It was good to see a lot of humanity and respect. The Planning Commissioners didn't blow us off the way the elected officials so often do. While I was in Oregon to experience the total eclipse (WOW!!!), my friend and I saw many marijuana retail shops. Oregon towns are not afraid of allowing change and evolution the way Concord is. In my fair city, I guess there is great fear of robberies to a delivery service business, dispensaries, analytical laboratories, retail stores. I guess Concord will just keep on being among the retros, as we were with discrimination against LGBT people. You are too young to remember Lloyd Mashore, a Concord City Council member who managed to help repeal an AIDS bias ordinance. I was so ashamed to say I lived in Concord at that time. Below, I've pasted in a reminder of that anti-lgbt episode, in case you don't know about it. I wonder how much our city pays every year to deal with non-marijuana robberies. I wonder how much we pay to deal with the negative effects of the sale and use of the drug alcohol, which we are accustomed to and promote. One of my friends, an attorney, is an alcoholic (he hasn't drunk in 35 or so years), and this has made me aware of how much of our culture revolves around alcohol. His body has a bad relationship with liquor, but he can use cannabis in moderate quantities, and it is beneficial for him - works well with his endocannabinoid system to keep him in balance so he can do good work for his many clients. Do you know about this endocannabinoid network of receptors in mammals? I hope our councilmen and women will heed the recommendation of the Planning Commission not to ban our excellent local delivery service businesses, at least, and I hope more advances will be made in my lifetime. It shocked me in 2013 that instead of limiting the number of plants allowed in our outdoor gardens, our council members decided to ban ALL outdoor cultivation, despite the better quality medicine derived from sun-grown cannabis, despite the cost of lights and fans and other equipment needed for indoor growing, despite how much more complicated it is to control pests and mold, despite the need to use fossil fuels instead of free renewable sun, despite the risk of fires, despite the loss of living space. Whose welfare are they looking out for by banning the outdoor organic growing of a few plants? I couldn't believe their decision, despite the great majority of vocal people who begged them not to curtail our rights. In 2017 they continue to think that this is wise policy and will make us a better city. Too bad Concord leaders disregard the vote of our people in the elections for Props 215 and 64. City leaders don't want the responsibility of dealing with changes and prefer to let neighboring cities do the work of providing for Concord residents. Ya can't change city hall Page 126 of 204

127 when fear and authoritarianism are becoming the norm in the U.S. I wish my city weren't complicit and that we were stronger and more dedicated to protecting a democratic system. Bad news for the country and local community. I am hopeful that the council members will listen to the Planning Commissioners and at least not outlaw the local delivery businesses. If they do vote to shut them down, that would be a huge step backwards. Best regards, Wendy Hershey The repeal of the AIDS bias ordinance in Concord by a margin of 56% to 44% surprised local public health officials. It was the the first such referendum in the nation. "It's a hard lesson when fear and hate prevail, but I'm afraid that's the lesson we've learned," said Francie Wise, director of communicable disease control for Contra Costa County. She noted that everyone from President Bush to former Surgeon General C. Everett Koop had embraced civil rights protection for people with AIDS and those infected with the human immunodeficiency virus. The Rev. Lloyd Mashore, who helped lead the repeal campaign and rode it to a seat on Concord's council, had attacked the law as "a homosexual agenda presented in camouflaged, palatable anti-discrimination language." Page 127 of 204

128 From: Sent: Sunday, September 17, :41 PM To: Concord City Council Subject: Marijuana despenseries Dear Concord Council, I am against putting marijuana dispensaries in the Terminal Shopping Center and the Bel Air Shopping Center. I am concerned about attracting more homeless, crime and drug addicts to these residential neighborhoods. There is a cigarette store in the Terminal Center that sells drug paraphernalia. Putting a drug dispensary in these sad, run down strip malls will NOT deter crime. If that was so then you would be putting one in the new Veranda Shopping Center because we all know the area has a very large number of automobile burglaries. I don't feel comfortable shopping at either the Terminal or the Bel Air Shopping Centers. I don't feel safe shopping in the Monument Blvd. area either. I do my shopping in Walnut Creek where I feel safer. Please keep Concord safe for families. Regards, Jean Edwards Page 128 of 204

129 From: Sanjeev Subject: Benefits of Medical Cannabis Date: September 18, 2017 at 9:13:07 PM PDT To: Edi Ersalesi Birsan Edi, Great conversation today. Here s the relevant information I found regarding decreasing crime rates, decreasing opioid overdoses, and no correlation with cannabis use to traffic crashes once legal medical cannabis laws are enacted. The decreasing crime rate stats are from University of Texas who looked at annual crime stats reported by the FBI. The opioid stats are from Center of Disease Control (CDC) and Journal of American Medical Association (JAMA). The traffic crash data is from most recent study from the National Highway and Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA). I ve also attached a national magazine interview of mine on benefits of medical cannabis. Respectfully, Sanjeev Sharma, MD FACS Page 129 of 204

130 Tierney Finster Follow Aug 30 9 min read The Cardiothoracic Surgeon Who Believes CBD Is the Future of Medicinal Marijuana For the last seven years, Sanjeev Sharma, a board-certified cardiotho- racic surgeon based in the Pacific Northwest, has centered his practice around hemp s potential as plant medicine. He even has a cannabidiol (CBD) supplement company, Seyvah, that sells specifically formulated tinctures for conditions like insomnia and gastrointestinal dysfunction, with forthcoming products aimed at treating everything from anxiety and weight loss to neurological disorders. That said, given its strong anti-inflammatory properties, the most common use of CBD is still pain relief. In theory then, more CBD use might mean less opiate use, especially since Sharma contends that cannabis is the least addictive drug in the world. (It s a double bonus, too, in that CBD can be used as a treatment for opiate addiction.) Page 130 of 204 9/11/17, 10D37 AM Page 1 of 9

131 Pets can apparently experience pain relief and other health benefits from CBD as well. Sharma is currently working on his own version of hemp-based concentrates for cats and dogs. Which raises the question: Is it legal to get my dog high? That, though, raises an even more fundamental issue the lack of general knowledge about what CBD really is. Cannabis sativa is a dioecious plant, meaning it s gendered male and female. The female part is rich in THC, the best-known cannabinoid (the chemical compound we usually associate with weed) and terpenes (essential oils). This female part is what many of us are used to smoking. But the male plant the hemp is what Sharma uses to make his extractions. These male plants are rich in CBD, as opposed to the female s THC. That s not to say THC-heavy strains totally lack CBD; it just means that the presence of cannabinoids is significantly lower. For example, OG Kush, a classic strain, typically has 0.3 percent CBD as compared to 24 percent THC. And unlike THC, CBD doesn t get you high. In other words, it won t cause you to flunk a drug test or set off alarms at the airport. Additionally, it s been deemed harmless enough that you can buy it online or in boutiques as well as send it through the mail. Over the last few years, Sharma has treated and taught more than 30,000 medical cannabis patients. His speciality is connecting them to the specific strains and terpenes they could benefit from. In doing so, he s created a complex medical directory that legitimizes the specificity of treatment within this type of plant medicine. I recently spoke to him about how best to use CBD, the ways in which he formulates his products and why he considers CBD the next superfood. Page 131 of 204 9/11/17, 10D37 AM Page 2 of 9

132 What made you want to pursue homeopathic medicine after so many years as a Western medical doctor? The biggest reason is that I was tired of the bureaucratic malaise. I was sick of having to jump through hoops in order to do the right things for patients. That s not why I got into medicine in the first place. And I ve always been a proponent of medical cannabis, so for me, it was natural to explore the many ways the plant can be used as medicine. Today, I consider myself someone who integrates both Western and holistic approaches into my practice. I try to use the best of both worlds. More largely, the number one issue for us as we age is inflammation. There are ways to decrease inflammation through our diet, so I talk a lot about nutrition with my patients. But CBD is a great way to decrease inflammation, too. In general, many of my patients use cannabis in addition to standard, Western medical treatments. For example, I see patients going through chemotherapy and radiation that use oil concentrates for pain and nausea, or to help strengthen their immune systems as they fight off cancer. Who are the tinctures you sell meant for? Right now, our tinctures are meant for people who have mild to moderate issues with pain, insomnia and gastrointestinal stuff. The RLF, or relief, formula is for pain. SNZ, or snooze, is for people with insomnia. It doesn t knock you out like an Ambien; it helps you get into deep REM sleep, preventing the wakeful periods most people will have during the night, especially older people. For people in their 40s, it can help you fall so deep into REM that you can dream again. Our third formula is GTX, which I came up with after witnessing my son suffer from irritable bowel syndrome as an infant and toddler. All the antibiotics he was given affected the normal bacteria in his GI tract, so I wanted to figure out another mode of treatment for people with IBS, Crohn s disease or colitis. How did you learn to use strains and terpenes so specifically? My experiences with specific patients account for a lot of my research. Listening to them talk about what they feel and what they ve tried is Page 132 of 204 9/11/17, 10D37 AM Page 3 of 9

133 what s taught me the most. I m able to talk to my patients about what strains they re using to treat certain conditions. Later on, I research those strains and figure out why they give us certain results. Basically, I create and maintain profiles of different strains and terpenes and then use them to find hemp-based solutions to common health problems. This also brings me to what I don t like about the marijuana industry s shift toward concentrates, now that dabbing is commonplace. When you go from the flower with all the cannabinoids and terpenes working together in concert to the concentrated oil or wax, you re getting these high amounts of THC without necessarily getting the benefits of those terpenes. Terpenes are usually associated with the smell and taste of weed. If that s true, how do they help out health-wise? Each strain smells and tastes differently, given its unique combination of terpenes. One such terpene is Linalool, which is great for anxiety and stress. Another is pinene, which is a natural bronchodilator for our lungs, meaning it actually opens up our airwaves. But generally speaking, we re just beginning to learn the effects of all the terpenes and their profound effects on our bodies. Why is CBD a better medicine for some of your patients than THC? If you have chronic pain issues and you smoke cannabis to treat them, THC will help you for about an hour and a half or so, but it won t address the underlying inflammation. That s where other cannabinoids, like CBD, come into play. Why did you want to make your own CBD line? The more I learned, the more I wanted to provide products with reliable, reproducible effects. We ship throughout this country and to other countries where CBD products are legal, like throughout most of Eu- rope. Here in the U.S., THC and CBD are still federally considered Class I drugs, but in England, CBD is recognized as a medicine. This designation as a serious drug in the U.S. prevents us from properly investigating cannabinoid use. Lots of people know about their benefits, but a lot of the needed testing isn t happening because of this classification. Page 133 of 204 9/11/17, 10D37 AM Page 4 of 9

134 That s interesting, given how inferior we typically would imagine medical marijuana programs in the U.K. to be than the ones in say, California. They re definitely inferior on the THC side of things. But we have plenty of room to improve our legislation in this country, too. Our cannabis laws differ state to state, even among states with the same types of policies, so we could use more education and industry standardization. Is it safe to begin using CBD without consulting a physician? A lot of people I know have picked up tinctures and just started their own regimens. Most doctors, even homeopaths, aren t going to have a whole lot of knowledge about CBD, unless they ve gone out of their way to learn about it. So as with all supplements, my main piece of advice is to know who your producers are: How are they procuring their cannabis? How is their product grown? How is it processed? All of the hemp products I sell on my site are tested twice, rigorously, to ensure there are no issues with pesticides or other microorganisms. Our processors maintain best practice standards; I know because I ve visited their farms in order to observe that myself. Why are you making a CBD formula especially for pets? CBD products are wonderful for pets, especially as they age. Quite a few animals will struggle with inflammatory conditions, even hair loss, as they get older. Your pet isn t going to become confused or high, but it will help things like their arthritis. Different breeds have different issues. Large animal breeds, like mastiffs, often have hip issues. CBD offers profound relief because it s anti-inflammatory. I have a 7-year-old pitbull and German Shepherd mix, and he s a lot slower than he was when he was three. With CBD, he s able to run and play without so much stiffness. Also trendy: Bars serving CBD-infused cocktails. Is it safe to mix CBD and alcohol? Similarly, is using CBD in addition to ingesting traditional cannabis, THC products, safe? There shouldn t be any issue incorporating it into cocktails, because Page 134 of 204 9/11/17, 10D37 AM Page 5 of 9

135 there s no high, other than medicinally feeling well because the CBD will decrease inflammation and pain. You will usually feel a sense of wellness. As for you second question, CBD is actually an antidote for THC toxicity. Once Colorado changed from a medical to a recreational cannabis state, the Northwestern School of Medicine did a study where they looked at the uptake in tourism related to the cannabis industry. It had created a huge increase in emergency room visits from out-of-state patients, due to cannabis ingestion. And although CBD isn t used in a lot of these emergency rooms, the best treatment for this sort of cannabis toxicity is CBD. Speaking of emergency rooms, I think a lot of people lie to their doctors about using cannabis, even in states where recreational cannabis is legal, because of drug stigma and fear that having such a thing on your medical record is undesirable. Should you tell your doctors you smoke? Or vape, use CBD or whatever?) Western physicians are often under the impression that dealing with cannabis at all, even in terms of acknowledging that their patients use cannabis, is somehow dangerous for them or their practice. That s unfounded especially because the relationship between doctors and our patients is protected. Not to mention, patients deserve to be transparent with their doctors and get their questions answered. Over the next four or five years, though, I think there will be more acceptance for cannabis-associated medications and products. Just this weekend, for instance, I made a house call at a large, state-run nursing facility where they re allowing a patient to use my products. Where would you like to see CBD go in terms of access and entrepreneurship? I d love to see CBD properly classified, so that accessing it could be as simple as purchasing other supplements at Whole Foods or Target. The ultimate goal is to provide as many people as possible with safe and effective products that improve their quality of life. Page 135 of 204 9/11/17, 10D37 AM Page 6 of 9

136 What are you working on with Colorado School District 49? I m working with them to present a set of 20 questions for parents and kids regarding medical marijuana. Hopefully this questionnaire will get approved in the next four to six weeks. The questions are a way to determine which children are using medical cannabis and for what diagnoses, how effective it is and what the school can do to support them. I m interested in educating both students and parents on how to use cannabis to treat specific issues. Too many children get placed on pharmaceutical drugs too early, and pharmaceuticals are over-prescribed in general. In my mind, that s unfortunate. Tierney Finster is a contributing writer at MEL. She last wrote about how the pinky ring is the perfect feminine accessory to show just how manly you are. More CBD: CBD Powder, Reviewed Sprinkle it on whatever you feel like for a mellow body high melmagazine.com Cannabis Cocktails: Your Two Favorite Vices, Together at Last A CBD-infused Stoney Negroni wonʼt get you high, but it will put a smile on your face melmagazine.com Happy Danksgiving! A Guide to Making Your Traditional Meal 420-Friendly Grateful for pot this Thanksgiving? We asked a Page 136 of 204 9/11/17, 10D37 AM Page 7 of 9

137 Grateful for pot this Thanksgiving? We asked a weed-loving chef how to artfully infuse Thanksgiving favorites with melmagazine.com Page 137 of 204 9/11/17, 10D37 AM Page 8 of 9

138 Page 138 of 204

139 Page 139 of 204

140 From: Medical Cannabis Laws and Opioid Analgesic Overdose Mortality in the United States, JAMA Intern Med. 2014;174(10): doi: /jamainternmed Figure Legend: Association Between Medical Cannabis Laws and Opioid Analgesic Overdose Mortality in Each Year After Implementation of Laws in the United States, Point estimate of the mean difference in the opioid analgesic overdose mortality rate in states with medical cannabis laws compared with states without such laws; whiskers indicate 95% CIs. Date of download: 4/26/2017 Copyright 2014 American Medical Association. All rights reserved. Page 140 of 204

141 Page 141 of 204

142 Page 142 of 204

143 From: Stanley Stevens M.Div.,LMFT Sent: Tuesday, September 19, :53 PM To: Concord City Council Subject: Allowing home deliveries of medical marijuana. Dear Concord City Council: With respect. My wife Louise & I have been married for almost sixty years. We were forced to move to Walnut Creek & sell our lovely home after Louise developed Parkinson's Disease. Please imagine, if you will, being 86 years old having no one to stay with your very ill wife who responds very well to madical marijuana treatments that are now running very low & not be able to use the home delivery we depend on. If your current resolution were to pass I would have to drive into Berkeley for Louise's medical marijuana which I would not be able to do. Please reverse your resolution for our sake & for the thousands of of fellow citizens in a similar situation to ours. Thank you for you time & attention, Stan & Louise Sevens s.stevens12@gmail.com Sent from Gmail Mobile Page 143 of 204

144 From: Vic Pinto Sent: Wednesday, September 20, :26 AM To: Concord City Council Subject: Pot growing article Please read. Not a pretty picture. Also in another article an advisor to California said "home grown marijuana should not be allowed in homes, It is not good policy". It cannot be policed. From: Vic Pinto [mailto:vic@fairmounttire.com] Sent: Wednesday, September 20, :15 AM To: vic@fairmounttire.com Subject: Page 144 of 204

145 From: John Harrison Sent: Friday, September 22, :35 PM To: Concord City Council Subject: Marijuana Retail Sales in Concord etc. Dear Mayor and City Council of Concord CA: Please do not allow retail stores the ability to sell marijuana or grow outdoors etc. in Concord. Despite recent legalization - this drug has serious health ramifications - and though no longer a state crime to sell we should not make it easily accessible in our city. John Harrison Woodleaf Court, Concord Sent from my iphone Page 145 of 204

146 From: Todd Peterson Sent: Sunday, September 24, :57 PM To: Concord City Council Subject: ATTN: Mayor and City Council -- NO MARIJUANA -- GROWERS OR BUSINESSES IN CONCORD Importance: High To the Council: I unfortunately will be travelling when you are having your meeting to address this topic on October 24, The whole concept of this VIOLATES FEDERAL LAW!!! Further, I do not want the outcrop of what will happen when it becomes part of our community.. I have family in Colorado and I know factually that this is destroying the cities, the state and they all wish they could roll it back. Sure, getting more tax revenue at the expense of moral values, moral fiber and destruction of the American Family. Feel free to contact me at the number below or my address 4499 Deerberry Court Concord, CA Just Say No to Drugs. Nancy Reagan Circa 1980 s!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Regards, Todd W. Todd Peterson Cell Page 146 of 204

147 From: Dori Sent: Monday, September 25, :27 AM To: Concord City Council Subject: Marijuana Please do not allow any marijuana activity/sales/dispensaries etc. in our city EXCEPT medicinal. This is a family city and should not take part for any nonmedicinal purposes. Keep Recreational marijuana use/sale OUT OF CONCORD. Thank You...Dori Armbruster 1792 Meadow Pine Court, Concord CA Page 147 of 204

148 ÿ9ÿ ÿ ÿÿÿÿ!"#$ÿ!%&ÿ'(77()4*ÿ+(*ÿ7,-ÿ.(7/6/ÿ*01(36.ÿ47ÿ5+6ÿ2,3623,75ÿ,2ÿ3,*5ÿ ',17546*4ÿ(7/ÿ'4546*4ÿ.654*.(5466ÿ(567/(*7ÿ 8(.42,374(4*ÿ96/4'(.ÿ8(77()4*ÿ G,-ÿ5+6ÿH,6637,3ÿ(7/ÿ5+6ÿ.654*.(5136ÿ +(66ÿ36356/ÿ5+6ÿ5-,ÿ475,ÿ5+6ÿ96/4'(.ÿ (7/ÿ</1.5ÿD*6ÿ,2ÿ8(77()4*ÿ:651.(54,7ÿ (7/ÿ;(265ÿ<'5ÿ=9<D8:;<>Cÿ5,ÿ'36(56ÿ (ÿ*475.6cÿ174246/ÿ3651.(5,3ÿ23(36-,3iÿ 2,3ÿ5+4*ÿ ÿ47/1*537ÿ8,175ÿ *1?6364*,3*ÿ(7/ÿ'45ÿ',17'4.ÿ363)63*ÿ '(7ÿ7,ÿ.,7563ÿ457,36ÿ5+6ÿ*1)E6'5Cÿ(7/ÿ ÿ'(7ÿ(/3474*53(5,3*ÿ(7/ÿ247(7'6ÿ,24'63*7 D72,3517(56.Cÿ-+67ÿ.,'(.ÿ6.6'56/ÿ,24'4(.*ÿ5(I6ÿ1?ÿ5+6ÿ4**16Cÿ5+6ÿ(36ÿ.4I6.ÿ5,ÿ+(66ÿ(ÿ663ÿ/ ÿ/4*'1**4,7ÿ 5+(7ÿ5+6ÿ,76ÿ5+(5ÿ(/3474*53(5,3*ÿ(7/ÿ 247(7'6ÿ,24'63*ÿ345+5ÿ.4I6ÿ5+63ÿ5,ÿ+(667ÿ J6(56/ÿ/4*'1**4,7*ÿ(),15ÿ',331745ÿ 6(.16*Cÿ?1).4'ÿ*(265ÿ(7/ÿ7645+),3+,,/ÿ 43?('5*ÿ3(ÿ.6(66ÿ.45.6ÿ3,,3ÿ2,3ÿ.6**ÿ K*6L4ÿ',7'637*ÿ*1'+ÿ(*ÿ?6345ÿ266*Cÿ',*5ÿ 36',663Cÿ*5(2ÿ-,3I.,(/Cÿ(7/ÿ43?('5*ÿ,7ÿ5+6ÿH6763(.ÿM17/7ÿJ,-ÿ'(7ÿ247(7'6ÿ (7/ÿ(/3474*53(5466ÿ,24'63*ÿ565ÿ5+643ÿ ',7'637*ÿ47ÿ23,75ÿ,2ÿ5+643ÿ),(3/*ÿ,3ÿ ',17'4.*ÿ47ÿ(ÿ-(ÿ5+(5ÿ-4.ÿ+6.?ÿ5+63ÿ*66ÿ '(77()4*ÿ3651.(54,7ÿ7,5ÿE1*5ÿ(*ÿ(ÿ'1.513(.ÿ 4**16Cÿ)15ÿ(*ÿ(ÿ24*'(.ÿ4**16N :651.(5,3ÿ*,.154,7*ÿ2,3ÿ/6(.475ÿ -45+ÿ'(77()4*ÿ(36745ÿ+(3/ÿ5,ÿ',36ÿ)ÿ D72,3517(56.Cÿ,)5(47475ÿ/436'54,7ÿ23,3ÿ?,.4'3(I63*ÿ,7ÿ+,-ÿ5,ÿ'3(25ÿ5+,*6ÿ *,.154,7*ÿ'(7ÿ,2567ÿ?3,66ÿ/424'1.57ÿ M,3ÿ*4L5ÿ6(3*Cÿ,3ÿ3,36Cÿ5+6ÿ?343(3ÿ ',7663*(54,7ÿ5+(5ÿ,13ÿ*,'465ÿ+(*ÿ+(/ÿ(3,17/ÿ'(77()4*ÿ+(*ÿ )667ÿ(ÿ/6)(56ÿ,663ÿ6(.16*Cÿ-+636ÿ5+636ÿ(36ÿ,7.ÿ5-,ÿ?,**4).6ÿ?,*454,7*ÿ,76ÿ'(7ÿ5(I67ÿO54*ÿ645+63ÿ5,,/ÿ,3ÿ454*ÿ)(/PÿQ,1436ÿ645+63ÿ 2,3ÿ45ÿ,3ÿ(5(47*5ÿ457ÿ;43?.6Cÿ5-,R*4/6/ÿ( *ÿ.4I6ÿ5+4*ÿ*65ÿ1?ÿ (ÿs-47ÿ,3ÿ.,*6tÿ?,.454'(.ÿ/7(34'ÿ2,3ÿ6.6'56/ÿ,24'4(.*7ÿ<7/ÿ7,ÿ 6.6'56/ÿ,24'4(.ÿ.4I6*ÿ5,ÿ.,*67 ;5(I475ÿ,15ÿ5132ÿ,7ÿ(ÿ?.(475ÿ246./ÿ,2ÿ6(.16*ÿ/,6*ÿ7,5ÿ+6.?ÿ ', *ÿ3,66ÿ5,-(3/*ÿ*,.154,7*7ÿU,ÿ)6547ÿ5,ÿ'3(25ÿ626'5466ÿ 3651.(54,7*ÿ2,3ÿ5+4*ÿ ÿ47/1*53Cÿ(/3474*53(5,3*ÿ(7/ÿ 247(7'6ÿ,24'63*ÿ766/ÿ5,ÿ+6.?ÿ5+643ÿ6.6'56/ÿ,24'4(.*ÿ*+425ÿ5+6ÿ /4(.,516ÿ(-(ÿ23,3ÿ(7ÿ472.6L4).6ÿ/6)(56ÿ,663ÿ/ ÿ6(.16*ÿ (7/ÿ3,66ÿ45ÿ5,-(3/*ÿ?3,/1'5466ÿ',7663*(54,7*ÿ(),15ÿ626'5466ÿ 3651.(5,3ÿ?3,53(3*Cÿ266ÿ36',663Cÿ*5(2475ÿ.666.*ÿ(7/ÿ*,17/ÿ 24*'(.ÿ?,.4'7 <5ÿ5+6ÿ*43?.6*5ÿ.666.Cÿ5+636ÿ(36ÿ5-,ÿ/436'54,7*ÿ(ÿ',175ÿ,3ÿ'45ÿ '(7ÿ5(I6ÿ5,ÿ/6(.ÿ-45+ÿ5+6ÿ'(77()4*ÿ47/1*537ÿU+6ÿ'(7ÿ'+,,*6ÿ5,ÿ )(7ÿ45Cÿ,3ÿ5+6ÿ'(7ÿ'+,,*6ÿ5,ÿ3651.(56ÿ457ÿO5ÿ-,1./ÿ)6ÿ(ÿ34*5(I6Cÿ 5+,15+Cÿ5,ÿ',72.(56ÿ5+6*6ÿ5-,ÿ/436'54,7*ÿ-45+ÿ5+6ÿS5,,/ÿ,3ÿ )(/V2,3ÿ45ÿ,3ÿ(5(47*5ÿ45Tÿ/4'+,5,3ÿ36754,76/ÿ(),667ÿ<*ÿ-45+ÿ?3,+4)454,7Cÿ(ÿ)(7ÿ+(*ÿ5+6ÿ',17563R ÿ626'5ÿ,2ÿ*1??,35475ÿ 5+6ÿ4.65(.ÿ47/1*53ÿ)ÿ54??475ÿ5+6ÿ3(3I65ÿ47ÿ45*ÿ2(6,3Cÿ)ÿ/346475ÿ 1?ÿ?34'6*ÿ(7/ÿ?3,245*Cÿ(7/ÿ)ÿ546475ÿ45ÿ ÿ23,3ÿ5(L6*Cÿ 63?.,3675ÿ.(-*Cÿ? ÿ *ÿ(7/ÿ67643,73675(.ÿ 3651.(54,77ÿU+636ÿ(36ÿ3(7ÿ47ÿ5+6ÿ'(77()4*ÿ47/1*53ÿ-+,ÿ-,1./ÿ?36263ÿ5+(5ÿ45ÿ363(47ÿ4.65(.ÿ(5ÿ),5+ÿ5+6ÿ;5(56ÿ(7/ÿ.,'(.ÿ.666.7ÿ 9ÿ5+6ÿ*(36ÿ5,I67Cÿ3651.(5475ÿ5+6ÿ47/1*53ÿ*+,1./ÿ7,5ÿ)6ÿ 5(I67ÿ(*ÿ)6475ÿS?3,R'(77()4*T7ÿ:651.(54,7ÿ+6.?*ÿ5,ÿ?3,56'5ÿ ',7*1363*Cÿ?1).4'ÿ*(265Cÿ',331745ÿ'+(3('563Cÿ(7/ÿ5+6ÿ 67643,73675ÿ)ÿW63,475R47ÿ,7ÿ*?6'424'ÿ4**16*Cÿ43?('5*ÿ(7/ÿ ',7'637*ÿ-45+ÿ5+6ÿ47/1*537ÿ:651.(54,7ÿ567/*ÿ5,ÿ47'36(*6ÿ',*5*ÿ (7/ÿ',3?.6L45ÿ2,3ÿ(7ÿ47/1*53Cÿ-+4.6ÿ2366R3(3I65ÿ',3?65454,7ÿ 567/*ÿ5,ÿ/3466ÿ/,-7ÿ?34'6*ÿ(7/ÿ?3,245*7ÿ X76ÿ-(ÿ5,ÿ3,66ÿ?(*5ÿ/,53(54'ÿ6(.16*ÿ(7/ÿ5,-(3/*ÿ*,.154,7*ÿ 4*ÿ5,ÿ',7*4/63ÿ5+6ÿ626'5*ÿ5+(5ÿ645+63ÿ(ÿ)(7ÿ,3ÿ3651.(54,7ÿ345+5ÿ +(66ÿ,7ÿ*?6'424'ÿ'(77()4*R36.(56/ÿ4**16*7ÿM,3ÿ6L(3?.6Cÿ/63(7/ÿ 4*ÿ56763(.ÿ',7*4/636/ÿ5,ÿ)6ÿ(ÿ',7*5(75Cÿ-+4'+ÿ4*ÿ(26'56/ÿ.45.6ÿ,3ÿ7,5ÿ(5ÿ(.ÿ)ÿ.65(.4W(54,77ÿ8,7*1363ÿ/63(7/ÿ2,3ÿ'(77()4*ÿ +(*ÿ?63*4*56/ÿ2,3ÿ/6'(/6*ÿ/6*?456ÿ672,3'6/ÿ?3,+4)454,7cÿ65ÿ '(77()4*ÿ1*63*ÿ+(66ÿ(.-(*ÿ2,17/ÿ(''6**7ÿH4667ÿ5+4*Cÿ45ÿ4*ÿ 17.4I6.ÿ5+(5ÿ(ÿ.,'(.ÿ)(7ÿ-4.ÿ36/1'6ÿ/63(7/7 YZ[\ÿ^_àbZcadÿ ezffzghiÿj_bhckÿ lm`hi_[ÿnm^ÿ e_opzfhaiqz`hrzshfrÿstaÿyhfauhabmÿ_uÿ ezffzghiÿj_bhshciÿs_ÿl[[hàÿzsÿ v_wfmÿxhiczbÿj_bhck My<UD:yzÿ<:UO8{y Page 148 of 204

149 '$'%ÿ(*ÿ)!,$ÿ&ÿ(ÿ&#ÿ)'"/ÿ*/&%ÿ '&*&0ÿ&(ÿ&ÿ1 '$'ÿ") &(ÿ(* ÿÿ ÿ)! ÿÿ$#)(*$ÿ-!* ÿ!"#$%ÿ&#ÿÿ'("'ÿ)ÿ(ÿ"(*"'ÿ *(ÿ'$'%ÿ)'"/ÿ*/&ÿ$*(+ ÿ+'ÿ'ÿ&(ÿ"( &$ÿ*/&ÿ2ÿ3&#ÿ "&( ÿ+#*ÿ.!*"#!* ÿ&#*ÿ ÿ&#*ÿ)!,$ÿ! %ÿ&#&ÿ&#ÿ.*(!"&ÿ %ÿ&#*ÿ ÿ(ÿ+,ÿ&(ÿ ÿ %ÿ(*ÿ&#&ÿ&ÿ!*ÿ&ÿ ÿ(&ÿ)$ÿ ÿ(ÿ'$'ÿ ' ÿ*ÿ &#ÿ"(!&,ÿ."& &*,ÿ$(ÿ+,5ÿ&ÿ-! &ÿ.! ÿ&ÿ)"/ÿ!*$*(!2ÿ4'ÿ(ÿ 2ÿ4ÿ)ÿ( ÿ(&ÿ/ÿ&#ÿ ÿ(ÿ *(!*" & ÿ&(ÿ$(0*&ÿ ÿ0')'ÿ(&#*ÿ&#ÿ&#ÿ6*'ÿ7!2 ÿ"(&!ÿ *0" ÿÿ.!)'"ÿ ÿ)(*%ÿ'($ÿ+&#ÿ'ÿ(ÿ &,%ÿ+&#ÿ(ÿ (!*"ÿ ('ÿ K<=LMÿN=DM9>Oÿ ") &(ÿ*!"ÿ6*'ÿ7!ÿ')'& *$!'&ÿ! (+ÿ+,ÿ&#*(!$#ÿ (*"&ÿÿ&#ÿ*ÿ(ÿ&#ÿ6*'ÿ7!2 7*(ÿÿ ÿ)! "'ÿ &.(&%ÿ"#(( ÿ&ÿ&#ÿ'("'ÿ'0'ÿ(. ÿ),ÿ $ÿ&(ÿ.*&ÿÿ*$!'&ÿ "( Q*&$ÿ & ÿ(*ÿ.*(" &*,2ÿP#ÿ'$'%ÿ*$!'&ÿ! $%ÿ ÿ"ÿ0*$ÿrst%1uuÿ&(ÿ"(0*ÿ&#ÿ!'ÿ %ÿ&#!."&(ÿÿ(*"&ÿ(ÿ&#ÿ.*&v ÿ*!"$ÿ)(&#ÿ&#ÿ)!*ÿ(ÿ'+ÿ #&$ÿ&#ÿ(&(ÿ&#ÿ ÿ!.ÿ(..(*&!& &*,ÿ., ÿ& ÿ &* (*ÿ.*(" $" *$!'&(%ÿ&# (&ÿ),ÿ&#ÿ&1.,* W$!'&$ÿ&#ÿ! ÿÿ"(&( ÿ!"#ÿ $ÿ&#ÿ&'ÿ..'"&(2ÿ ÿ"( ÿ*ÿ.*&& ÿ$*',2 &%ÿ(&ÿ"'!$ÿ&#ÿ#$#',ÿ0*)'ÿ"( ÿ,ÿ)ÿ)(*ÿ),ÿ&#ÿ*$!'&ÿ! &*,ÿ' (ÿ.* ÿ"ÿÿ&(ÿ&# & ÿ&#ÿ(..(*&!&,ÿ&(ÿ ÿ),ÿ(&#*ÿ ÿ"( &2ÿP#*(!$#ÿ &&*,%ÿ ÿ +, $*&ÿ+ÿ6*'ÿ7!ÿ*0! "(*"'ÿ") &#&ÿ"ÿ)ÿ..'%ÿ&# ÿ&(ÿ &*!"&!*ÿ") ÿ"&0& ÿ&1 2ÿP#(!$#ÿ&#*ÿ*ÿÿ0*&,ÿ(ÿ ÿ#0ÿ&#ÿ.(&&'ÿ&(ÿ'0*ÿ %ÿÿÿ+ÿ*$ÿ(ÿ*& ÿ&#*(!$#ÿ&1 ÿ(ÿ'$'%ÿ ÿ '( (*ÿ,ÿ.!)'"ÿ.!*.( )! &#ÿ*$ÿ)'"/ÿ*/&ÿ +&#ÿ&#ÿ! ÿy!ÿz*0" ÿ(ÿ('* ÿ*ÿ! ÿ&(ÿ*,ÿ&#ÿ"( ÿ&(ÿ"(!&,ÿ(*ÿ"&,ÿ"(* 2ÿX((',%ÿ&1 ÿ+'ÿ & ÿ(&#*ÿ"( ÿ(ÿ(*"&ÿ$ %ÿ+#"#ÿ"ÿ)ÿ! ÿ(ÿ'$'ÿ") & ÿ ("&ÿ ÿ &#ÿÿ.*(#)&(*,ÿ..*("#%ÿ'(+ ÿ&# ÿ+,%ÿ&/$ÿÿ*$!'&(*,ÿ..*("#ÿ&(ÿ") &*,%ÿ"'!$ÿ0*(&'ÿ"'!.ÿÿy'&#ÿ ÿ.*($* %ÿ*&#*ÿ ÿ #&ÿ"( & ÿ+,ÿ*(ÿ&#ÿ6*'ÿ7!%ÿ&(ÿ0'(.ÿ ÿ'("'ÿ$(0*&!)&&'ÿ ÿ&(ÿ&ÿ +ÿ*0!ÿ.,ÿ& ") \(ÿ(ÿ# &#ÿ! ^*"'ÿ"_ÿ(*ÿ&#ÿ^`0'v P/$ÿÿ.*$&"%ÿ*$!'&(*,ÿ..*("#ÿ&(ÿ'$ÿ+&#ÿ ÿ(+ÿ+,ÿ&#*(!$#ÿ &*,ÿ*ÿ&#ÿ ÿ( ÿ&(ÿ'( (!*" ÿ(&ÿ*[!*ÿ,(ÿ&(ÿ$0ÿ!.ÿ&#*ÿ0'! 2ÿ]'&&',%ÿ&#ÿ* %ÿÿ&(ÿ/ÿ&#ÿ'$'%ÿ*$!'&ÿ! %ÿ+#&#*ÿ(ÿ)'0 ÿ+_2ÿa,ÿ$&$ÿ+,ÿ ÿ(*ÿ*$!'&$ÿ ÿ") ÿ ÿ&*,ÿ *(ÿ&# 1*&ÿ"&0ÿ"(&*('ÿ(0*ÿ&#ÿ! $*&ÿ+ÿ*0!ÿ 6*'ÿ7!2ÿ ohxycpmjnzÿ{hdemp ÿ{m}~ÿlhp}mjnÿcpuÿlm}mjnÿ}hÿujijkhyÿ jvjl}mijÿkcpuÿnjÿcpuÿ}c c}mhpÿyhkmlmjnÿvhdÿdj kc}mp ÿ}~jÿkhlckÿ bcdeÿghijkcljÿmnÿcÿocppcqmnÿrhkmlsÿtuimnhdÿvhdÿwugÿ ÿ^$((ÿ(*ÿ)_ÿ"#(&(,%ÿ'("'ÿ$(0*& (!*" ÿÿ*!"ÿ&#ÿ."&ÿ(ÿ&#ÿ &*,%ÿ"* ÿ.!)'"ÿ ÿ"ÿ lcppcqmnÿmpun}ds ÿwjÿydjimhnksÿnjdijuÿcnÿcÿwxqhku}ÿohp}sÿ &,%ÿ yjdimnhdÿvdhxÿƒ ÿ}~dh ~ÿƒ zÿ{~jdjÿ~jÿ{cnÿcÿkjcujdÿmpÿ cuicplmp ÿ}~jÿn}c}j{mujÿumnlnnmhpÿcqh}ÿlcppcqmnÿdj kc}mhp 23456ÿ4898ÿÿ 01 Page 149 of 204

150 From: Carolyn Horvath Sent: Thursday, September 28, :11 AM To: Concord City Council Subject: Marijuana stores I do not want marijuana stores or outside growing operations in Concord. Carolyn Horvath Page 150 of 204

151 From: Howard Kushner Kushner Sent: Thursday, September 28, :37 AM To: Concord City Council Subject: Cannabis Sales Dear City of Concord Council Members, We are writing this letter to you, based on your up-coming meeting on October 24th, to discuss the ban on all cannabis business in the city. We both take medical marijuana and have had beneficial responses to it. Howard takes it to reduce eye pressure, caused by glaucoma. He previously tried several medications, to no avail. With the cannabis, however his eye pressure has dropped to a reasonable range, and his eye physician is pleased with the results. Maggie takes cannabis as an aid for pain relief, caused by severe stenosis in the neck. The condition produces migraine type headaches that are debilitating. Prior medications, although somewhat effective, were opioid in nature and produced extremely unpleasant side effects. The potential for increasing the prescription dosage was in my opinion, not to be considered. However, with medical cannabis, the results are a much more manageable health issue, with no side effects. We have had The Agathist Collective deliver our prescriptions. They are highly moral, professional people who are extremely knowledgeable and offer us good information, educational instruction and are committed to helping those in need. Their non-storefront business dispenses medical cannabis to us and they deliver our prescriptions to our home so that we don't need to go out of the area to make these purchases. If the City Council bans cannabis, we don't know where we can purchase our prescriptions that will be in a professional environment. We strongly urge you to think of the citizens in our community that use medical cannabis, our dilemma in purchasing this drug, and the service of having it delivered directly to our home, in a safe, professional manner. Please feel free to contact us should you need any further information. Sincerely, Howard & Maggie Kushner (925) hmkushner8@yahoo.com Medical Cannabis ID Numbers: Page 151 of 204

152 Page 152 of 204

153 From: Roland Cordova Sent: Friday, September 29, :53 PM To: Cass, Michael Subject: Re: Inquiry from Dear City Government Official, I want to take this opportunity to thank you for showing an interest in our new business model at U-Grow Rentals LLC. Your interest and comments have been overwhelming as a result of the problems associated with cannabis cultivation centered around the Prop. 64 mandate. If you are not aware of the problems that cities are dealing with as a result of illegal cannabis cultivation, please visit the Siskiyou Daily News link and read the article titled: California County Supervisors Declare Cannabis Cultivation Emergency. This article will open your eyes to a problem that could not have been anticipated as it always seemed so harmless to have an individual grow 6 plants of cannabis in their home, but the proliferation of illegal cannabis cultivation presents a problem that is beyond the control of local agencies. This illegal cultivation has forced the Siskiyou County Sheriff, Jon Lopey, to request that a local emergency is declared by the board of supervisors. He said, I believe the sites present a myriad of dangers to the environment, quality of life, and public safety. Lopey called the public s attention to the use of illegal pesticides, improper storage of waste, a lack of permitted living quarters, and other issues that could exist at the site of an illegal cannabis cultivation operation. Sheriff Lopey hopes that his proclamation would help the county leverage resources from the state and federal governments in order to respond to what he estimated to be approximately 2000 illegal cannabis cultivation sites in Klamath River Country Estates, Mount Shasta and Mount Shasta Forest areas. California authorities seized about 27,000 Cannabis plants in a 4-Day Calaveras Raid. We at U-Grow Rentals foresaw this predicament and that is why we are trying really hard to give you a clear idea of the burden that will be placed on your shoulders and treasury. Humans are naturally sneaky and greedy, so not taking this with a great degree of seriousness will be a mistake with its own repercussions in the future. Many cities are requesting our business partnership as one of the only means for citizens to legally grow their own medicine because of the ease of regulating and policing while preventing public dangers. Please remember: We are not a cultivating business. As a matter of fact, No U-Grow Rentals employee will ever have access to a rental grow room. Any patient who rents a 10"x10" room will have a contract with a professional master grower (contractor) and this will be the only person with access to the plants until the plants are ready for transfer to the extraction facility. All we do is lease the space and make sure that it is set up to meet all fire and safety codes. We do not own any equipment used in the process as it has to be personally purchased by the patient. We supply all solar power, security, and oversight to ensure compliance with all city ordinances. Our plans include giving employment priority to veterans, disabled, and single moms who are under some form of welfare. We are asking that you grant one of our team leaders the opportunity of the necessary time and audience to explain the benefits of what we bring to the table. We promise that this will ease your position in this situation, and satisfy not only your mandate but also show your citizens that you have provided an environment for them to grow their medicine in a safe, inexpensive, organic, and discreet manner. Page 153 of 204

154 We will be investing hundreds of thousands of dollars in your city while producing full-time jobs per location and putting hundreds of thousands of dollars in your Treasury. We will also nullify all problems that could prove to be a major source of concern in the future. Any issue that you need to address will be incorporated into the build out proposal. We will work with your planning commission, fire department, zoning and police force to ensure that every facet of our plan meets your approval. We look forward to meeting with you! (Attached Links : Page 154 of 204

155 -----Original Message----- From: Nancy Martini Sent: Saturday, September 30, :48 PM To: Concord City Council Subject: Marijuana City Council: Please continue the outdoor growing ban in Concord. My neighborhood in the state streets already has such frequent odors of weed. It means my neighbors and I sit outside less, open our windows less for fresh air and feel unhappy when we go for walks and have to smell it half the time. As a teacher, I am aware that many students think legal means safe. They are observing adults. There is no curriculum regarding the impact on memory, addiction etc. This potent drug does not need more stores and encouragement in Concord. Third, many adults don't have common sense and are smoking around their children, even babies, while the CDC says the most negative impact on the brain continues until one is in their mid twenties. As taxpayers we will be paying for medical and disability support for these children/future adults. Weed has its own lobby. Don't fall for it. Thank you. Nancy Martini Sent from my iphone Page 155 of 204

156 Page 156 of 204

157 From: Cherree P. Peterson Sent: Thursday, October 05, :24 AM To: Concord City Council Cc: Cherree P. Peterson Subject: FW: ATTN: Mayor and City Counsel - Vote NO MARIJUANA GROWERS OR BUSINESSES IN CONCORD! Importance: High To the Council: I will be unable to attend your meeting addressing this serious issue on October 24, All of this is in violation of current Federal Law. I strongly urge you to continue the ban on the growing of marijuana, processing, and storefront sales of recreational marijuana OR to permit the use of recreational marijuana in the city of Concord. If you allow these activities, you will invite nothing but problems! Recreational marijuana is ruining Colorado. I have seen this first hand as I have family living in Colorado and suffering from marijuana s effects. Let s keep Concord a desirable place to live. Concord can t afford to have the problems associated with recreational marijuana use. Concord is an up-and-coming place to live because the home prices are affordable in relation to other areas and because of its proximity to BART. I work in San Francisco, but I choose to live in Concord. There is a reason for that. Please don t turn our lovely city into the cesspool of problems that San Francisco has turned their city into. Please do the right thing on October 24 th and beyond. Keep Concord a desirable place to live by keeping it recreationally drug free!!! Sincerely, Cherree P. Peterson 4499 Deerberry Court Concord, CA Page 157 of 204

158 From: Dominic Ripoli Sent: Monday, October 09, :10 PM To: Cass, Michael; ~Cannabis Subject: Cannabis Consultant Hello My name is Dominic Ripoli. I am a cannabis legal consultant who would like to offer my services to help create the momentum and political shift to regulate cannabis Citywide. I grew up in Pittsburg until I was 10 when I moved with my family to Antioch. I lived there until I left to attend Howard University in Washington, DC. I came back to my home state to study law at Golden Gate School of Law where I graduated in For over a year I have worked with San Francisco s Cannabis State Legalization Task Force, helping manage, direct, and create public policy that will soon be implemented by the San Francisco Board of Supervisors. I have regularly consulted clients who are eager to join the emerging cannabis industry. I have worked for some of the Bay Area s most prestigious cannabis attorneys in helping clients become compliant with their local ordinances. If you would take the time to look at Weedmaps.com, you will find dozens and dozens of Proposition 215 compliant cannabis delivery businesses. These are middle-class jobs, where families are being cared for and bills being paid from the income. All these people are going to be completely exposed to lose their livelihood if something is not done to bring them into the regulated market. I have had an inside view of San Francisco s cannabis public policy development. I have strong networks with the Northern California Cannabis industry. Bringing cannabis revenue to your city will not be a problem. Finding the political will to embrace this new source of revenue and potential for social parity will be the challenge. I hope to help you in that challenge in any way I can. I have attached some literature I believe will help you see my position. The position of embracing the current City s cannabis black market and allowing it to come into the regulated fold of new City codes guided by new State regulations. Are you with me? Page 158 of 204

159 -- Dominic Ripoli J.D. CEO of Elevated Consulting dominicripoli.com Washington's pot hasn't meant more use by kids, new study reports Former CA prison becomes pot farm owned by Bob Marley's son Teen cannabis use drops 12% per year in CO Page 159 of 204

160 Journal of the American Planning Association ISSN: (Print) (Online) Journal homepage: Planning for Marijuana: The Cannabis Conundrum Jeremy Németh & Eric Ross To cite this article: Jeremy Németh & Eric Ross (2014) Planning for Marijuana: The Cannabis Conundrum, Journal of the American Planning Association, 80:1, 6-20, DOI: / To link to this article: Published online: 13 Aug Submit your article to this journal Article views: 3043 View related articles View Crossmark data Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at Page 160 of 204 Download by: [Auraria Library] Date: 23 March 2017, At: 11:11

161 Page 161 of Planning for Marijuana The Cannabis Conundrum Jeremy Németh and Eric Ross Problem, research strategy, and findings: Twenty-three states and Washington, DC, have legalized medical marijuana, raising difficult land use questions for planners regarding allowable locations, buffering from sensitive uses, and distribution of facilities. We know little about how local jurisdictions regulate medical marijuana dispensary (MMD) location and operation and how equitably different regulatory models distribute these facilities. We begin with an overview of MMD impacts related to crime, property values, and quality of life. We then review emerging local regulation of MMDs with a particular emphasis on land use controls, and find that most authorities regulate MMD location like they do other locally unwanted land uses (LULUs) such as sex-oriented businesses and liquor stores. Given a history of siting LULUs in lessaffluent neighborhoods and communities of color, we conduct a case study of Denver and show that four common regulatory models concentrate land that permits MMDs in socioeconomically disadvantaged tracts and areas with high proportions of persons of color. Takeaway for practice: Local planners are often caught unprepared for the land use implications of medical marijuana legalization. This outline of common land use regulatory models and a replicable analytical model help practitioners develop ordinances that square with their own communities goals, values, and attributes. Keywords: environmental justice, medical marijuana, NIMBY, nuisance uses, zoning About the authors: Jeremy Németh (jeremy.nemeth@ucdenver.edu) is associate professor and chair of the Department of Planning and Design and director of the Master of Urban Design program at the University of Colorado Denver. His teaching and research focus on public space, Medical marijuana is legal in 23 states and the District of Columbia, and recreational marijuana is now legal in Washington and Colorado (National Organization for the Reform of Marijana Laws [NORML], 2014). 1 The proliferation of new medical marijuana dispensaries (MMDs) raises difficult land use questions for local planners regarding where MMDs are permitted to locate ( suitable land ), distancing from sensitive uses, equitable distribution of facilities, and potential preemption of local zoning by state law (Salkin & Kansler, 2011). Planners are also faced with regulating new recreational marijuana dispensaries (RMDs) in Colorado cities such as Boulder, Denver, Fort Collins, and Breckenridge, although RMD land use regulations are virtually identical to those for MMDs (Colorado Municipal League, 2014). We ask two important questions in this study: 1) How do local jurisdictions regulate how and where MMDs operate, and 2) how equitably do common marijuana land use models distribute these facilities, which we define as each tract receiving its fair share of suitable land based on its total land area? To answer these questions, we begin with a brief overview of MMD impacts on crime, property values, and quality of life. Next, we review emerging local regulation of MMDs with a particular emphasis on land use controls. We find that most authorities control where MMDs locate as they do other locally unwanted land uses (LULUs) such as sex-oriented businesses, halfway houses, and liquor stores. Given a history of concentrating LULUs in less-affluent neighborhoods and communities of color, we conduct a case study of Denver and show that four popular regulatory models tend to concentrate suitable land in severely socioeconomically disadvantaged (SED) tracts and areas with high proportions of African American, Hispanic, Asian, and Native American (AHANA) residents (Mitchell, 2012). Our analytical model is replicable and can help practicing planners determine which components of various medical marijuana land use strategies align with their communities needs and desires. environmental justice, and land use conflict. Eric Ross (eric.ross@ucdenver.edu) is lecturer in the Department of Planning and Design at the University of Colorado Denver. He conducts geospatial research on urban morphology, access to opportunity, and regional, city, and neighborhood planning. Journal of the American Planning Association, Vol. 80, No. 1, Winter 2014 DOI / American Planning Association, Chicago, IL.

162 Page 162 of 204 Németh and Ross: Planning for Marijuana 7 Background Experts have valued the medical marijuana market at $1.7 billion and expect that number to double by 2016 (See Change Strategies LLC, 2011). Colorado has more than 130,000 registered patients up from 7,000 in 2008 and Oakland s (CA) Harborside Health Center clinic alone counts 110,000 registered patients (Pugh, 2011; Roberts, 2013). Los Angeles once contained more than 800 MMDs, although recent estimates put the current number at 472. Denver s 220 licensed dispensaries outnumber Starbucks outlets in the city (Kendall, 2012; Osher, 2011). 2 Nonetheless, marijuana remains illegal at the federal level, violating the Controlled Substances Act (CSA). The federal government s influence on state legalization regimes has played an important role in shaping what types of regulations are levied at the state and local level (Kamin, 2012). The industry s staggering growth has not come without controversy. Although support for medical marijuana legalization continues to increase, even among conservatives, not in my backyard (NIMBY) responses to MMD sitings persist in places such as Washington, DC (Opfer, 2013), New Jersey (Farley, 2012), and Los Angeles (Kudler, 2014; Walker, 2013), all of which approved legalization ballot measures by high margins. A recent poll showed that 73% of adults support making medical marijuana legal, but 44% would be somewhat or very concerned if a dispensary opened near their home (Pew Research, 2010). Even as 80% of Californians support medical marijuana (Greenberg Quinlan Rosner Research, 2012), only 55 towns and counties have developed MMD ordinances and 213 localities have banned medical marijuana altogether, many due to pressure from concerned residents (Americans for Safe Access, 2013). In Massachusetts, one-third of communities have imposed a moratorium on medical marijuana sales and facilities (outright bans are illegal), highlighted by intense NIMBY debates in Boston, Springfield, Westfield, and six Cape Cod towns (Crossley, 2014; Metzger, 2013; Vennochi, 2014). In 2013, a spirited debate occurred over the perceived dumping of MMDs and cultivation facilities in the District of Columbia s Ward 5, a neighborhood with an already disproportionate share of strip clubs and trash transfer facilities, where 77% of residents are African American and 26% of children live below the poverty line (Bevilacqua, 2013; DCist, 2013; NeighborhoodInfo DC, 2012). MMDs are prototypical LULUs, or facilities that provide some recognized public benefit, even though virtually no one wants them in their neighborhood (Popper, 1981). Yet, the fervor of the NIMBY response to MMDs is alarming given the lack of empirical evidence on the actual impacts of MMDs, a fact we can attribute to the industry still being in its infancy. Still, several reports show that NIMBY residents fear that new MMDs will threaten their quality of life, raise crime rates, and reduce property values (Ingold, 2010; Ingold & Lofholm, 2011; Tilton, 2009). Quality of life concerns include fear of increased loitering, drug dealers, marijuana smoking outside MMDs, noxious odors, gang activity, exposure to minors, accidental poisonings, and sale of drugs other than marijuana, as well as increased automobile traffic, accidents, and arrests for driving under the influence of marijuana (Bailey & Reiterman, 2008; Thurstone, Lieberman, & Schmiege, 2011). Affected residents also fear increased crime around MMDs (Ingold, 2010). However, the only two peerreviewed studies on MMD impacts both cross-sectional in design find no significant association between dispensary density and local crime in several California cities. The more recent study shows that crime rates around Sacramento MMDs decreased when certain security measures were present (Freisthler, Kepple, Sims, & Martin, 2013; Kepple & Freisthler, 2012). Researchers have yet to examine how MMDs affect property values, given the lack of sufficient time to study such effects as well as the general difficulty in isolating the impact of individual facilities on local property values. Nevertheless, an important concern of developers and business organizations is the potential loss of revenue and trade from commercial businesses who do not want to locate in the immediate vicinity of an MMD (Steckler, 2006; Tilton, 2009). Although not the topic of this study, we do question whether MMDs should be considered LULUs since localities collect millions in sales taxes as well as application and licensing fees from MMD operation. Moreover, lease rates for MMDs and cultivation centers can be 50% to 75% higher than traditional retail (N. Arbalaez, personal communication, August 10, 2013). Neighborhood impacts can also be quite positive: Oakland City Councilwoman Rebecca Kaplan credits medical marijuana businesses with helping revitalize the Uptown neighborhood, an area that only recently was replete with vacant, boarded-up buildings (Kaiser, 2011). Indeed, growth in MMD facilities is not relegated to liberal communities for these reasons: Sean Paige (R-Colorado Springs) defended his conservative community s decision to allow MMDs as an attempt to attract local entrepreneurs: We re a pro-business community. Like a lot of cities, we re hurting for sales tax revenue, so there s no question that we benefit from an industry that creates jobs and stimulates real estate activity and ancillary services (quoted in Kaiser, 2011, p. 13). We set out to understand how localities regulate MMDs. For several reasons, we focus particularly on the

163 Page 163 of Journal of the American Planning Association, Winter 2014, Vol. 80, No. 1 geography of dispensaries. First, land use is squarely the purview of urban and regional planners, and we believe planners should take the lead in developing such regulations. Second, we know that concerned citizens and regulators often agree on the need for stringent licensing and operation controls as a way to limit real or perceived externalities, but controversy most often ensues when it comes to determining the location of suitable land for MMDs, or any other LULU for that matter (Salkin & Kansler, 2011). Third, planners and other regulators have a long history of siting LULUs, or suitable land for LULUs, in communities of color and areas of concentrated poverty (Commission for Racial Justice, 1987; Maantay, 2001; Ritzdorf, 1997; Silver, 1997).We examine whether this pattern holds true for MMDs through an analysis of existing regulations for MMDs and case examples. Regulating MMDs Once residents vote to legalize medical marijuana, state regulators develop a broad regulatory framework to control the drug s production, distribution, and consumption. Some states become the primary regulating body, whereas others pass on regulatory power particularly time, place, and manner restrictions to local authorities. In nearly all cases, state statutes do not require municipalities to make production and sale of medical marijuana legal within their municipal limits, although some require municipalities to either develop licensing regulations or ban facilities outright (Salkin & Kansler, 2010). Local authorities are then charged with controlling land use and operation of facilities as well as enforcing local licensing requirements. We focus much of this study at the local level, both because conflict most frequently occurs over facility location and operation and because planners should be at least partly responsible for developing and enforcing local regulations. States and localities control potential impacts from MMDs through a combination of licensing, operation, and land use restrictions, all of which aim to protect the health, safety, and welfare of host communities. These categories are not mutually exclusive; for example, compliance with operation requirements is often a condition of licensure. Here we briefly identify some common licensing and operation regulations, and then focus the balance of the study on how land use regulations are used to control where MMDs can locate. Licensing Many states have a dual-licensing scheme for MMDs similar to that for liquor stores. In Colorado, for example, MMD licensees are required to obtain their local license before applying for a state license (Allen, 2010). Municipalities can draft a local licensing ordinance that may be more stringent than the requirements of the state statute, which often includes additional restrictions on land use and operation. Most licensing applications ask proprietors to provide proof of responsible practice as well as floor and security plans. Some municipalities, such as Los Angeles and the District of Columbia, use licensing to limit the total number of dispensaries the city can host. Others, such as Oakland, try to achieve the same ends by requiring strict background checks on business owners and operators to determine moral or financial fitness, such as evidence of criminal records or bankruptcy history. Licensing fees are often used to offset some of the costs of industry regulation. Operation Operation restrictions govern the day-to-day operations of an MMD. The main intent of these approaches is to limit feared secondary impacts of MMDs, especially crime, underage use, or diversion to the black market (Kamin, 2012). Table 1 provides an overview of operation restrictions from states and localities with legal medical marijuana adapted from Freisthler et al. (2013). These jurisdictions demonstrate a broad range of regulatory approaches. Some argue that operational restrictions can be more flexible and enforceable than zoning standards, especially when an industry is in its infancy and actual local impacts are unclear or unknown (Kaiser, 2011; P. Park, personal communication, April 1, 2013). Don Elliott (2008) agrees that the best way to control noise, loitering, or design is to enforce [operational] ordinances rather than to prohibit uses that may or may not create those impacts (p. 143). Again, regulating MMDs based on performance is difficult since so little empirical evidence exists on facility impacts; few cities have hosted MMDs long enough to provide the experience necessary for before/after studies. Land Use Land use regulations for MMDs can be divided into three subcategories: zoning restrictions, proximity buffers, and density controls. Table 2 is also adapted from Freisthler et al. (2013) and displays a variety of MMD land use regulations from the same jurisdictions listed in Table 1. Note the minimal use of zoning restrictions and extensive use of buffers from sensitive uses, such as schools, residential areas, childcare, rehabilitation centers, churches, and parks. States leave zoning to local jurisdictions, which most often prohibit MMDs in residential or mixed-use districts

164 Page 164 of 204 Németh and Ross: Planning for Marijuana 9 Table 1. Operation restrictions by state and locality. Alarm system Security cameras Signage required Security Measures Secured entrance Security guard Outdoor lighting Safe for storage Security plan No onsite use Operations Limited hours States Arizona Colorado Delaware Maine New Jersey New Mexico Rhode Island Vermont Localities Ann Arbor Denver Los Angeles Phoenix Sacramento Washington, DC Note: See applicable laws and statutes in this article s endnotes. Source: Adapted from Freisthler, et al., With kind permission from Springer Science and Business Media. Sq. ft. limit but allow them in commercial districts. Some localities also keep medical marijuana out of residential districts by prohibiting dispensing of medical marijuana as a home occupation or as an accessory use to another home occupation (Salkin & Kansler, 2010). In terms of proximity buffers (provisions about which may be included in zoning codes), most states require MMDs to locate a minimum distance away from schools, but this is where state control over land use decisions usually ends. Table 2 shows that cities and counties may require proximity buffers between MMDs and residential districts, rehabilitation centers, churches, childcare centers, schools, parks, cinemas, and even other MMDs. The intent of these buffering measures is to separate MMDs and their clientele from sensitive uses and prevent any de facto districting of MMDs resulting from dense concentrations (Elliott, 2008). Finally, states and localities may use density controls to either cap the total number of MMDs outright or base the number on population distribution. Table 3 illustrates how LULUs can fit into one or more categories: environmental, human services, or nuisance/vice (Cooper, Kelly, & McCleary, 2008; Gaber & Takahashi, 1998; Sandman, 1986; Schively, 2007). Although by definition MMDs fall into the human service category because they provide a legal drug to licensed patients, in practice they are regulated most closely to liquor stores and other nuisance/vice uses. To allocate suitable land for MMDs, communities around the country are adopting the same zoning restrictions that prohibit any businesses selling alcohol, pornography, firearms, and fast food from locating in residential or even mixed-use neighborhoods (Ashe, Jernigan, Kline, & Galaz, 2003; Holder et al., 2000; Salkin & Kansler, 2011). For example, local jurisdictions are applying the same proximity buffers used to separate sex-oriented businesses from residential areas and senstive uses such as schools, parks, and playgrounds (Cooper et al., 2008; Holder et al., 2000; Kelly, 1999). They are also employing density controls commonly used to control bar and liquor store density, most often the spacing between such facilities (Gorman, Speer, Gruenwald, & Labouvie, 2001; Gruenewald & Remer, 2006). One of the long-standing critiques of land use regulations for LULUs is that they tend to concentrate unwanted facilities in marginalized communities with high percentages of low-income residents and persons of color, either directly by zoning suitable land in such neighborhoods, or indirectly because affluent neighborhoods have more power to exclude offensive uses from their neighborhoods (Boone, Buckley, Grove, & Sister, 2009; Commission for Racial Justice, 1987; Schively, 2007; Sze, 2006).

165 Page 165 of Journal of the American Planning Association, Winter 2014, Vol. 80, No. 1 Table 2. Location restrictions by state and locality. Zoning Buffers b Density controls Residential areas Other MMDs Other sensitive facilities Per population Permitted a Prohibited Schools Total number States Arizona per 10 pharmacies Colorado 1,000 Delaware Per jurisdiction Maine 500 Per jurisdiction New Jersey Per jurisdiction New Mexico 300 Rhode Island 500 Per jurisdiction Vermont 1,000 Per jurisdiction Localities Ann Arbor Downtown 1,000 Campus Industrial PUD Denver Residential 1,000 1,000 1,000 childcare 1,000 rehab center Los Angeles 1, , churches 1,320 parks Phoenix Commercial 1,320 Not adjacent 5,280 1,000 childcare 1,000 churches 1,000 libraries 1,000 parks 1,000 rehab center Sacramento Commercial Industrial 1, , childcare 600 church 600 rehab center 600 cinema 600 tobacco store Per population Cap at moratorium Washington, DC Residential rec centers 5 to 8 in entire city Note: See applicable laws and statutes in this article s endnotes. a. Includes special use and conditional use permits. b. Distance in feet. Source: Adapted from Freisthler et al., With kind permission from Springer Science and Business Media. For example, we know from studies of Baltimore, Boston, Washington, DC, and Philadelphia that liquor stores perhaps the closest land use regulatory parallel to MMDs are concentrated heavily in each city s poorest neighborhoods, which also house the highest proportions of non-white residents (Jones-Webb & Karriker-Jaffe, 2013; Jones-Webb et al., 2008; LaVeist & Wallace, 2000; Shimotsu et al., 2012). The question therefore is: If MMD regulation shares similarities with the regulation of other nuisance LULUs, are resulting allowable land use distributions also similar? In other words, what are the equity implications intended or not of current regulatory approaches for zoning MMDs? We consider an equitable distribution approach in which each census tract receives its fair share of suitable land based on its total land area; conversely, an inequitable distribution would mean that some tracts contain a disproportionately high or low percentage of suitable land. Here we outline a spatial analytical approach that communities can adopt and adapt to help answer this question, and then test this approach in our own Denver case study.

166 Page 166 of 204 Németh and Ross: Planning for Marijuana 11 Table 3. LULU categories. Category Examples Most common concerns Environmental Incinerators Landfills Recycling centers Power plants Freeways Physical health Environmental quality Property values Human services Nuisance/vice Rehab centers Homeless shelters AIDS clinics Soup kitchens Correctional facilities Bars/nightclubs Casinos Fast food restaurants Gun shops Liquor stores Massage parlors Sex-oriented businesses Tattoo parlors Crime Safety Property values Neighborhood image Crime Property values Distributing Suitable Land for MMDs: An Approach and Case Example Case Selection We examine how several different MMD land use models would change the amount of suitable land in one city (Denver) for two reasons. First, the selection of exist- ing models, or suites of regulations, mimics the type of analysis that most localities would undertake in confronting a similar decision (P. Park, personal communication, April 1, 2013). Second, we control for geography and socioeconomic status across locations by using one city. We chose Denver as our base map because of its available and complete GIS data, our familiarity with the city and subsequent interpretation of the results, and the fact that the city is at the national forefront of medical marijuana legislation. To select models for comparison, we sought examples that on initial review appeared to differ most significantly in the intensity of zoning and proximity restrictions, especially since density controls are quite rare. This would help us determine which form of regulation was more explanatory in resulting MMD distributions. Table 4 shows that we sought localities that vary with regard to geography, total land area, and population density. Finally, we selected cities with readily accessible municipal ordinances and zoning definitions. The total land area for our study is approximately 71,901 acres; however, we chose to omit rights-of-way, parks, and open space and use developable land as the basis for our land area calculations. We also eliminate from our study area the Denver International Airport tract in northeast Denver due to the large size of this area (approximately 27,000 acres) and very low population (approximately 1,165 persons). The resulting total developable land is 50,789 acres. Table 4. Model cities. City Land area Population (2010) Population density Zoning restrictions Proximity restrictions Ann Arbor (City- Data, 2012a) Denver (City- Data, 2012b) Los Angeles (City-Data, 2012c) Phoenix (City- Data, 2012d) 27.7 sq. mi. 113,934 4,219/sq. mi. Permitted in downtown (D), commercial (C), industrial (M), or planned unit development (PUD) districts sq. mi. 600,158 3,874/sq. mi. Prohibited in residential and MS-2 zones sq. mi. 3,792,621 8,092/sq. mi. Prohibited in residential; no more than 70 collectives distributed based on community plan area population sq. mi. 1,445,362 3,071/sq. mi. permitted in commercial (C-2, C-3), industrial (A-1, A-2); prohibited in residential Prohibited within 1,000 feet of elementary or secondary schools Prohibited within 1,000 feet of schools, childcare centers, and drug rehab centers Prohibited within 1,000 feet of schools, public parks, public libraries, religious institutions, childcare facilities, youth centers, drug rehab centers, or any other medical marijuana collectives; adjacent to any residential Prohibited within 1 mile of medical marijuana centers, 250 feet of residential, 1,320 feet of parks, schools, and community buildings, 500 feet of churches

167 Page 167 of Journal of the American Planning Association, Winter 2014, Vol. 80, No. 1 Suitable Land Analysis Methods In this analysis we do not examine developable land where MMDs are actually located, but instead where they are permitted to locate. This isolates the impact of local land use regulations without introducing facility location variables such as local labor markets or lease rates. Our first step was to map suitable land under each regulatory model. Importantly, we only mapped suitable land based on the zoning and proximity restrictions, omitting density controls that a municipality might use. We also omitted the regulation that would buffer MMDs from other MMDs because our hypothetical analysis is intended to provide guidance to planners prior to the implementation of medical marijuana regulations and subsequent siting of MMDs. We conducted a three-step process to determine total suitable land under each regulatory model. First, we mapped suitable land for MMDs by applying only that model s zoning regulations (Municode 2012a, 2012b, 2014; City of Phoenix Planning and Development Department, 2010). Second, we mapped unsuitable land applying only that model s proximity buffers. Third, we subtracted the unsuitable land prohibited by proximity buffers from the suitable land (based on zoning), resulting in a total suitable land calculation for each model. To map suitable land based on zoning regulations, we used parcel data from the City and County of Denver, which includes an actual zoning attribution for each parcel. This allowed us to easily identify prohibited zones (typically residential zones) and permitted zones (typically commercial and industrial). An acknowledged weakness of our model is the generalization across cities of zoning categories such as residential, commercial, or industrial: one city s definition of light commercial or heavy industrial may vary from another s. Therefore, we used the general zoning descriptions from the Denver parcel data to approximate similar zone categories. To map suitable land based on proximity buffers, we used land use descriptions from the parcel data that included schools, parks, churches, and other sensitive uses. For those uses not available in the parcel data (e.g., childcare facilities, drug rehabilitation centers), we acquired locations from the Denver Public Schools and Colorado Coalition for the Homeless and geocoded these by address, achieving high match rates (approximately 90%; Colorado Coalition for the Homeless, 2014; Denver Public Schools, 2014). Ideally, these points would be joined to parcels; unfortunately, most of the geolocations were not rooftop locations, so we measured proximity buffers from the geolocated point rather than from parcel edges as specified by some of the municipal codes. Los Angeles has an additional density restriction limiting the total number of medical marijuana businesses; as Table 2 shows, other cities such as Washington, DC, have similar constraints. However, the number of MMDs allowed is still subject to suitable land allocations, which is the focus of our study. Demographic and Socioeconomic Analysis Methods We downloaded all census tract geographic boundaries and City and County of Denver boundary, parcels, parks, streets, and zoning from the City and County of Denver Open Data Catalog in shapefile format (City and County of Denver, 2012). We acquired Decennial Census 2010 and American Community Survey (ACS) demographic data from the U.S. Census American Fact- Finder and National Historic GIS sites (National Historical Geographic Information System, 2012; U.S. Census, 2014). These data were joined to census geographies using census tract identification numbers. To understand the types of neighborhoods where these facilities were allowed to locate, we collected and analyzed census data on two subcategories within the city s 143 census tracts: AHANA and SED populations. The first category identifies a minority presence (less than 50%) of residents who identify themselves as non-hispanic White only. We use the inverse term, AHANA, for such tracts. The second identifies significantly distressed populations using a composite index of area-based indicators that includes three constructs and eight variables that together measure SED by comparing observed data with Denver averages (Diez Roux et al., 2001; Krieger, Waterman, Chen, Rehkopf, & Subramian, 2004). Tracts that meet all thresholds listed in the third column of Table 5 are considered SED tracts. We used this index because we believe it to be a more robust measure of disadvantage than singular measures such as income, education, or home values. 3 Impact of Land Use Regulations on Suitable Land Distribution Our analysis shows the models we assessed lead to land variability: The land use regulations in these four cities vary highly in resulting permissiveness. We array these regulatory models three different ways to help practitioners understand conceptually how zoning restrictions and proximity buffers interact to produce more or less permissive suitable land distributions. Figure 1 maps the distribution of suitable land under each model; Table 6 displays the percentage of suitable land under each model and its

168 Page 168 of 204 Németh and Ross: Planning for Marijuana 13 Table 5. SED index. Construct Variables Local measure (national) Income/wealth Median household income Below Denver median of $45,501 ($51,915) Education Occupation/ employment Percentage of persons below poverty Median value of owner-occupied housing units Percentage of housing units that are owner occupied Percentage of adults 25 years and older who have completed high school Percentage of adults 25 years and older who have completed college Percentage of persons 16 years and older in executive, managerial, or professional occupations Percentage employed Greater than Denver average of 19.2% (13.8%) Below Denver median of $240,900 ($188,400) Below Denver average of 52.5% (66.6%) Below Denver average of 84% (85%) Below Denver average of 40.1% (27.9%) Below Denver average of 40.4% (37%) Below Denver average of 91.2% (90.4%) Census product ACS selected economic characteristics ACS selected economic characteristics ACS selected housing characteristics ACS selected housing characteristics ACS selected social characteristics ACS selected social characteristics ACS selected economic characteristics ACS selected economic characteristics Source: Reprinted from Annals of Epidemiology, Vol. 11, No. 6, A. V. Diez Roux et al., Area Characteristics and Individual-Level Socioeconomic Position Indicators in Three Population-Based Epidemiologic Studies, pp , Copyright 2001, with permission from Elsevier. Figure 1. Suitable land distribution by each model.

169 Page 169 of Journal of the American Planning Association, Winter 2014, Vol. 80, No. 1 Table 6. Suitable land in all tracts and permissiveness by model. Zoning restrictions Acres in all tracts Percentage in all tracts Permissiveness rank Los Angeles 21,074 41% 1 Denver 20,970 41% 2 Ann Arbor 12,001 24% 3 Phoenix 7,227 14% 4 Proximity restrictions Acres in all tracts Percentage in all tracts Permissiveness rank Ann Arbor 44,079 87% 1 Denver 30,824 61% 2 Phoenix 15,075 30% 3 Los Angeles 9,827 19% 4 Zoning + proximity restrictions Acres in all Tracts Percentage in all Tracts Permissiveness Rank Denver 16,031 32% 1 Ann Arbor 11,390 22% 2 Los Angeles 9,827 19% 3 Phoenix 6,249 12% 4 Note: Total land area based on parcels excluding right-of-way and Denver International Airport tract = 50,888 acres. rank of relative permissiveness. Figure 2 shows our placement of the four models into quadrants based on the percentage of suitable land after applying zoning restrictions or proximity buffers. We can characterize the impact of these models in several ways given these distributions. If we just apply a model s zoning restrictions, the Denver and Los Angeles models are the most permissive, whereas Phoenix is the most restrictive. Ann Arbor s proximity buffers are the most permissive, and Los Angeles buffers are the most restrictive. When combining zoning restrictions and proximity buffers, the Denver model is the most permissive, whereas the Phoenix model is the least. Having identified the majority AHANA and SED tracts, we then calculated suitable land in those tracts to show any difference in the percentage of suitable land between AHANA and non-ahana, or SED and non- SED, tracts. Table 7 displays these percentages as well as an equitability rank based on the difference between each model: smaller differences in percentage of suitable land are more equitable (1) and larger differences are less equitable (4). Table 7 shows that in 10 of 12 model and regulation combinations, there is a higher percentage of suitable land Figure 2. Zoning and proximity model matrix: Permissiveness by percentage of suitable land in each model. in AHANA tracts. Ann Arbor exhibits the largest differences across the three categories: zoning restrictions alone, proximity buffers alone, and zoning restrictions and proximity buffers together. Overall, the largest disparities exist in the zoning restrictions category where all observed differences are statistically significant. 4 Differences in percentages of suitable land in SED versus non-sed tracts are quite stark. Phoenix is the least permissive across the board; again, the largest disparities exist in the zoning restrictions category. All differences in the SED analysis are significant. If we look only at the impact of zoning restrictions on distribution equitability across AHANA and SED categories, we note that the most permissive models (Denver and Los Angeles) produce the most equitable distributions of MMDs in AHANA and SED tracts. Conversely, the restrictive zoning in the Phoenix model puts that model at or near the bottom in equitability. If we examine just proximity buffers, Ann Arbor is the most permissive in terms of suitable land, but it produces the least equitable distribution in AHANA versus non-ahana tracts. Yet, it is the most equitable in terms of distribution in SED versus non-sed tracts. Importantly, however, the differences in percentage of suitable land in these different tracts are very small across the board when proximity buffers are applied in isolation, except in the case of the Phoenix model s distribution in SED and non-sed tracts. When we combine zoning restrictions and proximity buffers, the Phoenix model, which occupies the low

170 Page 170 of 204 Németh and Ross: Planning for Marijuana 15 Table 7. Suitable land distributions by total acres and percentage of developable land. Zoning restrictions in African American, Hispanic, Asian and Native American (AHANA) tracts Acres in AHANA tracts Percentage in AHANA tracts Acres in other tracts Percentage in other tracts Additional percentage in AHANA tracts Equitability rank Denver 8, % 12, % 4.7%* 1 Los Angeles 9, % 12, % 4.8%* 2 Phoenix 4, % 2, % 13.4%** 3 Ann Arbor 6, % 5, % 16.8%** 4 Proximity restrictions in AHANA tracts Acres in AHANA tracts Percentage in AHANA tracts Acres in other tracts Percentage in other tracts Additional percentage in AHANA tracts Equitability rank Los Angeles 4, % 5, % 1.0% 1 Denver 12, % 18, % 2.6%** 2 Phoenix 6, % 8, % 4.6% 3 Ann Arbor 16, % 27, % 5.6%** 4 Zoning + proximity restrictions in AHANA tracts Acres in AHANA tracts Percentage in AHANA tracts Acres in other tracts Percentage in other tracts Additional percentage in AHANA tracts Equitability rank Los Angeles 4, % 5, % 1.0% 1 Denver 7, % 8, % 5.4% 2 Phoenix 3, % 2, % 11.1%** 3 Ann Arbor 6, % 4, % 15.6%** 4 Note: Total land that allows MMDs = 20,332 acres in AHANA tracts; 30,556 acres in others *p <.10, **p <.05, ***p <.01. Acres in SED tracts Zoning restrictions in socioeconomically disadvantaged (SED) tracts Percentage in SED tracts Acres in other tracts Percentage in other tracts Additional percentage in SED tracts Equitability rank Los Angeles 4, % 16, % 18.3%*** 1 Denver 4, % 16, % 19.3%*** 2 Ann Arbor 3, % 8, % 27.7%** 3 Phoenix 3, % 3, % 38.0%*** 4 Acres in SED tracts Percentage in SED tracts Proximity restrictions in SED tracts Acres in other tracts Percentage in other tracts Additional percentage in SED tracts Equitability rank Ann Arbor 6, % 37, % 0.7%*** 1 Denver 5, % 25, % 5.1%*** 2 Los Angeles 2, % 7, % 8.4%** 3 Phoenix 3, % 11, % 17.2%** 4 Acres in SED tracts Zoning + proximity restrictions in SED tracts Percentage in SED tracts Acres in other tracts Percentage in other tracts Additional percentage in SED tracts Equitability rank Los Angeles 2, % 7, % 8.4%** 1 Denver 3, % 12, % 17.2%** 2 Ann Arbor 3, % 7, % 27.7%** 3 Phoenix 3, % 3, % 34.0%** 4 Note: Total land that allows MMDs = 7,756 acres in SED tracts; 43,132 acres in others. *p <.10, **p <.05, ***p <.01.

171 Page 171 of Journal of the American Planning Association, Winter 2014, Vol. 80, No. 1 Figure 3. Suitable land distribution in African American, Hispanic, Asian, and Native American (AHANA) tracts under the Denver model (top) and socioeconomically disadvantaged (SED) tracts under the Phoenix model (bottom).

172 Page 172 of 204 Németh and Ross: Planning for Marijuana 17 zoning/low proximity permissiveness quadrant in Figure 2, produces the least-equitable MMD distribution. The second-worst performer in terms of equitability is Ann Arbor, which occupies the low zoning/high proximity permissiveness quadrant. In sum, the common feature of these two less-equitable models is the high restrictiveness of their zoning regulations. It is also important for planners to visualize precisely where suitable land is located in different neighborhoods to understand better which specific neighborhoods or corridors have more or less suitable land. Figure 3 shows two selected overlays that demonstrate strong spatial relationships between suitable land and AHANA and SED tracts. Both maps show distinct linear patterns of suitable land running north south along U.S. Interstate 25 and east west along U.S. Interstate 70. These two overlays also expose the strong correlations between race and class in Denver: All but two AHANA tracts are also SED tracts. The preceding analysis indicates that, when applied in Denver, all four regulatory models result in a higher proportion of suitable land for MMDs located in SED tracts and tracts with a majority of AHANA residents. This does not mean that MMDs will necessarily locate in higher concentrations in SED and AHANA tracts, especially since the majority of Denver s developable land area is in non- SED and non-ahana tracts. But our analysis demonstrates that some of the most common models of zoning regulations and proximity buffers tend to produce higher percentages of suitable land in these areas. Given that most would people prefer not to live near these facilities, planners must recognize the potential equity implications of these land use policies. Our central aim in this study is to outline emerging land use regulations for medical marijuana and demonstrate a replicable spatial analytical model for analyzing the potential equity implications of local land use decisions. While our results are specific to the Denver case and might have been different if we had conducted our analysis in another city or applied different regulatory models, it is worth noting some general takeaways for practitioners: 1) Instead of adopting off-the-shelf regulatory models that already exist for other nuisance or human service LULUs, communities looking to distribute MMDs more equitably should consider conducting similar analyses in their own communities while taking a more detailed stepwise look at which zoning restrictions and proximity buffers might be behind any resulting distribution inequities. Such an analysis could entail adding individual regulations until a desired balance is achieved. In our case study, for example, the Ann Arbor and Phoenix models produce much larger percentages of suitable land in SED tracts than in non-sed tracts, and these are the only two models to explicitly permit MMDs in all commercial zones. We might attribute some of this imbalance to that fact that, in Denver at least, the richest and Whitest neighborhoods are residential only with very few embedded commercial districts. 2) The literature on environmental privilege shows that more affluent (i.e., non-sed) tracts contain more public amenities and institutions such as schools, parks, community centers, churches, and childcare facilities (Pulido, 2000; Wolch, Wilson, & Fehrenbach, 2005). We initially hypothesized that proximity buffers intended to distance MMDs from such sensitive uses would push MMDs out of non-sed neighborhoods. In fact, we found that while proximity buffers do contribute to some inequity, it is not nearly as important in producing inequitable outcomes as zoning restrictions. 3) Although we spend very little time discussing how communities develop medical marijuana land use policies, it is worth noting that many of these processes especially at the state level are top-down, expert-driven legislative processes by appointed boards with little contribution from planning staff. 5 Planners must be at the table to conduct analyses such as those presented here, processes that carefully evaluate the potential equity impacts of MMD land use policies on the most marginalized neighborhoods. Without such careful analyses, we are likely to continue allocating suitable land at higher proportions in heavily disadvantaged neighborhoods with high percentages of persons of color. Conclusion This is one of the first scholarly studies to provide a detailed overview of emerging regulation of MMDs and the potential equity implications of varying regulatory regimes. First, we outline current information on potential and perceived MMD impacts and the predominant regulatory strategies used by U.S. communities. Second, we provide a straightforward analytical approach to help planners and policymakers determine whether to adopt or adapt certain land use regulations in a manner that fits best with their own communities goals and attributes. Third, we apply this framework in a Denver-based case study and find that each land use model results in different but overall higher concentrations of suitable land in SED tracts and tracts with a majority of AHANA residents. Restricting MMDs to certain zoning districts tends to explain more of the discrepancies than proximity buffers. We hypothesize that this pattern

173 Page 173 of Journal of the American Planning Association, Winter 2014, Vol. 80, No. 1 might hold in other localities and suggest that planners conduct a similarly fine-grained analysis when their communities have legalized medical or recreational marijuana. As we learn more about actual MMD impacts, we hope to engage with residents of affected localities to understand whether, indeed, MMDs remain LULUs. To better understand why such businesses locate where they do, we will continue interviewing dispensary proprietors as well as examining lease rates, property values, and other potential explanatory factors. Scaling up this study to consider the land use and policy implications of medical marijuana across the state would also allow us to answer even more questions: Do some localities that permit MMDs have such stringent land use or permitting requirements that they force MMDs to neighboring towns? Will proprietors begin to concentrate in jurisdictions with more lax standards? What does this all mean for local tax dollars, labor markets, and the state s economic landscape? Planners and policymakers in states that permit the dispensing of medical marijuana would do well to develop responses to these questions and others posed in this article. As legalization efforts increase across the country, many planners will be faced with these issues. Notes 1. All listed codes and statutes related to this study: States Name Arizona Delaware Maine New Jersey New Mexico Rhode Island Vermont Act, ordinance, or code Statute Year Arizona medical marijuana act Delaware medical marijuana act An act to amend the Maine medical marijuana act New Jersey compassionate use medical marijuana act The Lynn and Erin compassionate use act The Edward O. Hawkins and Thomas C. Slater medical marijuana act An act relating to registering four nonprofit organizations to dispense marijuana for symptom relief Ariz. Rev. Stat Title 16, Del. Health and Safety Food and Drugs, Chapter 46A Maine L.D P.L. No. 2009, c N.M. Stat. 26-2B 2010 Chapter 016, H Substitute A, R.I. Gen. Laws. Vermont S.B Localities Name Act, ordinance, or code Year Ann Arbor, MI Ordinance no. ORD Denver, CO Council bill no Los Angeles, CA Ordinance no Phoenix, AZ Ordinance G Sacramento, CA Ordinance Ordinance Ordinance Seattle, WA Ordinance no Washington, DC Council of the District of Columbia, Bill 18-62W Note that we focus on dispensaries versus cultivation centers, as the latter are almost always permitted only in light or heavy industrial districts far from NIMBY residents and surrounded by more objectively noxious land uses. 3. We use a composite index found commonly in public health and epidemiological studies for several reasons. First, the index is a better proxy than single-variable measures such as poverty level, education level, and unemployment for individual-level indicators of socioeconomic status and allo ws the researcher to make more confident assertions when attributing area-level data to all persons within that geography (Diez Roux et al., 2001). Diez Roux et al. (2001) show that the variables that comprise the index are correlated in the 0.5 to 0.8 range. Second, all variables are publicly available and can be collected easily from more the more up-to-date ACS estimates. Third, the index is useful in determining significant socioeconomic distress, since an area is only considered SED if it falls below the threshold for all variables in the index. Fourth, the index is particularly appropriate in a study such as ours in which we aim to make binary distinctions about a certain geography s characteristics (i.e., SED or non-sed). 4. With regard to significance tests in Table 7, since we calculated these differences for every census tract in Denver, the resulting percentage difference is an actual difference. Nonetheless, we did conduct a two-tailed t test for each observed difference and found that the difference in means is significant in 8 of 12 cases in the AHANA analysis (the other four cases fell just outside the.10 probability range) and in all 12 cases in the SED analysis (Table 7). Had we conducted a one-tailed test, all observed differences would be very statistically significant. 5. Rachel Allen, attorney with the Colorado Municipal League, states staff planners are rarely at the table when developing land use regulations for medical and recreational marijuana. These discussions are typically held between lawyers and councils with little input from planning and development (R. Allen, personal communication, 2014). Colorado s medical marijuana laws were developed by a workgroup of 32 people comprising district attorneys, law enforcement agencies and individuals already selling marijuana (Scott, 2012). The task force and working groups charged with developing regulations for recreational marijuana consisted of 85 total members, only two of which were planners (including one of the authors of this article; Amendment 64 Task Force, 2013).

174 Page 174 of 204 Németh and Ross: Planning for Marijuana 19 References Allen, R. (2010, June). Knowledge now: Medical marijuana update. Colorado Municipal League Newsletter. Retrieved from org/knowledge-now/ Amendment 64 Task Force. (2013, March 13). Task force report on the implementation of Amendment 64. Retrieved from gov/cms/forms/dor-tax/a64taskforcefinalreport.pdf Americans for Safe Access. (2013, March 1). California local regulations. Retrieved from Ashe, M., Jernigan, D., Kline, R., & Galaz, R. (2003). Land use planning and the control of alcohol, tobacco, firearms, and fast food restaurants. American Journal of Public Health, 93(9), doi: /ajph Bailey, T., & Reiterman, E. (2008, May 31). Where Mary Jane is the girl next door. Los Angeles Times. Retrieved from com/2008/may/31/local/me-pot31 Bevilacqua, M. (2013, May 7). This city s cashed: Calif. Supreme Court allows zoning against medical marijuana. Next City. Retrieved from Boone, C., Buckley, G., Grove, J. M., & Sister, C. (2009). Parks and people: An environmental justice inquiry in Baltimore, Maryland. Annals of the Association of American Geographers, 99(4), doi: / City and County of Denver. (2012). Denver open data catalog. Retrieved from City of Phoenix Planning and Development Department. (2012). Medical marijuana zoning maps by council district. Retrieved from City-Data. (2012a). Ann Arbor, Michigan. Retrieved from city-data.com/city/ann-arbor-michigan.html City-Data. (2012b). Denver, Colorado. Retrieved from city-data.com/city/denver-colorado.html City-Data. (2012c). Los Angeles, California. Retrieved from city-data.com/city/los-angeles-california.html City-Data. (2012d). Phoenix, Arizona. Retrieved from city-data.com/city/phoenix-arizona.html Colorado Coalition for the Homeless. (2012). Map of rehab centers. Retrieved from Colorado Municipal League. (2014). Marijuana. Retrieved from Commission for Racial Justice. (1987). Toxic wastes and race in the United States. New York, NY: United Church of Christ. Cooper, C., Kelly, E. D., & McCleary, R. (2008). Survey of Texas appraisers: Secondary effects of sexually oriented businesses on market values and crime-related secondary effects. Austin, TX: Texas City Attorney s Association. Crossley, C. (2014, January 27). NIMBY a threat to those who need access to medical marijuana. WGBH Boston. Retrieved from wgbhnews.org/post/commentary-nimby-threat-those-who-need-accessmedical-marijuana DCist. (2011, November 2). Reefer meets reality in Ward 5. Retrieved from Denver Public Schools. (2012). List of schools. Retrieved from Diez Roux, A., Kiefe, C., Jacobs, D., Haan, M., Jackson, M., Nieto, F,... Schulz, R. (2001). Area characteristics and individual-level socioeconomic position indicators in three population-based epidemiologic studies. Annals of Epidemiology, 11(6), Elliot, D. (2008). A better way to zone: Ten principles to create more livable cities. Washington, DC: Island Press. Farley, J. (2014, May 11). Medical marijuana odds get higher in CT, but anxiety grows in N.J. Thirteen. Retrieved from org/metrofocus/2012/03/medical-marijuana-odds-get-higher-in-c-t-butanxiety-grows-in-n-j Freisthler, B., Kepple, N. J., Sims, R., & Martin, S. (2013). Evaluating medical marijuana dispensary policies: Spatial methods for the study of environmentally-based interventions. American Journal of Community Psychology, 51(1 2), doi: /s Gaber, S., & Takahashi, S. (1998). Controversial facility siting in the urban environment: Resident and planner perceptions in the United States. Environment and Behavior, 30(2), doi: / Gorman, D., Speer, P., Gruenwald, P., & Labouvie, E. (2001). Spatial dynamics of alcohol availability, neighborhood structure and violent crime. Journal of Studies on Alcohol and Drugs, 62(5), Retrieved from Greenberg Quinlan Rosner Research. (2012). USC Dornsife College of Letters, Arts and Sciences/Los Angeles Times Poll. Los Angeles, CA: Greenberg Quinlan Rosner. Gruenwald, P., & Remer, L. (2006). Changes in outlet densities affect violence rates. Alcoholism: Clinical and Experimental Research, 30(7), doi: /j x Holder, H., Gruenewald, P., Ponicki, W., Treno, A., Grube, J., Voaz, R.,...Roeper, P. (2000). Effect of community-based interventions on high-risk drinking and alcohol-related injuries. Journal of the American Medical Association, 284(18), doi: / jama Ingold, J. (2010, January 27). Analysis: Denver pot shops robbery rate lower than banks. Denver Post. Retrieved from com/ci_ Ingold, J., & Lofholm, N. (2011, January 24). Medical-marijuana dispensaries effect on crime unclear. Denver Post. Retrieved from Jones-Webb, R., & Karriker-Jaffe, K. (2013). Neighborhood disadvantage, high alcohol content beverage consumption, drinking norms, and drinking consequences: A mediation analysis. Journal of Urban Health, 90(4), doi: /s y Jones-Webb, R., McKee, P., Hannan, P., Wall, M., Pham, L., Erickson, D., & Wagenaar, A. (2008). Alcohol and malt liquor availability and promotion and homicide in inner cities. Substance Use and Misuse, 43, doi: / Kaiser, L. (2011, March). Cannabusiness comes to town. Planning, Retrieved from Kamin, S. (2012). Medical marijuana in Colorado and the future of marijuana regulation in the United States. McGeorge Law Review, 43, Retrieved from Kelly, E. D. (1999). Local regulation of lawful sex businesses. Land Use Law and Zoning Digest, 51(9), doi: / Kendall, R. (2012). Study charts actual number of pot shops in L.A. UCLA Newsroom. Retrieved from ucla/study-determines-actual-number aspx Kepple, N., & Friesthler, B. (2012). Exploring the ecological association between crime and medical marijuana dispensaries. Journal of Studies on Alcohol and Drugs, 73(4), Krieger, N., Waterman, P. D., Chen, J. T., Rehkopf, D. H., & Subramian, S. V. (2004). Geocoding and monitoring U.S. socioeconomic inequalities in health: An introduction to using area-based socioeconomic

175 Page 175 of Journal of the American Planning Association, Winter 2014, Vol. 80, No. 1 measures The Public Health Disparities Geocoding Project monograph. Boston, MA: Harvard School of Public Health. Kudler, A. (2014, January 31). Snobby arts district residents clutching pearls over pot shop. Curbed LA. Retrieved from archives/2014/01/snobby_arts_district_residents_clutching_pearls_ over_pot_shop.php LaVeist, T., & Wallace, J. (2000) Health risk and inequitable distribution of liquor stores in African American neighborhoods. Social Science and Medicine, 51(4), doi: /s (00) Maantay, J. (2002). Zoning law, health and environmental justice: What s the connection? Journal of Law, Medicine and Ethics, 30(4), doi: /j x.2002.tb00427.x Metzger, A. (2013, September 8). Six Cape town throw up pot blocks. Cape Cod Today. Retrieved from article/2013/09/18/21713-six-cape-town-throw-pot-blocks Mitchell, A. (2012). The ESRI guide to GIS analysis, volume 3: Modeling suitability, movement, and interaction. Redlands, CA: ESRI. Municode. (2012a). Ann Arbor, Michigan, code of ordinances. Retrieved from Municode. (2012b). Denver, Colorado, code of ordinances. Retrieved from Municode. (2014). Los Angeles County, California, code of ordinances. Retrieved from National Historical Geographic Information System. (2012). National historical geographic information system. Retrieved from National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws. (2014). Introduction. Retrieved from NeighborhoodInfo DC. (2014, April 29). DC 2012 Ward 5 profile. Retrieved from wrd5.html Opfer, C. (2013, May 2). In D.C. medical marijuana is all about location, location, location. City Lab. Retrieved from citylab.com/politics/2013/07/dc-medical-marijuana-about-locationlocation-location/6093/ Osher, C. (2011, January 3). As dispensaries pop up, Denver may be Pot Capital, USA. Denver Post. Retrieved from com/ci_ Pew Research. (2010). Poll: Public support for legalizing medical marijuana. Retrieved from public-support-for-legalizing-medical-marijuana/ Popper, F. (1981). Siting LULUs. Planning, 47(4), Retrieved from Pugh, T. (2011). Medical marijuana industry rapidly grows mainstream. McClatchy Report. Retrieved from com/2011/03/30/111304/medical-marijuana-industry-rapidly.html Pulido, L. (2000). Rethinking environmental racism: White privilege and urban development in Southern California. Annals of the Association of American Geographers, 90(1), doi: / Ritzdorf, M. (1997). Locked out of paradise: Contemporary exclusionary zoning, the Supreme Court, and African Americans, 1970 to the present. In M. Thomas, J. Ritzdorf, & M. Ritzdorf (Eds.), Urban planning and the African American Community: In the shadows (pp ). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Roberts, C. (2013, July 12). Feds move to close Harborside Health Center, California s biggest marijuana dispensary. SF Weekly. Retrieved from center_oakland_marijuana.php Salkin, P., & Kansler, Z. (2011). Medical marijuana meets zoning: Can you grow, sell, and smoke that here? Planning and Environmental Law, 62(8), 3 8. doi: / Sandman, P. (1986). Getting to maybe: Some communications aspects of siting hazardous waste facilities. Seton Hall Legislative Journal, 9(2), Retrieved from Schively, C. (2007). Understanding the NIMBY and LULU phenomena: Reassessing our knowledge base and informing future research. Journal of Planning Literature, 21(3), doi: / Scott, D. (2012). Medical marijuana: Do states know how to regulate it? Governing. Retrieved from public-justice-safety/gov-medical-marijuana-becoming-mainstream.html See Change Strategies LLC. (2011). The state of the medical marijuana markets Washington, DC: See Change Strategies LLC. Shimotsu, S., Jones-Webb, R., MacLehose, R., Nelson, T., Forster, J., Lytle, L., & Van Riper, D. (2012) Food and alcohol access in neighborhoods of varying socioeconomic status. Journal of Alcohol and Drug Education, 56(3), Retrieved from Silver, C. (1997). The racial origins of zoning. In M. Thomas, J. Ritzdorf, & M. Ritzdorf (Eds.), Urban planning and the African American community: In the shadows (pp ). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Steckler, C. (2006). City of Fremont Police Department memorandum re medical marijuana dispensaries Potential secondary impacts. Fremont, CA: City of Fremont Police Department. Sze, J. (2006). Noxious New York: The racial politics of urban health and environmental justice. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Thurstone, C., Lieberman, S. A., & Schmiege, S. J. (2011). Medical marijuana diversion and associated problems in adolescent substance treatment. Drug and Alcohol Dependence, 118(2 3), doi: /j.drugalcdep Tilton, D. (2009). White paper on marijuana dispensaries. Retrieved from U.S. Census. (2014, May 5). Census American fact finder. Retrieved from xhtml?refresh=t Vennochi, J. (2014, March 9). Medical pot NIMBYs hate that, too. Boston Globe. Retrieved from editorials/2014/03/09/medical-pot-nimbys-hate-that-too/t0hkjtb3v2yjlbvltjayki/story.html Walker, G. (2013, November 13). Neighbors take pot protest to the streets: Mar Vista residents claims medical marijuana dispensary doesn t fit with city regulations. Argonaut News. Retrieved from neighbors-take-pot-protest-to-the-streets-mar-vista-residents-claimsmedical-marijuana-dispensary-doesnt-fit-with-city-regulations/ Wolch, J., Wilson, J. & Fehrenbach, J. (2005). Parks and public funding in Los Angeles: An equity-mapping analysis. Urban Geography, 26(1), doi: /

176 An Argument in favor of Bay Area Localities Embracing the Cannabis Industry By Dominic Ripoli, Cannabis Legal Consultant, JD Table of Contents Introduction... 1 Brief Overview of Cannabis Public Policy... 2 How Can Cannabis Achieve Restorative Justice?... 3 Taxes and Social Justice... 4 Crime and Cannabis... 4 Where to Begin?... 6 Conclusion... 6 Introduction Cannabis is a U.S. cultural phenomenon. Since the 1970 s cannabis has been glorified by Hollywood and TV media. 1 Cannabis has also been California s number one cash crop for the last four decades! 2,3 California s moniker as The Fruit and Vegetable Basket of the Nation 4 will soon be replaced with nation s Cannabis Basket. Why cannabis? Why now? With the passage of Proposition 64 last November the state is poised to launch their new regulations coming from the California Bureau of Cannabis _our_fruits_and_vegetables_what_would_we_eat_without.html Page 176 of 204

177 Regulation 5. With it will come a tectonic shift in the cannabis industry. A fast-paced regulated market will soon be developed and the localities who embrace the black market and allow it to merge into regulation will be able to profit from the industry s growth. This emerging industry doesn t require a fancy college degree to enter either as a business owner or an employee who will have an opportunity to create a career rather than merely hold a job. 6,7 The ability for the cannabis industry to create middle class jobs is nothing to scoff at. Cultivation and manufacturing of cannabis concentrates still requires manual labor and deep technical know-how. The labor required for processing, harvesting, testing, and packaging cannabis products will create a labor demand for sustainable middle class jobs. This reason is the most compelling of all to incorporate cannabis into your locality. Brief Overview of Cannabis Public Policy Cannabis has been a staple of human medicine from the beginning of human history. 8 It s current public policy in the United States is a position of hate and fear, NOT science and evidence. Cannabis was used after the Spanish-American War to alienate and use violence against Mexicans coming over the border. 9 The term marijuana was coined in American culture to inspire fear in the hearts and minds of Americans who found the Spanish term for Page 177 of 204

178 cannabis too exotic and non-anglo. It was used to alienate Jazz musicians and most notoriously has been used to imprison hundreds of thousands of black and brown people for the past four decades. 10 It is time for communities comprised of black and brown people to stand against such hateful and ignorant public policy. It s time to restore justice to the community. Cannabis can help lead the way to achieve that goal. How Can Cannabis Achieve Restorative Justice? For those on the inside loop of cannabis politics, many believe the regulation of cannabis and the end of prohibition is so monumental and historical that it could possibly help create social equity and parity. Specifically, with those who have been targeted by the war on drugs, primarily people of color. 11 The City of Oakland has instituted a Cannabis Equity Program that runs parallel with their licensing program. The Equity Program is an ambitious social experiment which lowers barriers of entry into the cannabis industry for people who have been targeted by the war on drugs and have not had the social background and history to accumulate the wealth required to enter such a heavily regulated industry. This in turn allows the locality to have micro-control over the growth of its own localized cannabis industry. By slowing down the growth of the market in terms of the supply chain, the city can best adjust to 10 Crime in California 2016, Dept. of Justice, CA Page 178 of 204

179 the new social and legal changes as well as pave the road for local community members affected by the war on drugs to create their own businesses and give back to the community. Taxes and Social Justice Social programs cost money. Raising taxes is taxing on constituents and local officials who dare suggest raising them. With cannabis, you can have both! The state of California intends to collect taxes from cannabis sales and place it in a pool called the California Marijuana Tax fund. 12 Localities, county and other wise, who allow cannabis regulation in their jurisdiction will be able to apply for funds for grant programs created by local officials. This pool will be divided accordingly: 60% Youth Education, Health, and Drug Prevention; 20% Environmental Restoration; 20% to State and Local Law Enforcement. 13 Cannabis, both medical and adult use will be a boon to your locality. Crime and Cannabis The most dangerous thing about cannabis is being caught with it. A quote from actor and comedian Bill Murray. 14 The sad thing is, that it is true! Science and data have proven 12 Cal Revenue and Taxation Code Div. 2 Part 14.5 (2)(e) pg Page 179 of 204

180 beyond a reasonable doubt that alcohol and tobacco are far more dangerous to society and to an individual s health than cannabis. 15 Prohibition creates criminals. Prohibiting cannabis from society is simply not a policy based on facts and evidence. It s a policy based on fear, hatred and ignorance. The Official overseeing San Francisco s Department of Public Health medical cannabis program has provided me information I requested through a public record s request proving that commercial cannabis does not increase crime in the neighborhoods they are located. The data that the head of San Francisco medical cannabis department provided me revealed not one citation or arrest was given to any patron of a cannabis business or owner of a cannabis business since 2006, when records starting being kept on such data. In fact, where dispensaries have opened, neighborhoods have improved. The irony is the local liquor stores play the role of local drug dealer by allowing loiterers on the premises. Cannabis businesses have such tight regulations and a huge spotlight on them, allowing such risky business on their store premises is never tolerated mean_physical_harm_and_mean_dependence).svg#/media/file:development_of_a_rational_s cale_to_assess_the_harm_of_drugs_of_potential_misuse_(physical_harm_and_dependence,_ NA_free_means).svg Page 180 of 204

181 Where to Begin? Many localities have decided to create Cannabis Task Forces comprised of community leaders and business people as well as local agencies to develop comprehensive cannabis public policy. 16,17 These types of public bodies create trust and sound policy where the entire community can participate. Finding a person to lead and coordinate such a body can be timely and costly. Finding the person with the right public policy experience, knowledge, and where with all for the right price, is like finding a unicorn. Let me be your unicorn. Conclusion The Green Rush is here. By January 2018 the cannabis industry and market will begin to solidify. Money will never stop flowing. Tourists will pour in from all over the world. Why would you want your community to miss out on such easy revenue, job creation, and public health benefits? Now is the time to become a leader and organize your community to embrace this once in a lifetime economic opportunity Page 181 of 204

182 Dominic Ripoli 1286 Guerrero St. apt 9 San Francisco, CA ripolidominic@gmail.com EDUCATION Golden Gate University School of Law San Francisco CA Doctor of Jurisprudence May 2015 Honors: Drug Policy Alliance Biennial Reform Conference Scholarship, Recipient CALI, Guerrilla Lawyering, Paul Harris Students for Sensible Drug Policy (SSDP), Co-Chair Summer Trial and Evidence Program Mock Trial Team Progressive Cities Workshop and Research Seminar Howard University Bachelor of Arts in Legal Communication Washington DC GPA: 3.57 (4.0) December 2011 Honors: Transfer Scholarship, Recipient Special Talent Scholarship for Mock Trial, Recipient Dean s List (all semesters) Leadership: Mock Trial, Team Captain CASCADE (LGBT student group), Parliamentarian EXPERIENCE Elevated Consulting Cannabis Policy Consultant San Francisco CA October Present The shifting legality of the cannabis industry and the end of the War on Drugs requires constant attention to the changing direction and opportunities within the cannabis industry. Having a legally trained researcher as a resource to bring up to date analysis on current cannabis issues is an effective way to get a competitive edge. Assess and evaluate your cannabis business and provide insight on best practices and standards. Provide public policy advice on current and future business expansions. Provide up to date cannabis policy with supported research and data. California Cannabis Education Fund, Terrance Alan, SF Cannabis Legalization Task Force San Francisco CA Legal Analysist, Cannabis Project Manager April 2016 Sept 2017 Provide legal analysis regarding complex cannabis policy for city government. Areas of analysis include public safety, youth consumption, health education, and zoning. Helped spread SF cannabis policy dialogue with SF Board of Supervisors, which included organizing an educational highlight tour of SF s local cannabis industry. Help create cannabis public policy geared toward creating opportunities for the victims of the war on drugs. Law Offices of James Anthony Oakland CA Policy Analysist May 2016 July 2016 Write memos regarding local city codes and ordinances concerning cannabis business licenses and applications. Helped develop, write, and edit applications for cannabis business clients. Attended community meetings, seminars, and cannabis industry gatherings to create and foster a sense of community and political will around the cannabis industry. Developed strategies and plans of action regarding application hearings for cannabis businesses in several Bay Area municipalities, including but not limited to Oakland, Richmond, San Francisco, and Santa Rosa. INTERESTS AND ACTIVITIES Yoga, Reading, PS4, MTG, Cannabis activism, politics, facebook Page 182 of 204

183 From: Todd Peterson Date: October 10, 2017 at 20:05:14 CDT To: "'Cass, Michael'" Subject: RE: Addendum to Marijuana Survey Mr. Cass: Here are my comments based on your note below. You should follow our neighbor communities that work to attract families. If Walnut Creek approves(doubt they will), then what a messed up world. I am sure that all of you and your colleagues as parents do not want this so available to the youth and the crime it will bring. I am just shaking my head on how we can even be making this acceptable when it is against the law Federally. Further, let us just look the other way and let the world fall apart. Regards, Todd If this gets voted in and things go further south, I am selling my home that is paid for and moving. PERIOD. W. Todd Peterson Cell Page 183 of 204

184 From: Vic Pinto Sent: Wednesday, October 11, :49 AM To: Concord City Council Subject: Medical cannabis Another city, Livermore, putting on hold a ban on shops selling pot. Even though a poll said 58 percent would support a dispensary the city council wisely voted to prepare an ordinance that would ban this activity. This would preserve local control and not allow the state to open a dispensary. This is something Concord should do. Vic Pinto Page 184 of 204

185 From: Sent: Thursday, October 12, :15 PM To: Concord City Council Subject: CANNIBIS DELIVERY I AM A SENIOR AND LIVE IN ROSSMOOR IN WALNUT CREEK.I USE CANNIBIS REGULARILY FOR THE MANY MEDICAL PROBLEMS THAT I HAVE. IT IS AN EFFORT FOR ME TO GET THIS MEDICATION AND MUST RELY ON SOMEONE TO DELIVER THIS FOR ME. WHAT YOU ARE DOING IS UNFAIR AND WILL CAUSE ME TO SUFFER IN TH FUTURE IF THIS IS APPROVED. MICHAEL WEISENBERG 617 TERRA CALIFORNIA DR#6 WALNUT CREEK CA Page 185 of 204

186 From: Dominic Ripoli Sent: Friday, October 13, :10 PM To: Gonzalez, Jessica Subject: Re: Cannabis Consultant Thank you for your response. I would like to make sure that these Cannabis Presentation.pptx attachments are sent with my comment. Thank you! Page 186 of 204

187 An Argument in favor of Bay Area Localities Embracing the Cannabis Industry By Dominic Ripoli, Cannabis Legal Consultant, JD Table of Contents Introduction... 1 Brief Overview of Cannabis Public Policy... 2 How Can Cannabis Achieve Restorative Justice?... 3 Taxes and Social Justice... 4 Crime and Cannabis... 4 Where to Begin?... 6 Conclusion... 6 Introduction Cannabis is a U.S. cultural phenomenon. Since the 1970 s cannabis has been glorified by Hollywood and TV media. 1 Cannabis has also been California s number one cash crop for the last four decades! 2,3 California s moniker as The Fruit and Vegetable Basket of the Nation 4 will soon be replaced with nation s Cannabis Basket. Why cannabis? Why now? With the passage of Proposition 64 last November the state is poised to launch their new regulations coming from the California Bureau of Cannabis _our_fruits_and_vegetables_what_would_we_eat_without.html Page 187 of 204

188 Regulation 5. With it will come a tectonic shift in the cannabis industry. A fast-paced regulated market will soon be developed and the localities who embrace the black market and allow it to merge into regulation will be able to profit from the industry s growth. This emerging industry doesn t require a fancy college degree to enter either as a business owner or an employee who will have an opportunity to create a career rather than merely hold a job. 6,7 The ability for the cannabis industry to create middle class jobs is nothing to scoff at. Cultivation and manufacturing of cannabis concentrates still requires manual labor and deep technical know-how. The labor required for processing, harvesting, testing, and packaging cannabis products will create a labor demand for sustainable middle class jobs. This reason is the most compelling of all to incorporate cannabis into your locality. Brief Overview of Cannabis Public Policy Cannabis has been a staple of human medicine from the beginning of human history. 8 It s current public policy in the United States is a position of hate and fear, NOT science and evidence. Cannabis was used after the Spanish-American War to alienate and use violence against Mexicans coming over the border. 9 The term marijuana was coined in American culture to inspire fear in the hearts and minds of Americans who found the Spanish term for Page 188 of 204

189 cannabis too exotic and non-anglo. It was used to alienate Jazz musicians and most notoriously has been used to imprison hundreds of thousands of black and brown people for the past four decades. 10 It is time for communities comprised of black and brown people to stand against such hateful and ignorant public policy. It s time to restore justice to the community. Cannabis can help lead the way to achieve that goal. How Can Cannabis Achieve Restorative Justice? For those on the inside loop of cannabis politics, many believe the regulation of cannabis and the end of prohibition is so monumental and historical that it could possibly help create social equity and parity. Specifically, with those who have been targeted by the war on drugs, primarily people of color. 11 The City of Oakland has instituted a Cannabis Equity Program that runs parallel with their licensing program. The Equity Program is an ambitious social experiment which lowers barriers of entry into the cannabis industry for people who have been targeted by the war on drugs and have not had the social background and history to accumulate the wealth required to enter such a heavily regulated industry. This in turn allows the locality to have micro-control over the growth of its own localized cannabis industry. By slowing down the growth of the market in terms of the supply chain, the city can best adjust to 10 Crime in California 2016, Dept. of Justice, CA Page 189 of 204

190 the new social and legal changes as well as pave the road for local community members affected by the war on drugs to create their own businesses and give back to the community. Taxes and Social Justice Social programs cost money. Raising taxes is taxing on constituents and local officials who dare suggest raising them. With cannabis, you can have both! The state of California intends to collect taxes from cannabis sales and place it in a pool called the California Marijuana Tax fund. 12 Localities, county and other wise, who allow cannabis regulation in their jurisdiction will be able to apply for funds for grant programs created by local officials. This pool will be divided accordingly: 60% Youth Education, Health, and Drug Prevention; 20% Environmental Restoration; 20% to State and Local Law Enforcement. 13 Cannabis, both medical and adult use will be a boon to your locality. Crime and Cannabis The most dangerous thing about cannabis is being caught with it. A quote from actor and comedian Bill Murray. 14 The sad thing is, that it is true! Science and data have proven 12 Cal Revenue and Taxation Code Div. 2 Part 14.5 (2)(e) pg Page 190 of 204

191 beyond a reasonable doubt that alcohol and tobacco are far more dangerous to society and to an individual s health than cannabis. 15 Prohibition creates criminals. Prohibiting cannabis from society is simply not a policy based on facts and evidence. It s a policy based on fear, hatred and ignorance. The Official overseeing San Francisco s Department of Public Health medical cannabis program has provided me information I requested through a public record s request proving that commercial cannabis does not increase crime in the neighborhoods they are located. The data that the head of San Francisco medical cannabis department provided me revealed not one citation or arrest was given to any patron of a cannabis business or owner of a cannabis business since 2006, when records starting being kept on such data. In fact, where dispensaries have opened, neighborhoods have improved. The irony is the local liquor stores play the role of local drug dealer by allowing loiterers on the premises. Cannabis businesses have such tight regulations and a huge spotlight on them, allowing such risky business on their store premises is never tolerated mean_physical_harm_and_mean_dependence).svg#/media/file:development_of_a_rational_s cale_to_assess_the_harm_of_drugs_of_potential_misuse_(physical_harm_and_dependence,_ NA_free_means).svg Page 191 of 204

192 Where to Begin? Many localities have decided to create Cannabis Task Forces comprised of community leaders and business people as well as local agencies to develop comprehensive cannabis public policy. 16,17 These types of public bodies create trust and sound policy where the entire community can participate. Finding a person to lead and coordinate such a body can be timely and costly. Finding the person with the right public policy experience, knowledge, and where with all for the right price, is like finding a unicorn. Let me be your unicorn. Conclusion The Green Rush is here. By January 2018 the cannabis industry and market will begin to solidify. Money will never stop flowing. Tourists will pour in from all over the world. Why would you want your community to miss out on such easy revenue, job creation, and public health benefits? Now is the time to become a leader and organize your community to embrace this once in a lifetime economic opportunity Page 192 of 204

193 Page 193 of 204

194 Page 194 of 204

195 Page 195 of 204

196 Page 196 of 204

197 Page 197 of 204

198 Page 198 of 204

199 Page 199 of 204

200 Page 200 of 204

201 From: Sent: Saturday, October 14, :29 PM To: Concord City Council Subject: Action proposed re Marijuana delivery service City of Concord Honorable City Council Members: I do not live in Concord, but some of the decisions made in this chamber impact on me, an 80 year old resident of Rossmoor and current user of Medical Marijuana. I depend upon the delivery services of The Agathist Collective for my recommended products. My experience with their delivery has been prompt and professional in every way. Even their attire speaks well of them. But they don t have a storefront - no need because they have no walk-in trade and no intentions to move in that direction. If Concord passes a ban on all commercial cannabis businesses, there will be no legal delivery services left to operate in Contra Costa County in And seniors depend upon reliable delivery services because the option is driving, or being driven out of the county, to Berkeley with its concentration of store front retailers and scarcity of parking. Please reconsider your planned action to disallow non-storefront dispensaries (delivery services) to operate out of Concord. Thank you for your time to read this letter and I sincerely hope it will make a difference in outcome. Sincerely, Garia Gant Walnut Creek Page 201 of 204

202 From: Phil Handin Sent: Saturday, October 14, :41 PM To: Concord City Council Subject: Cannabis delivery services While not a resident of Contra Costa County (reside in Oakland), my wife and I want to register our firm opposition to the current proposal to come before you on Tuesday, October 24 whereby no state-compliant cannabis delivery services will be permitted in Contra Costa county in Page 202 of 204

203 From: Eric Hill Sent: Sunday, October 15, :08 PM To: Concord City Council Subject: Legal medical marijuana delivery in Contra Costa County Dear Council members, I am writing you to express my support for allowing the delivery of medical cannabis in Contra Costa County. In light of the real need of pain management by patients who may otherwise turn toward the prescription drugs available, which in light of the current opioid epidemic in our country, which is out of control and deadly to many, a more natural alternative should be available. No one has ever died from an overdose of marijuana, whereas prescription medications can be addictive, and dangerously toxic, leading to death. Big pharmaceutical companies, with their money and power have pushed their drugs and contributed to many deaths in patients who search for relief from their maladies. Medical marijuana doesn't have the same voice as the big pharma companies and is treated with bias, when in fact it can save lives and help those who seek a natural holistic way to ease their pain. I'm not endorsing recreational use of marijuana, but just asking that you consider the medical benefit for those who want an alternative to such deadly drugs as opioids. Remember, nobody has ever died from an overdose of cannabis. I personally have an inoperable brain tumor and have had stereotactic radiosurgery on it, and the tumor and side effects of the radiation has caused me insomnia, depression and pain. Prescriptions I receive from doctors such as benzodiazepines have a short term effect and cannot be used indefinitely. That is why I turn to cannabis, which my psychiatrist recommended 'off the record' because of the stigma from the Federal DEA. Doctors must be allowed to recommend cannabis openly and not operate underground for fear of their reputation being tarnished by the federal government, whose policies are outdated and backwards. I think we as a community should weigh the mortality rates of prescription pain medications against the zero mortality rate of cannabis. I urge the council to move forward and not backward on this issue. As I said, I mean for medical pain relief, not for recreational use. It is important that people have access to a healthier, less dangerous means of dealing with chronic pain. I urge you to please allow for the delivery of medical marijuana to patients in Contra Costa County. Sincerely, Eric Hill. Page 203 of 204

204 From: Judy Frohlich Sent: Sunday, October 15, :09 PM To: Concord City Council Subject: October 24, 2017 Resolution to ban all commercial cannabis business in the city To Concord City Council, I rely on the delivery-only services of The Agathist Collective for my medical needs. If the proposed citywide ban is passed on October 24th, there will be no available delivery services east of the Caldecott Tunnel. Please keep in mind when you vote that there are many residents in Contra Costa County who rely on delivery-only services. These residents will face difficulties if this ban is passed. Please do NOT vote to ban all commercial cannabis businesses in the City of Concord. Thank you for your time and consideration, Judy Frohlich Lafayette, CA Page 204 of 204

205 City Council October 24, 2017 Michael P. Cass, Principal Planner: Long-Range & Sustainability Policy Pedro Garcia, Economic Development Specialist 1

206 Meeting Overview Staff Presentation Bryan Godbe Presentation Public Comments Council Deliberation 2

207 Interdepartmental Working Group on Marijuana Regulations City Attorney City Management Police Finance Public Works Planning Economic Development 3

208 Types of Marijuana Uses Personal Cultivation Commercial Cultivation Distribution / Delivery Transportation Manufacturing / Testing Laboratories Dispensaries / Retail Micro Permit (small-scale dispensary and other uses) 4

209 Recommendation Ban all marijuana (cannabis) uses, except: Personal indoor cultivation Delivery of medical marijuana Receive presentation by Bryan Godbe. Provide direction to staff. 5

210 Council Meeting Directed staff to prepare a ban to allow time for the City to study the issue. Directed staff to work with a consultant on a statistically-valid survey. 6

211 Purpose of Ban To allow City to study and establish a comprehensive regulations relating to marijuana issues. Reasoning: Retain Local Control Timing / January 2, 2018 deadline Permissive Zoning (uses expressly allowed or not allowed) Pending Legislation State Hasn t Published Regulations 7

212 Planning Commission Recommendation Recommend Council ban all marijuana uses. Recommend excluding or prioritizing: non-storefront medical marijuana delivery services testing laboratories 8

213 Use Ballot Tax Measure Non-Storefront Dispensaries Testing Laboratories / Manufacturing Storefront Dispensaries Commercial Cultivation Micro-Business Tax Revenue Generation Potential Staff Effort & Time Crime & Safety Impacts Potential # of New Jobs Impacts by Potential State or County Regulations N/A High None None None Low Low (Testing) / High (Manufacturing) High Medium / High Low / Medium Low Low Low High Medium / High Low / Medium High Medium Low / Medium Low Medium / High Medium Medium Low High Low / Medium High (But all others will be low, if this is tackled first) Medium Low Low 9

214 Community Outreach Efforts Statistically-valid survey e-notification list of interested parties Public meetings Marijuana landing page on the City s website: 10

215 Recommendation Ban all marijuana (cannabis) uses, except: Personal indoor cultivation Delivery of medical marijuana Provide direction to staff. 11

216 Questions? Michael P. Cass, Principal Planner (925) Pedro Garcia, Economic Development Specialist (925)

217 Use Ballot Tax Measure Non-Storefront Dispensaries Testing Laboratories / Manufacturing Storefront Dispensaries Commercial Cultivation Micro-Business Tax Revenue Generation Potential Staff Effort & Time Crime & Safety Impacts Potential # of New Jobs Impacts by Potential State or County Regulations N/A High None None None Low Low (Testing) / High (Manufacturing) High Medium / High Low / Medium Low Low Low High Medium / High Low / Medium High Medium Low / Medium Low Medium / High Medium Medium Low High Low / Medium High (But all others will be low, if this is tackled first) Medium Low Low 13

218 City of Concord: 2017 Cannabis Planning Survey October 2017 Page 1 October 2017

219 Overview and Research Objectives The City of Concord commissioned Godbe Research to conduct a survey of local voters with the following research objectives: Assess awareness and support for sale, cultivation and related activities of medical and recreational marijuana; Determine preferences for potential locations for and prevalence of medical and recreational marijuana dispensaries in Concord; Assess potential voter support for gross receipts tax on cannabis businesses; Gauge concern about crime associated with marijuana dispensaries and deliveries, as well as influence of City Council and Police involvement in choosing locations; and Identify demographic and/or behavioral characteristics to ensure the sample is representative of the likely voter universe. Page 2 October 2017

220 Methodology Overview Data Collection Universe Landline, cell phone, text to online, and to online interviewing 52,156 likely voters in the City of Concord Fielding Dates August 22 through August 29, 2017 Interview Length Sample Size 16 minutes n=1,155 Landline=112 Cell phone=72 Invite=289 Text Invite=682 Margin of Error ± 2.85% The data have been weighted to reflect the actual population characteristics of likely voters in the City of Concord in terms of their gender, age, and political party type. Page 3 October 2017

221 Geographic Breakdowns Page 4 October 2017

222 Key Findings Page 5 October 2017

223 Q1. Opinion on Quality of Life (n=1,155) DK/NA 0.4% Just fair 17.6% Poor 4.1% Excellent 17.8% Good 60.2% Total Ex + Good Oct % Jan % Page 6 October 2017

224 Q2. Support for Sale of Medical Marijuana in Concord (n=1,155) Strongly oppose 20.3% DK/NA 2.7% Strongly support 46.0% Somewhat oppose 8.0% Somewhat support 23.0% Page 7 October 2017

225 Q3. Support for Sale of Recreational Marijuana in Concord (n=1,155) Strongly oppose 35.4% DK/NA 3.7% Strongly support 31.6% Somewhat oppose 10.4% Somewhat support 18.9% Page 8 October 2017

226 Q4. Support for Medical Marijuana Activities in Concord (n=1,155) F. Medical dispensaries % A. Testing labs 0.63 Tier 1 C. Indoor commercial cultivation facilities 0.35 B. Shipping and distribution facilities E. Manufacturing of marijuana products D. Outdoor commercial cultivation facilities Tier 2 Tier Somewhat Somewhat Oppose Support Strongly Oppose Strongly Support Note: The above rating questions have been abbreviated for charting purposes, and responses were recoded to calculate mean scores: Strongly Support = +2, Somewhat Support = +1, Somewhat Oppose = -1, and Strongly Oppose = -2. Page 9 October 2017

227 Q5. Support for Recreational Marijuana Activities in Concord (n=1,155) A. Testing labs % Tier 1 C. Indoor commercial cultivation facilities F. Recreational marijuana dispensaries B. Shipping and distribution facilities E. Manufacturing of marijuana products G. Adult marijuana clubs D. Outdoor commercial cultivation facilities % Tier 2 Tier Somewhat Somewhat Oppose Support Strongly Oppose Strongly Support Note: The above rating questions have been abbreviated for charting purposes, and responses were recoded to calculate mean scores: Strongly Support = +2, Somewhat Support = +1, Somewhat Oppose = -1, and Strongly Oppose = -2. Page 10 October 2017

228 Q6. Support for Personal Outdoor Cultivation of Up to 6 Marijuana Plants (n=1,155) Strongly Oppose 31.6% DK/NA 4.5% Strongly Support 31.1% Somewhat Oppose 12.7% Somewhat Support 20.0% Page 11 October 2017

229 Q7. Support for Personal Outdoor Cultivation of Up to 3 Marijuana Plants (n=1,155) Strongly Oppose 29.7% DK/NA 4.5% Strongly Support 35.6% Somewhat Oppose 11.2% Somewhat Support 19.1% Page 12 October 2017

230 Q8. Support for Potential Medical Marijuana Dispensary Locations in Concord (n=1,155) D. Near the police department F. Industrial areas A. Downtown E. Regional shopping centers B. Local shopping centers G. Office buildings C. Residential neighborhoods % % Tier 1 Tier 2 Tier 3 Tier Somewhat Somewhat Oppose Support Strongly Oppose Strongly Support Note: The above rating questions have been abbreviated for charting purposes, and responses were recoded to calculate mean scores: Strongly Support = +2, Somewhat Support = +1, Somewhat Oppose = -1, and Strongly Oppose = -2. Page 13 October 2017

231 Q8. Support for Potential Medical Marijuana Dispensary Locations in Concord Geographical Area & Attitudinal Comparisons Total Area 1 Area 2 Area 3 Area 4 8A. Downtown B. Local shopping centers C. Residential neighborhoods D. Near the police department E. Regional shopping centers F. Industrial areas G. Office buildings Sale of Medical Marijuana in Concord Total Support Oppose DK/NA 8A. Downtown B. Local shopping centers C. Residential neighborhoods D. Near the police department E. Regional shopping centers F. Industrial areas G. Office buildings Page 14 October 2017

232 Q9. Support for Potential Recreational Marijuana Dispensary Locations in Concord (n=1,155) D. Near the police department F. Industrial areas A. Downtown E. Regional shopping centers B. Local shopping centers G. Office buildings C. Residential neighborhoods % 16.8% Tier 1 Tier 2 Tier 3 Tier 4 Tier Somewhat Somewhat Oppose Support Strongly Oppose Strongly Support Note: The above rating questions have been abbreviated for charting purposes, and responses were recoded to calculate mean scores: Strongly Support = +2, Somewhat Support = +1, Somewhat Oppose = -1, and Strongly Oppose = -2. Page 15 October 2017

233 Q9. Support for Potential Recreational Marijuana Dispensary Locations in Concord Geographical Area & Attitudinal Comparisons Total Area 1 Area 2 Area 3 Area 4 9A. Downtown B. Local shopping centers C. Residential neighborhoods D. Near the police department E. Regional shopping centers F. Industrial areas G. Office buildings Sale of Recreational Marijuana in Concord Total Support Oppose Not sure/d K/NA 9A. Downtown B. Local shopping centers C. Residential neighborhoods D. Near the police department E. Regional shopping centers F. Industrial areas G. Office buildings Page 16 October 2017

234 Q10. Preferred Number of Marijuana Dispensaries Allowed in Concord (n=1,155) DK/NA 9.6% 1 to % None 23.6% 10 or more 11.0% 7 to 9 5.9% 4 to % Page 17 October 2017

235 Q11. Requirements/Regulations Residents Would Like (n=1,155) Not near schools Not in the city of concord/my neighborhood/don't Controlled/Obey laws/rules/regulations Regulate like cigarettes/alcohol/bars Require prescription/doctor issued/medical card Not in public/family areas/venues Not in residential areas No sales to minors/21 plus ID require for purchase Opposed to recreation marijuana Keep away from children Medical marijuana is OK Opposed to marijuana 7.4% 5.1% 4.6% 4.5% 4.5% 4.1% 3.7% 3.6% 3.1% 3.0% 2.8% 2.8% 2.0% No/None/Nothing 15.1% Other DK/NA/Not sure 28.3% 30.1% 0% 20% 40% Note: Issues that were mentioned by less than 2 percent of the residents have been added to the Other category for charting purposes. Page 18 October 2017

236 Q12. Concerned with Increased Crime Associated with Marijuana Dispensaries (n=1,155) DK/NA 6.6% No 42.7% Yes 50.8% Page 19 October 2017

237 Q13. Level of Concern with Increased Crime Associated with Marijuana Dispensaries (n=1,155) Somewhat concerned 24.6% DK/NA 0.1% Extremely concerned 45.1% Very concerned 30.2% Page 20 October 2017

238 Q14. Support for Medical Marijuana Dispensary Location Determined by City Council and Police (n=1,155) Strongly Oppose 16.5% DK/NA 8.1% Strongly Support 48.7% Somewhat Oppose 6.6% Somewhat Support 20.1% Page 21 October 2017

239 Q15. Support for Local Gross Receipts Tax on Marijuana Businesses (n=1,155) Probably No 2.7% Definitely No 9.8% DK/NA 4.2% Probably Yes 13.5% Definitely Yes 69.8% Page 22 October 2017

240 California and Corporate Offices 1575 Old Bayshore Highway, Suite 102 Burlingame, CA Nevada Office 59 Damonte Ranch Parkway, Suite B309 Reno, NV Pacific Northwest Office th Avenue NE, Suite 1900 Bellevue, WA Page 23 October 2017