Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
FULL PACKET_2007-10-01
REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE: OCTOBER 1, 2007 TITLE: YEAR-END COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT PROGRAM UPDATE RECOMMENDED ACTION Receive and file. DISCUSSION CLERK OF COUNCIL USE ONLY: APPROVED ^ As Recommended ^ As Amended ^ Ordinance on 15f Reading ^ Ordinance on 2"d Reading ^ Implementing Resolution ^ Set Public Hearing For_ CONTINUED TO FILE NUMBER During the 2006-2007 program year, Community Development Agency (CDA) staff assisted the 47 Council-approved Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) public service grant sub-recipients in administering their programs. Action steps undertaken included the following: • Program monitoring: To ensure HUD compliance and assist organizations in meeting their stated goals and objectives, CDA staff is required to conduct on-site monitoring reviews of all CDBG funded programs. Staff completed a total of 41 CDBG monitoring visits this program year. The remaining organizations that were not monitored in 2006-2007 and have received funding for 2007-2008, will be monitored during 2007-2008. • Review of year-end accomplishment reports and invoices: Per the terms of their contractual agreement, CDBG sub-recipients were required to submit year-end accomplishment reports and invoices to CDA staff by July 15, 2007. To date, all 47 of the CDBG public service grant sub-recipients have submitted year-end accomplishment reports. Exhibit A illustrates the total amount of Santa Ana residents served per organization and total amount invoiced as of August 29, 2007. Exhibit B describes the performance measurements established by the City and the results for 2006-2007. 19C-1 CITY MANAGER Year-End CDBG Program Update October 1, 2007 Page 2 FISCAL IMPACT There is no fiscal impact associated with this action. .~ Ste en G. Har ing Deputy City M nager for Development Services Community Development Agency SGH/NTE/kg H:\ACTION ITEMS\COUNCIL\2007 CC\YrEndCDBGProgUpdate 10-1-07.doc 19C-2 O L ~ ~ ~ a L ~ ~ o O (1~~ °o O v ~ w O ~O '~ O w V Q 'tii t0 O C7 ° o a o ~' I o ~ N ~0 ~ ~ `a o'"' .ti ~; ^~ Q ~ ~ ~ o ~ ° o V I, ~ m N~'o r` '', h 0 Q +.+ ~ O ... ~ ~ m ~ O ~i ~ m ayi V ,~+~' ' ~., y o H o 0 Rf O d ~ fl.. ~ O L Z ~ O ~ a a O ~ U w LL Z N ~ ~~ J+ ii O O U O O O 0 O 0 O O O O O O O O O O 0 O O V O O lA N 0 0 r 0 0 0 °o 0 0 0 V 0 0 O O 0 0 0 O 0 a 0 0 0 0 0 0 O 0 0 O 0 0 O w d U 0 c J f6 C 0 .N C lD H N 7 O x m L a~ N O m O F O ' O ~',~ O o o N O ~ ~ .- M O O N ~A ~I ~ 00 °o ~ N o'o oo 00 °o ono ion ~ °o N I ~ °o°o lOA I O N ' t!7 a~ c a~ U <6 O N C N U '. ~ _~ N ally W ~ ~ ~ O W M N M O 0 M (h O r O O ' lf'1 00 M 0 O N V N O O N r O f0 W O O O N V 0 0 0 O M 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 M 0 0 0 O 0 M a~ 0 m N H r d N O ~_ O 0 0 M W 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O 0 0 °o 0 O U O Q a~i 0 E O U w w O _c 3 t 0 0 0 0 O l!7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O 0 0 0 O 0 O Vl N N O (9 M N O 0 W M ~ O ~ ~ ~ (D M 0 °o cj `n ~' ~ M 0 0 o 0 0 O O 0 0 p ° p °- ~ M N M Q~ v O ,~ o p O o p y o O L ~ M ,~ m . ~ f6 O 7 ~ ~ O Q ~ rn m Q 0 'v C U O V (7 0 O N O O r 0 0 0 r 0 0 0 O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O 0 C 61 E O c .Q c a~ O (M7 ~ (O V OD N ~ ~ ~ M Ln O (") 1~ r 1n O M i I~ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 p ~ r I~ ~ V ~ V O O M O (~O I~ O Ch O i 0 O O O O O O O p O O N 1D m o ~w ~ a v~ °o ~ (h I Q1 M I I p o 0 0 0 0 0 I i 0 0 0 M r (Op ~ to in d M O' O o 0 M M I I 0 0 0 0 0 0 I I ° Io' o 0 . 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Q O o 0 o O o O O~ O 0 0 00 °o °o °o °o °o o ~ ~ o 0 0 0 0 0 0' 0 0 ~ ~ 1n to In CO CO N ~ I ~ O !r '~ N Q~ y ~ 0 0 0 0 0 ° 0 p 0 0 0 O o ~ 0 0 O 0 0 0 0 0 0 ~ O O O O O O O O ~ = In O lA O (D N In N O el' ' '. N '', o , ~ ', J I I p c ~ II 0 ~ 2 0 Q ~ ~ U N ~ (n N °~ _ C c6 O v ~ o E i ~ /n V _f0 ~ T ~ N L m C ~ to O f0 L1 N Q' N L 0 Q~ f0 U .. c a . -. C d E ° i$ n~N/ -_ LL .E ` N ~ m ~ c O C 2 1 ~ +L-~ , N ~ in in ~ o ! LL a c' ~ ~ m U o U I c c Q U ~ ~ Q N o ° f0 c N Q Q rn i c ~ ~ ~ - ~ li c ~ U 2 2 ~ ~ Z O i l ~ 1 9 C -3 U'1 V N 0 r N O O W N O O 0 O O O O O O (7 m 0 0 N 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 N N °o, 0 O N N N c `o .~ O .~ c O LL Y U a m N LL 0 0 v O M 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 N N 0 0 °o N N a~ a~ 0 y N C 0 t9 7 O LL Y U m U a~ N LL N O C O M n 0 O N r 0 0 0 O p 0 0 O 0 O O p U7 O Exhibit A i rn ~ N a ' M d Q, y~ ~ o ~ ~ ~ 0 o ~ N w R ~ o o _ 0 V Q O O ~ ~ G L` a a~ v ° m a o +.. Ca y o ... O ~ V ° Q' ~ ~~ y `" d °o `-~ a Z o ~ o0 .~ CO Q //~^^ v+ Q !!Onn N V C Z ~ U O m ~ ~- .` G ~ O ~ N ~' ,~ U Q m 0 M M O 0 0 N ll•7 0 O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 W O O 0 0 0 a~ c a~ L N 0 N >+ m D V M 0 0 O O O ~ ~ O N O o O °r r 0 0 o 0 °o• 0 0 O ° o "? N y V ,~ p ~ °o, ~ °o °o ~ `° N rr ~ ``~ r f~ ~ Q 7 ~ ~ rQn yV.+ L Q ~ N w ~' m E a~ Q N O M 0 N V N O 0 0 m N N 0 O 0 O N 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 (D I O O 0 0 0 f9 Q :° c0 0 a~ m m J U C OS f/1 .N Q O) 0 O O O N 0 0 N O O O CO 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O 0 0 0 LI'1 7 a~ N Y 3 0 m O) 0 O O t0 O 0 0 (O O O 00 0 0 0 0 0 M M O O O M 0 0 0 O 0 0 0 0 O N O O 0 0 0 N O O O O 0 0 a 0 0 0 0 0 O O 0 0 0 OD U O a C f9 T 0 m >, E LL c l9 a E c6 U 0 (D 0 O O O N O I 0 r m 0 0 t0 0 0 0 O 0 O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O 0 0 0 0 •U C U O .~ c m w 0 a> O 03 O 0 l1'7 (D 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 a0 O O 0 0 0 W l~9 H 0 c 7 U 0) O (6 O O 00 0 O O M 0 0 V N O 0 O O V 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O O 0 0 u~ O 0) O c m U c a~i T 'o a~ m lU O (p lf) N ~ f~ 1~ N M ~ to Q1 O ~ O r O N it I 0 0 0 0 0 f0 N W O c0~ t~ O 0 0 0 1~ 00 lf7 M M N O O O O O (O o0 0 N N co ' M r~ n N M tD N N i o I o 0 o O o 0 0 0 0 In O t17 O N 00 I M O N CD V N N 0 0 0 0 0 o~o 0 0 0 i o,o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 °o °o_ °0 00 °o 0 0 r 0 N 0 o O o 0 O O O O O 0 0 0 0 0 °o °o °o_ o °o 0 In ~ N N C 7 I U d CA C f0 O .T. o '~ •~ a~ E ~ U U D m = E ~ L^. m 0) ~ ~ N uJ ~ X ~ ~' o ~ m m N C C O C ~ Iii ~ F H ~ O 0 M 0 O O V 0 0 0 a0 N O 0 O V 0 0 0 O 0 0 0 0 0 O O 0 0 0 0 f0 Q m C (0 E E O U w r c U N O f6 O N O N a0 y o O ~ ~ N O~ N of O M O O O O ~ N M ~F ~ ~ M 00 oa 0 0 o °o °o °o ~ N rt O) O O 0 0 0^0' O ~' ~ C6 f6 O ~ ~ ~ M M M O O O N N O O OD lA CO In i M m W 0 O O M o N M ~ 0 l f7 O N 0 0 M N N M 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 i I 0 0 0 0 M ~ ~ 0 0 ~ O O (O 00 ~ 0 N 0 O O CO 00 N '~, N O O M ~ O a1 O I M N N N N i M O O O O O O O O O O N 0 ll~ ~ M ~ V CD 0 ~. 0 0 ~ N m V ', II i O O O O O O O O O O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 N N ~ V O N M Ln tY OD V I 0 0 0 0 0 0~0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0! 0 '0 0 0 0 , ° 0 ° ° ° 0 0 ~ ° ° ° o 0 o o o 0 o o o o u~ v~ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00 O V M O O M O M CD 0 M N O O O O O O O O O O o o ° o ° ° ° ° o ° n ~ o_ o_ o_ o o_ o_ o_ _ CO O _ ~ M O O M O M tD (O M N o U c o Cn O ~ T m E cn I p ~~E c ~ d U r ¢ ~ ~ t U O1 , CO 01 d ~ ~ g ._ o ~ o v o ~ m a , in ur ~ a 'o c `m m rn w cc m o m m C Q Q w C C C ~ ~ ~ ~ y 01 3 C 3 ~ c „ . c U n ~ 0 0 ca m o p U U N p p ~ N c 2 01 01 T T ~ U ~ ~ ~ N (6 U _ U _ U ~ W 2 Y Z O O 19C-4 N •~ A~ W ^~ W L N ^~ CCW AG W O V t+ A~ W V y.O L d a ti N ~O O 0 N w ~ c m r o a w. ~ a '~ ~ '~ v ~ ~ ~° cw-~ m v r' ~ ~ o d v,m. rn. O E L ~ N ° ~ z c H 3 w 0 C T o a c a ~ R d ~* ~ t o C d R ~ N E y z O .. Z ~ ~ Q c ~ y d G y M R ~ ~ ~/ t ~ R N d A O V ~ Y N W c w ~ ~ r A 2 ~ a~ A 7 ~ N d ~ c d o 'N ~ O R ~ L ._-~ N C O O '~ - O d C .Y - E' N ... 7 Z m m N d °_ v . Z ~~ aL. N fR/1 O l!7 d o r 0 E d a 3 Y 3 Z c N d O N a 0 d a m d o a N C ~ R H Ul V v 'S N d o r a a a`~ a~ ~ N U c O ~ N A U > ~ ~ . c . ~ ~ ~ ~ O ~ J y t0 O d ~ C C D_ N C E U w ~ j d L ~ (n '~ f` r w ~ C A C fA c $ ~ aci ~ O Y V 6 ~ ~ A ~ O U N d 0 z 0 c ?~ o a c a d m d ~ ~ 0 0 L ~ N d y ~ w E z T O C N ~ •' j~ f`. o c rn E 4 ~.~-, ~ M fD r _N n a ~ N U w Q A T _ R ~ N E v o ~ ."' M O y c m ~ C y N 0 0~ 7 r ~' N t ~ d r N C O ; 10 T ~, C O) R C E c . N t V L (O O M R n o ~ c d R E d O a a~i z m o~~ d N N a 0 a c rn o c +~ 'a 'N 7 ICO t C N U C C D 10 _ :% E uS a `m ~ • a c a~i R .o U a ~ ~ ~ > L 3 a ~ ~ N d f4 f0 !0 d ~_ 3 O O > R '~ E a c E ~ ~ ~y ` H N Y! N 7 d ~ N d O = f6 O C) 2 ~ p. t C Y 'N U E ~ N ~_ ~~~ N d 0 z C O ~ d U E vN+ A c ~ ~ d N N Q! O ~ d L p Ol C R O , N C C ~~ N o _ m c ? d = a 'c °~ °' ~yEm coi E c O R °? y ~ C_ ~ l0 R T E d r c h L j V p ~ w t g a o A d d N N o r0 ~ U 'y w c c C H ~ a a `° w d d ,~ m v O 3 ~ c v R d c_ (.. N E c ~ R R Q . T N L ' O ~ ~ N O I /l o ~° ~ `° M d d c ~ c m Y m a ? E ~ o w O ~ Z d M a d a 0 c v d d C N d y N N L c m 'm 'a d o 0 d y R d N a ; ~ c H y U _ U C .U ~ O O N m INq ~ C N ~ 7 O LL N N T Y a r U A ~ ca ~ Y d N H m a~ LL 19C-5 Exhibit B ^~ W L Cd G d V ~.+ V L ti O N (O O O N N r O Z w 0 d .. T O ~' c a d A d > t o 3 o ~ d `~ a d E z m ~ c c• o '" a A E >i ~ V ~ O r ~ d d d ~ t R N c O d ~C.. A fit.. > ~ Evo °'oc°> ~' ~ C d 7 Y z c ~ o = m a d d c ci o ~ d • 3 ~ Z ~ d d ~ w 10 c rn ~ ~ ° o ~ Y ~ z~A z did „• > ~ o m d ~ E r O R C N d y O H E v a~i 7 • z t a ~- v 2 °' y rn ~ d c 0 m a d d 3 v G ~ a~ U .~ - E ~ c ~ T c R N N Q V r W N ~ C ~ O O) a ~ i a ~ ~ D N R °tf r o ~ 3 'rn - N ` N A U O L m ~ U r v m '> Q _ o 'O C N c c To ' C O • T C O ~ U ~ 9 O 7 A m U ~j mar ° r c N ,o •O A O Y c f0 ~ ~ Q.~ ZO ~ ~~ _ • U N ~ O w L ~ N C N (9 U O +O-' N • ~ ~ T ~ ~ O U 7~ d O ~ d O U ~ C >,a ~ m ~ ~ c rn ~ d ~ _ °~ `6 ~'~ w S n E ~ a °: 7 ~ E E Z Z :: ~, ~ H cg ~ c U io t . v °~ c . p>> ~ ~ o~° o o aci o ~ o ° o o a C O ~ ~ O O ~ Y v ~ ~ a °' v d N d ~ ~ O (O O ~ l0 O ~ 00 ~ E 7 Z d m o o '~ o ~ n c o a 0 w a m v N Y1 w N d ~ N ~ .~. a ~ U c 7 ,~ C ~ ~ O U N ~ ~ N ~ tll « U ~ Y ~ _ ~ a ~ N ~ ` O ` L U c ~ ~ ~'_ o ~ c ~ d ~ ~ _ N O F- m C 0 0 ~ N > C LL C 7 7 .L... a E ~ m U U o E ~ o ~ a~ a~ ~ H- ~ ~ ~ c c ~ Q U U 0 0 ~ 19C-6 ~+ L Cd G V r..+ A~ ~W V L t~~ L a 0 O N ~O O 0 N N d O Z '~ d M N a R axi d N ~ (O v O v N N O ~ N ~ CO co M M ~ C N Q~ E 7 Z Z N N ~ O V O ~ N N O ~ N ~ CO CD M M y N d 0 d a a~ U O C f0 ~ C ~ a7 m d m 2 w C O _ U C d N 7 E °' v r c '~ C o ~ ° ~ a axi axi aEi ~ ~ c r ~ •o ~ - o ~ Q ~ °~ ~ ~ ~ m u~ 2 U io o N ~ ~ m '~ ~ C ai O m L a ~ a~ ~ U a~ 0 0 E ~ ~ j 0 °~ ~ 1° o y w 3 ~ t ~ j 'u c ° a~ a~ E m c ~ ~ ~ ~ m°O ~ W Y Z OO ~ in N d O Z O "' L d 7 Y O C y y~ N W M V a0 ~ M N O ~ N CO O 00 N r N ~ ~ N M N O A N N V d ~ E •Z 7 N Z 2 N N W ~ V N O CO ~ OD N N ~ d N M N O O n N N a 0 d a d Z y C y O N ~X O Y ° m O C C . L ~ C ~ _ ~ ~ m c ° ~ c 3 ~ o f0 O A ~ ~ ~ ~° ~ U c U a~ ~ m ~ Q d ~ c m ~ •° c c ~ a ~ Q ~ a ~ •~ E O V ~° C C o _ r N U C ° (n U (n U > > O U °' ~ ~ ~' a 2' a ti ~° L.. "~ E ° o ~ A rn ° a ° co c c~ c N m m ~ ~ ° E _ U O °' r ~ N a ,C ° C ° C ~ ~ ~ O ~ O ~ O C m VJ ° ~ C~ ~ ~ O D U U 'o 0 j, .. f~C otS O c O N N d m cEa y~ to N O C C C C E= v°r Q m U U 2 0 0 0 O > N d O Z O " L d 7 Y O ~ 0 ~ O -. y df ~ 0 W V O) N M N ~ ~ M d ~ V M ~ N Z Z d ~ t0 CD O ~' ~ CD _ ~ _ N 00 O O V d ~ O M O ~ ~ O N M ~ ~ M c 0 a~ a S ° o v (j - f0 y C . C p .U O ` E ° ~ ° 3 ~ V C ~ Q c ~ CJ ~ 0 r ~ ~ cn E w R ~ p U ~ aci ~ `m m o ~ v c o O a~ V ~ c o ° E ~° ° ~ ~ y a~ p c m ~ U •E ~ U °' C E ° E a~i ¢ O ~ LL ~ O E C c ~> ~ O ~ LL ~ C .L .~ fn U C O _ J ° ° c U 0 ~ ~ ° ~ L W o c m _ .E y E N o cv y 2 ~ ~ ° •c ~ C C J c ~ (n (n > O ~ _ Cn ~ N F- ; H Q S p "O f9 U f0 C ~ O d = N ~ u Q ~ ~ c Q ~ ° m ~ an d ~ .~ E E R y H a 2 U 2 O 2 O ~ O ~ ~ 0 (d cn L v~ N in 0 v~ 0 ~ 0 2i 19C-7 19C-8 REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE: OCTOBER 1, 2007 TITLE: CONTRACT AWARD FOR COMPACT PICKUP TRUCKS (SPEC. NO. 07-076) CITY MANAGER RECOMMENDED ACTION CLERK OF COUNCIL USE ONLY: APPROVED ^ As Recommended ^ As Amended ^ Ordinance on 151 Reading ^ Ordinance on 2"d Reading ^ Implementing Resolution ^ Set Public Hearing For_ CONTINUED TO FILE NUMBER Award a contract to Lake Chevrolet for the purchase of 17 compact pickup trucks in the amount not to exceed $346,787. DISCUSSION The Finance and Management Services Agency (FMSA) Fleet Division's Equipment Replacement Program is in the City's annual budget, and identifies vehicles scheduled for replacement as well as identifies additions to the City fleet. For Fiscal Year 2007-2008, 14 trucks have been identified for replacement and three trucks have been approved as additions. Funding is monitored through a depreciation schedule established with each department. Additionally, vehicle acquisitions are reviewed in accordance with the City's Hybrid and Alternative Fuel Vehicle Acquisition Policy. Currently, hybrid vehicles are not available in the pickup category. Compact pickup trucks are used by many agencies, including Fire Inspectors, Treasury and Customer Service meter readers, and park maintenance crews. Police Department Non-patrol Division also uses pickup trucks in the sub- stations and Crime Prevention Division. The Public Works Agency is replacing five pickup trucks currently in use in the Construction, Design Engineering, Transportation, and Project Management divisions. The three new pickup trucks are for use in Water Utility, Water Administration and Engineering, and Street Trees divisions. The notice inviting bids was advertised on August 24, 2007, and bids were solicited. A summary of the bid invitations and bids received is as follows: 10 Invitations For Bid mailed 1 Invitation For Bid mailed to a Santa Ana vendor 5 Bids received 1 Bid received from a Santa Ana vendor. 22A-1 Contract Award for Compact Pickup Trucks October 1, 2007 Page 2 Bids were received, opened on September 11, 2007, and evaluated (Exhibit 1). The bid received from Lake Chevrolet is responsive to the specification and meets the City's requirements. FISCAL IMPACT Funds are available in the Equipment Replacement account (no. 76-145-6641) for $283,530.88; Water Utility Water Production & Supply account (no. 64- 574-6641) for $20,641.80; Water Admin & Engineering account (no. 64-579- 6641) for $23,471.32; and Sanitation Fund Public Works Street Trees account (no. 68-637-6641) for $19,143. ;a ~C(-James ~. oss Executi e Director Public oaks Agency APPROVED AS TO FUNDS AND ACCOUNTS: ~L~ancisco Gutierrez Executive Director Finance & Mgmt. Services Agency ~~ a JGR/KM/07-076.9:uc 22A-2 ABSTRACT OF BIDS CONTRACT AWARD COMPACK PICKUP TRUCKS (SPEC. 07-076) VENDOR LOCATION TERMS 17 P/U TRUCKS TOTAL QTE SALES TAX 7.75% TIRE FEE SUB-TOTAL 1% SA VENDOR DISC. GRAND TOTAL DELIVERY VEHICLE LAKE CHEVROLET CLIPPINGER WONDRIES GUARANTY GEORGE CHEVROLET FLEET GROUP CHEVROLET CHEVROLET LAKE ELSINORE W.COVINA ALHAMBRA SANTA ANA BELLFLOWER NET 30 DAYS NET 30 DAYS NET 30 DAYS NET 30 DAYS NET 30 DAYS $ 321,706.00 $ 324,725.00 $ 324,644.00 $ 329,844.06 $ 335,151.39 $ 24,932.22 $ 25,166.19 $ 25,159.9 $ 2,562.92 $ 25,974.24 $ 148.75 INCL $ 148.75 $ 148.75 $ 148.75 $ 346,786.97 $349,891.19 $ 349,952.66 $ 355,555.73 $ 361,274.38 ($3,555.56) $ 346,786.97 $349,891.19 $349,952.66 $ 352,000.17 $ 361,274.38 90-110 110 60-90 60 TO 90 90-120 DAYS DAYS DAYS DAYS DAYS CHEVROLET CHEVROLET CHEVROLET CHEVROLET CHEVROLET 2008 2008 2008 2008 2008 SUMMARY OF BID AWARD TOTAL AWARD IN THE AMOUNT OF: LAKE CHERVOLET TOTAL AWARD $ 346,787 Exhibit 1. 22A-3 22A-4 REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE: OCTOBER 1, 2007 TITLE: CONTRACT RENEWAL FOR TRAFFIC LINE PAINTING AND TRAFFIC SIGN MAINTENANCE (SPEC. NO. 04-103) l,i u-G CITY ANAGER RECOMMENDED ACTION CLERK OF COUNCIL USE ONLY: APPROVED ^ As Recommended ^ As Amended ^ Ordinance on 1S` Reading ^ Ordinance on 2"d Reading ^ Implementing Resolution ^ Set Public Hearing For CONTINUED TO FILE NUMBER Renew the contract with Orange County Striping Service, Inc., for roadway striping and markings and traffic sign maintenance for a one-year period in an annual amount not to exceed $451,464. DISCUSSION The Public Works Agency's Street Division maintains approximately 400 miles of streets within the City of Santa Ana. To minimize impact on traffic flow, roadway striping and sign maintenance is conducted at night. Services required include the installation and removal of traffic stripes, pavement markings, curb markings and raised pavement markers, as well as the installation and removal or relocation of traffic signs. On September 20, 2004, the City Council awarded a contract to Orange County Striping Service, Inc., for a one-year period, with provision for three, one-year renewals. In the last year, crews have restriped 730,000 linear feet of roadway, repainted 152,000 linear feet of crosswalks and 10,430 legends/markings, and installed or replaced 1,700 signs and signposts. The vendor has performed satisfactorily during the past contract period and has agreed to renew the contract without an increase in pricing. Staff recommends the final renewal of the contract. FISCAL IMPACT Funds are available in the Public Works Roadway Markings and Signs account (no. 11-623-6291). 11 i IV „°°°.~JJlll.... ~(,~~ames G. oss Executiv~~Director Public Wottks Agency JGR/WO/04-103RF.9:uc 22B-1 APPROVED AS TO FUNDS AND ACCOUNTS: I^,~ancisco Gutierrez G Executive Director Finance & Mgmt. Services Agency ~;s 22B-2 REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE: OCTOBER 1, 2007 TITLE: CONTRACT RENEWAL FOR MISCELLANEOUS PLUMBING SUPPLIES (SPEC. NO. 06-152) CITY MANAGER RECOMMENDED ACTION CLERK OF COUNCIL USE ONLY: APPROVED ^ As Recommended ^ As Amended ^ Ordinance on 1ST Reading ^ Ordinance on 2"d Reading ^ Implementing Resolution ^ Set Public Hearing For_ CONTINUED TO FILE NUMBER Renew the contract with Irvine Pipe & Supply, Inc., for miscellaneous plumbing supplies for a one-year period in an annual amount not to exceed $75,000. DISCUSSION The City maintains in excess of 50 buildings, including fire stations, recreation and senior centers, libraries and park restrooms, as well as City Hall, the Police Administration and Holding facility, and the Corporate Yard. Plumbing supplies such as pipes, valves, bushings and tools are used extensively in the maintenance of these facilities. The contract will ensure that all necessary materials are available when required. On November 20, 2006, the City Council awarded a contract to Irvine Pipe & Supply, Inc., a Santa Ana vendor, for a one-year period with provision for four, one-year renewals. The vendor has performed satisfactorily during the past contract period and has agreed to renew the contract without an increase in pricing. Staff recommends the first renewal of the contract. FISCAL IMPACT Funds are available in the various departmental Operating Materials & Supplies account (object code 6391). /~,~rancisco Gutierrez ~j Executive Director Finance and Management Services Agency~~ i FG/WO/06-152R1.2:uc 22C-1 22C-2 REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE: OCTOBER 1, 2007 TITLE: CONTRACT AWARD FOR COOLING SUIT UNDERGARMENTS (BID SPEC. 07-075) CITY MANAGER RECOMMENDED ACTION CLERK OF COUNCIL USE ONLY: APPROVED ^ As Recommended ^ As Amended ^ Ordinance on 1S` Reading ^ Ordinance on 2"d Reading ^ Implementing Resolution ^ Set Public Hearing For_ CONTINUED TO FILE NUMBER Award a contract to Wilcox Industries Corp. for the purchase of MED- ENG/Wilcox TubeSuitT"" with Dripless Penetrator cooling suit undergarments in the amount of $26,478.49. DISCUSSION On September 19, 2005, the City Council accepted an $8.4 million Urban Area Security Initiative grant from the federal Department of Homeland Security, through the State of California, Office of Homeland Security. This initiative was designed to enhance the domestic preparedness of urban areas by ensuring that all emergency first responders have adequate equipment and systems to prevent, respond to and recover from acts of terrorism. The grant provides total reimbursement to local agencies for equipment purchases approved and authorized by the Office of Disaster Preparedness. The Joint Hazard Assessment Team (JHAT) is made up of the Orange County Sheriff's Department and four lead Operational Area Special Weapons and Tactics (SWAT) Teams from the cities of Anaheim, Huntington Beach, Irvine and Santa Ana. The Santa Ana Police Department's (SAPD) SWAT Team and the Fire Department's (SAFD) HazMat Team would be front-line responders in any terrorist-related incident within the Santa Ana urban area. When wearing personal protective equipment, maintaining core body temperature is critical to allow the first responders to operate for an extended period of time in a hot zone. Currently, the PATRIOTT"' Cooling Module is deployed and in use by the JHAT. Use of the MED-ENG/Wilcox TubeSuit with Dripless Penetrator cooling suit undergarment will enhance the PATRIOTT"" System, and subsequently the team members' safety. The required cooling suits are only available through Wilcox Industries Corp., the manufacturer of the PATRIOTT"" Cooling Module. The action will procure 22 cooling suits; 12 for use by SAPD SWAT and ten for SAFD HazMat. Staff recommends Council approval. 22D-1 Contract Award for Cooling Suit Undergarments October 1, 2007 Page 2 FISCAL IMPACT Funds are available in the Office of Security Initiative (UASI) 2005 (nos. 125-333-6391 and 125-334-6391). Emergency Services (OES) Urban Areas and 2006 Police Grant accounts APPROVED AS TO FUNDS AND ACCOUNTS: ~/ ,~ Paul M. Wa ers ~~rancisco Gutierrez ~~ Chief of Police Executive Director Finance & Mgmt. Services Agency~- ._:. ~ ~ - ~` ~,~ r t ve Critch eld Interim Fi Chief PMW/SC/TO/07-075.7.3:uc 22D-2 OREQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE: OCTOBER 1, 2007 TITLE: CONTRACT AWARDS FOR PASSENGER VEHICLES, VANS, AND HYBRID UTILITY VEHICLES (SPEC. NOS. 07-077, 07-078, AND 07-079) CIT MANAGER RECOMMENDED ACTION CLERK OF COUNCIL USE ONLY: APPROVED ^ As Recommended ^ As Amended ^ Ordinance on 15f Reading ^ Ordinance on 2~d Reading ^ Implementing Resolution ^ Set Public Hearing For_ CONTINUED TO FILE NUMBER 1. Award a contract to Bob Stall Chevrolet for the purchase of seven midsize passenger vehicles in an amount not to exceed $142,472. 2. Award a contract to Villa Ford for the purchase of seven hybrid utility vehicles in an amount not to exceed $196,569; and increase the aggregate limit for miscellaneous vehicle parts and repairs in an amount not to exceed $25,000 annually. 3. Award a contract to George Chevrolet for the purchase of six passenger and cargo vans in an amount not to exceed $139,999. DISCUSSION The Finance and Management Services Agency Fleet Division's annual Equipment Replacement Program is in the City's annual budget and includes vehicles scheduled for replacement. Funding is monitored through a depreciation schedule established with each department. For Fiscal Year 2007-2008, 85 vehicles are identified for replacement and the proposed action is to replace 20 of those identified. Additionally, the Fleet Division reviews the acquisition in accordance with the City's Hybrid and Alternative Fuel Vehicle Acquisition Policy. Currently, hybrid vehicles are available in the midsize utility vehicle category, but not passenger and cargo vans, nor midsize passenger vehicles with large interiors. Agencies utilize different classes of vehicles in accordance to the needs and requirements of their operations. The Police Department requires midsize passenger vehicles, utility vehicles and cargo vans for use in Investigations, Parking Control and the Detention Facility respectively. The Planning and Building, Finance and Management Services, and the Parks, Recreation and Community Services Agencies all require utility vehicles and/or cargo vans for daily operations. 22E-1 Contract Awards for Passenger Vehicles, Vans and Hybrid Utility Vehicles October 1, 2007 Page 2 In accordance with specifications, three separate solicitations were issued. Bids were received and opened on September 11, 2007 and evaluated. The attached exhibit highlights the results of each bid. For invitation #1, the alternative bid from Wondries Fleet Group was considered nonresponsive for offer of split bench seats. The bid from Bob Stall Chevrolet for seven Impala midsize passenger vehicles is responsive to the specifications and meets the City's requirements. For invitation #2, the bid from Villa Ford for seven hybrid Ford Escape utility vehicles; and for invitation #3, the bid from George Chevrolet for six Chevrolet passenger and cargo vans were found to be responsive to the specifications. Additionally, Villa Ford provides miscellaneous vehicle parts for their product lines. The purchase of the new Ford hybrid utility trucks, when combined with previous purchases by Fleet Services during the current fiscal year, exceeds the $25,000 aggregate limit. In order to facilitate future purchases, staff recommends an increase to the aggregate limit. FISCAL IMPACT Funds are available in the Equipment Replacement account (no. 76-145-6641) in the amount of $455,327; and Equipment Maintenance Garage Operation account (no. 75-111-6391) in the amount of $25,000; and Police - Detention Services account (no. 11-349-6641) in the amount of $23,713. APPROVED AS TO FUNDS AND ACCOUNTS: Paul M. Wa t rs "Chief of Po ice ~;~~~% ~~ F ancisco Gutierrez Executive Director Finance & Mgmt. Services Agency~~ PMW/KM/07-0747, 07-078, & 07-079.7:uc 22E-2 ABSTRACT OF BIDS (SPEC 07-077, 07-078, AND 07-079) CONTRACT AWARD FOR PASSENGER VEHICLES, VANS, AND HYBRID UTILITY VEHICLES Invitation #1 MIDSIZE PASSENGER VEHICLES VENDOR BOB STALL CHEVROLET LOCATION LA MESA CA TERMS NET 30 DAYS 7 CHEVY IMPALAS SALES TAX 7.75°s TIRE FEE PAYMENT DISC. 1$ SA VEN.DISC. GRAND TOTAL DELIVERY VEHICLE 75-100 DAYS IMPALA LT 07-077 WONDRIES GUARANTY MAURICE LAKE GEORGE FLEET GROUP CHEVROLET J.SOPP & SON CHEVROLET CHEVROLET ALHAMBRA SANTA ANA PARK LAKE ELSINORE BELLFLOWER 10$ 26 DAYS NET 30 DAYS NET 30 DAYS NET 30 DAYS NET 30 DAYS $ 147,799 $ 135,087 $ 135,275 $ 137,613 $ 137,698 $ $ 11,454 $ 10,469 $ 10,484 $ 10,665 $ 10,672 $ $ 61 $ 61 INCL $ 61 $ 61 $ (15, 932) $ (1,456) $ 143,383 $ 149,161 $ 145,759 $148,339 $ 198,431 $ CLIPPINGER CHEVROLET W.COVINA NET 30 DAYS 140,392 10,880 INCL 151,272 ~ 90-150 DAYS 90-120 DAYS 60 - 90 DAYS 80 DAYS 90 DAYS 110 DAYS IMPALA IMPALA 1WC19 1WC19 IMPALA LT IMPALA SUMMARY OF BID AWARD AND AMOUNT BOB STALL CHEVROLET TOTAL AWARD $ 142,472 Bid from Wondries Fleet Group Alternate Bid is considered nonresponsive Invitation #2 HYBRID UTILITY VEHICLES 07-078 ONLY 1 BID RECEIVED VENDOR VILLA FORD $ 218,410 LESS TERM DISC (21,841) TOTAL $ 196,569 7 FORD HYBRID CONTRACT $ 25,000 ESCAPES GRANT TOTAL $ 221,569 SUMMARY OF BID AWARD AND A MOU NT VILLA FORD TOTAL AWARD $ 221,569 (Invitation #3 PASSENGER & CARGO VANS CATION RMS 6 CHEVY VANS SALES TAX TIRE FEE l~s SA VEN DISC GRAND TOTAL DELIVERY VEHICLE GEORGE CHEVROLET BELLFLOWER NET 30 DAYS $ 129,881 $ 10,066 $ 52.50 $ 139,999 90 DAYS UPLANDER CHEV EXPRESS 07-079 LAKE GUARANTY CHEVROLET CHEVROLET LAKE ELSINORE SANTA ANA NET 30 DAYS NET 30 DAYS $ 132,968 $ 137,491 $ 10,305 $ 10,656 $ 52.50 $ 52.50 S (1,982) $ 143,326 $ 196,717 90-110 DAYS 90-120 DAYS UPLANDER UPLANDER CHEV EXPRESS CHEV EXPRESS SUMMARY OF BID AWARD AND AMOUNT GEORGE CHEVROLET 22E-3 22E-4 REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE: OCTOBER 1, 2007 TITLE: CONTRACT AWARD FOR MAIN STREET REHABILITATION; WALKIL WAY TO NORTH CITY LIMITS, 8~ STREET TO 18xx STREET, COLUMBINE TO SUNFLOWER; MAIN STREET WATER MAIN FROM 8Tx TO WASHINTION(PROJECT NOS. 06-1009,06- 1010,06-1011 AND 07-3205) CLERK OF COUNCIL USE ONLY: APPROVED ^ As Recommended ^ As Amended ^ Ordinance on 1 S' Reading ^ Ordinance on 2"d Reading ^ Implementing Resolution ^ Set Public Hearing For_ CONTINUED TO FILE NUMBER 1. Award a contract to All American Asphalt, the lowest responsible bidder, in accordance with unit bid prices in the estimated amount of $1,989,989 for construction of Main Street Rehabilitation and Water Main. 2. Approve a Funding Analysis with a total estimated construction cost of $2,486,100. DISCUSSION The segments of Main Street from Walkie Way to North City Limit, Stn Street to 18th Street, and Columbine to Sunflower Avenue have been identified as a high priority on the City's Pavement Management System (Exhibit 1). The pavement is deteriorating due to weather, age and heavy usage. Some of the adjacent curbs, gutters, sidewalks and driveway approaches are also in various states of disrepair and require replacement. This project provides for construction of new street pavement, and replacement of damaged concrete curbs and gutters. This project will also replace deteriorated and undersized water facilities. The Notice Inviting Bids was advertised on August 1 and 3, 2007, and bids were opened on August 30, 2007. A summary of the bid invitations mailed, the bids received, and the bid results follow. 23A-1 Main Street Rehabilitation and Water Main October 1, 2007 Page 2 Santa Ana Contractors receiving notices: 16 Contractors requesting bidding documents: 32 Bids received: g Bids received from Santa Ana Contractors: 1 NAME OF BIDDER CITY BID AMOUNT 1. All American Asphalt Corona $1,989,989.00 2. Sequel Contractors, Inc. Santa Fe Springs $2,102,154.75 3. R.J. Noble Company Orange $2,122,039.38 4. Shawnan Downey $2,434,348.50 5. Excel Paving Company Long Beach $2,428,096.80 6. Elite Bobcat Service Corona $2,479,504.08 7. Hardy & Harper, Inc. Santa Ana $2,596,970.70 8. Alliance Street Works, Inc. Anaheim $2,636,608.80 9. Sully Miller Anaheim $2,725,062.40 A total of nine bids were received and all were responsive. The lowest bid was submitted by All American Asphalt for $1,989,989, which is below the Engineer's estimate of $2,285,000. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT In accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act, the proposed project is exempt from further review. Categorical Exemption ER No.2005- 90, 2005-91 & 2005-92 will be filed for this project. FISCAL IMPACT The funding analysis shows a total estimated construction cost of $2,486,100 for project (Exhibit 2) Funds are available in the Measure M Street Construction Fund (account no. 32-551-6631, Project Nos. 06-1009, 06-1010 & 06-1011), the Select Street Construction Fund (account no. 59- 551-6631, Project Nos. 06-1009, 06-1010 & 06-1011) and the City Water Fund (account no. 66-579-6635, Project No. 07-3205). APPROVED AS TO FUNDS AND ACCOUNTS: ~' RS~m~ ~~ 1~ \~~ James G. Ross Francisco Gutierrez Executive Director Executive Director Public Works Agency Finance & Management K:\Construction\RFCA-draft\2007\06-1009 Main Street Rehab.doc WD 110 ,~ Services Agency ~a 23A-2 _o~ u ~ _ ~ 0 LL.~ m 2 RY LN 17TH STREET ~'dYq Z Q <~~F Q ~ ~ ~ EDGEWOOD Q 0 m PROJECT 06-1009 1- ^~~il~l~ N H Z y J a N ET SUNFLOWER PROJECT 07-3205 PROJECT 06-1011 SANTA ANA P^ I^I n AGENDA DATE Y VuH OCTOBER 1, 2007 ~K .~: ~K. 1 ;TOWN & COUNTRY MAIN PLACE I _CI _ OF__ORANGE__ CIVIC SANTA ANA CIT OF SANTA ANA \ I ~ CENT Q D Q O o m [ z~ 0 0 -ER DR ~ ~ o o G ~~ oo. ^ C8TH Sv\E~ET c o ,~ D aoo ~ooooo000 PROJECT 06-1010 OrL~UM INE ~~ It--' WASHING TI ONI S CONTRACT AWARD FOR ( ,',W ' ~,,' IAIN ST F~~LITATION~ WALKIE WY TO PL 116 ; rFiOJ._y0. 06_1010 MAIN ST. . , 23A-3 FUNDING ANALYSIS PROJECT NOS. 06-1009,06-1010,06-1011 AND 07-3205 MAIN STREET REHABILITATION; WALKIE WAY TO NORTH CITY LIMITS, 8TH STREET TO 18TH STREET; COLUMBINE TO SUNFLOWER; 8TH TO WASHINTION AND MAIN STREET WATER MAIN FROM 8TH STREET TO WASHINGTION Construction Contract $1,989,989 Contract Administration 69,300 Inspection and Testing 128,700 Survey Staking 99,113 Contingencies 198,998 TOTAL ESTIMATED CONSTRUCTION COSTS $2,486,100 EXHIBIT 2 23A-4 REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE: OCTOBER 1, 2007 TITLE: CONTRACT AWARD FOR FOURTH STREET AND TUSTIN AVENUE REHABILITATION (PROJECT NOS. 06-1717 AND 06-1019) / CITY MANAGER RECOMMENDED ACTION CLERK OF COUNCIL USE ONLY: APPROVED ^ As Recommended ^ As Amended ^ Ordinance on 15t Reading ^ Ordinance on 2nd Reading ^ Implementing Resolution ^ Set Public Hearing For_ CONTINUED TO FILE NUMBER 1. Award a contract to R.J. Noble Company, the lowest responsible bidder, in accordance with unit bid prices in the estimated amount of $1,482,555 for construction of Fourth Street and Tustin Avenue. 2. Approve a Funding Analysis with a total estimated construction cost of $1,853,400. DISCUSSION The segments of Fourth Street between the I-5 and SR-55 Freeways, and Tustin Avenue between Seventeenth Street and North City Limits have been identified as a high priority on the City's Pavement Management System (Exhibit 1). The pavement is deteriorating due to weather, age and heavy usage. Some of the adjacent curbs, gutters, sidewalks and driveway approaches are also in various states of disrepair and require replacement. This project provides for construction of new pavement, and replacement of damaged concrete curbs, gutters, crossgutters, driveway approaches and curb ramps. Once completed these improvements will enhance the ride quality, surface drainage and visual appearance of the streets. The Notice Inviting Bids was advertised on August 24 and 27, 2007, and bids were opened on September 19, 2007. A summary of the bid invitations mailed, the bids received, and the bid results follow: Santa Ana Contractors receiving notices: 13 Contractors requesting bidding documents: 15 Bids received: 5 Bids received from Santa Ana Contractors: 1 23B-1 Fourth Street and Tustin Avenue Rehabilitation Project Nos. 06-1717 & 06-1019 October 1, 2007 Page 2 NAME OF BIDDER CITY BID AMOUNT 1. R.J. Noble Company Orange $1,482,555 2. Hardy & Harper, Inc. Santa Ana $1,509,000 3. All American Asphalt Corona $1,543,543 4. Sequel Contractors Santa Fe Springs $1,656,220 5. Excel Paving Company Long Beach $1,716,290 A total of five bids were received and all were responsive. The lowest bid was submitted by R.J. Noble Company for $1,482,555, which is below the Engineer's estimate of $1,646,950. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT An Environmental Review Nos. 2005-83 and 2005-88 have been completed and a Categorical Exemption shall be filed pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act. FISCAL IMPACT The funding analysis shows a total estimated construction cost of $1,853,400 for the projects (Exhibit 2). Funds for project no. 06-1717 are available in Select Street Construction Fund (account no. 59-551- 6631) and the Measure M Construction Fund (account no. 32-551-6631). Funds for project no. 06-1019 are available in the Select Street Construction Fund (account no. 59-551-6631) and the Measure M Construction Fund (account no. 32-551-6631). APPROVED AS TO FUNDS AND ACCOUNTS: J mes G. Ross Francisco Gutierrez ~~ ecutive Director Executive Director ublic Works Agency Finance & Management Services Agency K:\Construction\RFCA-draft\2007\06-1717 Fourth Street Rehab WD 80 23B-2 W O 7 7t PROJECT LIMITS ~, m AY EXHIBIT 1 SANTA ANA ~~E. ~~ ac~~a ~A~~ COAND TUS11N q~ D FOR FOURTH STREET P W A c~ c~~ V ocTOeER i 200 ( PROJECT NOS 06 17E7 AND 106 10,9) P16LC MOPIIS dCENCr (NT 51 23B-3 FUNDING ANALYSIS PROJECT NOS. 06-1717 AND 06-1019 FOURTH STREET AND TUSTIN AVENUE REHABILITATION Construction Contract $1,482,555 Contract Administration 59,200 Inspection and Testing 90,490 Survey Staking 72,900 Contingencies 148,255 TOTAL ESTIMATED CONSTRUCTION COSTS $1,853,400 EXHIBIT 2 23B-4 REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE: OCTOBER 1, 2007 TITLE: CONTRACT AWARD FOR FIRST STREET REHABILITATION AND WATER AND SE9JER IMPROVMENTS, AND SEGERSTROM AND WARNER AVENUES REHABILITATION (PROJECT NOS. 06-1008, 06-1007, 06-1005, 07-3207 AND 07-3516) ~-- 1 CITY MANAGER RECOMMENDED ACTION CLERK OF COUNCIL USE ONLY: APPROVED ^ As Recommended ^ As Amended ^ Ordinance on 15` Reading ^ Ordinance on 2nd Reading ^ Implementing Resolution ^ Set Public Hearing For_ CONTINUED TO FILE NUMBER 1. Award a contract to All American Asphalt, the lowest responsible bidder, in accordance with unit bid prices in the estimated amount of $5,215,174 for construction of First Street Rehabilitation and Water and Sewer Improvements, and Segerstrom and Warner Avenues Rehabilitation. 2. Approve a Funding Analysis with a total estimated construction cost of $7,499,300. DISCUSSION The pavement segments of First Street between Santa Ana River and Bristol Street, Segerstrom Avenue between Bristol and Flower Streets, and Warner Avenue between Otis and Raitt Streets have been identified as a high priority on the City's Pavement Management System (Exhibit 1). The pavement is deteriorating due to weather, age and heavy usage. Some of the adjacent curbs, gutters, sidewalks, and driveway approaches are also in various state of disrepair. The project provides for construction of new pavement and replacement of damaged concrete curbs, gutters, sidewalks, driveway approaches, and wheel chair ramps. In addition, this project provides for the replacement of deteriorated water lines along First Street between Pacific Avenue and Hesperian Street and Hesperian Street between First Street and Santa Ana Boulevard, and a sewer line along First Street between Bristol Street and Pacific Avenue. Once completed, these improvements will enhance the ride quality and surface drainage. In addition, leaks associated with the older water and sewer mains will be eliminated. The Notice Inviting Bids was advertised on August 15 and 17, 2007, and bids were opened on September 18, 2007. A summary of the bid invitations mailed, the bids received, and the bid results follows. 23C-1 First Street Rehabilitation and Water And Sewer Improvements October 1, 2007 Page 2 Santa Ana Contractors receiving notices: Contractors requesting bidding documents: Bids received: Bids received from Santa Ana Contractors: 16 24 6 1 NAME OF BIDDER CITY BID AMOUNT 1. All American Asphalt Corona $5,215,174 2. R.J. Noble Company Orange $5,324,404 3. Excel Paving Company Long Beach. $5,64.2.,635 4. Sequel Contractors, Inc. Santa Fe Springs $5,715,825 5. Elite Bobcat Service, Inc. Santa Fe Springs $5,895,860 6. Griffith Company Santa Ana $5,975,384 A total of six bids were received and all were responsive.. The lowest bid was submitted by All American Asphalt, for $5,215,174, which is below the Engineer's estimate of $5,632,445. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT In accordance with California Environmental Quality Act, the proposed project is exempt from further review. Categorical Exemption ER nos. 2005-82, 2005-96, & 2005-94 will be filed for this project. FISCAL IMPACT The funding analysis shows a total estimated construction cost of $7,499,300 for the project (Exhibit 2) Funds are available in the Select Street Construction Fund (account no. 59-551-6631, project nos. 06-1008, 06-1007, and 06-1005), the Measure M Construction Fund (account no. 32-551-6631, project nos. 06-1008 and 06-1005), the Water Utility Capital Project Fund (account no. 66-579-6635, project no. 07-3207), and the Sanitary Sewer Service Enterprise Fund (account no. 56-575-6631, project no. 07-3516). APPROVED AS TO FUNDS AND ACCOUNTS: // _ mes Ross ((// Francisco Gutierrez ,fit xecutive Director Executive Director Public Wanks Agency Finance & Management Services Agency Kr\Construction\RFCA-draft\2007\p6-1008.doe-140-[~ w A _ w SANTA ANA BLVD 3RD ST r2ND ST FIRST ST h- 1- F W H V7 1A y~ > > ~ ~ Q Z N ~ W < N ~ ~ 1/1 Z N V < J ~ > W K ~ ~ O ~ 7. J K = F- H W 4 1 N h LL N U ~ K Z 4 d = m ~ F IA W Vr Sr Z ~ J Z Y W Z V C' 4 H ~ ~ ~ O Y W W Z HEMLOCK WY ~ a o; o ~ > 2 ~ J ~ a o --- ----- - --- O J / - __ ___--_-______._._. ~„- / , ., N 3 2 ji ~, ~ W ~ i / P Y O y/~~ ~~ ~" ~~ / ~~0~(n ~ ~_~ ~^\'\~Q\ ~' ' \9 D m 0 CO Q S 0 y fR RO O ~ WARNER AV ~; Z - a ~ a N ~ INI - ~ ~ ~-~ _ - ___ __ ,. - ._l~ W _,~ r Z _- N Z Q Z Q 7 VI ~ N N N N 3 J Z ~ W O ... ~ ~ Z a w W ~ U Q EXHIBIT 1 'I SANTA ANA CONTRACT AWARD FOR FIRST STREET REHABILITATION CITY COUNCIL P^ AGENDA AND WATER AND SEWER IMPROVEMENTS. AND SEGERSTROM AND WARNER AVENUES REHABILITATION V DA1'E~ (PROJECT NOS. 06-1008. 06-1007. 06-1005. ^ac.o~s~a~n OCTOBER ~, 2007 07-3207 & 07-3516 ) FUNDING ANALYSIS PROJECT NOS. 06-1008, 06-1007, 06-1005, 07-3207 AND 07-3516 FIRST STREET REHABILITATION AND WATER AND SEWER IMPROVMENTS, AND SEGERSTROM AND WARNER AVENUES REHABILITATION Construction Contract $5,215,174 Contract Administration 114,643 Inspection and Testing 555,000 Survey Staking 280,000 Contingencies 1,334,483 Total ~~499,300 EXHIBIT 2 23C-4 REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE: OCTOBER 1, 2007 TITLE: HISTORIC PROPERTY PRESERVATION AGREEMENT NO. 2007-04 FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 2357 NORTH RIVERSIDE DRIVE l~K ~ CITY MANAGER RECOMMENDED ACTION CLERK OF COUNCIL USE ONLY: APPROVED ^ As Recommended ^ As Amended ^ Ordinance on 1S` Reading ^ Ordinance on 2"d Reading ^ Implementing Resolution ^ Set Public Hearing For_ CONTINUED TO FILE NUMBER Direct the City Attorney to prepare and authorize the City Manager and the Clerk of the Council to execute an agreement with Eric E. Renezeder and Lynn T. Renezeder, Trustees of the Renezeder Family Trust, for the structure located at 2357 North Riverside Drive. HISTORIC RESOURCES COMMISSION ACTION Recommended that the City Council direct the City Attorney to prepare and authorize the City Manager and the Clerk of the Council to execute an agreement with Eric E. Renezeder and Lynn T. Renezeder, Trustees of the Renezeder Family Trust, for the structure located at 2357 North Riverside Drive at its September 6, 2007 meeting by a vote of 6:0 (Dickman, Mill, Schaefer absent). DISCUSSION After the public hearing on September 6, 2007, the Historic Resources Commission reviewed the proposed Historic Property Preservation Agreement (Mills Act Contract) and concluded that the resulting potential property tax savings would encourage the owner to reinvest the tax savings in the maintenance of their historic property, and would benefit both the owner and the community (Exhibit A). Additionally, the agreement prevents inappropriate alterations. 25A-1 HPP Agreement No. 2007-04 October 1, 2007 Page 2 FISCAL IMPACT The Historic Property Preservation Agreement will reduce the property tax revenue to the City by an estimated $69.26 to $346.32 annually, for a period of not less than ten years. APPROVED AS TO FUNDS AND ACCOUNTS: r--- ~~ ~ Jay__ Trevino //~ncisco Gutierrez Executive Director ~j "Executive Director Planning & Building Agency Finance & Management Services Agency HS:rb hs\historic info\mills act agreements\hppa07-04-2357_N_Riverside.cc 25A-2 REQUEST FOR Historic Resources Commission Action ~esrowc ~sou~s ao~sioN caTE: SEPTEMBER 6, 2007 TITLE: HISTORIC PROPERTY PRESERVATION AGREEMENT NO. 2007-04 FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 2357 NORTH RIVERSIDE DRIVE ~rowc ~sou~s ao~sioN sECx~ra~r APPROVED ^ As Recommended ^ As Amended ^ Set Public Hearing For CONTINUED TO Prepared by Hally Soboleske ;J Executive Director RECOMMENDED ACTION Recommend that the authorize the City agreement with Eric Renezeder Family Riverside Drive. DISCUSSION ~~ti -~ Planning Man er City Council direct the City Attorney to prepare and Manager and the Clerk of the Council to execute an E. Renezeder and Lynn T. Renezeder, Trustees of the Trust, for the structure located at 2357 North Request of Applicant The applicants, Eric E. Renezeder and Lynn T. Renezeder, Trustees of the Renezeder Family Trust, request the approval of Historic Property Preservation Agreement No. 2007-04 (Mills Act) between the Renezeder Family Trust and the City of Santa Ana. Property Description The subject property includes a one and a half-story English Revival residence and a detached garage located at 2357 North Riverside Drive, just south of the Santa Ana Freeway, and is within the Floral Park neighborhood. Surrounding land uses are residential to the west, south and east, with the freeway to the north. Analysis of the Issues In March 1999, the City Council approved an ordinance authorizing Historic Property Preservation Agreements (HPPA), commonly known as the Mills Act contracts, for eligible historic properties. The agreement provides monetary incentive to the property owner in the form of a EXHIBIT A 25A-3 HPPA No. 2007-04 September 6, 2007 Page 2 property tax reduction in exchange to the owner's voluntary commitment to maintain the property in a good state of repair and to rehabilitate the property as necessary to maintain its character and appearance. Once recorded, the agreement triggers the use of a different valuation method in determining the property's assessed value, thereby resulting in potentially significant property tax savings for the owner. One of the eligibility requirements for the Mills Act is that the property must be listed on the Santa Ana Register of Historical Properties. The subject property was placed on the local register and categorized as Contributive in June 2007 by the Historic Resources Commission (Exhibit 1) . Upon consideration of the application, it is recommended that the City enter into a Historic Property Preservation Agreement (Exhibit 2) A review of the property indicates that this English Revival styled structure is in excellent condition. As a result, a supplemental property rehabilitation plan will not be required as part of this agreement. Photos of the property are included with the agreement as well as a photo location map. The benefits of executing this agreement include, but are not limited to, the following: 1. Reduced property tax to allow reinvestment for the long-term preservation of the property. 2. Allows for a mechanism to provide for property rehabilitation. 3. Provides an additional incentive for potential buyers to purchase historic structures. 4. Discourages inappropriate alterations to the historic property. 5. Provides an opportunity for visual improvement to the physical environment of the community. 6. Offers additional support and attention for historic districts and historic structures in the City. 2 5A-4 HPPA No. 2007-04 September 6, 2007 Page 3 CEQA Compliance In accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act, the recommended action is exempt from further review. A Notice of Exemption will be filed for this project. Hally So oleske Associate Planner HS:jm hs\historic info\mills act agreements\hppa07-04-2357_N_Riverside.hrc 25A-5 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY WARNER HOUSE 2357 North Riverside Drive Santa Ana, CA 92706 NAME Warner House REF. NO. ADDRESS 2357 North Riverside Drive CITY Santa Ana ZIP 92706 ORANGE COUNTY YEAR BUILT 1928 LOCAL REGISTER CATEGORY: Contributive HISTORIC DISTRICT N/A NEIGHBORHOOD Floral Park CALIFORNIA REGISTER CRITERIA FOR EVALUATION 3 CALIFORNIA REGISTER STATUS CODE 2D2 Location: ^ Not for Publication ®Unrestricted ^ Prehistoric ®Historic ^ Both ARCHITECTURAL STYLE: English Revival A simplification of the Tudor Revival, which reached its height of popularity during the 1920s and 1930s, the English Revival drew upon the English country house for its inspiration. English Revival homes usually feature stucco walls and gable roofs of steep but not exaggerated pitch. A characteristic roof treatment incorporates uneven rakes, with one side of a gable extending a greater distance than the other, sometimes changing the angle of slope in the process. Arches maybe used for windows and doors, and, unlike their Tudor cousins, are rounded rather than pointed. Windows are usually clustered in groups on the facade and are often multi-paned casement in type. Almost exclusively a residential style, English Revival buildings are nearly always asymmetrical in composition. SUMMARY/CONCLUSION: As a contributor to the North Broadway Park district, which has been determined eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places, the Warner House is eligible for listing in the California Register of Historical Resources. The Warner House also qualifies for listing in the Santa Ana Register of Historical Properties under Criterion 1 for its exemplification of the distinguishing characteristics of the English Revival style. Additionally, the house has been categorized as "Contributive" because it "contributes to the overall character and history" of Santa Ana, and, as an example of the English Revival style "is a good example of period architecture" (Municipal Code, Section 30-2.2). EXPLANATION OF CODES: • California Register Criteria for Evaluation: (From California Office of Historic Preservation, Technical Assistance Series # 7, "How to Nominate Resources to the California Register of Historical Resources," September 4, 2001.) 3: It embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, region, or method of construction, or represents the work of a master, or possesses high artistic values. • California Register Status Code: (From California Office of Historic Preservation, December 8, 2003.) 2D2: Contributor to a district determined eligible for the National Register by consensus through Section 106 process. Listed in the California Register. EXHIBIT 1 Z~e~ _1~ State of California-The Resources Agency DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION PRIMARY RECORD Other Listings Review Code Page 1 of 4 Resource name(s) or number (assigned by recorder) Warner House Date P1. Other Identifier: *P2. Location: ^Not for Publication ^Unrestricted *a. County Orange County *b. USGS 7.5' Quad Date: *c. Address 2357 North Riverside Drive City Santa Ana Zip 92706 *e. Other Locational Data: Assessor's Parcel Number Block: Lot: *P3a. Description: (Describe resource and its major elements. Include design, materials, condition, alterations, size, setting, and boundaries.) This one and one-half story residence features the picturesque asymmetry characteristic of the English Revival style. Clad in stucco, the house is capped by a steeply pitched, cross-gabled roof whose rolled edges are meant to suggest thatching. Three front gables of varying heights, each accented with fenestration and venting of different shapes and sizes, add fo the effect of asymmetry on the facade. The fagade's south half is dominated by a projecting wing, whose gable extends past the wall line on the south to enclose a narrow archway. The gable apex is pierced with a small, round-headed, six-light window. Beneath a shallow blind arch, awood-framed, tripartite window, featuring a fixed, three-over-one sash flanked by two casements with lengthwise muntins, is centered on the fagade of the south wing. The tripartite window arrangement is duplicated on the north of the central entry, but is slightly more horizontal in proportions. Set back slightly, the north wing is topped with afront-gabled dormer containing a square, six-light window. Around-headed archway in a wing wall terminates the north end of the facade. Capped by the third front gable, the west-facing entryway consists of around-headed wood door (See Continuation Sheet 3 of 4.) *P3b. Resource Attributes: (list attributes and codes) HP2. Single-family Property *P4. Resources Present: ^Building ^Structure ^Object ^Site ^District ^Element of District ^Other PSb. Photo: (view and date) West elevation April 27, 2007 *P6. Date Constructed/Age and Sources: ^hstoric 1928/City of Santa Ana Building Permits *P7. Owner and Address: *P8. Recorded by: L. Heumann and D.Howell-Ardila Sapphos Environmental, Inc. 133 Martin Alley Pasadena, California 91105 *P9. Date Recorded: Apri127, 2007 *P10. Survey Type: Intensive Survey Update *P11. Report Citation: (Cite survey report and other sources, or enter "none") California Department of Transportation, Broadway Overcrossing Historic Property Survey, March 1979. *Attachments: ^None ^Location Map ^Sketch Map ^Continuation Sheet ^Building, Structure, and Object Record ^Archaeological Record ^District Record ^Linear Feature Record ^Milling Station Record ^Rock Art Record ^Artifact Record ^Photograph Record ^ Other (list) DPR 523A (1/95) Primary HRI # Trinomial NRHP Status Code Reviewer *Required information 2~~-~` 5 State of California-The Resources Agency Primary # DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI# BUILDING, STRUCTURE, AND OBJECT RECORD Page 2 of 4 *CHR Status Code 2D2 "Resource Name or ~: warner r-louse 61. Historic Name: Warner House B2. Common Name: Same B3. Original Use: Single-family Residence B4. Present Use: Single-family Residence *B5. Architectural Style: English Revival *66. Construction History: (Construction date, alterations, and date of alterations): Constructed 1928 May 25, 1928. Residence and garage. August 7, 1940. Reroof. October 5, 1993. Addition of first floor nook and kitchen (totaling 256 square feet). Addition of second story, with two bedrooms, two bathrooms, playroom, and stairway (totaling 670 square feet). *B7. Moved? ^No f7Yes Unknown Date: *B8. Related Features: Original Location: Garage. 69a. Architect: Unknown b. Builder: Unknown *610. Significance: Theme Residential Architecture Area Santa Ana Period of Significance: circa 1888-1953 Property Type: Single-family Residence Applicable Criteria: NR: C; CR: 3 (Discuss importance in terms of historical or architectural context as defined by theme, period, and geographic scope. Also address integrity) The Warner House is architecturally signitrcant as a whimsical and representative example of the English Revival style. According fo the original building permit, dated May 25, 1928, the residence and garage were constructed at a cost of $4,500. The original owner of the property was Nelson J. Warner, owner of Warner Realty Co., and his wife Nora. The Warners resided in the property for over 10 years, until at least 1938. By 1940, the owner was Clyde W. Cromer, a salesman with Shipkey and Pearson, Inc., and wife Mildred. In subsequent years, ownership of the house changed various times. (See Continuation Sheet 3 of 4.) B11. Additional Resource Attributes: (List attributes and codes) *612. References: City of Santa Ana Building Permits Santa Ana History Room Collection, Santa Ana Public Library Sanborn Maps (See Continuation Sheet 3 of 4.) 613. Remarks: Sketch Map *614. Evaluator: Leslie J. Heumann *Date of Evaluation: Apri130, 2007 (This space reserved for official comments.) DPR 5238 (1195) *Required information 25AP=~ 3 of 5 State of California-The Resources Agency Primary # DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI # CONTINUATION SHEET Trinomial aa„o ~ ~f 4 Resource Name or # (Assigned by recorder) Warner House *Recorded by Leslie J. Neumann and Deborah Howell-Ardila *Date April 30, 2007 ~ Continuation ^ Update *P3a. Description (continued): embellished with decorative paneling and a small square opening that is covered with an iron grill. Side elevations repeat the tripartite arrangement of windows used on the facade. The north elevation displays an attached brick chimney. Alterations include a 256-square foot rear addition to the first floor and the addition of a 670-foot second story. Set back from the facade and topped by a compatible front gable, the addition is most apparent on the south elevation of the house. The materials and design utilized in the addition are consistent with the character-defining features of the house, but can be distinguished from it through use of modern aluminum-frame windows, as well as in the lower pitch of the gable. Other modifications include the addition of awnings on wrought iron supports, replacement of the original garage door, and hardscape improvements such as paving of the front steps and the addition of a white picket fence. Despite these changes, the house still effectively conveys the period of its signifrcance. *B10. Significance (continued): Santa Ana was founded by William Spurgeon in 1869 as a speculative town site on part of the Spanish land grant known as Rancho Santiago de Santa Ana. The civic and commercial core of the community was centered around the intersection of Main and Fourth Streets. Stimulated by the arrival of the Santa Fe Railroad and incorporation as a city in 1886, and selection as the seat of the newly created County of Orange in 1889, the city grew outwards, with residential neighborhoods developing to the north, south, and east of the city center. Agricultural uses predominated in the outlying areas, with cultivated fields and orchards dotted with widely scattered farmhouses. The Warner House is located in Floral Park, a neighborhood northwest of downtown Santa Ana bounded by West Seventeenth Street, North Flower Street, Riverside Drive, and Broadway. Groves of oranges, avocados and walnuts, and widely scattered ranch houses characterized this area before 1920. Developer and builder Allison Honer (1897-1981), credited as fhe subdivider and builder of a major portion of northwest Santa Ana, arrived in Santa Ana from Beaver Falls, New York in 1922 (Talbert, pages 353-356). `Before nightfall on the day of his arrival, Mr. Honer purchased a parcel of land. And that month, he began building custom homes in Santa Ana" (Orange County Register, September 15, 1981). The parcel chosen became the Floral Park subdivision between Seventeenth Street and Santiago Creek. "When built in the 1920s, the Floral Park homes were the most lavish and expensive in the area. They sold for about $45,000 each" (Orange County Register. September 15, 1981). Revival archifecture in a wide variety of romantic styles was celebrated in the 1920s and 1930s; Floral Park showcased examples of the English Tudor, French Norman, Spanish Colonial, and Colonial Revival styles. The Allison Honer Construction Company went on to complete such notable projects as the 1935 Art Deco-styled Old Santa Ana City Hall, the EI Toro Marine Base during World War ll, and the 1960 Honer Shopping Plaza. Honer lived in the neighborhood he had helped create, at 615 West Santa Clara Avenue. In the late 1920s and 1930s, another builder, Roy Roscoe Russell (1881-1965), continued developing the groves of Floral Park. An early Russell project was his 1928 subdivision of Victoria Drive befween West Nineteenth Street and West Santa Clara Avenue. The homes were quite grand and displayed various revival styles, including Russell's own large, Colonial Revival mansion at 2009 Victoria Drive. In the early post-World War I! years, Floral Park continued its development as numerous smaller, single-family houses were built. Continuing in the Floral Park tradition, they were mostly revival in style. In the 1950s, low, horizontal Ranch Style houses completed the growth of Floral Park. Today (2006), Floral Park maintains its identity as the premier neighborhood of Santa Ana, historically home to many affluent and prominent citizens. The Wamer House lies in the northern section of Floral Park known as North Broadway Park. Bounded by Riverside Drive, Santa Clara Avenue, North Broadway, and North Flower Street, North Broadway Park, subdivided in 1923, has been determined eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places. The Keeper of the National Register found that: `North Broadway Park reflects the City Beautiful planning movement in Southern California during the early twentieth century. The vernacular adaptations of period revival styles, curvilinear street patterns, street furniture, and landscape combine to create a cohesive and pleasant middle class suburban neighborhood environment which is unique in the early historical development of the city of Santa Ana. "' Under the regulations implementing the California Register of Historical Resources, the Warner House, which is a contributor to the National Register district, is eligible for listing in the California Register. 1 Determination of Eligibility, February 25, 1980. QPage 4 of 5 DPR 523E 25A-9 State of California-The Resources Agency Primary # DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI # CONTINUATION SHEET Trinomial Page 4 of 4 Resource Name or # (Assigned by recorder) Warner House 'Recorded by Leslie J. Heumann and Deborah Howell-Ard11a "Date Apra :~u, zuui u connnuauon u upaate *610. Significance (continued): The Warner House also qualifies for listing in the Santa Ana Register of Historical Properties under Criterion 1 for ifs exemplification of the distinguishing characteristics of the English Revival style. Typical features of this style illustrated by the house include its smooth stucco cladding with little applied ornament; steeply pitched gables with rolled edges; picturesque asymmetry in the arrangement of facade elements, including fhe varied gable heights and accents, juxtapositions of pointed and rounded shapes, and incorporation of differently sized and shaped windows. Additionally, the house has been categorized as "Contributive" because it `contributes to the overall character and history" of Santa Ana, and, as an example of the English Revival style `9s a good example of period architecture." Character-defining exterior features of the Warner House that should be preserved include, but may not be limited to, materials and finishes (stucco); roof configuration and detailing; original windows and doors where extant; wing walls with archways; and attached chimney. "612. References (continued): Harris, Cyril M. American Architecture: An Illustrated Encyclopedia. New York, WW Norton, 1998. Marsh, Diann. Santa Ana. An Illustrated History. Encinitas, Heritage Publishing, 1994. McAlester, Virginia and Lee. A Field Guide to American Houses. New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1984. National Register Bulletin 16A. `How to Complete the National Register Registration Form." Washington DC: National Register Branch, National Park Service, US Dept. of the Interior, 1991. Office of Historic Preservation. `Instructions for Recording Historical Resources." Sacramento: March 1995. Whitten, Marcus. American Architecture Since 1780. Cambridge: MIT Press, 1969. `Alison Honer Dies at 84,"The Santa Ana Journal. September 21, 1981. `Builder of Honer Plaza Dies," Orange County Register. September 15, 1981. `History of Floral Park." http://www.floral-park.com/page2.html. Santa Ana and Orange County Directories, 1932-1954. Cynthia Ward, Anaheim. `Rogers-Warner House Primary Record and Building, Structure and Object Record,"May-June 2006. DPR 523E w ~~=5~f~ MILLS ACT AGREEMENT 2357 North Riverside Drive Santa Ana, CA 92706 RECORDING REQUESTED BY: City of Santa Ana AND WHEN RECORDED MAIL TO: City of Santa Ana Attn: City Clerk 20 Civic Center Plaza (M-30) Santa Ana, CA 92702 FREE RECORDING GOVERNMENT CODE §6103 HISTORIC PROPERTY PRESERVATION AGREEMENT This agreement ("Agreement") is made and entered into this October 1, 2007 by and between the City of Santa Ana, a charter city and municipal corporation duly organized and existing under the Constitution and laws of the of the State of California (hereinafter referred to as "City"), and Eric E. and Lynn T. Renezeder, Trustees of the Renezeder Family Trust, (hereinafter referred to as "Owner"), owner of real property located at 2357 North Riverside Drive, Santa Ana, California, 92706 in the County of Orange and listed on the Santa Ana Register of Historical Properties. RECITALS A. The City Council of the City of Santa Ana is authorized by California Government Code Section 50280 et seq. (known as the "Mills. Act") to enter into contracts with owners of qualified historical properties to provide for appropriate use, maintenance, rehabilitation and restoration such that these historic properties retain their historic character and integrity. B. The Owner possesses fee title in and to that certain qualified real property together with associated structures and improvements thereon, located at 2357 North Riverside Drive, Santa Ana, CA, 92706 and more particularly described in Exhibit "A," attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference, and hereinafter referred to as the "Historic Property". C. The Historic Property is officially designated on the Santa Ana Register of Historical Properties pursuant to the requirements of Chapter 30 of the Santa Ana Municipal Code. D. The City and the Property Owner, for their mutual benefit, now desire to enter into this Agreement which defines and limits the use and alteration of this Historic Property in order to enhance and maintain its value as a cultural and historical resource for the Owner and for the community; to prevent inappropriate alterations to the Historic Property and to ensure that repairs, additions, new EXHIBIT 2 -i- 25A-11 MILLS ACT AGREEMENT 2357 North Riverside Drive Santa Ana, CA 92706 building, and other changes are appropriate; and to ensure that rehabilitation and maintenance are carried out in an exemplary manner. E. The Owner and the City intend to carry out the purposes of California Government Code, Chapter 1, Part 5 of Division 1 of Title 5, Article 12, Section 50280 et seq., which will enable the Historic Property to qualify for an assessment of valuation as a restricted historical property pursuant to Article 1.9, Sec. 439 et seq., Chapter 3 Part 2 of Division 1 of the California Tax and Revenue Code. NOW, THEREFORE, the City of Santa Ana and the Owner of the Historic Property agree as follows: 1. Effective Date and Terms of Agreement. This Agreement shall be effective and commence on October 1, 2007, and shall remain in effect for a term often (10) years thereafter. Each year, upon the anniversary of the effective date of this Agreement, such initial term will automatically be extended as provided in California Government Code Sections 50280 through 50290 and in Section 2, below. 2. Renewal. a. Each year on the anniversary of the effective date of this Agreement, a year shall automatically be added to the initial ten (10) year term of this Agreement unless written notice of nonrenewal is served as provided herein. b. If the Owner or the City desire(s) in any year not to renew the Agreement, the Owner or City shall serve written notice of nonrenewal of the Agreement on the other party. Unless such notice is served by the Owner to the City at least ninety (90) days prior to the annual renewal date, or served by the City to the Owner at least sixty (60) days prior to the annual renewal date, one (1) year shall automatically be added to the term of the Agreement as provided herein. c. Within 30 days from receipt of City's notice of nonrenewal, the Owner may file a written protest of City's decision of nonrenewal. The City may, at any time prior to the annual renewal date of the Agreement, withdraw its notice to the Owner of nonrenewal. d. If either the Owner or the City serves notice to the other of nonrenewal in any year, the Agreement shall remain in effect for the balance of the term then remaining, either from its original execution or from the last renewal of the Agreement, whichever may apply. 3. Standards and Conditions for Historic Property. During the term of this Agreement, the Historic Property shall be subject to the following conditions, requirements and restrictions: -2- 25A-12 MILLS ACT AGREEMENT 2357 North Riverside Drive Santa Ana, CA 92706 a. Owner shall maintain the Historic Property in a good state of repair and shall preserve, maintain, and, where necessary, restore or rehabilitate the property and its character- defining features, notably the general architectural form, style, materials, design, scale, proportions, organization of windows, doors, and other openings, textures, details, mass, roof line, porch and other aspects of the appearance of the exterior to the satisfaction of the City. b. All changes to the Historic Property shall comply with applicable City plans and regulations, and conform to the rules and regulations of the Office of Historic Preservation of the State of Department of Parks and Recreation, namely the U.S. Secretary of the Interior's Standards and Guidelines for Historic Preservation Projects. These guidelines are attached hereto, marked as Exhibit B, and incorporated herein by this reference. The condition of the exterior of the property, as of the effective date of this Agreement, is documented in photographs attached hereto as Exhibit B and incorporated herein by reference. Owner shall continually maintain the Historic Property in the same or better condition as documented in Exhibit C. c. A view corridor enabling the general public to see the Historic Property from the public right-of--way shall be maintained, and Owner shall not be permitted to block the view corridor to the property with any new structure, such as walls, fences or shrubbery, so as to prevent the viewing of the historic landmark by the public. d. The following are prohibited: Demolition of the Historic Property or destruction ofcharacter-defining features of the building or site; removal of trees and other major vegetation unless removal is approved by a rehabilitation plan approved by the Historic Resources Commission, paving of yard surface; exterior alterations or additions unless approved by the Historic Resources Commission and such alternations are in keeping with the Secretary of Interior's Standards; deteriorating, dilapidated or unrepaired structures such as fences, roofs, doors, walls, and windows; storage of junk, trash, debris, discarded or unused objects such as cars, appliances, or furniture; and other unsightly by decoration, structure or vegetation which is unsightly by reason of its height, condition, or inappropriate location. e. Owner shall allow reasonable periodic examination, by prior appointment, of the interior and exterior of the Historic Property by representatives of the County Assessor, the State Department of Parks and Recreation, the State Board of Equalization, and the City of Santa Ana as may be necessary to determine the Owner compliance with the terms and provisions of this Agreement. 4. Furnishing of Information. The Owner hereby agrees to furnish the City with any and all information requested which may be necessary or advisable to determine compliance with the terms and provisions of this Agreement. -3- 25A-13 MILLS ACT AGREEMENT 2357 North Riverside Drive Santa Ana, CA 92706 5. Cancellation. a. The City, following a duly noticed public hearing by the City Council as set forth in Government Code Section 50280, et. seq., may cancel this Agreement if it determines that the Owner has breached any of the conditions of this Agreement, or have allowed the property to deteriorate to the point that it no longer meets the standards for a qualified Historic Property, or if the City determines that the Owner has failed to restore or rehabilitate the property in the manner specified in Section 3 of this Agreement. If a contract is cancelled for these reasons, the Owner shall pay a cancellation fee to the County Auditor as set forth in Government Code Section 50286. This cancellation fee shall be a percentage (currently set at twelve and one-half (12 %2) percent by Government Code Section 50286) of the current fair market value of the property at the time of the cancellation, as determined by the county assessor, without regard to any restriction imposed pursuant to this Agreement. b. If the Historic Property is destroyed by earthquake, fire, flood or other natural disaster such that in the opinion of the City Building Official more than sixty (60) percent of the original fabric of the structure must be replaced, this Agreement shall be canceled because, in effect, the historic value of the structure will have been destroyed. No fee shall be imposed in the case of destruction by acts of God or natural disaster. c. If the Historic Property is acquired by eminent domain and the City Council determines that the acquisition frustrates the purpose of this Agreement, this Agreement shall be cancelled and no fee imposed, as specified in Government Code Section 50288. 6. Enforcement of Agreement. a. In lieu of and/or in addition to any provisions to cancel the Agreement as referenced herein, the City may specifically enforce, or enjoin the breach of, the terms of the Agreement. In the event of a default, under the provisions to cancel the Agreement by the Owner, the City shall give written notice to the Owner by registered or certified mail, and if such a violation is not corrected to the reasonable satisfaction of the Deputy City Manager for Development Services or designee within thirty (30) days thereafter, or if not corrected within such a reasonable time as may be required to cure the breach or default, or default cannot be cured within thirty (30) days (provided that acts to cure the breach or default maybe commenced within thirty (30) days and shall thereafter be diligently pursued to completion by the Owner), then the City may, without further notice, declare a default under the terms of this Agreement and may bring any action necessary to specifically enforce the obligations of the Owner growing out of the terms of this Agreement, apply to any court, state or federal, for injunctive relief against any violation by the Owner or apply for such relief as maybe appropriate. b. The City does not waive any claim of default by the Owner if the City does not enforce or cancel this Agreement. All other remedies at law or in equity which are not otherwise provided for in this Agreement or in the City's regulations governing historic properties are available to the City to pursue in the event that there is a breach of this Agreement. No waiver by -4- 25A-14 MILLS ACT AGREEMENT 2357 North Riverside Drive Santa Ana, CA 92706 the City of any breach or default under this Agreement shall be deemed to be a waiver of any other subsequent breach thereof or default hereunder. 7. Binding effect of Agreement. a. The Owner hereby subjects the Historic Property, located at 2357 North Riverside Drive, Assessor Parcel Number, 002-131-07, and more particularly described in Exhibit A, in the City of Santa Ana, to the covenants reservations, and restrictions as set forth in this Agreement. b. The City and Owner hereby declare their specific intent that the covenants, reservations and restrictions as set forth herein shall be deemed covenants running with the land and shall pass to and be binding upon the Owner's successors and assigns in title or interest to the Historic Property. Every contract, deed, or other instrument hereinafter executed, covering or conveying the Historic Property or any portion thereof, shall conclusively be held to have been executed, delivered, and accepted subject to the tenants, restrictions, and reservations expressed in this Agreement regardless of whether such covenants, restrictions and reservations are set forth in such contract, deed, or other instrument. 8. No Compensation. Owner shall not receive any payment from the City in consideration of the obligation imposed under this Agreement, it being recognized that the consideration for the execution of this Agreement is the substantial public benefit to be derived therefrom and the advantage that will accrue to the Owner as a result of the effect upon the assessed value of the property on the account of the restrictions on the use and preservation of the property. 9. Notice. Any notice required by the terms of this Agreement shall be sent to the address of the respective parties as specified below or at other addresses that may be later specified by the parties hereto. City: City of Santa Ana Attn: City Clerk 20 Civic Center Plaza (M-30) Santa Ana, CA 92702 Owner: Eric E. Renedezer and Lynn T. Renezeder, Trustees of the Renezeder Family Trust 2357 North Riverside Drive Santa Ana, CA 92706 -s- 25A-15 MILLS ACT AGREEMENT 2357 North Riverside Drive Santa Ana, CA 92706 10. General Provisions. a. None of the terms, provisions, or conditions of this Agreement shall be deemed to create a partnership between the parties hereto and any of their heirs, successors, or assigns, nor shall such terms, provisions or conditions cause them to be considered joint ventures or members of any joint enterprise. b. The Owner agrees to and shall indemnify and hold the City and its elected and appointed officials, officers, agents, and employees harmless from liability for damage or claims for damage for personal injuries, including death, and claims for property damage which may arise from the direct or indirect use or operations of the Owner or those of his or her contractor, subcontractor, agenda, employee, or other person acting on his or her behalf which relates to the use, operation, and maintenance of the Historic Property. The Owner hereby agrees to and shall defend the City and its elected and appointed officials, officers, agents, and employees with respect to any and all actions for damages caused by, or alleged to have been caused by, reason of the Owner's activities in connection with the Historic Property. c. This hold harmless provision applies to all damages and claims for damages suffered, or alleged to have been suffered, and costs of defense incurred, by reason of the operations referred to in this Agreement regardless of whether or not the City prepared, supplied, or approved the plans, specifications or other documents for the Historic Property. d. All of the Agreements, rights, covenants, reservations, and restrictions contained in this Agreement shall be binding upon and shall inure to the benefit of the parties herein, their heirs, successors, legal representatives, assigns, and all persons acquiring any part or portion of the Historic Property, whether by operation of law on in any manner whatsoever. e. In the event legal proceedings are brought by any party or parties to enforce or restrain a violation of any of the covenants, reservations, or restrictions contained herein, or to determine the rights and duties of any party hereunder, the prevailing party in such proceeding may recover all reasonable attorney's fees to be fixed by the court, in addition to court costs and other relief ordered by the court. f. In the event that any of the provisions of this Agreement are held to be unenforceable or invalid by any court of competent jurisdiction, or by subsequent preemptive legislation, the validity and enforceability of the remaining provisions, or portions thereof, shall not be effected thereby. g. This Agreement shall be construed and governed in accordance with the laws of the State of California. -6- 25A-16 MILLS ACT AGREEMENT 2357 North Riverside Drive Santa Ana, CA 92706 11. Recordation. No later than twenty (20) days after the parties execute and enter into this Agreement, the City shall cause this Agreement to be recorded in the office of the County Recorder of the County of Orange. 12. Notice of the Contract to Office of Historic Preservation. No later than six (6) months of entering into the contract, the owner or agent of an owner shall provide written notice of this Agreement to the Office of Historic Preservation. 13. Amendments. This Agreement may be amended, in whole or in part, only by a written recorded instrument executed by the parties hereto. 14. Effective Date This Agreement shall be effective on the day and year first written above. 15. Signatures. ATTEST: PATRICIA E. HEALY Clerk of the Council CITY OF SANTA ANA DAVID N. REAM City Manager Trustees of the Renezeder Family Trust Date: Date: By: Eric E. Renezeder, Trustee By: APPROVED AS TO FORM: JOSEPH W.FLETCHER City Attorney By: Kylee O. Otto Assistant City Attorney Lynn T. Renezeder, Trustee -7- 25A-17 MILLS ACT AGREEMENT 2357 North Riverside Drive Santa Ana, CA 92706 Exhibit A Lot 35 of Tract No. 425, North Broadway Park, in the City of Santa Ana, County of Orange, State of California, as per Map Recorded in Book 16, Page(s) 33 and 34 of Miscellaneous Maps, in the Office of the County Recorder of said County. Excepting therefrom that portion of said land described in the final order of condemnation tot eh State of California by document recorded January 27, 1993 as instrument No. 93- 059876 Official Records. Assessor Parcel No. 002-131-07 -s- 25A-18 MILLS ACT AGREEMENT 2357 North Riverside Drive Santa Ana, CA 92706 Exhibit B Exterior work shall be reviewed by the Historic Resources Commission and subject to the U.S. Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation of Historic Buildings, as follows: 1. Every reasonable effort shall be made to provide a compatible use for a property which requires minimal alteration of the building, structure, or site and its environment, or to use a property for its originally intended purpose. 2. The distinguishing original qualities or character of a building, structure or site and its environment shall not be destroyed. The removal or alteration of any historic material or distinctive architectural features should be avoided when possible. 3. All buildings, structures, and sites shall be recognized as products of their own time. Alterations that have no historical basis and which seek to create an earlier appearance shall be discouraged. 4. Changes which may have taken place in the course of time are evidence of the history and development of a building, structure, or site and its environment. These changes may have acquired significance in their own right, and this significance shall be recognized and respected. 5. Distinctive stylistic features or examples of skilled craftsmanship which characterize a building, structure, or site shall be treated with sensitivity. 6. Deteriorated architectural features shall be repaired rather than replaced, whenever possible. In the event replacement is necessary, the new material should match the material being replaced in composition, design, color, texture, and other visual qualities. Repair or replacement of missing architectural features should be based on accurate duplications of features, substantiated by historic, physical, or pictorial evidence rather than on conjectural designs or the availability of different architectural elements from the other buildings or structures. 7. The surface cleaning of structures shall be undertaken with the gentlest means possible. Sandblasting and other cleaning methods that will damage the historic building materials shall not be undertaken. 8. Every reasonable effort shall be made to protect and reserve archaeological resources affected by, or adjacent to any project. 9. Contemporary design for alternations and additions to existing properties shall not be discouraged when such alterations and additions do not destroy significant historical, architectural or cultural material, an such design is compatible with -9- 25A-19 MILLS ACT AGREEMENT 2357 North Riverside Drive Santa Ana, CA 92706 size, scale, color, material and character of the property, neighborhood, or environment. 10. Wherever possible, new additions or alterations to structures shall be done in such a manner that if such additions or alterations need to be removed in the future, the essential form and integrity of the structure would be unimpaired. - io 25A-20 Exhibit C (photographs attached) -~~- 25A-21 MILLS ACT AGREEMENT 2357 North Riverside Drive Santa Ana, CA 92706 MILLS ACT AGREEMENT 2357 North Riverside Drive Santa Ana, CA 92706 -12- 25A-22 MILLS ACT AGREEMENT 2357 North Riverside Drive Santa Ana, CA 92706 -13- 25A-23 Q Z O Q V O J H 0 W 0 ~c w o~ O z ti M N ~~. ~ ' ~ ~ • a ~ Q ' z ~ Q ' O .M N l~ C 1 ~• 0 z 25A-24 N • ~ a ,~ ,` .`~• .~ ~. ~~ REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE: OCTOBER 1, 2007 TITLE: HISTORIC PROPERTY PRESERVATION AGREEMENT NO. 2007-05 FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 2415 NORTH POINSETTIA STREET (~ CITY MANAGER RECOMMENDED ACTION CLERK OF COUNCIL USE ONLY: APPROVED ^ As Recommended ^ As Amended ^ Ordinance on 151 Reading ^ Ordinance on 2"d Reading ^ Implementing Resolution ^ Set Public Hearing For_ CONTINUED TO FILE NUMBER Direct the City Attorney to prepare and authorize the City Manager and the Clerk of the Council to execute an agreement with Mark Rothenberg and Lauren Tarkow for the structure located at 2415 North Riverside Drive. HISTORIC RESOURCES COMMISSION ACTION Recommended that the City Council direct the City Attorney to prepare and authorize the City Manager and the Clerk of the Council to execute an agreement with Mark Rothenberg and Lauren Tarkow for the structure located at 2415 North Riverside Drive at its September 6, 2007 meeting by a vote of 6:0 (Dickman, Mill, Schaefer absent). DISCUSSION After the public hearing on September 6, 2007, the Historic Resources Commission reviewed the proposed Historic Property Preservation Agreement (Mills Act Contract) and concluded that the resulting potential property tax savings would encourage the owner to reinvest the tax savings in the maintenance of their historic property, and would benefit both the owner and the community (Exhibit A). Additionally, the agreement prevents inappropriate alterations. 25B-1 HPP Agreement No. 2007-05 October 1, 2007 Page 2 FISCAL IMPACT The Historic Property Preservation Agreement will reduce the property tax revenue to the City by an estimated $36.05 to $180.27 annually, for a period of not less than ten years. APPROVED AS TO FUNDS AND ACCOUNTS: yr~~ Ja M. Trevino .~rancisco Gutierrez Executive Director `b Executive Director Planning & Building Agency Finance & Management Services Agency~~ HS:rb hs\historic info\mills act agreements\hppa07-O5-2415_N_POinsettia.cc 25B-2 REQUEST FOR Historic Resouroes Commission Action HsroRic ~ n~Err~c o,~TE: SEPTEMBER 6, 2007 TITLE: HISTORIC PROPERTY PRESERVATION AGREEMENT NO. 2007-05 FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 2415 NORTH POINSETTIA STREET Prepared by Hally Soboleske f`nsrowc RESOUIRCES conoN SECRETARY APPROVED ^ As Recommended ^ As Amended ^ Set Public Hearing For CONTINUED TO ~~~ Executive Director Planning Mana er RECOMMENDED ACTION Recommend that the City Council direct the City Attorney to prepare and authorize the City Manager and the Clerk of the Council to execute an agreement with Mark Rothenberg and Lauren Tarkow for the structure located at 2415 North Riverside Drive. DISCUSSION Request of Applicant The applicants, Mark Rothenberg and Lauren Tarkow, request the approval of Historic Property Preservation Agreement No. 2007-05 (Mills Act) between themselves and the City of Santa Ana. Property Description The subject property includes a single-story Spanish Colonial Revival residence and a detached garage located at 2415 North Poinsettia Street, in the Park Santiago neighborhood. Surrounding land uses are residential. Analysis of the Issues In March 1999, the City Council approved an ordinance authorizing Historic Property Preservation Agreements (HPPA), commonly known as the Mills Act contracts, for eligible historic properties. The agreement provides monetary incentive to the property owner in the form of a property tax reduction in exchange to the owner's voluntary commitment to maintain the property in a good state of repair and to rehabilitate the property as necessary to maintain its character and appearance. Once recorded, the agreement triggers the use of a different valuation method in determining the property's assessed value, thereby resulting in potentially significant property tax savings for the owner. ~~'-3 HPPA No. 2007-05 September 6, 2007 Page 2 One of the eligibility requirements for the Mills Act is that the property must be listed on the Santa Ana Register of Historical Properties. The subject property was placed on the local register and categorized as Contributive in February 2007 by the Historic Resources Commission (Exhibit 1). Upon consideration of the application, it is recommended that the City enter into a Historic Property Preservation Agreement (Exhibit 2) A review of the property indicates that this Spanish Colonial Revival styled structure is in excellent condition. As a result, a supplemental property rehabilitation plan will not be required as part of this agreement. Photos of the property are included with the agreement as well as a photo location map. The benefits of executing this agreement include, but are not limited to, the following: 1. Reduced property tax to allow reinvestment for the long-term preservation of the property. 2. Allows for a mechanism to provide for property rehabilitation. 3. Provides an additional incentive for potential buyers to purchase historic structures. 4. Discourages inappropriate alterations to the historic property. 5. Provides an opportunity for visual improvement to the physical environment of the community. 6. Offers additional support and attention for historic districts and historic structures in the City. CEQA Compliance In accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act, the recommended action is exempt from further review. A Notice of Exemption will be filed for this project. ( -~ Ha ly S oleske Serg'o K o z, AICP Associa e Planner Sen' r P ann r HS j m hs\historic info\mills act agreements\hppa07-OS-2415 N Poinsettia.hrc 25B-4 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY DIXON HOUSE 2415 N. Poinsettia Street Santa Ana, CA 92706 NAME Dixon House REF. NO. ADDRESS 2415 N. Poinsettia Street CITY Santa Ana ZIP 92706 ORANGE COUNTY YEAR BUILT 1927 LOCAL REGISTER CATEGORY: Contributive HISTORIC DISTRICT N/A NEIGHBORHOOD Park Santiago CALIFORNIA REGISTER CRITERIA FOR EVALUATION 3 CALIFORNIA REGISTER STATUS CODE SS1 Location: ^ Not for Publication ®Unrestricted ^ Prehistoric ®Historic ^ Both ARCHITECTURAL STYLE: Mission/Spanish Colonial Revival The Mission/Spanish Colonial Revival style, as its name implies, encompasses two major subcategories. The Mission Revival vocabulary, popular between 1890 and 1920, drew its inspiration from the missions of the Southwest. Identifying features include curved parapets (or espadana); red tiled roofs and coping; low-pitched roofs, often with overhanging eaves; porch roofs supported by large, square piers; arches; and wall surfaces commonly covered in smooth stucco. The Spanish Colonial Revival flourished between 1915 and 1940, reaching its apex during the 1920s and 1930s. The movement received widespread attention after the Panama- California Exposition in San Diego in 1915, where lavish interpretations of Spanish and Mexican prototypes were showcased. Easily recognizable hallmarks of the Spanish Colonial Revival are low-pitched roofs, usually with little or no overhangs and red the roof coverings, flat roofs surrounded by tiled parapets, and stuccoed walls. The Spanish vocabulary also includes arches, asymmetry, balconies and patios, window grilles, and wood, wrought iron, tile, or stone decorative elements. SUMMARY/CONCLUSION: The Dixon House qualifies for listing in the Santa Ana Register of Historical Property under Criterion 3 for its exemplification of the distinguishing characteristics of the Spanish Colonial Revival style. Additionally, the house has been categorized as "Contributive" because it "contributes to the overall character and history" of Santa Ana, and, as an example of the Spanish Colonial Revival style "is a good example of period architecture" (Municipal Code, Section 30-2.2). EXPLANATION OF CODES: • California Register Criteria for Evaluation: (From California Office of Historic Preservation, Technical Assistance Series # 7, "How to Nominate Resources to the California Register of Historical Resources," September 4, 2001.) 3: It embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, region, or method of construction, or represents the work of a master, or possesses high artistic values. • California Register Status Code: (From California Office of Historic Preservation, December 8, 2003.) SSl: Individual property that is listed or designated locally. EXHIBIT 1 2~~'~ 4 State of California-The Resources Agency DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION PRIMARY RECORD Other Listings Review Code of 3 Resource name(s) or number (assigned by recorder) Dixon House Date P1. Other Identifier: *P2. Location: ^Not for Publication ^Unrestricted *a. County Orange County *b. USGS 7.5' Quad Date: *c. Address 2415 N. Poinsettia Street City Santa Ana Zip 92706 *e. Other Locational Data: Assessor's Parcel Number Block: Lot: *P3a. Description: (Describe resource and its major elements. Include design, materials, condition, alterations, size, setting, and boundaries.) This one-story stucco-clad house displays signature features of the Spanish Colonial Revival style. Rectangular in plan, the house is primarily side-gabled, framed by two unevenly sized front gables that top wings projecting from either end of the facade. Clay tiles cover the gables and provide a parapet coping for the rear, flat-roofed section of the building. Between the two wings, a central patio is enclosed by a low stucco wall whose design incorporates Mission Revival inspired arches. Curvilinear buttresses accent the corners of the wings. The entry is located within asouth-facing archway, opening onto the patio from the north wing. Canvas awnings shade the patio south of the entry and the large, arched windows centered on the facades of each projecting wing. Windows are primarily multi-paned casements in type. Attic vents formed of clusters of clay pipes project from the exterior walls above the windows. Additional awnings top windows on the south elevation; a stuccoed chimney rises up the north elevation. Approached by a cement pathway that bisects a front lawn punctuated by two mature frees, the house is substantially unaltered and is in good condition. The property also includes a rear, one-story, stucco- covered garage whose flat roof features a the-edged parapet. *P3b. Resource Attributes: (list attributes and codes) HP2. Single-family Property *P4. Resources Present: ^Building ^Structure ^Object ^Site ^District ^Element of District ^Other "';,', t~ f~ ~ ~i': ~"::~,- ~~. ~~ *.'M ~' P5b. Photo: (view and date) West elevation January 2007 *P6. Date Constructed/Age and Sources: ^historic 1927/City of Santa Ana Building Permits *P7. Owner and Address: *P8. Recorded by: L. Neumann and D. Howell-Ardila Sapphos Environmental, Inc. 133 Martin Alley Pasadena, California 91105 *P9. Date Recorded: January 25, 2007 *P10. Survey Type: Intensive Survey Update *P11. Report Citation: (Cite survey report and other sources, or enter "none") None. *Attachments: ^None ^Location Map ^Sketch Map ^Continuation Sheet ^Building, Structure, and Object Record ^Archaeological Record ^District Record ^Linear Feature Record ^Milling Station Record ^Rock Art Record ^Artifact Record ^Photograph Record ^ Other (list) Primary #. HRI # Trinomial NRHP Status Code Reviewer DPR 523A (1/95) ~ ~~2 q~4 *Required information State of California-The Resources Agency Primary# DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI# BUILDING, STRUCTURE, AND OBJECT RECORD Page 2 of 3 *CHR Status Code 5S1 *Resource Name or #: Dixon House B1. Historic Name: Dixon House B2. Common Name: Same 63. Original Use: Single-family Residence 64. Present Use: Single-family Residence *65. Architectural Style: Mission/Spanish Colonial Revival *66. Construction History: (Construction date, alterations, and date of alterations): Constructed in 1927 April 23, 1927. Residence and garage. October 25, 1927. Shed. December 10, 1948. Reroof. June 15, 1949. Termite work and August 6, 1949. Repair termite damage to storage. October 19, 1983. Reroof with composition shingles. May 19, 1995. Partial reroof single family dwelling only-remove existing cap sheet and apply new cap sheet to flat area only *B7. Moved? ^No DYes Unknown Date: Original Location: *B8. Related Features: Garage. 69a. Architect: Unknown b. Builder: Honer, Herzig, and Farney *B10. Significance: Theme Residential Architecture Area Santa Ana Period of Significance: circa 1901-1954 Property Type: Single-family Residence Applicable Criteria: NR: C; CR: 3 (Discuss importance in terms of historical or architectural context as defined by theme, period, and geographic scope. Also address integrity) The Dixon House is architecturally notable as an intact and representative example of the Spanish Colonial Revival style and is of historic interest as one of several homes in the Park Santiago neighborhood developed by the team of (Allison) Honer, (Norman) Herzig and (first name unknown) Farney. The house and garage, valued at $8,000 on fhe building permit, were built in 1927, at which time only four residences had been constructed on the block. When the house first appeared in the city directories in 1928, the residents were Frederick A. Dixon, vice-president and manager of the Standard American Glass Company, and his wife, Mary. The Dixons were succeeded in 1931 by Harry E. Welsh, a salesman for the Edison Company, and his wife, Eleanor, and in 1932 by Charles L. Davis, a real estate salesman, and his wife, Ocia. Beginning in 1934 and continuing until at least 1947, the house was the address of Abe Swindle, a clerk for the L. G. Holman company, and his wife, Virginia. (See Continuation Sheet 3 of 3.) 611. Additional Resource Attributes: (List attributes and *B12. References: City of Santa Ana Building Permits Santa Ana History Room Collection, Santa Ana Public Library Sanborn Maps Sketch Map (See Continuation Sheet 3 of 3.) B13. Remarks: *B14. Evaluator: Leslie J. Neumann *Date of Evaluation: January 25, 2006 (This space reserved for official comments.) DPR 5238 (1/95) *Required information Page 3 of 4 25B-7 State of California-The Resources Agency Primary # DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION HRI # CONTINUATION SHEET Trinomial Page 3 of 3 Resource Name or # (Assigned by recorder) Dixon House *Recorded by Leslie J. Heumann and Deborah Howen-,4rdua ~uate July zi, zvub u t,onnnuanon u upaaie *B10. Significance (continued): Santa Ana was founded by William Spurgeon in 1869 as a speculative town site on part of the Spanish land grant known as Rancho Santiago de Santa Ana. The civic and commercial core of the community was centered around the intersection of Main and Fourth Streets. Stimulated by the arrival of the Santa Fe Railroad and incorporation as a city in 1886, and selection as the seat of the newly created County of Orange in 1889, the city grew outwards, with residential neighborhoods developing to the north, south, and east of the city center. Agricultural uses predominated in the outlying areas, with cultivated fields and orchards dotted with widely scattered farmhouses. The Dixon House is located in the Park Santiago neighborhood, near the present northern city limits of Santa Ana and substantially north of the original city core. The neighborhood is bounded by Santiago Creek and Park on the north, East Seventeenth Street on the south, North Lincoln Avenue on the east, North Main Street on the west, and the 1-5 freeway on the southwest. In large pan; these boundaries reflect the transportation lines that were constructed towards the end of the nineteenth century and at the beginning of the twentieth century, when the Pacific Electric interurban railroad ran up Main Street; the Atchison, Topeka, and Santa Fe tracks followed Lincoln; and the Southern Pacific Railroad right-of--way mirrored the freeway route. This area remained primarily agricultural well into the 1920s. As of 1905, the city directories listed around twenty households on East Santa Clara, Twentieth Street, "C Street" (now North Santiago Street), North Bush Street and North Main Avenue, the only streets in the area of the time. The vast majority of the residents were ranchers. By 1911, the number of households had increased to about thirty, and Edgewood Road and Valencia Street had been partially laid out, but most residents continued to list "ranche-" or `Yruit grower" as their occupation in the city directories. This pattern of land use was evident on the 1912 plat map of the City, which illustrated two small, Craftsman-era subdivisions along Bush north of Santa Clara and on Valencia and Poinsettia south of Twentieth Street, with the remaining area divided info larger agricultural parcels held by approximately forty landowners. While the area east of Santiago Street was not subdivided unfit after the mid-1920s, most of the present day streets west of Santiago had been laid out when the Cify was mapped in 1923. Ranching continued to be the most prevalent occupation in the neighborhood, but increasing numbers of professionals, small business owners, merchants, and people in service professions such as painters, electricians, and carpenters made their homes in the western half of the neighborhood during the 1920s and 1930s. The area also attracted several Cify and county officials, including the City Attorney (Z.B. West, Jr., 321 East Santa Clara Avenue), County Supervisor, First District (C.H. Chapman, 2315 North Santiago Street), County Surveyor (E.H. Irwin, 2407 North Santiago Street), and County Auditor (William C. Jerome, 2422 Poinsettia Street). By April 1942, when the Sanborn Company first mapped the western half of the area, most of the lots had been improved with single- familyhomes, many in the revival styles popular during the 1920s and 1930s. Subsequent development of the eastern half of the neighborhood and infill construction in the western half displayed the simplified ranch style that emerged following World War 11. The Dixon House qualifies for listing in the Santa Ana Register of Historical Property under Criterion 3 for its exemplification of the distinguishing characteristics of the Spanish Colonial Revival style. Typical features of this style illustrated by the house include its materials of the and stucco, casement windows, use of arches, and incorporation of a patio into the plan. Additionally, the house has been categorized as "Contributive" because it `contributes to the overall character and history" of Santa Ana, and, as an example of the Spanish Colonial Revival style `is a good example of period architecture." Character- defining exterior features of the Dixon House that should be preserved include, but may not be limited to, materials and finishes (stucco, tile); roof confrgurafion and detailing; original windows and doors where extant; chimney; patio, architectural details such as the buttresses and attic vents; and garage. "B12. References (continued): Harris, Cyril M. American Architecture: An Illustrated Encyclopedia. New York, WW Norton, 1998. Marsh, Diann. Santa Ana. An Illustrated History. Encinitas, Heritage Publishing, 1994. McAlester, Virginia and Lee. A Field Guide to American Houses. New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1984. National Register Bulletin 16A. `How to Complete the National Register Registration Form." Washington DC: National Register Branch, National Park Service, US Dept. of the Interior, 1991. Office of Historic Preservation. `Instructions for Recording Historical Resources."Sacramento: March 1995. Whitten, Marcus. American Architecture Since 1780. Cambridge: MIT Press, 1969. Orange County Plaf Maps, 1912. Historic Maps, Santa Ana History Room, 1923, 1932, 1955. Santa Ana and Orange County Directories, 1926-1961. DPR 523E ~ ~ ~ag~4 of 4 MILLS ACT AGREEMENT 2415 North Poinsettia Street Santa Ana, CA 92706 RECORDING REQUESTED BY: City of Santa Ana AND WHEN RECORDED MAIL TO: City of Santa Ana Attn: City Clerk 20 Civic Center Plaza (M-30) Santa Ana, CA 92702 FREE RECORDING GOVERNMENT CODE §6103 HISTORIC PROPERTY PRESERVATION AGREEMENT This agreement ("Agreement") is made and entered into this October 1, 2007 by and between the City of Santa Ana, a charter city and municipal corporation duly organized and existing under the Constitution and laws of the of the State of California (hereinafter referred to as "City"), and Mark Rothenberg and Lauren Tarkow, (hereinafter referred to as "Owners"), owner of real property located at 2415 North Poinsettia Street, Santa Ana, California, 92706 in the County of Orange and listed on the Santa Ana Register of Historical Properties. RECITALS A. The City Council of the City of Santa Ana is authorized by California Government Code Section 50280 et seq. (known as the "Mills Act") to enter into contracts with owners of qualified historical properties to provide for appropriate . use, maintenance, rehabilitation and restoration such that these historic properties retain their historic character and integrity. B. The Owner possesses fee title in and to that certain qualified real property together with associated structures and improvements thereon, located at 2415 North Poinsettia Street, Santa Ana, CA, 92706 and more particularly described in Exhibit "A," attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference, and hereinafter referred to as the "Historic Property". C. The Historic Property is officially designated on the Santa Ana Register of Historical Properties pursuant to the requirements of Chapter 30 of the Santa Ana Municipal Code. D. The City and the Property Owner, for their mutual benefit, now desire to enter into this Agreement which defines and limits the use and alteration of this Historic Property in order to enhance and maintain its value as a cultural and historical resource for the Owner and for the community; to prevent inappropriate alterations to the Historic Property and to ensure that repairs, additions, new building, and other changes are appropriate; and to ensure that rehabilitation and maintenance are carried out in an exemplary manner. EXHIBIT 2 -i- 25B-9 MILLS ACT AGREEMENT 2415 North Poinsettia Street Santa Ana, CA 92706 E. The Owner and the City intend to carry out the purposes of California Government Code, Chapter 1, Part 5 of Division 1 of Title 5, Article 12, Section 50280 et seq., which will enable the Historic Property to qualify for an assessment of valuation as a restricted historical property pursuant to Article 1.9, Sec. 439 et seq., Chapter 3 Part 2 of Division 1 of the California Tax and Revenue Code. NOW, THEREFORE, the City of Santa Ana and the Owner of the Historic Property agree as follows: 1. Effective Date and Terms of Agreement. This Agreement shall be effective and commence on October 1, 2007, and shall remain in effect for a term of ten (10) years thereafter. Each year, upon the anniversary of the effective date of this Agreement, such initial term will automatically be extended as provided in California Government Code Sections 50280 through 50290 and in Section 2, below. 2. Renewal. a. Each year on the anniversary of the effective date of this Agreement, a year shall automatically be added to the initial ten (10) year term of this Agreement unless written notice of nonrenewal is served as provided herein. b. If the Owner or the City desire(s) in any year not to renew the Agreement, the Owner or City shall serve written notice of nonrenewal of the Agreement on the other party. Unless such notice is served by the Owner to the City at least ninety (90) days prior to the annual renewal date, or served by the City to the Owner at least sixty (60) days prior to the annual renewal date, one (1) year shall automatically be added to the term of the Agreement as provided herein. c. Within 30 days from receipt of City's notice of nonrenewal, the Owner may file a written protest of City's decision of nonrenewal. The City may, at any time prior to the annual renewal date of the Agreement, withdraw its notice to the Owner of nonrenewal. d. If either the Owner or the City serves notice to the other of nonrenewal in any year, the Agreement shall remain in effect for the balance of the term then remaining, either from its original execution or from the last renewal of the Agreement, whichever may apply. 3. Standards and Conditions for Historic Property. During the term of this Agreement, the Historic Property shall be subject to the following conditions, requirements and restrictions: -2- 256-10 MILLS ACT AGREEMENT 241 S North Poinsettia Street Santa Ana, CA 92706 a. Owner shall maintain the Historic Property in a good state of repair and shall preserve, maintain, and, where necessary, restore or rehabilitate the property and its character- defining features, notably the general architectural form, style, materials, design, scale, proportions, organization of windows, doors, and other openings, textures, details, mass, roof line, porch and other aspects of the appearance of the exterior to the satisfaction of the City. b. All changes to the Historic Property shall comply with applicable City plans and regulations, and conform to the rules and regulations of the Office of Historic Preservation of the State of Department of Parks and Recreation, namely the U.S. Secretary of the Interior's Standards and Guidelines for Historic Preservation Projects. These guidelines are attached hereto, marked as Exhibit B, and incorporated herein by this reference. The condition of the exterior of the property, as of the effective date of this Agreement, is documented in photographs attached hereto as Exhibit B and incorporated herein by reference. Owner shall continually maintain the Historic Property in the same or better condition as documented in Exhibit C. c. A view corridor enabling the general public to see the Historic Property from the public right-of--way shall be maintained, and Owner shall not be permitted to block the view corridor to the property with any new structure, such as walls, fences or shrubbery, so as to prevent the viewing of the historic landmark by the public. d. The following are prohibited: Demolition of the Historic Property or destruction ofcharacter-defining features of the building or site; removal of trees and other major vegetation unless removal is approved by a rehabilitation plan approved by the Historic Resources Commission, paving of yard surface; exterior alterations or additions unless approved by the Historic Resources Commission and such alternations are in keeping with the Secretary of Interior's Standards; deteriorating, dilapidated or unrepaired structures such as fences, roofs, doors, walls, and windows; storage of junk, trash, debris, discarded or unused objects such as cars, appliances, or furniture; and other unsightly by decoration, structure or vegetation which is unsightly by reason of its height, condition, or inappropriate location. e. Owner shall allow reasonable periodic examination, by prior appointment, of the interior and exterior of the Historic Property by representatives of the County Assessor, the State Department of Parks and Recreation, the State Board of Equalization, and the City of Santa Ana as may be necessary to determine the Owner compliance with the terms and provisions of this Agreement. 4. Furnishing of Information. The Owner hereby agrees to furnish the City with any and all information requested which may be necessary or advisable to determine compliance with the terms and provisions of this Agreement. -3- 256-11 MILLS ACT AGREEMENT 241 S North Poinsettia Street Santa Ana, CA 92706 5. Cancellation. a. The City, following a duly noticed public hearing by the City Council as set forth in Government Code Section 50280, et. seq., may cancel this Agreement if it determines that the Owner has breached any of the conditions of this Agreement, or have allowed the property to deteriorate to the point that it no longer meets the standards for a qualified Historic Property, or if the City determines that the Owner has failed to restore or rehabilitate the property in the manner specified in Section 3 of this Agreement. If a contract is cancelled for these reasons, the Owner shall pay a cancellation fee to the County Auditor as set forth in Government Code Section 50286. This cancellation fee shall be a percentage (currently set at twelve and one-half (12 %2) percent by Government Code Section 50286) of the current fair market value of the property at the time of the cancellation, as determined by the county assessor, without regard to any restriction imposed pursuant to this Agreement. b. If the Historic Property is destroyed by earthquake, fire, flood or other natural disaster such that in the opinion of the City Building Official more than sixty (60) percent of the original fabric of the structure must be replaced, this Agreement shall be canceled because, in effect, the historic value of the structure will have been destroyed. No fee shall be imposed in the case of destruction by acts of God or natural disaster. c. If the Historic Property is acquired by eminent domain and the City Council determines that the acquisition frustrates the purpose of this Agreement, this Agreement shall be cancelled and no fee imposed, as specified in Government Code Section 50288. 6. Enforcement of Agreement. a. In lieu of and/or in addition to any provisions to cancel the Agreement as referenced herein, the City may specifically enforce, or enjoin the breach of, the terms of the Agreement. In the event of a default, under the provisions to cancel the Agreement by the Owner, the City shall give written notice to the Owner by registered or certified mail, and if such a violation is not corrected to the reasonable satisfaction of the Deputy City Manager for Development Services or designee within thirty (30) days thereafter, or if not corrected within such a reasonable time as may be required to cure the breach or default, or default cannot be cured within thirty (30) days (provided that acts to cure the breach or default maybe commenced within thirty (30) days and shall thereafter be diligently pursued to completion by the Owner), then the City may, without further notice, declare a default under the terms of this Agreement and may bring any action necessary to specifically enforce the obligations of the Owner growing out of the terms of this Agreement, apply to any court, state or federal, for injunctive relief against any violation by the Owner or apply for such relief as maybe appropriate. b. The City does not waive any claim of default by the Owner if the City does not enforce or cancel this Agreement. All other remedies at law or in equity which are not otherwise -4- 256-12 MILLS ACT AGREEMENT 2415 North Poinsettia Street Santa Ana, CA 92706 provided for in this Agreement or in the City's regulations governing historic properties are available to the City to pursue in the event that there is a breach of this Agreement. No waiver by the City of any breach or default under this Agreement shall be deemed to be a waiver of any other subsequent breach thereof or default hereunder. 7. Binding effect of Agreement. a. The Owner hereby subjects the Historic Property, located at 2415 North Poinsettia Street, Assessor Parcel Number, 003-081-15, and more particularly described in Exhibit A, in the City of Santa Ana, to the covenants reservations, and restrictions as set forth in this Agreement. b. The City and Owner hereby declare their specific intent that the covenants, reservations and restrictions as set forth herein shall be deemed covenants running with the land and shall pass to and be binding upon the Owner's successors and assigns in title or interest to the Historic Property. Every contract, deed, or other instrument hereinafter executed, covering or conveying the Historic Property or any portion thereof, shall conclusively be held to have been executed, delivered, and accepted subject to the tenants, restrictions, and reservations expressed in this Agreement regardless of whether such covenants, restrictions and reservations are set forth in such contract, deed, or other instrument. 8. No Compensation. Owner shall not receive any payment from the City in consideration of the obligation imposed under this Agreement, it being recognized that the consideration for the execution of this Agreement is the substantial public benefit to be derived therefrom and the advantage that will accrue to the Owner as a result of the effect upon the assessed value of the property on the account of the restrictions on the use and preservation of the property. 9. Notice. Any notice required by the terms of this Agreement shall be sent to the address of the respective parties as specified below or at other addresses that may be later specified by the parties hereto. City: City of Santa Ana Attn: City Clerk 20 Civic Center Plaza (M-30) Santa Ana, CA 92702 Owner: Mark Rothenberg and Lauren Tarkow 2415 North Poinsettia Street Santa Ana, CA 92706 -5- 256-13 MILLS ACT AGREEMENT 241 S North Poinsettia Street Santa Ana, CA 92706 10. General Provisions. a. None of the terms, provisions, or conditions of this Agreement shall be deemed to create a partnership between the parties hereto and any of their heirs, successors, or assigns, nor shall such terms, provisions or conditions cause them to be considered joint ventures or members of any joint enterprise. b. The Owner agrees to and shall indemnify and hold the City and its elected and appointed officials, officers, agents, and employees harmless from liability for damage or claims for damage for personal injuries, including death, and claims for property damage which may arise from the direct or indirect use or operations of the Owner or those of his or her contractor, subcontractor, agenda, employee, or other person acting on his or her behalf which relates to the use, operation, and maintenance of the Historic Property. The Owner hereby agrees to and shall defend the City and its elected and appointed officials, officers, agents, and employees with respect to any and all actions for damages caused by, or alleged to have been caused by, reason of the Owner's activities in connection with the Historic Property. c. This hold harmless provision applies to all damages and claims for damages suffered, or alleged to have been suffered, and costs of defense incurred, by reason of the operations referred to in this Agreement regardless of whether or not the City prepared, supplied, or approved the plans, specifications or other documents for the Historic Property. d. All of the Agreements, rights, covenants, reservations, and restrictions contained in this Agreement shall be binding upon and shall inure to the benefit of the parties herein, their heirs, successors, legal representatives, assigns, and all persons acquiring any part or portion of the Historic Property, whether by operation of law on in any manner whatsoever. e. In the event legal proceedings are brought by any party or parties to enforce or restrain a violation of any of the covenants, reservations, or restrictions contained herein, or to determine the rights and duties of any party hereunder, the prevailing party in such proceeding may recover all reasonable attorney's fees to be fixed by the court, in addition to court costs and other relief ordered by the court. f. In the event that any of the provisions of this Agreement are held to be unenforceable or invalid by any court of competent jurisdiction, or by subsequent preemptive legislation, the validity and enforceability of the remaining provisions, or portions thereof, shall not be effected thereby. g. This Agreement shall be construed and governed in accordance with the laws of the State of California. -6- 256-14 MILLS ACT AGREEMENT 2415 North Poinsettia Street Santa Ana, CA 92706 11. Recordation. No later than twenty (20) days after the parties execute and enter into this Agreement, the City shall cause this Agreement to be recorded in the office of the County Recorder of the County of Orange. 12. Notice of the Contract to Office of Historic Preservation. No later than six (6) months of entering into the contract, the owner or agent of an owner shall provide written notice of this Agreement to the Office of Historic Preservation. 13. Amendments. This Agreement may be amended, in whole or in part, only by a written recorded instrument executed by the parties hereto. 14. Effective Date This Agreement shall be effective on the day and year first written above. 15. Signatures. ATTEST: PATRICIA E. HEALY Clerk of the Council Owners: Date: Date: APPROVED AS TO FORM: JOSEPH W. FLETCHER City Attorney By: Kylee O. Otto Assistant City Attorney CITY OF SANTA ANA DAVID N. REAM City Manager By: Mark Rothenberg By: Lauren Tarkow -7- 256-15 MILLS ACT AGREEMENT 2415 North Poinsettia Street Santa Ana, CA 92706 Exhibit A LOT 11 BLOCK A OF TRACT NO. 359, IN THE CITY OF SANTA ANA, COUNTY OF ORANGE, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, AS PER MAP RECORDED IN BOOK 15, PAGE(S) 21, INCLUSIVE, OF MISCELLANEOUS MAPS, IN THE OFFICE OF THE COUNTY RECORDER OF SAID COUNTY. Assessor Parcel No. 003-081-15 -s- 25B-16 MILLS ACT AGREEMENT 241 S North Poinsettia Street Santa Ana, CA 92706 Exhibit B Exterior work shall be reviewed by the Historic Resources Commission and subject to the U.S. Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation of Historic Buildings, as follows: 1. Every reasonable effort shall be made to provide a compatible use for a property which requires minimal alteration of the building, structure, or site and its environment, or to use a property for its originally intended purpose. 2. The distinguishing original qualities or character of a building, structure or site and its environment shall not be destroyed. The removal or alteration of any historic material or distinctive architectural features should be avoided when possible. 3. All buildings, structures, and sites shall be recognized as products of their own time. Alterations that have no historical basis and which seek to create an earlier appearance shall be discouraged. 4. Changes which may have taken place in the course of time are evidence of the history and development of a building, structure, or site and its environment. These changes may have acquired significance in their own right, and this significance shall be recognized and respected. 5. Distinctive stylistic features or examples of skilled craftsmanship which characterize a building, structure, or site shall be treated with sensitivity. 6. Deteriorated architectural features shall be repaired rather than replaced, whenever possible. In the event replacement is necessary, the new material should match the material being replaced in composition, design, color, texture, and other visual qualities. Repair or replacement of missing architectural features should be based on accurate duplications of features, substantiated by historic, physical, or pictorial evidence rather than on conjectural designs or the availability of different architectural elements from the other buildings or structures. 7. The surface cleaning of structures shall be undertaken with the gentlest means possible. Sandblasting and other cleaning methods that will damage the historic building materials shall not be undertaken. 8. Every reasonable effort shall be made to protect and reserve archaeological resources affected by, or adjacent to any project. 9. Contemporary design for alternations and additions to existing properties shall not be discouraged when such alterations and additions do not destroy significant historical, architectural or cultural material, an such design is compatible with -9- 256-17 MILLS ACT AGREEMENT 241 S North Poinsettia Street Santa Ana, CA 92706 size, scale, color, material and character of the property, neighborhood, or environment. 10. Wherever possible, new additions or alterations to structures shall be done in such a manner that if such additions or alterations need to be removed in the future, the essential form and integrity of the structure would be unimpaired. - io - 25B-18 Exhibit C (photographs attached) -11- 256-19 MILLS ACT AGREEMENT 241 S North Poinsettia Street Santa Ana, CA 92706 MILLS ACT AGREEMENT 241 S North Poinsettia Street Santa Ana, CA 92706 -12- 256-20 MILLS ACT AGREEMENT 241 S North Poinsettia Street Santa Ana, CA 92706 -13- 256-21 Q Z O Q O J O Z a w W DC I- a W Z O a O z N W w W z in ti M O I o I Q O o -•-.-•-•-•-.-.-.-._L 0 Z 25B-22 REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE: OCTOBER 1, 2007 TITLE: PURCHASE AGREEMENTS FOR 818 S. BRISTOL STREET (PROJECT 06-1500) / CITY MANAGER RECOMMENDED ACTION CLERK OF COUNCIL USE ONLY: APPROVED ^ As Recommended ^ As Amended ^ Ordinance on 15` Reading ^ Ordinance on 2"d Reading ^ Implementing Resolution ^ Set Public Hearing For_ CONTINUED TO FILE NUMBER Direct the City Attorney to prepare and authorize the City Manager and Clerk of the Council to execute agreements with: R. Barbara Farkas, Trustee of the Farkus Trust dated December 20, 1988 for the purchase of the residential property located at 818 S. Bristol in the amount of $635,000. DISCUSSION On~May 7, 2007, the City Council approved the cooperative agreement between the City and the Orange County Transportation Authority to fund Bristol Street improvements between McFadden Avenue and Pine Street. Improvements include widening of the street from four lanes to six, landscaping in the parkways and the median islands, and other amenities as outlined in the Specific Plan. To accommodate the widening, the acquisition of entire properties, as listed above, are required (Exhibit 1). The purchase amounts are the appraised value prepared by an appraiser licensed in the State of California. On March 19, 2007, the City Council authorized the City Manager and Clerk of the Council to execute a purchase contract on the subject real property for $620,000. Since then, unforeseen title and legal issues have resulted in increased closing cost to complete the transaction. The revised acquisition agreement, for $635,000, will allow the City to complete the transaction necessary for the road widening project. 25C-1 Purchase Agreements October 1, 2007 Page 2 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT In accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act, the proposed project has been determined to be adequately evaluated in the previously prepared Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Impact Assessment EIR No. 89-O1 approved by City Council in 1990. FISCAL IMPACT Funds are appropriated in the Select Street Construction Fund (account no. 59-553-6611). APPROVED AS TO FUNDS AND ACCOUNTS: Jam G. Ross ~ancisco Gutierrez n./~ Ex utive Director ~ Executive Director P lic Works Agency Finance & Mgmt. Services Agency 25C-2 REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE: OCTOBER O1, 2007 TITLE: AGREEMENTS FOR ANNUAL CONTRACT FOR TRAFFIC COUNTING SERVICES PROJECT (PROJECT NO. 5512,) ER RECOMMENDED ACTION CLERK OF COUNCIL USE ONLY: APPROVED ^ As Recommended ^ As Amended ^ Ordinance on 1S` Reading ^ Ordinance on 2"d Reading ^ Implementing Resolution ^ Set Public Hearing For_ CONTINUED TO FILE NUMBER Direct the City Attorney to prepare and authorize the City Manager and the Clerk of the Council to execute agreements with National Data & Surveying Services and Transportation Studies, Inc. to provide traffic counting services, each for an amount not to exceed $50,000, with an option to extend the agreements for one additional year. DISCUSSION The City contracts for annual traffic counting services to conduct counts for neighborhood studies, the bi-annual citywide traffic volume study, and the annual traffic signal and left-turn priority studies. These contracts also include data collection and speed surveys in support of the speed hump program. A Request for Proposals (RFP) for annual traffic counting services was mailed on Monday June 18, 2007 to seven qualified consulting firms. One of the firms was based in Santa Ana. Only two of the seven consultants submitted proposals. The proposals received are from qualified consultants with extensive work experience in Santa Ana. The proposals were reviewed by a four-member committee comprised of Public Works Agency staff. The ratings were based on experience, qualifications, project understanding, scheduling, past performance, and the overall proposal. Once rated, the sealed bids of the two firms were opened. To compare the fees of the firms, the RFP required each firm to submit their proposed costs for a particular scenario of work specified in the RFP, based on their fee schedules for services. The costs for the 25D-1 Agreements for Annual Contract for Traffic Counting Services Project (Project No. 5512) October O1, 2007 Page 2 scenario were for comparison purposes only and not related to the contract amount. The proposal scores and total costs for the scenario are: FIRM 1. National Data & Surveying Services 90 $ 40,944 2. Transportation Studies, Inc. 75 $ 46,700 Due to the limited number of proposals received, the rating and/or cost, and staff familiarity with the above two firms, it is recommended that National Data & Surveying Services and Transportation Studies, Inc., be retained for an amount not to exceed $50,000 each for annual traffic data collection services. The consultants will be paid only for the services performed as requested by staff and in accordance with the rates submitted in the proposal. The contracts will include an option to extend the agreements for one additional year. RNVIRONMENTAL IMPACT There is no environmental impact associated with this action. FISCAL IMPACT The total cost of each agreement is not to exceed $50,000 per year. Funds in the amount of $100,000 are available in the Select Street Construction fund (account no. 33-631-6631, 48-631-6631, 34-631-6631 and 49-631-6631). ~~ ~s G. Ross cutive Director lic Works Agency AVERAGE SCENARIO SCORE COST APPROVED AS TO FUNDS AND ACCOUNTS: ~~~ C~~ - Francisco Gutierrez Executive Director Finance & Management Services Agency 25D-2 REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE: OCTOBER 1, 2007 TITLE: AMENDMENT TO AGREEMENT A-2004-239 WITH PACIFIC SYSTEMS ELECTRIC TY MANAGER RECOMMENDED ACTION CLERK OF COUNCIL USE ONLY: APPROVED ^ As Recommended ^ As Amended ^ Ordinance on 1ST Reading ^ Ordinance on 2"d Reading ^ Implementing Resolution ^ Set Public Hearing For_ CONTINUED TO FILE NUMBER Direct the City Attorney to prepare and authorize the City Manager and the Clerk of the Council to execute an amendment to the agreement A-2004-239 with Pacific Systems Electric in an amount not to exceed $76,000. DISCUSSION The City maintains 11 underground fuel storage tanks, located at the Corporate Yard, the Police Administration Building, and Fire Stations 1 and 5. State law requires that secondary fuel containment testing be conducted every three years. In addition, the South Coast Air Quality Management District (AQMD) requires monthly testing and an annual inspection of the underground fuel tanks. The City is required to address any issues identified in the testing and inspections. In November 2004, the City of Santa Ana entered into an agreement with Pacific Systems Electric for the inspection, preventive maintenance and repair of the storage tanks. Results of a recent test identified a leak in the vapor recovery system at Fire Station 1. Additional repairs are required in order to remain in compliance with AQMD standards. The recommended action will provide $12,000 to continue the monthly and annual inspections through August 2008, $34,000 for already identified needed repairs, as well as a $30,000 contingency to address unanticipated repairs resulting from future inspections. This will be the final renewal of this agreement. Staff will submit a Request for Proposal for future services, including the installation of state-mandated modifications to pump handles, required by 2009. 25E-1 Amendment to Agreement with Pacific Systems Electric October 1, 2007 Page 2 FISCAL IMPACT Funds are available in the Police Building and Facilities account (11-350- 6291); Fire Department Maintenance account (11-327-6291); and Building Maintenance account (73-105-6291). t. ~vFrancisco Gutierrez Executive Director Finance and Management Services Agency(w~ i FG/BP/A-2004-239:uc 25E-2 REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE: OCTOBER O1, 2007 TITLE: AGREEMENT AMENDMENT LIBRARY AUTOMATION SERVICE AND SUPPORT CLERK OF COUNCIL USE ONLY: APPROVED ^ As Recommended FOR ^ As Amended SYSTEM ^ Ordinance on 151 Reading ^ Ordinance on 2"d Reading ^ Implementing Resolution ^ Set Public Hearing For r~~ CITY MANAGER RECOMMENDED ACTION CONTINUED TO FILE NUMBER Direct the City Attorney to prepare and authorize the City Manager and the Clerk of the Council to execute an amendment to the Agreement with The Library Corporation, Inc. to provide one year of database subscription service and maintenance, for a total amount not to exceed $27,500. DlscvssloN On June 16, 2003, the City Council approved an agreement between the City of Santa Ana and The Library Corporation, Inc. to provide a library automation system. The Library Corporation, Inc. has provided the Library with a web based client server. The system offers integrated library automation, which provides increased functionality for staff and ease of use for patrons. The database subscription service and maintenance will continue to provide uninterrupted service to the Library and its patrons. This service includes telephone support, licensed software updates and enhancements, staff training, online access to cataloging resources, and enhanced content databases. These services enable staff to better serve the public and perform their jobs efficiently. FISCAL IMPACT Funds are available in the Library's Technology & Information Services, Other Contractual Services Fund account (account no. 11-216-6291). APPROVED AS TO FUNDS AND ACCOUNTS: ~, ~F; Rob Ricla'ard Executive Director Library Francisco Gutierrez Executive Director Finance & Management Services Agency 25F-1 25F-2 REQUEST COUNCIL FOR ACTION CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE: OCTOBER 1, 2007 TITLE: RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING PARTICIPATION IN THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA RECREATIONAL TRAILS PROGRAM CITY MANAGER RECOMMENDED ACTION CLERK OF COUNCIL USE ONLY: APPROVED ^ As Recommended ^ As Amended ^ Ordinance on 1St Reading ^ Ordinance on 2"d Reading ^ Implementing Resolution ^ Set Public Hearing For_ CONTINUED TO FILE NUMBER 1. Adopt a resolution authorizing the submittal of a grant application in the amount of $253,440 for the Recreational Trails Program under the State of California Department of Parks and Recreation for the rehabilitation of the Golden Loop Recreational Trail. 2. Approve the Categorical Exemption (ER No. 2007-147) for the above listed project. DISCUSSION The Recreational Trails Program was established under the Transportation Equity Act for the 21st Century and provides funds annually for recreational trails and trail-related projects. Approximately $3.8 million will be available this funding cycle for non-motorized projects. The application requires a 12-percent match of non-state money. Applications are due on October 1, 2007. The Golden Loop Recreational Trail is a regional trail that traverses the perimeter of the City and provides facilities for bike riding, jogging, and walking. Once all segments of the trail have been constructed, users will be able to travel in a complete circle around the entire City limits and return to their original starting point. The proposed project will resurface 6 miles of the existing trail providing users with a safe, environmentally friendly trail to use for commuting and recreation. FISCAL IMPACT There is no fiscal impact associated with this action. ~ --~-~~ Gerardo Mouet Executive Director Parks, Rec. and Com. Svcs. Agency 55A-1 Resolution No. 2007- Iss09/17/07 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA ANA APPROVING THE APPLICATION FOR GRANT FUNDS FROM THE RECREATIONAL TRAILS PROGRAM TO REHABILITATE THE GOLDEN LOOP RECREATIONAL TRAIL BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA ANA AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. The City Council of the City of Santa Ana hereby finds, determines and declares as follows: A. The "Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users" provides funds to the State of California for Grants to federal, state, local and non-profit organizations to acquire, develop and/or maintain motorized and non-motorized trail Projects; and B. The State Department of Parks and Recreation has been delegated the responsibility for the administration of the program within the State, setting up necessary procedures governing Project Application under the program; and C. Said procedures established by the State Department of Parks and Recreation require the City of Santa Ana to certify by resolution the approval of application(s) before submission of said application(s) to the State; and D. The City of Santa Ana will enter into an Agreement with the State of California to complete the project(s). Section 2. The City Council approves the filing of an application for the Recreational Trails Program, in the amount of $253,440, to rehabilitate the Golden Loop Recreational Trail; and Section 3. The City Council certifies that the Project is consistent with the City's general plan; and Section 4. The City Council certifies that the City has or will have available prior to commencement of any work on the project(s) included in this application, sufficient funds to operate and maintain the project(s); and Resolution No. 2007- Page 1 of 3 55A-2 Section 5. The City Council certifies that the City has reviewed, understands and agrees to the General Provisions contained in the Contract shown in the Procedural Guide; and Section 6. The City Council appoints the City Manager, or the Executive Director of the Parks, Recreation and Community Services Agency or his designee, as agent for the City of Santa Ana to conduct all negotiations, execute and submit all documents, including but not limited to applications, agreements, amendments, payment requests and so on, which may be necessary for the completion of the project. Section 7. The City Council agrees to comply with all applicable federal, state and local laws, ordinances, rules, regulations and guidelines. ADOPTED this day of Miguel A. Pulido Mayor APPROVED AS TO FORM: Joseph W. Fletcher, City Attorney By: Laura Sheedy Assistant City Attorney AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN NOT PRESENT Resolution No. 2007- Page 2 of 3 Councilmembers Councilmembers Councilmembers Councilmembers 2007. 55A-3 CERTIFICATE OF ATTESTATION & ORIGINALITY I, PATRICIA E. HEALY, Clerk of the Council, do hereby attest to and certify the attached Resolution No. 2007 - to be the original resolution adopted by the City Council of the City of Santa Ana on . Date: Clerk of the Council, City of Santa Ana Resolution No. 2007- Page 3 of 3 55A-4 REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE: OCTOBER 1, 2007 TITLE: RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING PARTICIPATION IN THE CALIFORNIA RIVER PARKWAYS GRANT PROGRAM .. r~~ . v~ "~Q CIT ANAGE RECOMMENDED ACTION CLERK OF COUNCIL USE ONLY: APPROVED As Recommended As Amended Ordinance on 1 Sc Reading Ordinance on 2"d Reading Implementing Resolution Set Public Hearing For_ CONTINUED TO FILE NUMBER 1. Adopt a resolution authorizing the submittal of a grant application in the amount of $400,000 for the California River Parkways Program for the enhancement of Edna Park. 2. Adopt a resolution authorizing the submittal of a grant application in the amount of $187,000 for the California River Parkways Program for the enhancement of the 17th Street Site. 3. Receive and file Negative Declaration for Environmental Review No. 06- 170. DISCUSSION The California River Parkways Grant Program was established under the Water Security, Clean Drinking Water, Coastal and Beach Protection Act of 2002. The program provides funds for recreational acquisition, restoration, protection and development of river parkways. Approximately $20.5 million is available to fund projects during this grant cycle. The City of Santa Ana will seek funding to enhance two sites identified in the Santa Ana River Vision Plan: Edna Park and the 17th Street Triangle. The proposed projects will improve the sites by installing native landscaping, irrigation, and trail amenities such as bike racks, seating areas, and interpretive signage. 55B-1 California River Parkways Grant October 1, 2007 Page 2 ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT In accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act, the proposed projects have been determined to be adequately evaluated in previously prepared Negative Declaration Environmental Review No. 06-170. FISCAL IMPACT There is no fiscal impact associated with this action. Gerardo Mouet Executive Director Parks, Recreation and Community Services Agency 55B-2 Resolution No. 2007- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA ANA APPROVING THE APPLICATION FOR GRANT FUNDS FROM THE CALIFORNIA RIVER PARKWAYS GRANT PROGRAM UNDER THE WATER SECURITY, CLEAN DRINKING WATER, COASTAL AND BEACH PROTECTION ACT OF 2002 (Proposition 50) TO ENHANCE EDNA PARK Iss09/25/07 BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA ANA AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. The City Council of the City of Santa Ana hereby finds, determines and declares as follows: A. The Legislature and Governor of the State of California have provided funds for the California River Parkways Grant Program for recreational acquisition, restoration, protection and development of river parkways; and B. The State Resources Agency has been delegated the responsibility for the administration of the program, establishing necessary procedures; and C. Said procedures established by the State Resources Agency require the City of Santa Ana to certify by resolution the approval of application(s) before submission of said application(s) to the State; and D. The City of Santa Ana, if selected, will enter into an Agreement with the State of California to carry out the project(s). Section 2. The City Council approves the filing of an application for the California River Parkways Grant Program, in the amount of $400,000, to enhance Edna Park by installing native landscaping, irrigation and trail amenities such as bike racks, seating areas and interpretive signage; and Section 3. The City Council certifies that Applicant understands the assurances and certification in the application; and Section 4. The City Council certifies that the City has or will have available prior to commencement of any work on the project(s) included in this application, sufficient funds to operate and maintain the project(s) consistent with the land tenure requirements; and 55B-3 Section 5. The City Council certifies that it will comply with the provision of Section 1771.8 of the State Labor Code, regarding payment of prevailing wages on Projects awarded Proposition 50 Funds; and Section 6. The City Council certifies that the Project will comply with all applicable federal, state and local laws, ordinances, rules, regulations and guidelines, including but not limited to, legal requirements of building codes, health and safety codes, disabled access laws, and that prior to commencement of construction, all applicable permits will be obtained; and Section 7. The City Council appoints the City Manager, or the Executive Director of the Parks, Recreation and Community Services Agency or his designee, as agent for the City of Santa Ana to conduct all negotiations, execute and submit all documents, including but not limited to applications, agreements, amendments, payment requests and so on, which may be necessary for the completion of the project. ADOPTED this day of 2007. Miguel A. Pulido Mayor APPROVED AS TO FORM: Joseph W. Fletcher, City Attorney By: Laura Sheedy Assistant City Attorney AYES: Councilmembers NOES: Councilmembers ABSTAIN Councilmembers NOT PRESENT Councilmembers 55B-4 CERTIFICATE OF ATTESTATION & ORIGINALITY I, PATRICIA E. HEALY, Clerk of the Council, do hereby attest to and certify the attached Resolution No. 2007 - to be the original resolution adopted by the City Council of the City of Santa Ana on Date: Clerk of the Council, City of Santa Ana 55B-5 Iss09/25/07 Resolution No. 2007- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA ANA APPROVING THE APPLICATION FOR GRANT FUNDS FROM THE CALIFORNIA RIVER PARKWAYS GRANT PROGRAM UNDER THE WATER SECURITY, CLEAN DRINKING WATER, COASTAL AND BEACH PROTECTION ACT OF 2002 (Proposition 50) TO ENHANCE THE 17T" STREET TRIANGLE BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA ANA AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. The City Council of the City of Santa Ana hereby finds, determines and declares as follows: A. The Legislature and Governor of the State of California have provided funds for the California River Parkways Grant Program for recreational acquisition, restoration, protection and development of river parkways; and B. The State Resources Agency has been delegated the responsibility for the administration of the program, establishing necessary procedures; and C. Said procedures established by the State Resources Agency require the City of Santa Ana to certify by resolution the approval of application(s) before submission of said application(s) to the State; and D. The City of Santa Ana, if selected, will enter into an Agreement with the State of California to carry out the project(s). Section 2. The City Council approves the filing of an application for the California River Parkways Grant Program, in the amount of $187,000, to enhance the 17th Street Triangle by installing native landscaping, irrigation and trail amenities such as bike racks, seating areas and interpretive signage; and Section 3. The City Council certifies that Applicant understands the assurances and certification in the application; and Section 4. The City Council certifies that the City has or will have available prior to commencement of any work on the project(s) included in this application, sufficient funds to operate and maintain the project(s) consistent with the land tenure requirements; and 55B-6 Section 5. The City Council certifies that it will comply with the provision of Section 1771.8 of the State Labor Code, regarding payment of prevailing wages on Projects awarded Proposition 50 Funds; and Section 6. The City Council certifies that the Project will comply with all applicable federal, state and local laws, ordinances, rules, regulations and guidelines, including but not limited to, legal requirements of building codes, health and safety codes, disabled access laws, and that prior to commencement of construction, all applicable permits will be obtained; and Section 7. The City Council appoints the City Manager, or the Executive Director of the Parks, Recreation and Community Services Agency or his designee, as agent for the City of Santa Ana to conduct all negotiations, execute and submit all documents, including but not limited to applications, agreements, amendments, payment requests and so on, which may be necessary for the completion of the project. ADOPTED this day of 2007. Miguel A. Pulido Mayor APPROVED AS TO FORM: Joseph W. Fletcher, City Attorney By: Laura Sheedy Assistant City Attorney AYES: Councilmembers NOES: Councilmembers ABSTAIN Councilmembers NOT PRESENT Councilmembers 55B-7 CERTIFICATE OF ATTESTATION & ORIGINALITY I, PATRICIA E. HEALY, Clerk of the Council, do hereby attest to and certify the attached Resolution No. 2007 - to be the original resolution adopted by the City Council of the City of Santa Ana on Date: Clerk of the Council, City of Santa Ana 55B-8 • REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE: JULY 2, 2007 TITLE: RESOLUTION TO DEVELOP A YOUTH AND FAMILY MASTER PLAN rD.~ ,~ -~ CITY MANAGER RECOMMENDED ACTION • CLERK OF COUNCIL USE ONLY: APPROVED ^ As Recommended ^ As Amended ^ Ordinance on 151 Reading ^ Ordinance on 2"d Reading ^ Implementing Resolution ^ Set Public Hearing Fo~~ CONTINUED TO t.~' f' ~~ FILE NUMBER o /~ ^ /.- ~ Adopt a resolution to develop a Youth and Family Master Plan. DISCUSSION The Parks, Recreation and Community Services Agency and the City Council recognize the need for mitigating risk factors that lead to problem behavior in youth, and offering programs and services that promote the positive development of young people. To accomplish this, the City plans to bring together a broad base of stakeholders, including youth, parents, and City, school district and business leaders, to work in a collaborative process of strategic planning. This multi-year planning process will be facilitated through the City's Youth Commission. In addition, an important product of this process will be the development of a Youth and Family Master Plan that identifies the needs of Santa Ana's youth based on data and on community input, establishes a set of public goals and priorities, and develops recommendations that will effectively respond to the needs of Santa Ana's youth. This plan will assist in the development of effective strategies to support the City's commitment to be a catalyst for the positive development of young people. FISCAL IMPACT There is no fiscal impact associated with this action. ZG Gerardo Mouet, Executive Dire for Parks, Rec and Com. Svcs. 55C-1 C~ RESOLUTION NO. 2007- xxx • (JXS 7/26/07) A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA ANA DECLARING ITS COMMITMENT TO BE A CATALYST FOR THE POSITIVE DEVELOPMENT OF YOUNG PEOPLE. WHEREAS, it is the City Council's desire to demonstrate its commitment to make the needs of young people a priority on the public agenda; WHEREAS, the City Council further recognizes the need for improving the quality of life for everyone in the community by mitigating the risk factors that lead to problem behavior in young people and by promoting the positive development of children and youth; WHEREAS, the City Council recognizes that it will be necessary to bring together a broad base of stakeholders to work in a collaborative, community-wide process of strategic planning, including youth, parents, City officials and staff, school district leaders, City commissions, and business and civic leaders to develop along-term strategic plan for youth and families; WHEREAS, the City Council further recognizes that the City of Santa Ana Youth Commission is in an optimal position to take a leadership role in the development and implementation of a strategy and collaborative process that can be accomplished in phases; NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of the City of Santa Ana as follows: SECTION 1. The City Council hereby declares its commitment to make the needs of young people a priority on the public agenda. SECTION 2. The City Council hereby endorses the development of a Youth and Family Master Plan that will identify and document the needs of youth in Santa Ana based on data and on community input, establishes a set of public goals and priorities, and develops recommendations that will effectively respond to the needs of children in Santa Ana, and serves as a guide for policy makers within the City of Santa Ana for the distribution of resources directed towards youth services. SECTION 3. The City Council hereby endorses a process that involves the major stakeholders in an inclusive and collaborative process with full involvement and leadership by the City of Santa Ana Youth Commission. Resolution No. 2007-XXX Page 1 of 2 55C-2 • SECTION 4. The City Council hereby directs the Parks, Recreation, and Community Services Agency to implement a strategy in a phased approach to develop the Youth and Family Master Plan that will carry out the intent of the City Council. SECTION 5. The Mayor shall sign this resolution and the City Clerk shall attest and certify the passage and adoption of this resolution and it shall become effective immediately upon its approval. Adopted this day of 2007. Miguel A. Pulido Mayor APPROVED AS TO FORM: Joseph W. Fletcher, City Attorney By: Jose Sandoval Senior Assistant City Attorney AYES: Councilmembers NOES: Councilmembers ABSTAIN: Councilmembers NOT PRESENT: Councilmembers CERTIFICATE OF ATTESTATION AND ORIGINALITY I, PATRICIA E. HEALY, Clerk of the Council, do hereby attest to and certify that the attached Resolution No. 2007-XXX to be the original resolution adopted by the City Council of the City of Santa Ana on . Date: Resolution No. 2007-XXX Page 2 of 2 Clerk of the Council City of Santa Ana 55C-3 • 55C-4 REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE: OCTOBER 1, 2007 TITLE: PUBLIC HEARING - ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT NO. 2007-04 TO AMEND CHAPTER 41 OF THE SANTA ANA MUNICIPAL CODE TO DEFINE AND BAN MEDICAL MARIJUANA DISPENSARIES IN ALL ZONES AND ORDINANCE AMENDMENT NO 2007-02 TO AMEND CHAPTER 18 TO PROHIBIT MEDICAL MARIJUANA DISPENSAR ~S ~~Lt c~ - CITY MANAGER RECOMMENDED ACTION CLERK OF COUNCIL USE ONLY: APPROVED ^ As Recommended ^ As Amended ^ Ordinance on 1S' Reading ^ Ordinance on 2"d Reading ^ Implementing Resolution ^ Set Public Hearing For_ CONTINUED TO FILE NUMBER Adopt an ordinance adding Article XIII to Chapter 18 and amending Chapter 41 of the Santa Ana Municipal Code to prohibit the establishment and operation of medical marijuana dispensaries (Zoning Ordinance Amendment No. 2007-04 and Ordinance Amendment No. 2007-02). DISCUSSION California has two statutes dealing with medical marijuana. The Compassionate Use Act of 1996 was enacted through a popular initiative, Proposition 215. The Medical Marijuana Program Act of 2004 (SB 420) was enacted by the State Legislature in the belief that Proposition 215 was being ignored by California cities and counties. Both Proposition 215 and SB 420 authorize cultivation, possession and transportation of marijuana in certain medical circumstances. Proposition 215 only provided this authorization to a patient with a prescription and to a single qualified caregiver, who Proposition 215 defines as the person "who has consistently assumed responsibility for the housing, health, or safety of" the patient. In adopting SB 420 in 2004, the Legislature went beyond Proposition 215 and arguably removed this one-on-one relationship between a patient and the qualified caregiver, which has empowered storefront operators to seek to proliferate throughout California. In June 2005, the United States Supreme Court, relying on the Commerce Clause and Supremacy Clause of the United States Constitution, held that these California state laws do not provide a defense to individuals prosecuted in federal court under applicable federal law for cultivation, transportation, or possession of marijuana. After the June 2005 Supreme 75A-1 Zoning Ordinance Amendment No. 2007-04 Ordinance Amendment No. 2007-02 October 1, 2007 Page 2 Court decision, many cities, including Santa Ana, enacted moratoriums to study the issue of medical marijuana dispensaries. Currently, many cities are facing the same predicament that Santa Ana is facing with their moratoriums about to expire, because under state law, such moratoria cannot generally be extended beyond two years. The proposed ordinance would permanently ban medical marijuana dispensaries. The proposed ban is directed toward storefront operations that deal medical marijuana to many people. The ordinance would not apply to qualified patients who have a direct, one-to-one relationship with an individual caregiver, as provided by the voters in Proposition 215. Nor does the ordinance apply to state licensed hospitals, residential care facilities, hospices or home health agencies, because these uses offer generalized medical care or supportive services to patients. Because the City's Zoning Code has a very broad definition of retail and service uses, the proposed ordinance would also list medical marijuana dispensaries as a prohibited use in the city's commercial (C) zones. In Orange County, the cities of Tustin, Anaheim, Fullerton and Costa Mesa have all adopted ordinances banning medical marijuana dispensaries from their cities. Anaheim recently enacted its ban and also decreed that any dispensaries already in existence would have to immediately close. The City of Huntington Beach initially allowed medical marijuana dispensaries in general and limited industrial zones but is considering deleting this permission for medical marijuana dispensaries in its zoning code. On July 17, 2007, the Board of Supervisors for the County voted to approve a fee for the issuance of identification cards for patients and primary caregivers, which each county is mandated to issue under the state Medical Marijuana Program Act. The County has not addressed them from a land use perspective in the unincorporated areas. Elsewhere, Pasadena, Fresno, Susanville, and Concord, among others, have also banned medical marijuana dispensaries. All of the aforementioned cities were sued by a non-profit group called the American Medical Marijuana Association (ANNA) that promotes the use medical marijuana. Susanville and Concord prevailed at the demurrer stage and the lawsuit against Pasadena was filed but never served. The lawsuit against Fresno has been stayed and during the stay, Fresno enacted an ordinance which appears to allow medical marijuana dispensaries and cooperatives in any zone district designated for medical offices but only if consistent with State and Federal law (therefore, it really bans them). According to the League of California Cities about 40 cities in California have adopted ordinances banning medical marijuana 75A-2 Zoning Ordinance Amendment No. 2007-04 Ordinance Amendment No. 2007-02 October 1, 2007 Page 3 dispensaries, while approximately another 100 have moratoria in effect. Atascadero, Berkeley, Elk Grove, Hayward, Oakland, San Francisco, San Jose, Santa Cruz, Santa Rosa, Visalia, West Hollywood, and Whittier are among some of the cities that allow medical marijuana dispensaries in specified zones. Los Angeles has allowed them in the past, but now has a one year moratorium on new dispensaries in effect. Currently, Long Beach, Corona, Mission Viejo, Newport Beach, Santa Clarita, and Simi Valley, among about 100 others, still have moratoria in place. Several other cities have opted not to address the issue at the Council level, on the theory that (a) any land use not expressly permitted by the zoning code is banned, and/or (b) no land use can be legally established that violates federal law. These cities include Orange, San Juan Capistrano, Burbank, and Glendale. Numerous law enforcement agencies have expressed concerns regarding medical marijuana dispensaries and cooperatives in their areas. The California Police Chief's Association (CPCA} recently compiled a report containing data from several jurisdictions which illustrates some of law enforcement's complaints about these facilities: the facilities violate federal law, street dealers often sell at lower prices to entice patients away from dispensaries, non-residents travel to the city to purchase marijuana, neighboring businesses have experienced a loss of customers, there appears to be an increase in unreported crime to avoid negative publicity, there have been robberies outside of and at the dispensaries, there have been home invasion robberies of individuals who utilize or are employed by the dispensaries, and patients selling to non-patients. In addition, the media have investigated and reported about several physicians suspected of providing prescriptions of medical marijuana when they have not evaluated the patient's medical condition or the patient has no serious medical condition that would warrant a prescription. These concerns are discussed more fully in the attached CPCA report on medical marijuana dispensaries, together with the E1 Cerrito Police Department memorandum, the Riverside District Attorney's White Paper, and the sworn declarations of various officials of the Anaheim Police Department. The secondary effects outlined in the CPCA report, the E1 Cerrito Police Department memorandum and the Anaheim declarations are likely to occur in Santa Ana if medical marijuana dispensaries are allowed to legally operate. Unlike the cities and counties that have opted to not adopt ordinances addressing this issue, Santa Ana has a broad zoning use classification of "retail and service" uses (Santa Ana Municipal Code section 41-144) which would appear to allow medical marijuana dispensaries. Accordingly, without a ban, medical marijuana dispensaries 75A-3 Zoning Ordinance Amendment No. 2007-04 Ordinance Amendment No. 2007-02 October 1, 2007 Page 4 could be allowed to operate in all specific development (SD) districts that allow retail and service uses, as well as the city's C1, C2, C3A, C4, C5, and C-SM zones. Several expert reports on the negative secondary effects caused by medical marijuana storefronts are attached to this RFCA for the Council's examination. They are: (1) the California Police Chiefs Association Compilation Report on Medical Marijuana Dispensary Negative Secondary Effects; (2) the Riverside County District Attorney's Office White Paper on Medical Marijuana; (3) the City of El Cerrito Police Department Memorandums; and (4) sworn declarations submitted by the Chief of Police of Anaheim and two other Anaheim police officers defending a challenge by an existing medical marijuana dispensary to Anaheim's ordinance banning medical marijuana dispensaries. Also attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference is the Request for Planning Commission Action dated September 24, 2007 and information supporting the proposed ordinance and considered by the Planning Commission in its consideration of the matter. PUBLIC SAFETY COMMITTEE AND PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION On July 31, 2007, the City Council Public Safety Committee recommended an ordinance banning medical marijuana dispensaries be considered by the City. On September 24, 2007, the Planning Commission recommended that the City Council adopt an ordinance approving Zoning Ordinance Amendment No. 2007-04 and adopt an ordinance approving Ordinance Amendment No. 2007-02 by a vote of 6:0 (Munoz absent) to define and ban medical marijuana dispensaries in all zones and to amend Chapter 18 to prohibit medical marijuana dispensaries in the city. In recommending the proposed action to the City Council, the Planning Commission recommended adding a section to the ordinance setting forth the Planning Commission's wish to review the issue in two years to reconsider the ban if in that time the dispute between state and federal law is resolved in favor of permitting such facilities. That provision was not considered or approved by the City Council Public Safety Committee. Staff recommends that the Planning Commission's recommendation for future review of the ban be implemented by motion of the City Council rather in the body of the ordinance. If the City Council wishes to follow the recommendation of the Planning Commission, in introducing the ordinance, the additional language to be added to the ordinance should read: "The ordinance shall be reviewed in two years by the Planning Commission." 7 5A-4 Zoning Ordinance Amendment No. 2007-04 Ordinance Amendment No. 2007-02 October 1, 2007 Page 5 FISCAL IMPACT There is no fiscal impact associated with this action. ~-~-.~ day M. Trevino Executive Director Planning & Building Agency HS:rb hs\medical_Marijuana_Ordinance\zoa07-04oa07-02.cc 75A-5 REQUEST FOR Planning Commission Action PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING DATE: SEPTEMBER 24, 2007 TITLE: PUBLIC HEARING - ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT NO. 2007-04 TO AMEND CHAPTER 41 OF THE SANTA ANA MUNICIPAL CODE TO DEFINE AND BAN MEDICAL MARIJUANA DISPENSARIES IN ALL ZONES AND ORDINANCE AMENDMENT NO 2007-02 TO AMEND CHAPTER 18 TO PROHIBIT MEDICAL MARIJUANA DISPENSARIES Prepared by Hally Soboleske Executive Director RECOMMENDED ACTION Recommend that the City Council: PLANNING COMMISSION SECRETARY APPROVED ^ As Recommended ^ As Amended ^ Set Public Hearing For DENIED ^ Applicant's Request ^ Staff Recommendation CONTINUED TO ~~ ~ Planning Man er 1. Adopt an ordinance approving Zoning Ordinance Amendment No. 2007-04. 2. Adopt an ordinance approving Ordinance Amendment No. 2007-02. DISCUSSION Background For the last two years the City Council has had a moratorium in place banning medical marijuana dispensaries from opening in Santa Ana. The moratorium expires on October 17, 2007. Under state law, such moratoriums cannot generally be extended beyond two years. The proposed ordinance would permanently ban medical marijuana dispensaries. The proposed ban is directed toward storefront operations that deal medical marijuana to individuals. It would not apply to state licensed hospitals, residential care facilities, hospices or home health agencies, because these uses offer generalized medical care or supportive services to patients. Because the City's Zoning Code has a very broad definition of retail and service uses, the proposed ordinance would also list medical marijuana dispensaries as a prohibited use in the City. EXHIBIT 1 75A-6 ZOA No. 2007-04 and OA No. 2007-02 September 24, 2007 Page 2 Analysis of the Issues Under federal law, marijuana is considered a Schedule I drug which denotes "a high potential for abuse, lack of any accepted medical use, and absence of any accepted safety for use in medically supervised treatment." But California has two statutes dealing with medical marijuana. The Compassionate Use Act of 1996 (the "Compassionate Use Act") was enacted through a popular initiative, Proposition 215. The Medical Marijuana Program Act of 2004 was enacted by the State Legislature in the belief that Proposition 215 was being ignored by California cities and counties. Both of the Acts provide a defense to criminal prosecution for possession, cultivation, and transportation of marijuana in certain circumstances. In June 2005, the United States Supreme Court, relying on the Commerce Clause and Supremacy Clause of the United States Constitution, held that this California state law does not provide a defense to individuals prosecuted in federal court for cultivation, transportation, or possession of marijuana. After the June 2005 Supreme Court decision, many cities, including Santa Ana, enacted moratoriums to study the issue of medical marijuana dispensaries. Currently, many cities are facing the same predicament that Santa Ana is facing with their moratoriums about to expire. In Orange County, the cities of Tustin, Anaheim, Fullerton and Costa Mesa have all banned medical marijuana dispensaries from their cities. Anaheim recently enacted their ban and also decreed that any dispensaries already in existence would have to close. The City of Huntington Beach initially allowed medical marijuana dispensaries in general and limited industrial zones but is considering deleting this permission for medical marijuana dispensaries in its zoning code. On July 17, 2007, the Board of Supervisors for the County voted to approve a fee for the issuance of identification cards for patients and primary caregivers, which each county is mandated to issue under the state Medical Marijuana Program Act. The County has not addressed them from a land use perspective in the unincorporated areas. Elsewhere, Pasadena, Fresno, Susanville, and Concord, among others, have also banned medical marijuana dispensaries. All of the aforementioned cities were sued by a non-profit group called the American Medical Marijuana Association (ANNA) that promotes the use of medical marijuana. Susanville and Concord prevailed at the demurrer stage and the lawsuit 75A-7 ZOA No. 2007-04 and OA No. 2007-02 September 24, 2007 Page 3 against Pasadena was filed but never served. The lawsuit against Fresno has been stayed and during the stay, Fresno enacted an ordinance which appears to allow medical marijuana dispensaries and cooperatives in any zoning district designated for medical offices but only if consistent with State and Federal law (therefore, it really bans them.) According to a December 2006 Fact Sheet put out by the Los Angeles Police Department, as of December 2006 70 cities and six counties in California had moratoriums, 34 cities and five counties had enacted bans, and 24 cities and seven counties had established ordinances authorizing them one way or another. Atascadero, Berkeley, Elk Grove, Hayward, Oakland, San Francisco, San Jose, Santa Cruz, Santa Rosa, Visalia, West Hollywood, and Whittier are among some of the cities which allow medical marijuana dispensaries in specified zones. Currently, Long Beach, Corona, Mission Viejo, Newport Beach, Santa Clarita, and Simi Valley, among others, still have moratoriums in place. Several other cities have opted not to address the issue at the Council level, on the theory that (a) any land use not expressly permitted by the zoning code is banned, and/or (b) no land use can be legally established that violates federal law. These cities include Orange, San Juan Capistrano, Burbank, and Glendale. Numerous law enforcement agencies have expressed concerns regarding medical marijuana dispensaries and cooperatives in their areas. The California Police Chief's Association (CPCA) recently compiled a report containing data from several jurisdictions which illustrates some of law enforcement's complaints about these facilities: the facilities violate federal law, street dealers often sell at lower prices to entice patients away from dispensaries, non-residents travel to the city to purchase marijuana, neighboring businesses have experienced a loss of customers, there appears to be an increase in unreported crime to avoid negative publicity, there have been robberies outside of and at the dispensaries, there have been home invasion robberies of individuals who utilize or are employed by the dispensaries, and patients selling to non-patients (report available upon request in the City Clerk's office). In addition, the media have investigated and reported about several physicians suspected of providing prescriptions of medical marijuana when they have not evaluated the patient's medical condition or the patient has no serious medical condition that would warrant a prescription. 75A-8 ZOA No. 2007-04 and OA No. 2007-02 September 24, 2007 Page 4 These concerns are discussed more fully in the CPCA report on medical marijuana dispensaries, the E1 Cerrito Police Department memorandum, and the Riverside District Attorney's White Paper. The secondary effects outlined in the CPCA report and El Cerrito Police Department memorandum (available upon request in the City Clerk's office) are likely to occur in Santa Ana if medical marijuana dispensaries are allowed to legally operate. Unlike the cities and counties which have opted to not adopt ordinances addressing this issue, Santa Ana has a broad zoning use classification of "retail and service" uses (Santa Ana Municipal Code section 41-144) which would appear to allow medical marijuana dispensaries. Accordingly, once the moratorium expires and without a ban, medical marijuana dispensaries would be allowed to operate in all specific development (SD) districts which allow retail and service uses, as well as the city's Cl, C2, C3A, C4, C5, and C-SM zones. Existing legal dispensaries would be allowed to change to another retail use regardless of zone. Therefore, an ordinance prohibiting medical marijuana dispensaries does not conflict with any Federal or State legislation, and none have been invalidated by court action. The proposed ordinance does not prohibit medical marijuana use, but would protect the health, safety, and welfare of Santa Ana residents and businesses-. CEQA Compliance In accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act, this project is Categorically Exempt from further review. Hal y Soboleske Associate Planner HS:jm hs\medical_Marijuana_Ordinance\zoa07-09oa07-02.pc 75A-9 Medical Marijuana Dispensaries This report is respectfully presented to you with the following disclaimers; • This report does not attempt to address the merits of Medical Marijuana (MMJ) or the concept of its use as an alternative medicine as discussed or proposed in P TopGSitt011 215. This report contains compilations of data collected by others in Law Enfarcement as well as media coverage and this data is identified as such. Areas t11at currently act as a hindrance to a true study of this topic are; Under Reportini;: With few exceptions, agencies colltacted stated that they felt that t11e crimes related to Medical Marijuana Dispensaries were under reported, if reported at all. Confidential informants have provided information that these additional crimes (Robberies, Assaults and Burglaries involving Mari}uaila ar large amounts of cash) are not reported so as to not draw additional Law );nforcement and Media scrutiny to this very lucrative trade. This is not unlike the thought processes employed by the Cosa Nostra and organized street gangs here in California. Crime Classification: Another barrier to collection of this data is the lack of classification of this data as MMJ related. In years past, statistical analysis of domestic violence and hate crimes was difficult. These crimes now receive their own classifcation so tracking them is much. easier. However until such time as MMJ crimes receive their own classification, separating these crimes from non MM.J related crimes is very difficult. Over Reliance on Strai~'ht Statistical Data: Gathering statistical data on this topic would appear to be a simple task. One would Imagine that you would look at crime in a given location prior to the arrival of a MMJ Dispensary and then look at crime after its arrival. This presents several difficulties. First, based oil Internet research, there appears to be approximately 240 MMJ Dispensaries (www.canorml.or~) located in almost as many jurisdictions. No one agency can access data from. all these locations and not all agencies compile this data. I spoke with several agency representatives and each had information regarding this issue,llowever few 11ad specific crime statistics. Secondly, not all crimes related to MMJ take place in or around a dispensary. Some take place at the homes of the owners, employees or patrons. Lastly, not all the "secondary issues" related to MMJ Dispensaries are crimes. Loitering, additional vehicle and pedestrian traffic, use of MMJ at or near the facilities are described as quality of life issues and are oi11y really quantified when they appear in the newspaper or the complainants appear at a City Council meeting. Prior to discussing the reports of other Law Lnforcemen.t agencies, I would like to present some information from our Department. While our City does not currently have a MMJ Dispensary, this does not mean. that we are immune from their effects. EXHIBIT 2 75A-10 On January 7, 2004 a resident of El Cerrito was arrested for possession of marijuana for sale. The subject was found to be in possession of 133 grams {4.6 ounces) of marijuana, a small amount of cash, a "replica handgun" pellet gun. and three MN1J Dispensary cards (Oakland Cannabis Buyers Collective, Cannabis Buyers Collective of Marin and "Compassionate Caregivers" of Oakland) On February 25, 2005, the same subject mentioned above was discovered to be growing marijuana. in his house. He was found to be in possession of I S adult plants, 72 starter plants, 505 grams (1.10 lbs} of processed marijuana, 50 grams (1.75 oz) of hashish packaged for sale and two assault rifles as well as $6,000.00 in cash. The subject claimed that these plants were MMJ. An investigation was conducted with. the assistance of the West Contra Costa County Narcotic Enforcement Team and resulted in the conviction of the resident for Unauthorized Possession of Cannabis and Possession of an Assault Weapon. On July 9,2005, during a suspicious vehicle check, one of our Officers determined that a resident (Who is a member of the Oakland Cannabis Buyers Cooperative) possessed. 55 immature plants with the intent of cultivating them and selling them to a MMJ Dispensary. The District Attonney has filed. a complaint containing two felony charges of possession and cultivation of Marijuana. This case is awaiting adjudication as the subject has failed to appear in court (it is believed he has fled to the state of Oregon) and a bench warrant has been issued for his an•est. On December 11, 2005, a traffic stop for speeding resulted in the arrest of the occupants for the possession on Marijuana packaged for sale and X3,365.00 in cash. On March 8, 2006 our School Resource Officer received 'information that several students were ill after eating a cookie. The investigation. revealed that a student had made cookies with a butter obtained outside (secondary sale} a MMJ Dispensary containing a highly concentrated form of Tetrahydrocannabinol (THC the active ingredient i.n Marijuana). The student used the "butter" to bake and then sell these coolci.es to other students. After the student discovered that the cookies were so potent that some of his fellow students had to be treated at local. hospitals, instead of throwing them away, he gave them to other students without telling them what they were laced with. This incident resulted in at least four students requiring hospitalization and it is suspected at least two or three others were intoxicated to the point of sickness. From March of 2004 to May of 2006, this Department has conducted seven investigations at El Cerrito High School and Portola Junior High School resulting in the arrest of eight juveniles for selling or possessing with intent to sell Marijuana on or around the school campuses. Gathering the data from these incidents required hours of research and examination. Many agencies have neither the available resources nor the inclination to gather data of this kind. This makes presenting the data for consideration in this matter very difficult. 2 75A-11 Another area of importance is the possession of firearms in conjunction with Iarge quantities of cash and marijuana. Those who have the money and drugs want to keep them and arm themselves to prevent robberies. Those who wish to relieve those in possession of cash and drugs use firearn~s and other deadly weapons to accomplish their task. When speaking to those involved in the drug trade, they will tell you violence and greed are "all just part of the game." '~Jith the exception. of those entries identified fi-am other sources,l contacted and interviewed representatives from each of the listed agencies. T have included newspaper articles that either further describe events or provide additional information regarding some of the "secondary issues". ANAHEIM May 19, 2004 a MMJ Dispensary "420 Primacy Caregivers" obtained a business license and. began operations. Fall. 2004, Tlie Police Department began to receive complaints from neighboring businesses i.n the complex. The complaints centered around. the ongoing sales of Marijuana to subjects who did not appear to be physically ill, the smell of Marijuana inside the ventilation system off the building and the repeated interruption to neighboring businesses. Jaaruary 2005, The MMJ Dispensary was robbed at gunpoint by three masked subjects who took both money and marijuana from the business. April 5, 2005, The Department met with the property Management Company, owners and representatives from the businesses in the complex which housed the M.MJ Dispensary. The meeting focused on the safety of the employees and patrons of adjacent businesses. Many neighboring businesses complained of Marijuana use on the premises and in the surrounding area as well as a loss of business based on the clientele of the MMJ Dispensary "hanging around the area". Since this meeting, two businesses have ended their lease with the property management company. A law firm that had been in that location for ten years left citing "Marijuana smoke had inundated their office....and they can no longer continue to provide a safe, professional location for their clientele and employees." A health oriented business terminated their lease after six years and moved out of the complex citing "their business is repeatedly interrupted anal mistaken multiple times a day for "the store that has the marijuana." The owner fears that "he or his employees maybe shot if they are robbed by mistake and the suspects do not believe they do not have Marijuana." The Property Management Company indicated "at least five other businesses have inquired about terminating their lease for reasons related to 420 Primary Caregivers." Arrests have been made supporting the belief that some "qualifying patients" purchase Marijuana with a doctor's recommendation, then supply it to their friends for illicit use. 75A-12 Criminal investigations have revealed the business is obtaining its Marijuana fram a variety of sources including Marijuana smuggled into the United Sates from South and Central America. The Police department has conservatively estimated the "424 Primary Caregivers" business to be generating approximately $50,000.00 a week in income. (Source Declaration of Sgt. Tim Miller Anaheim P.D. Street narcotic Unit} ALAMEI~A CGUIv'1'i' January l2, 2005 a MMJ customer was robbed after leaving the "The Health Center" MMJ Dispensary (San Leandro}. The victim was accosted by two subjects who possibly followed the victim away from the dispensary. February 6, 2005 a MMJ Dispensary, the "Compassion Collective of Alameda County" was robbed by two subjects armed with handguns. The robbery took place at 4:50 pm in the afternoon and the suspects took an unspecified amount of cash and Marijuana. April 27, 2005 a MMJ Dispensary, "The Health Center" {San Leandro) was burglarized at approximately 3:05 am. No specifics were provided as to th.e lass sustained as a result of the burglary, Many investigators believe that the victims do not truthfully report the loss of cash or marijuana. May 24, 2005 a patron of a MMJ Dispensary, "A Natural Source" (San Leandro) was robbed by three subjects in the parking lot of the dispensary after making a purchase of Marijuana. August 19, 2005: Five subjects armed with. assault rifles conducted a take over robbery of a MMJ Dispensary "A Natural Source" (San Leandro). They engaged in a shoot out with two employees and one of the suspects was killed in the exchange of gun fire. Sept. 12, 2005: .Both money and marijuana were stolen from the Alameda County Resource Center (16250 East 14th St.) when burglars chopped through the wall of an adjacent fellowship hall during the night. (Source Declaration by Lt. Dale Amaral Alameda County Sheriff's Department) Calls for Service Related to VIMJ Dispensaries (Unincorporated San Leandro and Hayward} Officer Initiated events maybe vehicle stops or on-view arrests. 16043 East 1.4`x' Street: 2003: 2 Officer Initiated activity events, 2004: 1 Officer Initiated activity events. This business is now closed, 21227 Foothill Blvd "Garden of Eden" 2003: 1 Officer initiated activity events, 2004: No calls for service, 2005: 1 Theft call, 4 alarm calls, 1 Officer Initiated activity events. 9 i 3 E, Lewellin.g Blvd. "We are Hemp" 2003: 1 Officer initiated activity event, 2004: 1 Assault call, 2 Officer Initiated activity events, 2005: 1 Assault call, 1 Officer Initiated activity event. 4 75A-13 16250 East 14`x' Street: 2003: 1 1. Officer initiated activity events, 2004: 3 loitering calls, 9 Officer initiated activity events, 2005: 5 Officer initiated activity events. 15998 East 14`h Street: "The Health Center" 2003: 1 Officer initiated activity event, 2004: I Trespassing call, l Assault, 2 Disturbance calls, 2 Miscellaneous, 26 Officer initiated events, 2005: 1 Robbery, 1 Aggravated Assault, 1 Grand Theft, 3 Petty Thefts, 2 Vehicle Thefts; 4 Trespassing calls, 5 Loitering calls, 1 Weapons Possession, 2 Controlled Substance cases, 4 Alarm calls, 9 Disturbance calls, 3 Miscellaneous calls and. 21 Officer Initiated events. 16360 Foothill Blvd: 2003: 1 Officer initiated activity event, 2004: 2 Officer initiated activity events, 2005: 1 Homicide, 2 Aggravated Assaults, i Grand Theft, 1 Controlled Substance case, 13 alarm calls, 2 Officer Initiated events. 21222 Mission Blvd: "Compassionate Collective of Alameda County" 2003: 2 Officer Initiated events, 2004: 5 Officer Initiated events, 2005: I Attempted Homicide, 2 Robberies, 2 Burglaries, 2 Controlled Substance cases, IO Alarnn calls, 2 Disturbance calls, 1 Miscellaneous calls and 2 Officer Initiated events. (Source Alameda County Sheriff s Department Report) Car Jacking Latest Pot Club Crime Linda Sandsmarl~ San Leandro Titnes San Leandro, CA Sept 29,.2005 -- A woman was carjacked and robbed Monday afternoon after she left The Health Center (THC) marijuana club at 15998 East 14th Street. Citizens in the area saw the crime occur about four blocks from THC and called police on their cell phones..... The unidentified woman, who is from Garberville in Humboldt County, walked back toward the clinic and her car was found on nearby Liberty Street. "She doesn't want to pursue a criminal complaint in spite of the fact she was carjacked," says Alameda County Sheriff's Department spokesman Lt. Dale Amaral. "When you have this kind of drug distribution center it's an absolute magnet for every thug in the nine Bay Area counties. We're running from call to call." Amaral points out that no matter how armored the clinic buildings are, the people entering and exiting are still targets. He advises them to be aware of their surroundings and to drive to the nearest police station or flag down an officer if they think they are being followed. Crimes including burglaries and robberies at many of the dispensaries have caused widespread community concern......lt's a target-rich environment," says Amaral. "The sheriff's department is devoting a tremendous amount of resources to These clubs...... , ..Clinic location has also had an impact on neighborhoods. Though the clubs may not be selling directly to students, the county's School. Resource Officers report a 36-percent increase in arrests on nearby school campuses for minors possessing marijuana, possibly due to increased supply in the area. (Source http•//www hempevolution orb/the/dispensary robbed040514.htm) 75A-14 ARCATA • There are two dispensaries in town that share a building. The two dispensaries have an ongoing disagreement with each. other that has resulted innumerous calls for police services to settle disputes, • The facilities do not have the correct electrical support and continuously blow out the electricity in the area. They have not complied with upgrading their electrical. systems or responded to fire department concerns regarding proper exits and sigmage. • There have been numerous instances where people have purchased marijuana at the dispensary and then resold it at a nearby park. A doctor has came to the dispensaries and, for a fee, will provide a medicinal marijuana recommendation for just about any complaint the patient makes. (Source Staff Report to Davis City Council: Medical Marijuana June 13, 2005) BAKERSFIELD Sep 8th, 2005. DEA arrested three subjects in raid on the Free and Easy cannabis dispensary. Kern County sheriffs sununoned the DEA after being called to investigate a robbery at the facility. Police found plants growing at one subject's home plus 20 lbs of marijuana, and illegally possessed firearms. . (Source) http://www.canorml.org/news/fedmmjcases.html BERKELEY March 30, 2000: Two males armed with sawed off shotguns forced entry into a residence and forced the occupant at gun paint to turn over a safe. A subsequent investigation revealed that a second resident who was not home at the time was a former director of a IvIMJ Dispensary and was the intended target of the robbery. October 2001, December 2001 and June 2002: The 1vIM:J Dispensary on University was robbed. Largos sums of money and Marijuana taken.. March 2003: A home invasion robbery over marijuana cultivation escalated into a homicide. December 2003: TheMMJ Dispensary on. Telegraph was robbed. (No further info provided) April 2004: A home invasion. robbery investigation. resulted in the seizure of $69,000.00, ten. pounds of Marijuana and a "Tech 4" machine pistol. "While recognizing the medical needs of the cannabis using patients, staff is concerned about the potential for crime and violence associated with the distribution and cultivation. of Marijuana" {Source) City Manager's report to the Berkeley City Council 6 75A-15 Excerpts from: Pot club robhed,for third time irr a year By David S'chcn.fenberg Daily Planet staff~(06-07-02) Club had promised to Iimit amount of cash, -narijuana stashed there Four men stole $1,500 and $3,500 worth of marijuana from the Berkeley Medical Ilerbs pot club yesterday after two of them were allowed on site without proper identitcation. The afternoon heist renewed concerns about the integrity of the club's security and reignited same anger in the neighborhood. "I think it's a public nuisance and I think i.t needs to be closed," said. City Councilmember Linda Mayotte incident marks the third time in a year robbers have stormed the medicinal marijuana club, located in a small brick building at 1627 University Avenue. The last robbery, in December, prompted a rash. of concern. from city officials about security at the club. Medical Herbs responded to that by closing at 4 p.m. so it would only be open during daylight hours. The club hired a licensed security guard, installed video cameras, and it agreed to limit the amount of cash and pot on the premises, among other measures....Two Latino men. approached the front gate on University Avenue Wednesday about 2:30 p.m., said Geshuri. The men. failed to show the identification cards that are required of every patient but were let through the gate because they claimed to know owner Ken Estes. The security guard. relayed the message to general manager Randy Moses, who opened the building's main door to confirm th.e story, then closed the door without turning the lock, Geshuri said. At that point, one suspect pulled a gun and the other a knife, forcing their way into the building. The suspects told everyone to lie on the grotmd.. They took the cash and marijuana and fled, Geshuri said. Geshuri said the club's security cameras were out for repairs Wednesday. Police who had been scouting the premises to prevent robberies had left only minutes before the incident, Geshuri said....... One neighbor who did not want to be identified said he saw the two men meeting two other men waiting outside in a late model, tan vehicle in which they all got away. "The guys wha robbed it ran. out with a big satchel," the neighbor said, adding that he disapproves of the marijuana club. "This is a very attractive place for other drug dealers to rab. It's not something we want in our neighborhood." Geshuri acknowledged that a few neighbors are opposed to the club, but said most of the residents support Medical. I3erbs in its mission. The club had pledged after the December robbery to keep no more than $1,000 and on.e pound of marijuana on site. But Geshuri said the robbers on Wednesday made off with $500 more than. that and as much as apound-and-a-half of marijuana. T11e witness oppased to the club said theft proves that management is not keeping its pledge to prevent robberies and ensure safety. But Geshuri said the incident was an aberration. "It's rare that we have that much product on site," she said, arlniing that the club had just received a shipment and was in the process of dividing it up for patients. She said Medical Herbs keeps most of its supply off-site, at secure Iocations. Berkeley • Has four facilities operating in the City currently (last 3-4 years). • There have been several take over robberies of the dispensaries. • There have been arrests where legitimate purchasers have resold marijuana on the street to well individuals. • Obvious young people entering and purchasing marijuana from the dispensary. 75A-16 • Recommended that if we did not currently have the dispensaries, we should not allow them. • Police department has been. given explicit instructions by their City Council not to take any kind. of enforcement action against the dispensaries or people going in or out of the facility. • Facilities will accept any Health. Department cards, even those obviously forged or faked. (Source Staff Report to Davis City Council: Medical Marijuana June 13, 2005) BUTTE COUNTY Butte County does not track statistics rela#ed to MMJ Dispensaries, however a Detective in the Investigations Unit knew of; At least six robberies or attempts, one of which involved a shoot out between the suspect and victim occurred during the months of August to October 2005. >/ach of these robberies took place at the vi.ctim's residence and the target was the victim's marijuana cultivation. He stated that this is the busy time of year for these activities as it is harvest time for the Marijuana grows. (Source Det. Jake Ilancock. Butte County Sheriff's Department} CALAVARAS COUNTY Jan. 2005. Federal government files forfeiture suit after Local sheriff finds 134 marijuana plants. Government seeks to forfeit a home and five acres of land. The defendant says he was growing for half a dozen friends and. family members and had checked with. Local authorities to make sure he was within legal guidelines. (Source http://www.canorml.orghiews/fedmmjcases.html) CHERRYLAND Chenyland, CA June 30, 2005 -- An employee of a marijuana dispensary narrowly escaped with his life after a gunman opened fire as he waited outside the establishment for co-workers to arrive. The employee, whom. authorities declined to identify, was sitting inside his car in the rear parking lot of the Collective Cannabis Club at 21222 Mission Boulevard on Tuesday morning when a masked gunman appeared, said Lt. Dai.e Amaral, spokesman for the Alameda County Sheriff s Department. (Source http://www.hetnpevolution.org/media/Santa_cnaz_sentinel/scs041213.htm) CLEAR LAKE There have been a few reported robberies of medical marijuana patients away from. the dispensaries. One significant case involved home invasion robbery. Multiple suspects entered the home of a person. who was known to be a MMJ user. During the robbery, one resident was beaten with a. baseball bat while the suspects made inquires regarding the location of the marijuana. Two of the suspects were shot and killed by the homeowner. {Source Clear Lake P.D. Inv. Clawson) 75A-17 CLOViS In December of 2005 the Clovis Police Department in conjunction with the Fresno County Sheriff's Department conducted an investigation which resulted in the arrest of a subject for possession of 120 pounds of marijuana. The subject of the investigation was found to have a medical marijuana card which. helped facilitate his possession and. sales of marijuana. (source www.ci.Clovis.ca.us/PressRei.esaseDetail.asp?ID=838) DAVLS (Excerpts from Staff Report to Davis City Cou.ncil:.Medical Marijuana June 13, 2005) in summary, t11e experiences of other cities that already have dispensaries are bad. Dispensaries have experienced robberies themselves; legitimate patients have been robbed. of their marijuana as they leave the facility; people purchasing marijuana at the dispensaries have been caught reselling the marijuana nearby; street level dealers have begun selling marijuana and. other drugs nearby in. an effort to undersell the dispensary; some dispensaries have doctors present in their facility who wi.li recommend marijuana as a course of treatment for just about any patient complaint; and many dispensaries do not take serious steps to ensure they are setting only to legitimate patients or their caregivers. When asked, many of the police departments that already have facilities in their cities said that if Davis did not already have a dispensary, we should take steps to prohibit one from opening in the city. EI. DORADO COUNTY MMJ Dispensary operated medical marijuana clinic in Coal, California with 6000 patients; DEA raided Sep. 28, 2001; seized patient records. Indicted Jun 22, 2005 for marijuana found on premises. (Source http://www.canorml.org/news/fedmmjcases.html) FAIRFAX • Chief of Police hen Hughes, advised the following: • Fairfax has one marijuana dispensary • Fairfax has had some problems with patients selling to non-patients They have had problems with. purchasers froth dispensary congregating at a baseball field to smoke then marijuana • Fairfax police arrested one person who purchased marijuana at the dispensary and then took it to a nearby park where he tried to trade it to a minor for sex • Very small town and low crime rate (Source Rocklin P.D, report) 9 75A-18 HAYWARD P.D. • Acting Chief Lloyd Lowe, advises the following: • Hayward has three dispensaries total, two legal under local ordinance and one illegal.. They have had robberies outside the dispensaries They have noticed. more and. more people hanging around the park next to one of the dispensaries and learned That they were users in between purchases They have problems with user recornmendatiori cards - not uniform, anyone carp get them • One illegal. dispensary sold coffee, marijuana and hashish - DA would prosecute the hashish sales and possession violations after arrests were made • They have received complaints that other illegal drugs are being sold inside of dispensaries • The dispensaries are purchasing marijuana from growers that they wilt not disclose • Chief Lowe believes that the dispensaries do not report problems or illicit drug dealers around their establishments because they do not want the police around • Hayward Police arrested a parolee attempting to sell three pounds of marijuana to one of the dispensaries • Hayward has recently passed an ordinance that will make marijuana dispensaries illegal under zoning law in 2006 (Information provided by Rocklin P.D. report) HUiVIBOLDT COUNTY One subject arrested in Humboldt County Aug 01., 2001 growing 204 plants for the Salmon Creek. patients' collective; case turned over to the feds, pled guilty Dec 6; sentenced to 15 months for possession. Released from prison May 2003. Meanwhile, in a separate case, this subject won a landmark federal lawsuit for return of one ounce of pot seized by the DEA at the request of the Humboldt sheriff after the latter was ordered to return under Prop. 215. This subject is now missing and presumed dead since Aug 2003; police suspect foul play. (Source http://www.canorml.org/news/fedmmjcases.html) 12/12/2003 Subject: Attempted Murder Suspects Arrested Contact: Brenda Gainey, Case No#: 2003081.80, Location: Garberville Humboldt County Sheriff's Deputies arrested two Garberville men last night wanted in connection with an attempted murder case from Mendocino County. Yesterday afternoon the Mendocino Sheriff's Office received a report of a shooting in Willits. Detectives from Mendocino learned that the victim, Jarron Jackson, 38 of Antioch, had been shot once in. the arm during a robbery at a residence in Willits. Mendocino County Sheriff s Detectives learned the identities of the two suspects and issued a "Be On the Loookout" bulletin to Northern California police agencies. The bulletin also indicated that the two suspects were residents of Garberville. Late yesterday evening Humboldt County Sheriff's Deputies and officers from the California Highway Patrol went to the suspects' residence on the 1400 block of Redwood Dr. in Garberville. 10 75A-19 Arrested at the house were Charles Magpie, 26, and Rudolph King, 28. Both men were taken into custody without incident. While waiting for lvlendoci.no County Officials to arrive at the scene, Humboldt County Deputies received. consent to search the house from one of the residents. Deputies found a sophisticated indoor commercial marijuana grow. Members of the Sheriff's :Drug Enforcement Unit were called. and found the following: • Twenty-eight pounds of processed marijuana; estimated street value of ~ 100,000. • One thousand growing marijuana plants ranging in size from six inches to two feet; estimated street value of $875,000. • Two shotguns • Approximately $ 16,000 in cash Date Released: 6/2/2006 Subject: Marijuana Investigation Contact: Deputy Campbell Case No#: 200603240 Locations: Swayback Ridge On 6/]./06, Sheriffs deputies were conducting follow up to a residential burglary that occurred in the Swayback Ridge area of Humboldt County. While attempting to contact persons who may have had knowledge about the burglary, a commercial indoor marijuana operation was discovered. The Sheriff's Drug Enforcement Unit, assisted by the Drug Enforcement Administration and the Bureau of Narcotics Enforcement, served. a search warrant on the property. Law Enforcement seized 570 marijuana plants, 1.5 pounds of processed marijuana, and three rifles. Suspect information was obtained, and warrants are being sought at this time. (Source http://www.co.humboidt.ca.us/sheriff/pressreleases} KERN COUNTY July 20, 2005. The director of American Kenpo Kungfu School. of Public Health was arrested for cultivating over 2,000 plants at three different locations. He was charged with conspiracy to distribute and possess more than 1,000 plants (10 year mandatory minimum). (Source http://www.canorml.arg/news/fedmmjcases.html) LAKE COUNTY TASK FORCE: (Bureau of Narcotic Enforcement) One recent case currently in federal litigation involves the seizure of 32,000 plants from one grow, The cultivator claims that he is a "provider" for Medical Marijuana patients and therefore exempt from prosecution for cultivation. The subject was arrested and released on bail pending trial on marijuana charges with possible sentence of 12 years to life. On Feb 16, 2005 this subject was re-arrested along with another subject after allegedly selling one pound of marijuana to DEA agents, who claim they did not mention medical purposes. (Source} Lake County Narcotic Enforcement Team One pound of high grade Marijuana. sells for approximately 54,000.00 dollars in the Bay Area. In the Mendocino area that price drops to approximately $2,700 per pound based on availability. Zi 75A-20 It is estimated that one plant can yield one to three pounds of Marijuana. Based on this information 32,000 plants times 1- 3 paunds = 32,000 - 96,000 pounds at $2,700 per pound = S8fi,400,000 to 259,200,000. LAKE COUNTY IMPACTS Sheriff Rod Mitchell, advised the following: • Lake County has one marijuana dispensary in Upper Lake (Two as of this writing) • The biggest problem is the doctor, close by the dispensary who is known across the state for being liberal in his recommendations to use marijuana for a fee of $175 • Many "patients" come from hours away and even out of state, Oregon specifically, to get a marijuana recommendation from the doctor • Upper Lake has been impacted by the type of people coming for the marijuana doctor and dispensary. Citizens report to the Sheriff that the people coming to Upper Lake for marijuana look like drug users ("dopers"). • One quilt shop owner has told the sheriff that she does not feel safe anymore because of the type of people drawn to the marijuana doctor and the dispensary, which are located close together in the very small town. • They also have a. notorious marijuana grower who beat prosecution for cultivation by making a medical claim. Law enforcement has taken a hands off approach even though he is blatantly violating the law. • The Marijuana grower has recently claimed to be a church to avoid paying taxes. (Source Rocklin P.D. report) LAYTONVILLE Crane by QUINCY CROMERIThe Daily Journal (Excerpts from the article) The owner of Mendo Spiritual Remedies in Laytonville and Hemp Plus Ministry in Ukiah -- who says he provides medical marijuana to more than a thousand people in Mendocino County -- will be in court next week to face charges for cultivation of marijuana. Les Crane, founder and self-proclaimed reverend of the two churches where medical. marijuana is available locally, said some 5,000 cannabis plants and his Ii.fe savings -- about $6,000 converted into gold -- were seized by the Mendocino County Sheriffs Office on May 16. "They came here because a guy was coming to rob my house. I called them to come and solve the problem. and then they found out about the grow. We showed them all. the documentation and they Ieft and went and got a search warrant and came back and searched my church.," Crane said. (Source) http://www.hightimes.com/ht/news/content.php?bid=1203&aid=10 Laytonville marijuana guru shot to death 2 others beaten in home; no suspects, but officials believe killing related to pot growing Saturday, November 19, 2005 12 75A-21 By GLENDA ANDERSON THE PRESS DEMOCRAT A Laytonville pot guru who founded two Mendocino County medicinal cannabis dispensaries was shot to death during an apparent robbery in his home early Friday morning. Les Crane, who called his pot dispensaries churches and referred to himself as a reverend, said he was in the business to help ailing people, not to make money. He had said he had nearly 1,000 patients. He was killed at about 2:30 a.m. Friday in his home, which is about a mile from the center of Laytonviile.... Two other people in Crane's home at the time of the shooting were beaten....Crane's death is believed to be related to his marijuana-growing and dispensing activities, Mendocino County authorities said. "I am totally surprised we haven't had more robberies and violent crimes associated with these things because of the amount of money involved and the value of the product," Sheriff Tony Craver said. Crane's Ukiah cannabis dispensary, Hemp Phis, offered exotic varieties of pot that sell for as much as $350 an ounce. He also had a dispensary in Laytonville. He called marijuana "the tree of life" and said God placed it on Earth to benefit man. His religious credentials were issued by the Universal Life Church, which supplies certificates through the mail and the Internet. Sheriffs Lt. D.J. Miller provided few details of the crime, pending further investigation, including how many times Crane was shot or if any money or items were taken. Mendocino County officials had doubts about Crane's purpose for growing pot, and in May he was arrested for marijuana cultivation and several thousand pot plants were confiscated from hi.s home. The criminal case was pending when he was killed.... (Source)http://www 1.pressdemocrat.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/2005 T 119/NEWS/5 11140303 LOS ANGLES COUNTY January 2004, Approximately six to eight known MMJ Dispensaries operating in West Hollywood. Several of the MMJ Dispensaries have generated calls for service. January 10, 2004, An Assault with a Deadly Weapon and a Vandalism are reported at one of the MIv1J Dispensaries as well as calls generated reporting obstruction of the street or sidewalk. February 19, 2005, A MMJ Dispensary "LA Patients and Caregivers" reported that two subjects armed with handguns robbed the dispensary. May 6, 2005, A search warrant was served at one of the dispensaries by L.A.P.D. (no further information provided) May 15, 2005, A MIvIJ Dispensary "Alternative Herbal Health Services" four to five subjects armed with handguns entered the business at 4:25 pm, one of the employees was "pistol whipped" as the suspects demanded access to the dispensary's safe. (Source Declaration of Sgt. Robert McMahon Los Angles County Sheriff's Department) 13 75A-22 LOS ANGELES RECENT INVESTIGATIONS The County Ordinance does not specify who may dispense medical marijuana and what dosage is appropriate for a particular illness. Furthermore, many dispensaries contract with physicians who issue the recommendations without examining the individual to verily they are in fact ill. and. using the marijuana for the illness. In May 2005, the LAPD began investigating Compassionate Caregivers Group (CCG) Inc., a medical marijuana dispensary located in West iialiywood, that'oordered t1-ie City of Los Angeles. The dispensary was one of seven CCG medical marijuana dispensaries throughout the state. The owner of CCCr, a marijuana trafficking fugitive from another state, also owned Green Medicine Group (GMG) that referred prospective patients to their group of doctors throughout the state. One of the GMG doctors saw as many as 49 patients a day charging from $150-$250 per patient. The same doctor saw 293 patients in one week. The doctor allegedly examined each patient from. aclosed-circuit television monitor and a clerk in another office where the patient was, handed out pre-signed medical recommendations. Because there is no ordinance, procedure, guideline or anything to regulate dispensaries and to whom or how they disperse drugs, they are free to distribute as much marijuana as they want and to anyone, whether they are adults or young people. Young people from all. over Los Angeles County flocked to CCG to buy marijuana and then returned to their respective communities to conduct street sales of the drug. No one on the premises had medical or pharmaceutical training or licensing to distribute marijuana, edibles, plants and liquids. There was no first aid kit, defibrillator or trauma kit present at the location in case of a medical emergency. Furthermore, the business promoted the sale and cultivation of 60 strains of marijuana, of which, only six strains were for medical purposes. Evidence was also recovered at the scene that showed the dispensary was in business to make a profit. Over $1.7 million in calla alone was received during the month of March 2005. And, most importantly, only three medical marijuana recommendations were found for patients residing in Los Angeles County, yet they provided medical. marijuana to an average of 304 patients per week. The County Ordinance provides for the sales and consumption of edible marijuana. Edibles are food products, i.e. soda pop, peanut butter, candy, bakery items, jam and other liquids that contain various levels of Tetrahydrocannabinol (THC), the psychoactive agent of marijuana. There were no regulations in the ordinance for the quality control, potency, dosage and legality of the products sold. There is no Food and Drug Administration approval of the products. On March 23, 2006 in Oakland, "Beyond Bomb," one of a handful of manufacturers and distributors of edible marijuana products, who distribute edibles to medical marijuana dispensaries in California and the US, was searched by the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA). The owner was arrested for marijuana traff eking. The area of the company used for processing and packaging edibles was atrocious. No sanitary precautions were taken whatsoever and the area was absolutely filthy and vermin was present. In addition, the company sold edibles in packaging resembling copyrighted and trademarked food items. Beyond Bomb used the same logo, candy wrapper colors and derivatives of the names of legal products, i.e. "Buddafinga" had the similar color wrapper and logo as the NestleUSA candy bar "Butterfmger." Over 20 different legitimate products were found that had infringed copyrights and trademarks in this manner. 14 75A-23 In addition, legitimate candy bars were opened and the chocolate was laced with THC and then repackaged in the new Labeling. There was no explanation for " 3X," "6X," or "lOX" markings on the wrappers of edible products (according to operators of dispensaries the markings indicate The potency of THC in the product}. Lastly, there are no directions on the edible packages for the uses, dosage, warnings (allergy alerts, stomach bleeding and alcohol}, drug facts, expiration date and other information, as required for over the counter drugs. Lastly, the ordinance called for a security system and guards for each location. This requirement has not been an issue in th.e past. Medical marijuana dispensaries typically have had more extensive security systems than. Sav-On, Rite Aide or Walgreen drug stores, and yet they still have been. robbed and assaults and murders have occurred because they keep exorbitant amounts of cash. and marijuana on hand. In addition, the security systems and. guards do nothing for the surrounding businesses or area. Many of the dispensaries locally employ street gang members with. extensive crimina histories as security guards and many of them are armed. In addition, where medical marijuana dispensaries have sprung up, the surrounding area. has seen a 50 percent increase in Part I crime. Several unincorporated areas within the County of Los Angeles bordex the City of Los Angeles. Compounding this issue, the Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department has a policy of not enforcing the law at medical marijuana dispensaries. Therefore, if the City of .Los Angeles does adopt the same ordinance, crime will significantly increase in these areas making it extremely difficult to enforce the law. (Source Det. Dennis Packer Asset I'orfeiture/Narcotics Vice Division L.A.P.D.) MEN~DOCINO COUNTY Marijuana: Marijuana Crop V1'orth $1.5 Billion in One California County Alone, Paper Estimates 1212/05 Northern California's Mendocino Cotu~ty has been known for marijuana growing for at least 30 years. Part of the state's legendary Emerald Triangle of high-grade pot production along with neighboring Humboldt and Trinity counties, Mendocino has long profited from the underground economy. Last week, a local newspaper, the Willits News, tried to gauge just how large the profits may be, and the result is startling. According to fhe News, the local marijuana industry will add $1.5 billion to the county's economy this year. With 1Vlendocino's legal economy estimated at about $2.3 billion, that means the pot economy is almost two-thirds as large as all other legal economic activities combined. When combining the aboveground. and underground economies, the marijuana industry is responsible for roughly 40% of all Mendocino County economic activity, a figure approaching the proportions of the Afghan opium economy. As the News is quick to acknowledge, because marijuana is an illicit commodity, no one really knows how big the industry in the county is, so the paper relied on extrapolations based on the number of plants seized and on information it acquired about current wholesale (pound level and up) marijuana prices in the area. The County of Mendocino Marijuana Eradication Team {COMMET) seized 144,000 plants this year, and District Attorney told the paper COMMET normally seized between five and eight percent of the crop, a little less than the ] 0% nlle of thumb for estimating all drug seizures. 15 75A-24 The paper more than. compensated for the iowball seizure rate by also factoring in a 20% crop loss to spoilage. Following the formula, the News estimated 1.8 million plants were sown. in the county this year, with 1.32 million surviving droughts, floods, bugs, mold, and cops. And while both the DEA and Mendocino County law enforcement like to say that one plant produces one pound, the newspaper consulted local grower "Dionysius Greenbud," who said flee average yield is closer to a half pound -- a very rough estunate, given a local. crop that consists of both high-yielding outdoor plants anal smaller, lower- yielding indoor plants. The paper's in-the-ballpark estimate for total pot production in the county is thus some 6b2,000 pounds. The paper assumed a wholesale price of $2200 a pound, based. on reports from local. growers, and a simple multiplication yields a total. of $1.5 billion. Is that figure out of line? It's hard to say. In last year's "Reefer Madness: Sex, Drugs, and Cheap Labor in the American Black Market," Eric Schlosser quoted former DEA officials as estimating the value of all marijuana grown nationwide at $25 billion. While it is difficult to believe that one California County account`s for nearly 5% of all pot grown in the US, who is to say different? (Source htt~//st~thedru~war ors/chronicle/413/mendocino.shiml.) March lb, 2006 Three suspects enter a MMJ Dispensary (Mendocino Remedies), pepper spray the employees and attempt to take property. A fight between the suspects and victims ensues and the suspects flee the scene. {Source http://www.co.mendocino.ca.us/sheriff/pressreleases.htm) MODESTO July 18th, 2005. DEA arrests three subjects on charges stemming from a raid by Stanislaus Co sheriffs, who reported discovering 49 plants and 235 pounds of marijuana there. The mails subject of the investigation and his wife had been providing medical marijuana for patients at a San Francisco dispensary. (Source http://www.canonnl.org/news/fedmmjcases.html) Soap store a front for pot outfit, cops say Patrick Giblin Modesto Bee Modesto, CA June 17, 2006 -- Drug agents looked past the soaps anal lotions at The Healthy Choice on McI-Ienry Avenue in Modesto and sniffed out a marijuana store in the back, law enforcement officials said Friday. Narcotics officers arrested Michael O'Leary, 37, of Modesto at the store, 4213 McHenry Ave. They are Jooking for his brother, Shannon O'Leary, 34, of Modesto, agent Kelly Rea said. "The second store was just like a legitimate store, with shelves, prices listed and receipts given to the customers," said Rea, an agent with the Stanislaus Drug Enforcement Agency. "I've never seen anything like it." There were prescription bottles f lied with pre-weighed amounts of marijuana. There also were 50 to 100 pre-wrapped, marijuana-laced brownies and an equal number of marijuana-laced cookies. The store had a menu of prices and types of marijuana, with the different varieties neatly packed in Tupperware containers, Rea said. "They offered full customer service," Rea said. Local, state and federal drug agents raided the store about 9 a.m. Friday and stayed until about 1 p.m., seizing property and cataloging the inventory, sheriffs spokeswoman Gina Legurias said. 15 75A-25 They also seized about $20,000 in cash. Approximately 30 people came to the store looking to buy marijuana while officers were there, Rea said. About half of them had. California medical marijuana cards, indicating they were suffering from cancer, glaucoma or other ailments. Marijuana is believed to help relieve the symptoms. However, the store isn't a licensed medical. marijuana dispensary. The rest of the potential customers didn't have cards, Rea said. "They sold to anyone and everyone," he said. No customers were arrested. They were interviewed to give officers an idea of how much business the store did, Rea said. Michael O'Leary was booked into the Stanislaus County Jail. in Modesto on charges of possession of marijuana for sale and criminal conspiracy. He was released on 525,000 bail Friday afternoon. OAKLAND • Large criminal. element drawn to the dispensary location Marijuana dealers who have a doctor recommendation are purchasing from the dispensary and then conducting illegal street sales to those who do not have a recommendation. • Street criminals in search of the drugs are robbing medical use patients for their marijuana as they leave the dispensary. • Thefts anal robberies around the location are occurring to support the iilegai anal legal (by State law} drug commerce. • Chief Word mentioned that a shoe repair business next door to a dispensary has been severely impacted because of the concentration of criminals associated with the dispensary. The shoe repair business owner is considering shutting dawn his business. • They had more than l 5 total in city; n.ow limited to four by ordinance but control is not very strong. The fines are too small to control a lucrative business. • Most of the crime goes unreported because the users do not want to bring negative publicity to the dispensary. • The dispensaries have an underground culture associated with them. At least one of the dispensaries had a doctor on the premises giving recommendations on site for a fee. • One location was a combination coffee shop and dispensary and marijuana was sold in baked goods and for smoking. • Dispensary management has told the police that they cannot keep the criminal. element out. (Source} Rocklin P.D. report ROBBERS INVADE OAKLAND POT CLUB Oakland Tribune by Susan. McDonough, (Excerpts from) November 1.0, 2003 A medical marijuana club in Oakland's so-called Oaksterdam district was the target of an invasion-style armed robbery Sunday rooming. Four men, one with a gun, tied up a bouncer outside Compassionate Caregivers at about 8:10 a.m. and barreled their way to where the cannabis club is located on the top floor of the three-story building, police said. 17 75A-26 Several medical marijuana patients and staff members were inside the club at 1740 Telegraph Ave......The gunmen tied up another person inside the dispensary and took several ounces of marijuana and a significant amount of cash before fleeing, police said...... Oakland Police Sgt. -1ugh Kidd said no one was injured and no patrons or staff members were robbed individually. Oakland was one of the first U.S, cities to legitimize the use of medical marijuana by deputizing a former club on Broadway as a distributor. That dispensary was shut down by the U.S. Drug Enforcement Agency in 1998, but a number of marijuana-related businesses have sprung up in the neighborhood to replace it. Cannabis clubs in Berkeley and Sacramento have been hit by similar armed robberies in recent years. (Source) http://www.mapinc.org/newscmc/v03/n1750/a02.htm1 June 30, 2004: Five subjects were arrested by DEA following a CHP raid on a warehouse where 4,000 plants were found. The subjects claim that the plants were for a licensed dispensary. Police gave conflicting accounts of the incident; the CHP says it called on the DEA after Oakland police declined to help. Two defendants have pled not guilty to manufacturing charges bearing a 10-year to life sentence. March lf~, 2006. DEA raids camlabis candy manufacturer, "Beyond Bomb," at three different East Bay sites, seizing over 5,000 plants, ~ 150K cash, and the company's stash of cannabis candies & soda pop. Arrested are the owner and 1 i other employees. DEA says products were packaged in eye-catching candy wrappers that might pose danger to kids. Supporters say that products were distributed for use by medical marijuana patients. (Source) http•//www canorml ora/news/fed;nmicases.htm.l One Department representative was willing to speak with me, but did not wish to be quoted for this report. They advised me of a recent carjacki.ng. This event involved an owner and three employees of a MMJ Dispensary. None of the four could agree on any fact relating to the case other than. while. property of the dispensary was stolen, no Marijuana or cash was taken, This leads us to believe that either a large quantity of Marijuana or cash was the target of the attack. PLEASANTON The City of Pleasanton does not have any dispensaries operating in Pleasanton, whether legally or illegally. Pleasanton has a moratorium on dispensaries in place, has not prepared any reports on a ban, and staff will request that Council extend the moratorium for another 1.2 months. In support of the moratorium, the following health /safety / welfare uiformation was cited; Juveniles in Pleasanton found with marijuana which was re-sold to them after having been obtained from a dispensary. A dispensary employee was the victim of a robbery at his home after he brought more than $100,000.00 in cash from a NfMJ Dispensary back to his home to Pleasanton. (Source Larissa Seto Assistant City Attorney) 18 75A-27 ROSEVILLE: • Street level dealers trying to sell to those going to the dispensary at a lower price • People are smoking marijuana i.n public around the facility • People coming to the community from out of town and out of state to obtain Marijuana (Nevada State, San aoaquin County, etc) • Marijuana DUI by people who have obtained from dispensary • At least one burglary attempt into building (Source Rocklin P.D. report} On January 13, 2006 the proprietor of th.e Roseville's MMJ Dispensary was indicated by a Federal. Grand Jury on 19 counts of marijuana trafficking and money laundering. The indictment alleges that in an eight month period the defendant made approximately $2,750,849A0 from the sale of MMJ and of that figure $356,130.00 was traced to money laundering activities. The U.S. Attorney handling the case stated, "This case is a perfect example of a person using medical marijuana as a smokescreen to hide his true agenda, which is to line .his pockets with illegal drug money." (Source Press release California State Attorney Generals Office) SACRAMENTO Sacramento has four dispensaries. Relatively few crimes other than at Ieast two burglary attempts. Most of the complaints came to the council via citizens regarding quality of life issues i.e. loitering, traffic and use of marijuana in or near the dispensaries. July 7, 2005. The director of Aitemati.ve Specialties dispensary, charged by feds following raid by Sacramento County Sheriff that uncovered two indoor gardens with an alleged 800 plants. Sheriffs say the subject had a criminal record for embezzlement and. failed to file for a business license. He was charged with the manufacture of. marijuana and illegal possession of weapons. {Source http•//www canorml or~lnews/fedmmicases.html) SAID DIEGO Dec i2, 2005 -Interagency task force raids 13 of 19 San Diego dispensaries. Task force led by DEA with state police. Raids conducted under state, not federal search warrant. No arrests, investigation ongoing. (Source httt~•//www canorml ors/news/fedmmicases.html) July 7, 2006: Medical marijuana dispensaries charged with drug trafficking ALLISON HOFFMAN Associated Press Federal prosecutors accused six people Thursday of illegally trafficking pot under the cover of California's medical marijuana laws - in some cases processed into baked goods, "Reefer's" peanut butter cups and "Sptii" peanut butter. Federal and state search warrants were executed at more than 11 locations throughout San Diego in a morning raid, and at least five people were arrested, authorities said. Federal charges were expected to be filed Friday, according to U.S. Attorney Carol Lam. 19 75A-28 "They made thousands of dollars every day," Lam said. "Their motive was not the betterment of society. Their motive was profit." One federal indictment accuses John Sullivan, 38, of growing more than. 100 marijuana plants for distribution. and distributing marijuana or processed marijuana-based goods from his two dispensaries, the Purple Bud Room in Pacific Beach and THC in San Diego. Five managers of the Co-op San Diego were indicted separately on similar allegations. Wayne Hudson, 42; Christopher Larkin, 34; and Ross McManus, 39, are alleged to have distributed marijuana products through the co-op. Scott ~~~right, 40, and A~Iichael Ragin, 34, are accused of growing hundreds of plants for the co-op at their homes. Messages left at the dispensaries were not immediately returned. Also, the San Diego County District Attorney has filed state charges against one of the men named in the federal indictment and nine others for selling marijuana and possessing marijuana for sale. State charges were filed against Sullivan's THC dispensary and four other independent operations in San Diego. Prosecutors alleged that these dispensaries sold. marijuana or marijuana-based products with little concern for legitimate medical need. "The party is over," District Attorney Bonnie Dumanis said at a news conference with federal prosecutors. She added. that Proposition 2i5, the ballot measure that legalized marijuana for medical purposes, has been "severely abused by neighborhood pot dealers opening up storefronts." Complaints from residents living near dispensaries precipitated an investigation beginning in September 2005 by the Sa11 Diego police, the county sheriffs department, the Drug Enforcement Administration, Dumanis said. Dumanis said that her office has "no intention" of preventing people who suffer chronic illnesses like AIDS, glaucoma or cancer from using medically prescribed marijuana. to ease their pain. But San Diego County has fought an ongoing battle to limit the impact of the medical marijuana law, which was approved in 1.996 by 55 percent of voters. San Diego has ignored a state requirement drat counties issue identification cards to registered medical marijuana users and maintain a registry of people who apply for the cards. In December, county supervisors sued the state of California and its director of health services in federal court, saying federal law that prohibits marijuana use trumps the state law. The county moved. that lawsuit to state court in February to avoid bringing the case to the 9th tJ.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, which has sided in recent rulings with medical marijuana supporters, That suit is still pending. The men indicted by the federal grand jury face a maximum of 40 years in prison and $2 million u~ fines for each of the allegations listed in the indictment, authorities said.. The San Diego County District Attorney's office released a complaint sent last week to the state medical. board against four physicians alleging that they wrote "recommendations" for medical marijuana use -doctor's notes required by state law - to apparently healthy individuals. (Source: Http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercurynews/news/breaking news/ 149823 95.htm) City hopes to close legal pot dispensary July 8, 2006 By Linda Lou UNION-TRIBUNE STAFF WRITER SAN MARCOS - An existing medical-marijuana dispensary here survived a City Council vote in February that banned any more dispensaries from opening. 20 75A-29 It was able to receive a business license because it called itself a nutritional supplement store, city officials said. But the dispensary's ability to remain open is now uncertain. On Thursday, local and federal law enforcement officers went to the storefront on Rancho Santa Fe Road and. seized ala of the marijuana and products laced with the drug's byproducts as part of raids of dispensaries countywide. Now the city is intent on shutting dov<m the business, run by Legal Ease Inc. of San Diego, because it's been burglarized several times since the council's vote, said City Manager Rick Gittings. The city contends it's a threat to the com!nunity's health, safety and welfare, violating the provisions the city imposed in Febniary when it allowed the dispensary to stay open, Gittings said. The concept of providing medical marijuana to patients who really need it has good intentions, but as indicated by state and federal prosecutors this week, medica] marijuana dispensaries are fronts for drug peddling, Gittings said. Recently, Legal Ease asked the city to transfer its business license to a new location on Grand Avenue. The city rejected the request in a letter sent to Legal Ease last month. The letter said that another business near the dispensary's current location was burglarized because it was mistaken for the dispensary. The letter also said Legal Ease had failed at least once to submit security tapes of its premises and has failed to reveal what was stolen in the burglaries. Though the letter didn't say the city wanted to close the business, that conclusion is "painfully obvious," Gittings said. City officials will meet with Legal Ease's representatives next week to discuss the situation, he said. Gittings said he doesn't know when the dispensary would be closed. When reached earlier this week, Heruy Friesen, Legal Ease's attorney, said that he hoped to clear up any miscommunication with. the city. Iie said he thought the new location would be approved, based on discussions with representatives from the Sheriff Department's San Marcos substation and the Fire Department. Sgt. Gary Floyd, supervisor of San Marcos' street narcotics and gang unit, said he's not aware that Legal Ease had talked with the Sheriff's Department about relocating. He said that after some recent early-morning burglaries, the dispensary installed roll-up metal security covers over the door and window because thieves had smashed the glass to get inside. In Thursday's raid, dozens of candy bars and cartons of ice ereatn containing THC, a marijuana byproduct, were confiscated, Floyd said. Bags of packaged marijuana and larger bags of the drug used to refill. the smaller ones were also taken, he said. No one was arrested. In December, a federal dnig agent said he was able to purchase marijuana at th.e site with a forged doctor's recommendation. (Source: http://www.signonsandiego.com/news/northcounty/20060708-9999- l mi8smmari.html) SAN FRANCI80 May 1.4, 2005--.In a daring home-invasion robbery at around l OPM, the house of the owner of Alternative Health and Healing Services at 442 Haight St was robbed of several pounds of cannabis and the dispensary keys. Details are sketchy, but it is believed that the robbers burst into the owner's home at gunpoint. More on this story as details are known. (Source) http://www.hempevolution.org/the/dispensary robbed04051.4.htm 21 75A-30 June 23, 2005 3 S.)~. pot clubs raided in probe of organized crime Modica] marijuana dispensaries used as front for money laundering, authorities say. Federal authorities raided three San. Francisco medical marijuana dispensaries Wednesday, and investigators arrested at least 13 people as part of an alleged organized crime operation using the clubs as a front to launder money. Agents seized marijuana and other items from two cannabis clubs on Ocean Avenue in the Lngleside district anal a third on Judah Street in the Inner Sunset district. The raids were the first in the Bay Area since the U.S. Supreme Caart dealt a bi_ow to the medical marijuana movement two weeks ago by ruling that the federal government had the authority to prosecute people whose activities are legal under state law.....Twenty people were charged in an indictment that federal authorities planned to unseal. today. Authorities would not comment on the specific allegations against them. Authorities said.....that the operation controlled at least 10 warehouses where marijuana was grown in large quantities and that those involved were bringing in millions of dollars. One warehouse in Oakland that federal agents raided earlier this month was capable of growing $3 million worth of marijuana annually, investigators said. The marijuana ostensibly was for cannabis clubs, but the amount being grown was far more than needed to supply the dispensaries, authorities said. (Source) http://wwwafgate.comJegi- bin/article. cgi?file=/c/a/2005 /06/23 /MNGRODDG321.DTL. Dec. 20, 2005 - DEA raids HopeNet Cooperative after first raiding home of HopeNet directors Steve and Catherine Smith. No arrests. Agents seize cash, medicine, a few hundred small indoor plants, mostly cuttings and clones. (Source) http://www.canonnl.org/news/fedmmjcases.html June 27, 2006: Medical marijuana dispensary robbed during S.F. Gay Pride Parade Adam Martin San Francisco Examiner Thieves apparently took advantage of Sunday's 36th Annual San Francisco Gay Pride Parade and Celebration to commit this year's second robbery of a medical marijuana dispensary. According to police and the club's proprietor, two men entered Emmalyn's California Cannabis Clinic at 1597 Howard. St. about 1:30 p.m. Sunday. They held up the clerk and stole cash and inventory while most of the staff was handing out fliers at the Gay Pride Parade. Sunday's holdup marked The City's second pot club robbery of the year. The Purple Heart dispensary at 1326 Grove St. was robbed Feb. 3, San Francisco Police Lt. John Loftus said. There were four such robberies in 2005, Loftus said. Loftus said clubs are attractive to thieves because "it's a big cash business, and marijuana is expensive." He said that so far, none of the victims with whom the department has worked has been able to recover their inventory. Emmalyn's proprietor John Baumgartner said he and his staff felt safe in their trade until Sunday. "We never felt threatened," he said in an interview Monday. "We usually have two people on duty. Because of the gay pride day, I happened to be out with other staff passing out fliers and left one person in the store. We left ourselves open." The two m.en who robbed the dispensary had been in about an hour prior to the crime and bought some marijuana. 22 75A-31 When they returned, Baumgartner said, "they put a gun to my clerk's head, had him ]ie down on the floor, then they robbed him and the store. They took everything in the place. They emptied out the cash registers and the counters." Baumgartner said the club will remain closed for the near future while he upgrades security. "They took all the inventory 1 had.," he said, but. he said the crime was captured on security cameras, whose tapes will be reviewed in the investigation. (Source) http://www.hempevolution.org/media/examiner/e060627.htm SAN JOSE Murder in a Head Shop Will David Gruz's killer ever be found? By William Dean Hinton. ON MAY 10, right around 8:30pm, Jonathan Cruz dropped in on his brother at the Rainbow Smoke Shop on West San Carlos Street...... About. half an hour later, Jonathan left his brother, who was preparing to close the shop and head over to the Rainbow owner's home for dinner that night. What happened next is still somewhat of a mystery. Shortly after Jonathan departed, someone walked into the shop and killed David Cruz with a single bullet wound to the back of his head, just above the left ear. No money was taken. from th.e register, and the store wasn't ransacked. When the owner, Suzie Andrews, was allowed back inside, a month. after the shooting, everything appeared to be normal except for the bloodstain in the doorway leading to a small body-piercing room. The killing was essentially the end of Andrew's shop. Aftex 10 years as owner, she was afraid to be in her own store. She began carrying a .38 with hollow-point bullets and closed the Rainbow's doors two hours earlier than before David's death.. She finally closed the business permanently on. New Year's Eve, sticking the remaining bongs, handpipes, hookahs, T-shirts and pons tapes into storage, where they might eventually be sold on eBay. David Cruz's killer, meanwhile, has never been identified.. Police can usually determine a murder suspect within 48 hours of a shooting, even if they're unable to apprehend h.im. The Cruz case is approaching the nine month mark with no credi.bie theory why David was shot. (Source http://equalrights4all.us/content/view/192/50/) SAN LEADRO San Leandro does not have any MMJ Dispensaries within their City Limits. They do however have employees of MMJ Dispensaries from other jurisdictions living in their city. June 19, 2005: Suspects enter an unoccupied residence of a MMJ Dispensary employee taking jewelry and $10,000.00 in cash. June 28, 2005: Suspects retun~ to the same residence and begin to force entry when they are confronted by the resident and flee before any loss is sustained. September 20, 2005: A receptionist of a MMJ Dispensary was accosted by a lone suspect as she walked from her vehicle to her house. The receptionist was able to get into her home and call police before the robbery was completed. 23 75A-32 October 26, 2005: A Detective on routine patrol observes a suspicious circumstance and stops two subjects. The stop results in the arrest of the subjects for robbery and possession. of stolen property. The house the suspects were watching was the home of a MMJ Dispensary employee. December 19, 2005: The same receptionist (9/20/05 event) is robbed as she walks from her vehicle to her home. The suspects took a bag containing receipts from the MMJ Dispensary (Paperwork only, no cash) (Source Mark Decoulode San Leandro PD) SANTA CRUZ Four men sought in home robberies Santa Cruz Sentinel. Santa Cruz, CA Dec i 3, 2004 -- Santa Cruz Police are asking for the public's help in finding four arnled men who took marijuana grown for medicinal uses and electronics from two separate houses on Clay Street. Around 1 a.m. Sunday, a white, Asian and possibly two black males -all wearing masks and dark clothing -broke into two residences, rounded up their tenants, held them at gunpoint and ransacked their homes, all while demanding drugs and cash. Two of the victims were battered during the robbery, resulting in minor injuries not requiring hospital treatment. One of the suspects fired a single shot from a handgun when one of the victims tried to escape. No one was shot. http://www.hempevolution.org/media/dail y_review/dr050824.htm SANTA CRUZ COUNTY Capitola 2004: Three suspects entered the victim's home armed with a handgun in search of the residents MMJ grow. The resident and two guests were ordered to the floor. During the robbery the resident was shot and stabbed but managed to fight off the suspects who fled prior to the arrival of the responding Deputies. Live Oaks October 1, 2005: Four suspects attempted. to conduct a home invasion robbery of a home cultivator of MMJ. The homeowner fired a shotgun at the suspects who fled and were later captured by police following a vehicle pursuit and crash. Ben Lomond March 5, 2006: Two suspects who identified themselves as "Police" forced their way into the victim's residence. The victim was assaulted, robbed and left tied up in his residence until the next day when he was discovered. Subsequent investigation revealed that the motive for the robbery was the victims MMJ supply. SANTA ROSA May 29, 2002 Federal agents raided a medical marijuana buyers club here Wednesday and arrested two people. A U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration. spokesman said two addresses were searched, including the club near downtown. 24 75A-33 Marijuana, cash, a car and a weapon were seized. Authorities declined to identify the arrested pair, saying all information about the case was sealed by a federal judge. (Source) http:/icannabisnews.com/news/1.2/threadl2999.shtml September 29, 2004 The father of the owner of a MMJ Dispensary was followed home from the dispensary and robbed at gunpoint in front of his residence. The owner of the club believed that his business was being "cased" and that "further robberies were eminent. ' January 25, 2005 Suspects force entry into a closed MMJ Dispensary and burglarize the business taking three pounds of Marijuana and cash. March 3, 2005 Suspects forced entry into a MMJ Dispensary a. stole a laptop computer, Marijuana and smoking paraphernalia. April 15, 2005 Employees of a MM.J Dispensary were robbed by a suspect armed with a shotgun as they were closing the business. The suspect stole a "duffle bag" of Marijuana. April 18, 2005 Suspects forced entry into a closed MMJ Dispensary and stole a digital scale. April 19, 2005 Suspects forced entry into a MMJ Dispensary and stolen one half pound of marijuana. Mar 17, 2006 Suspects forced entry into a closed MMJ Dispensary, loss unknown at this time. (Source) Lt. Briggs Santa Rosa P.D. The Vice unit has been involved in the investigation of the following MMJ Dispensary related crimes; A homicide, during a residential robbery where the suspects sought Marijuana cultivated for a dispensary. • Four residential robberies, where the suspects sought Marijuana cultivated for a dispensary. • Twelve cases where individuals were cultivating Marijuana for dispensaries, but were found to be operating outside MMJ guidelines and in a "far profit" status. Each of these cases resulted in the arrest of the cultivators and disposition is pending. • Instances where undercover officers have found subjects buying Marijuana from MMJ Dispensaries under the guise of MMJ and then reselling the Marijuana to non MMJ users. (Source} Sgt. Steve Fraga Santa Rosa P.D. 25 75A-34 SONOMA COUNTY A subject was arrested May 9, 2001 while growing for himself and other patients; convicted by a jury of cultivating more than 100 plants on Feb I1, 2002; sentenced to S yrs probation; He was re-arrested July 31, 2002 for cultivating while on probation. Convicted and sentenced to 44 months for growing 920 plants Dec 19, 2002. Released on bail April 2004; awaiting sentencing post-Raich 2005. The proprietor of Genesis 1:29 club in Peta1_uma was arrested Sept 13, 2002. Agents uprooted 3,454 plants at the drib's garden in Sebastopol. The suspect pled guilty July 2003; sentenced to 41 months, July 2005. Infonnatian provided by: (Source) http•//www canorml or~lnews/fedmmicases.html Friday, February 17, 200b at 12:13, PM Commercial marijuana operation shut down. Un 2/16/05, the Sonoma County Narcotic Task Force, SCNTF, anal the County of Mendocino Marijuana Eradication Team, COMMET completed an investigation involving alarge-scale commercial. marijuana growing operation.. At the first residence on Little Creek Rd., agents located a marijuana growing operation where "starter" plants were being cultivated. These plants would eventually be moved to the larger grow rooms as they matured. As agents collected evidence, Kenneth D. Brenner, 57 yrs, of Annapolis arrived at the residence. When agents contacted Brenner, they located grow equipment in the bed of his truck. He was detained and returned to his residence. At Brem7er's residence, agents seized numerous firearms. Agents also seized an AIC47, a Colt AR 15, and a .308 sniper rifle. Additional documents linking Brenner to the growing operation were seized. The indoor grow operation included 4 buildings which were located approximately a quarter of a mile off Annapolis Rd. in the thick brush.. The grow buildings ranged from 100'X 30' to 30'x 20'. The buildings were constructed of plywood, with the exteriors painted black, and concealed under the thick canopy of trees. The plants were growing in a hydroponics type system, under approximately 120 high intensity lights. The lighting equipment alone is valued at $48,000.00. Agents located a camouflaged, insulated concrete bunker which housed a 125KW diesel generator. This generator was seized and valued at approximately $75,000.00. The total number of plants was approximately 1700. Agents determined the plants when harvested would yield approximately SO pounds of marijuana. The marijuana would have a street value of $150,000.00. As agents continued their searching, they seized over 3,000 live rounds of ammunition in one of the grow buildings. The ammunition. matched the same type of assault rifles seized at Brenner's residence. Agents then discovered numerous metal military type ammunition cans hidden u1 the area. When the cans were opened, the agents discovered 22 solid bars of silver, and antique silver coins. The bars each weighed 9ozs., with an estimated value of $30,000.00. The Drug Enforcement Administration was contacted to consider the adoption of this case on a federal level. Mr. Brenner was released at his residence. The case will be under further review by the United States Attorn.ey's Office. For further information contact Detective Sergeant Chris Bertoli at (707) 565-5441. Prepared by Detective Sergeant Chris Bertoli. 26 75A-35 Thursday, January 5, 2046 at 1.2:18, PM $604,000 in marijuana seized. On 1/4/06, the Sonoma County Narcotics Task Force completed a three month investigation involving the sales of methamphetamine in the City of Cloverdale. Through the use of undercover purchases, Task Force Agents identified a residence on South Cloverdale Boulevard as the source of methamphetamine. When agents served a search warrant at the residence, they located 2l2 pounds of manicured marijuana. The marijuana had been concealed in various locations on the property. Along with the marijuana, agents seized a Half ounce of "crystal" methamphetamine; ascale; packaging material, and pay/owe records. As agents continued their search, they located an AK-47 assault rifle with 3 fully loaded 30 round magazines next to the rifle. A stolen sawed-off 12 gauge shotgun, 2 additional rifles, and one loaded semi-automatic handgun were also located in the same location. While searching the residence, agents encountered three ch.i dren living at the residence with their parents. The ages of the children. were 6;7, and 8 years. As agents searched, they discovered approximately 3 pounds of marijuana within the same room as the children were discovered sleeping. The estimated street value of the marijuana is $636,000.00 dollars. The rnethamphetamine is valued at $450.00. For further information contact Detective Sergeant Chris Bertoli at (707) 565-5441. Prepared by Detective Sergeant Chris Bertoli. (Source www.sonomasherif£org) TEHEMA COUNTY Two subjects were indicted by federal grand jury on Jan 8, 2004 after trying to assert medical marijuana defense in. state court. Arrested with l OOs of small seedlings, 33 tnature plants, and a few pounds of processed marijuana in Red Bluff and Oakland. Defendants say they were fox personal. use. The Tehama DA turned the case over to the feds while pretending to negotiate a deal with their attorneys. Denied a Raich defense by Judge England. (Source) ttttp://www.eanormi.org/news/fedmmjcases.httnl TRINITY COUNTY A subject and his wife were arrested in 2003 for a sizable outdoors grow; they were re- arrested the next year after deliberately replanting another garden ira public view. While awaiting trial, they were arrested once again, this time for a personal. use garden of approximately ten plants. {Source) h.ttp://www.canornl.org/news/fedmmjcases.html. TUSTIN After a MMJ Dispensary opened, undercover officers conducted an investigation in the business. During the service of a search warrant, 25 pounds of marijuana was seized and the dispensary was shut down. The District Attorney still has not made a decision as to whether to file charges or not. (Source) Scott Jordan Tustin PD 27 75A-36 UKAI;FI Over the last four years, the City of Ukiah has experienced an increase in crimes related to the M:MJ Dispensaries. They are four Dispensaries in town as well. as several. citizens growing Marijuana for the purpose of providing Marijuana to dispensaries. There have been. approximately ten robberies of either dispensaries or private grows. Some of these robberies have resulted in shootings. There has also been an arson of a dispensary which the police department believes was the result of a dispute with a customer. (Scarce) Det. Guzman Ukiah P.D. Ukiah Daily News An arson fire burned the Ukiah Cannabis Club Saturday morning, causing extensive damage and blackening neighboring structures as well. A man who told The Daily Journal he was upset with the Ukiah Cannabis Club, claiming club members owed him money for the crop of marijuana he grew for them, was arrested at the scene.....The man in the back of the store, later identified as William 1-Toward Ryan, 51, of Willits, telephoned UPD dispatch, saying he was armed and that he would. shoot anyone coming to get him. Officers and firefighters heard muffled. shots from the interior of the store.... Ryan. was arrested on charges of arson, burglary and possession. of hashish. He was interviewed by The Daily Journal. just days ago when. he claimed he was going to sue the Ukiah Cannabis Club for die money he says he is awed. Same witnesses said they saw Ryan enter the building with what looked like grenades strapped to his body. There were also reports the suspect carried a weapon, though that was not corroborated by police. A spokesperson for the Forest Club said the bar would be closed. for a short time only. (Source http://www.hempevolution.org/medialukiah_daily_news/udn020527.htm) VENTURA Two subjects were arrested Sept 28, 2001 for cultivating for the LACRC. Forfeiture filed against their property, including home they built for themselves, in July 02. Raided again and. arrested for personal use garden of 35 plants in Aug 02; charged with cultivation. Pled guilty Sep 03. Ninth. Circuit denied appeal March 2006. (Source) http;//www.canorml.org/news/fedmmjcases.htmi CALIFORNIA CHIEFS OF POLICE The Califoi•~iia Chiefs of Police outlined their collective opinion on their web site; Law Enforcement Concerns to Medical. Marijuana Dispensaries; • It violates Federal Law • Street dealers selling at lower prices to entice patients away from dispensaries • Non-residents coming into city to purchase Marijuana • Neighboring businesses have experienced a loss of customers • Increase in unreported crime to avoid negative publicity to the Dispensary 28 75A-37 • Problem of patients selling to non-patients (similar to providing alcohol to a juvenile waiting outside a liquor store • Documented cases of robberies outside MMJ Dispensaries • Dispensaries create alternative methods to market products -such as food items called Buddafingers, Munchy Way, Rasta Reese's and Puff-a- Mint Pattie • Complaints from patients that other illegal drugs are being sold at the dispensary • Marijuana dispensaries perpetuate asub-culture that openly supports behavior consistent with criminal activity and publishes instructional material on th.e web. Examples include: 1. Assume you are under surveillance if you are in any way involved in providing medical marijuana to patients. 2. Do not discuss sensitive matters on the phone, through the mail, by e-mail, or in you home, car, dispensary collectives or office. 3. Don't gossip, brag or ask for compromising or unnecessary information about medical marijuana operations and activities. 4. You. should be cautious of theft. Many patients and care providers have been robbed because the wrong person knows sensitive information • Management from an established dispensary told police that they cannot keep the criminal.element out. CALIFORNIA NARCOTIC OFFICERS ASSOCIATION Agents have conducted sting operations on web sites such. as "Craigslist" and. recently conducted an investigation which resulted in the arrest of a subject for the sate of three pounds of marijuana as well as possession of an additional four pounds. This subject was an employee of a local MMJ Dispensary. In atl of these communities, law enforcement leaders were concerned with the impacts to the .public health, safety and welfare by the commercial marijuana dispensing enterprise. All wished that they dial not exist in their community. The trouble seems to occur when a large number of marijuana users, legal (under State law) and illegal gather at one location making them. easy targets for illegal drug dealers; those freelance illegal drug dealers who are trying to recruit individuals with a doctors recommendation to legitimize (under State law) their sales and possession; and those who wish to prey upon the ill to steal their marijuana. This is compounded by the vast amounts of cash and little or no oversight of the processes of prescription, procurement and sales of MMJ. Al.l of these impacts are avoidable if the commmercial marijuana dispensing business were not allowed to locate in our community. 29 75A-38 Medical Marijuana Doctor's Another area of contention is the apparent lack of oversight regarding who receives a physician's recommendation for MM7 and the process in doing so. One doctox who is touted as a "MMJ Doctor" is a practitioner in the City of El Cerrito. It is reported that our iota] doctor has issued over ten thousand recommendations for MNi7 in th.e ten years since Prop. 215 was enacted in 1996. Research on the internee has revealed that the cost to patients to receive their initial recommendation ranges from 5125.00 to $250.00. If these fgures are accurate, this ene doctor has made $1,250,000 to 2,500,000 over the past ten years just in issuing MMJ recommendations. These recommendations have to be renewed every one to two years at the cost of $50.00 to $1.00.00. This same doctor has repeatedly been the target of investigations regarding his practices related to MMJ anal is currently on probation with the Medical. Board of California as a result of investigations into 47 complaints, all of which were refereed by law enforcement or district attonieys. And this is how his web site explains this; Medical Board of California v Tod H. Mikuriya, M.D. Since 1993, the Medical Board of California have had various ongoing investigations into Dr. Mikuriya's use of cannabinoids in his medical practice. Beginning in 1993 witih aural county probation officers turning him in to the medical board for prescribing 1vlarinol to probationers. The initial investigation resulted in a letter in Dr. Mikuriya's file. With the passage of the Compassionate Use Act of 1.996, outlying Sheriff Deputies and District Attonzeys began flooding the Medical Board with bogus complaints. Nearly 50 complaints were filed, none came from patients, health care professionals or patient families--none alleged any harn~ to patients. The medical board. initiated multiple investigations. In 2003 Dr. Mikuriya had a hearing in front of an Administrative Law Judge which resulted in the worst of the allegations being dismissed. (Dismissed charges included unprofessional conduct and incompetence.) However, Dr. Mikuriya was convicted for negligence and failing to keep adeduate records. Ln April. of 2004 he was placed on probation. which includes a practice monitor, cost recovery ($70,000), and various other indecencies. Appeals of all charges are pending and continue. This page and the associated Links contain all of the legal documents in this matter, as well as interpretations of why it occurred and the politics that surround it by Dr. Mikuriya. All. of. these materials are being made available to the public and any interested party as a means for Dr. Tod to show that this entire production was--and remains--a political. action and has nothing to do with patient care and/or harm. (Source: http•//www.mikuri.ya.com/) Another interesting concept is that even the doctors involved in this industry appear to do a "cash only" business. This is from Dr's Ellis' site; http•//www potdoc comlProfilePase.html Occasionally the office will. be closed due to Dr. Ellis' outside schedule. You must call to schedule an appointment to see Dr. R. Stephen. Ellis,lVlD (CA License # G-40749}. We are not a referral service for medical marijuana doctors in your area. We are a medical clinic with one medical doctor located in San Francisco, California. 30 75A-39 We can see patients living anywhere in the State of California in our medical clinic located in San Francisco. A Prop. 215 recommendation written from our office is good anywhere in th.e State of California. We will ultimately require confirmation of your diagnosis from your MD (or DC, DPM, or DDS as appropriate). We work with our patients to develop appropriate case documentation as per the routine standards of medicine -the only acceptable standard of valid legal protection a 'Prop 215' recommendation can. provide. Please bring an official picture ID for proof of 1D and age. A? L patients (and any caregivers) MUST be at least 18 years of age and no longer attending high school. Exceptions in extreme cases can be made, so please feel free to call and discuss your situation. The Initial New Patient Physical Exam and Evaluation with Dr. Ellis is $250.00 total if you qualify and a recommendation is issued. There is an initial interview with Dr. Ellis to see if you qualify and the cost is included in the $250.00 new patient total fee. All patients that we wilt be able to assist then continue to undergo a physician performed medical history and physical exam as part of the initial visit. Those patients that we will not be able to help are immediately refunded all but $25 (for pre-screening assessment) of th.e total $250 new patient fee. The $250 new patient fee includes all follow=up visits needed as well as associated administrative services for the entire initial 6 month period. New Patients are covered for up to six months with their initial letter of recommendation. Once you are an established patient (six months after your initial visit), expired letters can be re-issued if the condition is still valid. You. must see Dr. Ellis at a scheduled appointment in person in order to have an expired Letter re- issued. Unfortun. ately, recommendations /physician statements can not be issued by telephone or mail at this practice. Any available updates to your medical records from your doctors confirming that your diagnosis is still valid are expected (and MAY be necessary) to complete the renewal process. The office visit and exam fee for established patients is currently $125.00 and any includes and all. follow-up visits needed as well as associated administrative services for entire 1 year period. Established patients recommendations can be issued for up to one year duration as indicated. Due to potential patient privacy issues, all. fees are due and payable in full in CASH ONLY at the time of your visit. Patients are to bring the entire $2S0 payment at then initial visit. Multiple banks and A'fMs are in the immediate vicinity. The San Francisco Clinic is very conveniently located in downtown. San. Francisco in the 450 Sutter St. Medical Building (Suite # 1415}, between Stockton and Powell Streets, just one block I~~ortla of Union. Square. We are a short walk from Powell. Street Station for convenient BART J MUNI (and hence SFO, OAK, & Cal Train) access from all of California. Multiple non-validated parking options on-site and very nearby. Call for simplified directions. Practice Profile page updated on February 27, 2006 This is what one reporter has to say about Dr. Ellis; Doctor's orders: Get high A trip into the rt~edical marijuana dexni~nonde srnol:es out An~e;rica's confusion about drugs, pleasure anti rr~aa-ality. By Chris Colin 31 75A-40 Jan. 31, 2001 ~ SAN FRANCISCO -- To get pot, you can stand on 16th and Mission and wait for someone to approach you, and wander if he's a cop, and wonder if he's gain.g to rob you, and wonder if his pot is laced with strychnine. Or you can. have a dull pain in your right ear. In a green box on the back. page of the San Francisco Bay Guardian, Dr. R. Stephen Ellis advertises medical marijuana. physician evaluations for just about anyone. The ad contains no explicit offers or promises, just a list of symptoms that presumably qualify one far legal pat: "A_norexia ... chronic pain.... arthritis ... migraine, o_r ANY other condition for which marijuana provides relief." This is from California Health & Safety Code 11362.5, implemented after California passed Proposition 215, also known as the Medical Marijuana/Compassionate Use Act, in 1996. In case his point is unclear, the ad goes on to interpret "ANA"': asthma, neuropathy, HIV discomfort, constipation, old injury pains, etc. At the bottom, boldfaced, underlined, i.n caps, we're reassured: "It's TIDE LAW!" lvly ear hurts, I tell the assistant over th.e phone. He tells me to bring $200 cash. No check or credit card'? I ask.. Cash, he says. Ellis' office is at the end of a long, dark corridor in a tall building next to a fabric store. The $200 cash does not go toward interior decoration. A cardboard sign with Ellis' name is taped to the glass on the wood. door, which appears to be a good 50 years old. This is medical marijuana nair. That Philip Marlowe isn't smoking a cigarette on the other side seems to be a miscalculation on the director's part. Not that the other side isn't dark. In the grimy waiting room, which is just a little bigger than a glass of whisltey, si.x toed men. in plastic chairs take their- eyes off the linoleum only briefly. "I have an appointment," I say to Ellis' assistant behind the window. He's young, wearing a sweat. shin. "Have a sea.t," he says, banding me a clipboard. There shouldn't be enough room for two camps in the tiny room, but the six patients manage to segregate themselves. To my left are the ill; three men between 35 and 54 sink into their chairs and stare at things in the floor that I can't see. Their eyes are glassy, and two of their Beads are chemo-bald. To my right are three young men, none over 22 surely. They slump too, but with attitude, not sickness. They have baggy jeans and each has acne. The young camp looks at its shoes. The man directly to my left says he has glaucoma. He's grumpy about waiting. The man to his left says he's new to medicinal marijuana and is shaking and giddy. The roan to his left sells sports tickets for a living, and is doing so on a cell phone, apparently unfazed by his circumstances. The grump beside me is New Agey and shakes his head whenever the cell phone rings. To my right are frauds. "I hurt my back playing football," the bi.g one next to me says. He grins conspirarorially, as if he's never touched a football in his stoner life. Across from us a raver taps his toes. He grins, too, when I make eye contact. The surfer next to him grins too. "I better get this before my man Note's party Friday," he says to no one in particular. How long does it take to get the prescription filled?" I ask. "My other friend got some from a San Francisco dispensary two days after his evaluation," he says. I wonder how many scammers it would take to undermine tl~e medical marijuana cause. (This line of thinking is a vector from the anti-pot camp's faulty premise; penicillin. would never be criminalized just because some people were smoking it on Friday nights.) And while it's entirely possible that none of these guys will leave today with a prescription, the quiet raver does eventually have his appointment and walk out with a thumbs up. He directs the thumbs up at me. It's assumed I'm in the fraud. boat too. 32 7 5A-41 To me, it's unclear what boat I'm in. My ear does hurt. I've considered cutting my head off and throwing it in the ocean. The pain is intermittent, and in fact I haven't had any for weeks, but when it's around, I would smoke medicinal cxack if it did. the trick. Normal doctors and two specialists were no help. It's not an infection, we have determined. I got hit with an oar once, I always offer. The doctors and specialists nod. So I have chronic pain but not glaucoma and consequently suffer a faker's guilty conscience. Not that fakers are taking pot from the legitimately ill -- there's plenty to go around. Still, I don't know vrhere I belong, waiting room-~xlise, and keep myself between the ailing and the insincere. Uncertainty emerges later as a motif in the medical marijuana universe, but for now, I'm being called into the examining room. Ellis joins me in the bare room, slight, friendly and rushed. He seems breakable. He also has the air of celebrity, probably because he's the only man many people know who can. legalize pot, albeit one smoker at a time.l-Le talks fast, like someone who either has been in an )/.R. for years or has a line of patients out the door, each with a wad of cash. He takes my money and puts it in his pants pocket. "My ear hurts," I say, and I explain the pain. My honed explication of the problem doesn't seem to interest him. He interrupts after a minute, telling me to take my shirt off so he can use his stethoscope. 'fhe checkup is rudimentary. He hears my heart. He takes a peek at the bad ear. I-le looks into my eyes. 1 offer my oar theoxy. There's a brief, touching moment where he pats my arm, not weirdly, and then he's signing his recommendation. For the next 12 months, I'll be a legal medical marijuana smoker. I'll be a legal. medical marijuana smoker in California, that is. California may have approved Proposition 215 four years ago, but 215 has yet to be reconciled with federal law, which still classifies marijuana as an illegal narcotic. There is no consensus on how to interpret the ambiguity. California's medicinal marijuana proponents say medicinal marijuana is protected under law. The police, depending on the county, generally don't arrest smokers who have a prescription, except when they do. Courts often drop cases, depending on the judge, or how a jury might respond. Federal authorities generally say let's wait for the U.S. Supreme Court. Th.ey're referring to the long-anticipated ruling, which is likely to come down this summer. In September 1999, the 9th. U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that "medical necessity" justifies violation of federal distribution charges. The Clinton administration asked the Supreme Court for an ezner~en.cy order to stop the Oakland Cannabis Buyer's Club from selling pot. The order is temporary, and this summer the court will issue a final ruling on whether federal law permits the medicinal use of marijuana. It will be a significant ruling politically -- a verdict against 215 and similar measures would be a verdict against states' rights, typically a Republican. cause -- but the efficacy of any ban on medical marijuana would be dubious. It can't overturn California's 215, or the medical marijuana laws in the seven other states that have passed them. Likewise, state and local police can't be forced to enforce the federal laws. .Discerning any trend in the response to the medical marijuana question is difficult. In January, charges were dropped against Robert Voelker, a Merin County man found growing l 9 pot plants adjacent to his trailer home. Merin Superior Court Judge Verna Adams ordered the confiscated plants returned to the man, according to the Merin Independent Journal_ Given the physician's recommendation. that Voelker subsequently obtained, it seemed no jury would convict him. Other "legal" users don't get off as easy, and the pro- pot groups all have stories of various authorities flagrantly disregarding medical marijuana Legislation. 33 75A-42 One Web site devoted. to Proposition 2l 5 contains a letter sent by senior U.S. Customs inspector Mark Johnson to amarijuana-prescribing doctor in July 1998: "As a reminder you may want to tell your `patients' that although they may have received a'prescription' for marijuana from your office it will hold. no weight as far as federal or state laws are concerned. Such was the case a few days ago when. we confiscated less than. a gram of marijuana from one of the people who had put their confidence in you ... This was a stiff S5b0 lesson for someone who probably couldn't afford it, but erroneously placed their trust ii, yeu." There remains corfusior. at the medical_ level, too, but nothing like there used to be. Plenty of doctors maintain that pat's a damaging and addictive narcotic, but more anal. more point to studies confirming its medicinal value. In November, for example, BBC News reported that 80 percent of doctors in the United Kingdom woui.d prescribe medical marijuana to patients with serious illnesses if they were allowed to, according to a study by Medix UK, a Web site for doctors. if statistics like those from the Medix survey are surprising, it's because the evolution of thinking within the medical community has been undermined every step of the way. Even Drug Enforcement Administration administrative law Judge .Francis Young's 1988 acknowledgment that pot "has a currently accepted medical use in treatment in the United States for nausea and vomiting resulting from chemotherapy treatments" got buried. after a while. And of course marijuana's benefits among AIDS patients -- cannabis can help stimulate appetites, for example -- are obscured regularly by pot prejudice and AIDS prejudice. As far back as 1982, then Rep Newt Gin rg~ich wrote to the Journal of the American. Medical Association criticizing the "outdated federal prohibition" of medical marijuana, and the ,~ "bureaucratic interference tt encounters, as reported by Michelle Malkin in the Seattle Times. Sixteen years later, Malkin pointed out, Gingrich was "Speaker of a House that just declared. that marijuana contains no plausible medicinal benefits."' if doctors like Ellis eventually excuse themselves from the medical debate and start furiously signing pot prescriptions, it might be because the medical debate is stuck on repeat. None of the above -- the legal and the medical disputes --particularly matters. In the United States, medicinal marijuana still occupies a place far from the realm of reason. The terms of understanding are primitive. We rely on imagery and hysterical association to direct, and then articulate, our supporUdisdain for the movement. Like all drug debates to emerge in the past 15 years, this one is a closed system, impervious to new information. Progress occurs in spite of the alleged national conversation. Within the conversation, those opposed to medical marijuana have made little rhetorical progress since l 436's now-camp propaganda film "Reefer Madness." As few researchers will deny the drug's medicinal value, its detractors employ abstract versions of morality (it's "evil") and foresight (it's a gateway drug} to make their case. These tools interact with. the presiding convention of all drug debates -- a collective disregard of logic on both sides -- and consequently we no longer ask why pot is evil, or how we can legislate something because it might lead to something worse. (Are forks a gateway weapon.?) Those leading the medical marijuana charge can be dismissed, too: They're potheads, if there's a single obstacle to the acceptance of the drug's medicinal virtue, it's that it's fun, too. The high. that accompanies the pain relief is the un. spoken dozy conservatives can't surmount. That medical marijuana users experience this -- and perhaps even enjoy it -- diminishes their credibility. The high is distilled subversion.. What else could it represent? Like sex, religion and the red menace, its threat lies in its utter ungovernability. 34 75A-43 Transcendent or faux-transcendent experiences aren't only dismissed because they're hokey -- to some, they seem to be downright unpatriotic. Still, in spite of the noise and in between the zealots, attitudes are quietly changing. if polls are any indication, the average American is more open to the idea of medical marijuana than ever before. The dialogue has never broken free from the larger drt~ war discussion, but it has cooled off some. On a case-by-case basis, we seem to be remembering that we don't want our loved ones' chemotherapy worse than it has to be, and that in fact we, or our friend, or our aunt, has smoked quite a bit of pot for quite a long time, and nothing bad has happened yet. Getting a physician's recommendation. from Ellis may have been easy, but getting him on the phone for an interview is another story. It isn`t until a month after my visit that he agrees to talk. "What were you doing before this?" I ask. "I was at emergency rooms," he says. "Which ones?" "Various emergency rooms in the Bay Area," he says. He won't say how many patients he's seen since opening the office in July -- "let's say several. hundred," he finally tells me. Nor will he say how many are ultimately granted recommendations. Iget the impression most walk away satisfied. "What about fakers?" I want to know. Ellis assures me that fakers don't make it to the examination. room. "They realize it's a l.egititnate medical. setting and go home," he says. "They can't get in without supporting documentation." Itell Ellis that I was not asked for supporting documentation. He says he has since changed that policy, though I sense that he did so reluctantly. "We don't [require supporting documentation] in the E.R.," he says. "People come in complaining of a headache, we go over to an open cabinet and they leave with a shot of Demerol in their butt." "And. that's unfair?" I ask. "Marijuana is much more benign than conventional narcotics," he says. We talk about his history. Ellis graduated from the University of Illinois medical school at Chicago in 1978, he says. His work as an emergency physician exposed him to "a real. need" for better pain management strategies. A few seminars on medical. marijuana persuaded him to look into alternative treatments. If Ellis was uneasy at the beginning of our conversation, he's in a gallop by the end. I ask why so few California doctors are recommending marijuana for pain four years after the passage of 21.5. They re afraid, he says. They re afraid of the [California] Medical Board, and of their peers, and possibly of potential legal ramifications ... even though they're clearly protected by the law." It's the California Medical Baard that gets Ellis fired up. "They've been officially silent [on medical marijuana], but behind closed doors they've been harassing physicians," he says. "That's the bottleneck on 21.5. Patients can't get their does to prescribe medicinal. marijuana, even though. the law allows for this. In California, you. might find 1 in ],000 doctors" who would. Ron Joseph, the board's executive director, calls Ellis' charges ridiculous. "It's a nice fallback," Joseph says, "but I defy him to cite one case where the board has harassed a single doctor." As Joseph tells it, it's not the board's policy to have an official position on medical marijuana -- it would just as soon have a position on X-rays. "We don't say whether it's good or bad, appropriate or inappropriate," he says. "We simply ask, 'Has the physician applied good judgment?"' Because the board's procedure is simply to investigate a "physician's actions as they're brought to our attention [by a patient]," he says, it has no incentive to bother doctors who are prescribing marijuana. So why aren't more doctors prescribing marijuana? Joseph blames the government. "The chilling effect has come from federal [agencies]," he says. "Doctors might be afraid of losing their DEA permit" (which allows them to prescribe controlled substances). 35 7 5A-44 As for Ellis' objection to the liberal distribution of Demerol in the E.R., compared with the paucity of marijuana prescriptions in the doctor's office, Joseph. says an E.R. deserves its own standards. "It's a much different situation," he says. "There's little time to make the diagnosis [in the E.R.]. This is not the case in an office visit where the patient has the opportunity to explain his medical history." If a patient is able to obtain a physician's recommenda#i.on, he or she must next join a buyer's club. The Oak and Cannabis Buyer's Club is a mile from my house, so I swing by on a Saturday. Like Ellis' office, the OCBC is also low-rent, but it makes up for it in atmosphere. if Ellis' operation was film noir, the Co-op is Cheech & Chong plus "Beaches." The store mixes earnest compassion for the ~~ ill. with a healthy appreciation for fat, leafy weed. Inside, past the pipes and bongs and vaguely pornographic poster of a luscious green. bud, a woman at a counter sorts membership files. (The club has roughly 4,000 members, executive director Jeffrey Jones tells me later, but it's hard to count. Why? I ask. "We don't know h.ow many are dead," he replies.) The woman at the counter gives me paperwork and takes my physician recommendation, acopy of which I`d already faxed in for approval. I do the paperwork and pose for my photo and pay the fee. My $21.95 entitles me to a list of active dispensaries, support in the event of police trouble, free massages and regular cultivation seminars. Cultivation? I ask. I can grow up to 48 plants, they say --beyond that it's risky. My new member I.D. is my "shield." If a cop stops me for possession, I need only flash the card. If that doesn't work, the officer is to call the 24-h.our phone number on the back, and the club will vouch forme. "But this is legal, right?" I ask. "Weil," they reply, "yes. But call if there's a problem." I'm out in 10 minutes, but still. without pot. This is because an injunction keeps the club from. selling it. When the government went after buyer's clubs in 1948, it went after the six biggest. No attempt has been made to close the others that sprang up subsequently, Jones tells tne. And nothing keeps the OCBC from. directing the to an active dispensary two blocks away. "Wh.y did the government pick on some pot clubs and not others?" 1 ask Jones. Surely it knows about the other dispensaries. "Vdho knows?" he says. "Maybe they wanted a martyr." "But nobody's going to respond to martyrdom when it comes to getting marijuana," I say. "Then maybe we were doing too good a job helping people," he says. The unmarked dispensary two blocks away is to pharmacy as Bates Motel is to Ritz-Carlton. Metal gratings cover the windows of the ol.d building, which begs for a paint job or some dynamite work. A guard stands out front and thoroughly inspects my paperwork before sending me inside to the next guard, who also thoroughly inspects my paperwork.. Then I'm sent to a desk, where I fill out more paperwork, show my OCBC card, put a dollar in a jar and gain access to the next room. The next room is un-American. It's how Amsterdam is described among teenagers, a perversely legal assortment of illegal things: pot plants, pot brownies, pot cookies, pot seeds and, of course, pot. fLalf a mile from the Oakland. Police Department, two glass counters full of dope and a promising back raom await anyone with an OCBC card and some cash. There is no catch. I experience the brief heartbreak of poorly timed access -- this kind of opportunity would've been great back when I liked pot -- but mainly I'm glad people who need it can get it. I buy an eighth of an ounce of the good stuff, not the great stuff. It's $45. The guy behind the counter is nice like a nurse. The place isn't a neighborhood drugstore -- no matter how medicinal your marijuana, it's still pot, and pot culture is irrepressible -- but there's no Pink Floyd or opium-den decadence, either. 36 75A-45 On the wall is a mural of a s~.mny Oakland park, full of relaxed people in various stages of illness. They appear positively pain-free. The night I begin writing this article, I turn my head and the old ear pain shoots back. It's mild at first, then heavier. The pain isn't really inside the ear, but rather right where my ear hits my head. It hurts when I push on it and when 1 move. 1 decide it's time to take my medicine. l don't really get high anymore. Back when I did, I never experimented with pot's medical potential. 1 dig out a pipe and get to work. The f rst thing I do is underestimate how strong it is. I take two big hits, then sort of wally around, then take tyro more. The high is always indistinguishable from the ritual in the first three minutes, so it's a while before 1 know what's what. I sit and begin writing. 1 get up and look for something. I find. incense in a drawer and light that. I sit and. write some more. The pot is strong. My head is light, or heavy. I get up and put the incense out. A piece rolls behind the couch, still burning, and the house almost burns down. 1 find the piece. I sit down to write again and then remember to see if my ear hurts. It does. But not as much. I think. Does marijuana just make you too stoned to evaluate pain? This would be dumb. I consider Ellis. It's hard to conclude anything about him, for he's as ambiguous as every other element of the medical marijuana question. In a city of either conservative or craven doctors, he's taking a chance. Those who take chances to improve the lives of the sick and dying are heroic. But at the same time, it wasn't just the sick and dying in that waiting room. Ellis, like many medical marijuana advocates, is breathless on the subject. He perceives an injustice perpetrated by the medical establishment and by the federal government. If he`s occasionally quixotic on the issue -- the executive director of the California Medical Board can't imagine what Ellis is tilting at -- one can infer that he's either dramatic or tired of seeing people in pain. Finally, what will happen to a doctor in a tiny office who flouts federal law on the back page of the San Francisco Bay Guardian? Is he in danger? "I don't know," Jones from the OCBC had said. "Is a bug that flies into the light in danger?" Because he's working with other information, or because he's blinded by the light, Ellis himself isn't scared. "They'd be crazy if they bothered me," he'd told me, before getting off the phone to see another patient. (Source htt~//drugandhealthinfo org/pa~e02.php?ID=6) Another Doctor found through Internet research; NCit'1'}~fJ S[~~t,,~1 fJ.' weftrae5s Counsrri~nr ~ ~i,7e~na~rye A.fen~•-i^a fi:~Ii~~rrria E,icerrs6 ~A~31476 your Appointment There are four things yuu should bring with you; 1) Any paperwork regarding your condition, including doctor reports, treatment notes, and paperwork with your diagnosis. The doctor is here to give you a second opinion. Any health history paperwork helps the doctor understand what your primary diagnosis is. Our doctors are here to provide you with a second opinion, therefore you must have seen a physician recently for the condition you use marijuana to treat in order to be evahiated. 37 75A-46 We are happy to refer you to a tow cost medical clinic so that you may receive a check up. Please call and ask our office staff for the number to one of these locations. 2) Any medications or prescriptions (you may bring the bottles with their prescription labels), any supplements or over-the-counter herbs, vitamins, etc. We are interested in knowing what you regularly use to alleviate your condition. 3} Cali;orn:a Driver's License or Calif®rnia I,D• Card: You must be able to prove California residency. This is a California law. We must see a photo l.D. proving residency here in the state of California. 4 Please brin the a ro riate fees to a for ~ow• visit. At this tune our office is not acc~tink checks or credit cards If,~ayment is an issue please speak with our office staff. http :!/www, howardstreethealthapti ons. corn/ This is Dr. Milan Hopkins in Upper Lake; Are you concerned about your health and looking for an old-fashioned. doctor who will. take the time to listen? One who is up-to-the-minute on new medical developments and understands your needs? You'll. find a caring non judgmlentai doctor accepting IVIedi-Cal, Ivledi-Care, Tribal Healthcare & other types of insurance. Also included on site is Leah, a certified massage and bodywork therapist. Please call to get affordable fees {Fees based on a sliding scale). Cannabis Fees and Requirements Due to the legalities surrounding a medical recommendation for cannabis; patients are required to provide Dr. Hopkins with the following documentation: Primary Physician Information: If you have a primary care physician, we request that you discuss with him/her your desire for a cannabis recommendation. We require the name, telephone number, and mailing address of your physician. If possible please bring any medical records you. may have that would support your medical conditions. The California State Medical Board. has decreed that the physician issuing a recommendation for medical cannabis must either assume responsibility for all aspects of the patient's care, or must consult with the patient's primary physician prior to issuing the recommendation. Identification: Please bring with you some form of pictured identification. Fee• The initial consultation and recommendation fee for medical cannabis is $175.00 to be maid at the time of service (We do not except checks or bank card pavments) Six Month Check-Up: The doctor requests that his patients return ever 6 months, the fee for this visit is $60.00 to be paid at time of service. It is require by the California State Medical Board that cannabis patients be under the continual care of the prescribing doctor. Annual Renewal: Your recommendation will need to be renewed every year for $125.00 with a 6 month. check-up. If you missed your 6 month check-up it will be $175.00. http~l/www. dochop.com/ 38 75A-47 1ONews Exposes 'Marijuana Doctors' POSTED: 4:39 pm PDT July 6, 2006, UPDATED: 12:41. pm PDT .tiny 7, 2006 SAN DIEGO -- Doctors Offer Legal Pot Proposition 215 -- the medical marijuana initiative approved by voters ten years ago, has been subverted, abused and misused say law enforcement agencies our I-Team lzas spoker. with. Prop. 2'. 5 is supposed to provide seriously iL1 people access to marijuana to help relieve their pain but a l ONews investigation discovered just about anyone can get pot legally if they want. 10 News became interested. in medical. marijuana after seeing a Iarge number of advertisements for doctors prescribing pot. These pot does' ads appear every week in the San Diego Reader. Discussions with lONews sources both. in and out of law enforcement seemed to confznn a disturbing pattern of increasing sales by the pot docs as well as an increase in the number of distributors for the medical marijuana. This launched atwo-month l ONews investigation into exactly what was going on. We used staff members to go into doctor's office and see how difficult it was to get a referral for pot.. It was very easy. Too easy in fact, say law enforcement sources. it tunled ou.t both federal and local agencies are also looking into the process. Th.e l ONews I-Team. was able to acquire some government surveillance tapes used to document how different doctors would discuss with patients the benefits of marijuana. One shows an undercover officer and a Dr. Robert Stealer, discussing pot. I assure you Tylenol is more of a risk. to you and a hazard than is cannabis," said Dr. Robert Steiner. Steiner was doing one of his "legi.timate and affordable medical marijuana evaluations as advertised in the Reader. "It's open drug dealing with legitimacy," said Deputy District Attorney Dana Greisen. Greisen said doctors are recommending marijuana to just about anyone who can afford a doctor's visit. "It's being recommended for insomnia, depression (and) azixiety," said Greisen. "The law is being abused in a massive scale," said Greisen. The people using the marijuana aren't suffering from cancer, AIDS or other serious illnesses, which Proposition 215 is supposed to address. It was approved. by voters to "ensure that seriously ill Californians have the right to use marijuana for medical purposes." Dr. Steiner claimed no downsides to using marijuana ou the law enforcement video. "We have two convincing studies that cannabis does not cause lung cancer. Cannabis regenerates brain. cells," said Steiner. The undercover agent then asked if he could also get pot for his dog. "He's got arthritis. He whines at night because of the pain," said the undercover agent. "Again, it is perfectly acceptable far pups," said Steiner. Dr. Alfonso Jimenez has a Web site -- Medical Marijuana of San Diego -- where patients can register far his services online. What happened when we sent our testers in? "He was just laid- back and friendly. (He) didn't really seem to worry about if h.e was giving me this for the right reasons or not," said tester number one. He went to Jimenez for back pain he doesn't have. He got his referral and could have purchased pat. legally. lONews never did purchase any marijuana even after the doctor's approval. "There's a line behind zne coining out of the door, said tester number one. DDA Greisen said it's all about the money. "We had a doctor recently {who) testified he gave out about 2,000 recommendations in last year -- that's what he testified. to in court -- at $230 approximately. You do the math -- that's $500,000 in cash," said Greisen. Greisen said most office calls are paid for in cash. 39 75A-48 That's what another I ONews employee had to do. He paid $125 to have Steiner recommend marijuana for his "sleeping problems." "They just let me in the office. (They) kind of started giving me all these facts about medical marijuana before they even knew what was wrong with me," said tester number two. Tester two would get his marijuana if he went to another doctor first to document his condition. "He (Dr. Sterner) referred the to a doctor who would have me in and out real quickly. I could come right back, (and) he would be able to sign off on the recommendation. Once people get their recommendations, l ONews discovered there's no limit or control. as to hoix~ much marijuana they can. buy from storefronts called dispensaries. Legal Loophole? You don't have to suffer from a serious illness to buy medical marijuana from dispensers. 1 ONcws investigators were able to get approval for marijuana from two doctors -- Dr. Robert Sterner, who has an office near Lindbergh Field, and Dr. Alfonso Jimenez in downtown San Diego. They got me through pretty quick," said tester number one, a I ONews employee. With a recommendation from a doctor, the staffers would be able to get marijuana that is sold at dispensaries across San Diego County. Tester number two, another lONews employee, was sent into the doctor's offices and said, "I went to two different places, and within thirty minutes I got some (referrals). It seemed pretty easy." These marijuana recommendations can be filled at twenty different storefronts selling pot, and unlike a regular prescriptions, a patient can use the recommendations more than. once. A pattern is developing. Patients get recommendations," said Dep. District Attorney Dana Greisen. These recommendations are like a blank check. According to l ONews findings, one person received a recommendation. with permission. to grow 75 marijuana plants..Each plant has the street value of $1,000. The same person received permission to purchase five pounds of marijuana. With that amount, a person can smoke a joint every two hours for 24 hours a day and seven days a week, taking mare than a year to go Through all of that marijuana. Dr. Larry Pohl said what some of his colleagues are doing is not proper medicine. He said patients sometimes need lab work, X-rays or meetings with specialists. Pohl said marijuana is not acure-all. "It's definitely not consistent with standard medical care, said Pohl. Dr. Jimenez has several offices and we talked to him by phone at his Hawaii location, he told lONews that he only provides a referral for patients with medical illnesses. Jimenez's operates a Web site MedicalMarijuanaOfSanDiego.coin. When lONews visited Dr. Sterner, he explained he had to see patients and. closed his office door. But there is another loophole in the system, called the primary care giver form. Taking Advantage Of Proposition 215 "It is a legalization of marijuana. It's going to encourage drug use," said San Diego County Sheriff Bill Kolender. ".It is going to be helping people who are really sick and need a medicine that has been used for 5,000 years," said one Proposition 215 supporter. These were two very different predictions made 10 years ago after Prop. 215 was approved by Californians. Kolender was right, if you ask Dep. District Attorney Dana. Greisen. "Over the last year, we saw a proliferation of these recommendations, said Greisen. He says just about anyone can get marijuana. And to make matters worse, he says, doctors hand out blank primary caregiver forms. These forms allow patients to list anyone they want to be a caregiver. It allows this person to purchase or grow marijuana for them. lONews Investigations sent in two staffers to check Greisen's claims. And it was as the assistant district attorney had claimed. Our staffers were given. blank caregiver forms. I ONews learned that one person named his dog as a caregiver, 40 75A-49 As part of the investigation, IONews nominated a bird named Riggo as a caregiver. "The doctors -- because they're giving it to so many people -- are basically legalizing marijuana one doctor and patient a.t a time," said Greisen.. (Source: http•//www 10news com/news/9480300/detail.html) Who is Ken Estes you ask? Ken Estes is a long time proponent of Medical Marijuana who has or has had interests in at ].east four Medical Marijl.:ana Dispensaries, all of ~~~hich have come tinder law enforcement and media scrutiny. When Pot Clubs C:o Bad: Ken Estes just wants to share the miracle of medical marijuana. Everyone else just wants him to go away. By Chris Thomson Article Published Jul 24, 2002 Neighborhood lore has it that before Ken Estes set up his medical-marijuana club, the property used to be a whorehouse. The neighbors wish it still was..Back. then, the customers walked in, took care of business, and got out. Bad shit never went down at central Berkeley's local brothel. -- certainly nothing like what happened on the afternoon of June 5. At 2:37 p.m., roughly ninety minutes before closing time, a gray Honda pulled. to the curb and two Latino men got out the car and stepped up to the guard. One topped out at 250 pounds and wore a plaid button-down shirt; the other was a skinny kid ul a. T- shirt. The guard walked back to the door, and shouted for Estes' brother that there were two guys at the door to see Ken. His brother cracked open the door, took a look, and leaned back to yell for Estes. At that point, the guard noticed the two men creeping up to the door. "No no, you can't come in here!" he reportedly shouted. Then he saw the gun. Iv1r. Plaid jammed a black pistol into the guard's back, and the T-shirt pulled out a kitchen knife with afour-inch blade. According to the po}ice report, they forced the guard through the door, rushed into the club, and screamed at everyone to lie face down on the floor. Everyone did except for one man, awheelchair-bound patient who had come to get his legally prescribed dose of reefer and now had a gun in his face. The two men trashed the place and finally found the stash after prying open a locked file cabinet. As terrified neighbors called the cops, the thieves ran out of the club, jumped in the car, and floored it. It was the third armed robbery at 1.672 University Avenue in ten months. You get into a lot of creepy stuff when you hang out with Ken Estes. You get burglaries; armed robberies, police raids, and felony charges. You also get allegations of cocaine dealing, tax .fraud, and spousal abuse. The thing is, Ken's a really nice guy. With a tanned :face defined by a sandy goatee, long blond hair, and a disarming air of candor and vulnerability, he seems the very picture of California easy living. lt's only when you notice the wheelchair supporting his shriveled legs, or the limp handshake born of two decades of nerve damage, that you catch a glimpse of the tragedy that has been his companion since 1976. Shortly after a motorcycle accident left Estes paralyzed below his chest, he became a devoted advocate of medical marijuana. He carefully organized his club to offer every possible comfort to the sick or dying. Berkeley Medical Herbs, which didn't exactly traffic in St.-John's-wort, operated out of a cute little cottage that neighbors cal] the "hobbit warren." 41 75A-50 A modest wooden fence fronts the street and a path leads through a mulch lawn to a white security door. Beneath the rich, sloping redwood ceiling, a spacious brick. fireplace keeps patients toasty-warns in the winter. Once a week a woman comes in and provides free massages on a table in the corner. And unlike other East Bay poi clubs, most of which stress a clinical pharmacy's atmosphere, patients can sit down and light up right there, beneath rustic paintings of Jimi, Janis, and .Terry. If it weren't for the crime that has plagued his club's operation, Estes might be the patron saint of Berkeley stoners. "We have the best prices ar~d the best medicine." he boasts. "If you know buds; we l.~ave the bomb." But ever since Estes first got involved in the medical-marijuana movement, rnen with drugs, guns, and evil intent have followed. him everywhere he goes. They have robbed him, exploited his generosity, and endangered the lives of everyone around. him -- even his three children. But "Compassionate Ken, as his friends call him, doesn't seem to learn. He always picks the wrong friends. At least that's Ken.'s side of the story. His estranged. lover, Stacey Trainor, told a darker version. to the Contra Costa dishict attorney's office. She alleged that Estes is a former coke dealer who lied to secure his club's Lease, that he has a Berkeley doctor i.n his pocket who wil] sell pot prescriptions for $215 a pop, and that up to thirty percent of his customers buy his product without any medical notes at all. Police and University Avenue merchants, meanwhile, claim that high-school kids used to line up for a taste outside Estes' club, and that his security guards scared away neighborhood shoppers and even got involved. in Eghts on the street. His fellow cannabis-club operators even tried to drive Estes out of town. Whether Estes is a character out of The French Connection or one out of The Gang That Couldn't Shoot Straight, he couldn't exist without the peculiar politics of Proposition 215, which decriminalized medical marijuana in California. In the six years since its passage, mayors, district attorneys, and state officials have been so focused on protecting patients from federal prosecution that they've neglected to implement any sort of regulations about how pot should be distributed. No state or local agency or mainstream medical group has offered any comprehensive guidelines on who should hand out pot in what manner. As a result, medical pot is not just legal, but superlegal, perhaps California's least-regulated. ingestible substance. And yet marijuana remains a powerful intoxicant with a vast underground market, one whose dealers inhabit a shadowy criminal world populated by dangerous men. In the absence of official regrzlation, it has fallen to pot- club operators themselves to craft some sort of system. Over the last six years, groups like the Oakland Cannabis Buyers Cooperative and the Alliance of Bcrk.eley Patients have, through a series of trials and sometimes embarrassing errors, arrived at a protocol for verifying medical ailments, providing security from criminals, and operating safely in quiet residential and commercial. neighborhoods. But however sensible their rules may be, they have no means of forcing club operators to abide by them. Al] they have is a gentlemen's agreement. Ken Estes broke that agreement, whether by design or neglect. And no one may have the legal power to make him stop. Estes is that rare breed of Bay Area native who spent his teenage years here i.n the '70s and didn't smoke pot. Bom in Martinez, he moved to Concord and became a star athlete at Ygnacio Val.iey High. He excelled at soccer and was offered a scholarship to Santa Clara University, but that all changed one day in 1976, a month after he graduated from high school. Estes was riding his motorcycle back from a Walnut Creek N1cDonald's, where he worked as a manager, when a car swerved into his lane and hit him head on. 42 75A-51 Estes flew over the car and. broke his neck. The damage was so extensive that for the next two years, he couldn't even. move his arms. He struggled through physical. therapy hoping to regain just enough mobility to kill himself. Estes was wracked with chronic pain, living in a reh16 center anal dependent on others to bathe anal clothe Trim. The morphine and. the pills didn't help, and he began to waste away. "I probably got down to a hundred pounds, at~d I'm. six feet," he says. "I couldn't eat, 1 couldn't sleep, the physical pain was horrible, a nightmare. But about six or eight months into it, a group of Vietnam vets I was in rehab with were smoking ,marijuana. They said,'Look, man, we know you're not eating or sleeping, why don't you come over here with us?' 1 said no, 'cause I was still thinking about keeping my body clean. But they said, 'Man, they're popping pills in you and morphine. This is a lot less than that.' So I said, 'Alright, lemme smoke.' That night, I slept all. night. When I woke up, I ate. They brought the doctors in, they said, 'Laokit, he's eating?' My doctor wrote it on the chart, he wrote that this marijuana i.s doing what you want the pills to do." After that first toke, Estes put his life back together. He regained limited use of his arms, enrolled in junior college, and by the early'80s was offered another scholarship, this time to UC Santa Cruz. Estes decided instead to open a string of tanning, hair, and nail salons in Concord and Davis. He met his future girlfriend Stacey Trainor while she was working at a mini mart next to one of his salons. I kept coming over there, and she would always have the banana drink ready for tne, get the burrito ready," he says. Within a month of their first date, Trainor left her husband and moved. in with Estes. Together they would raise three children. But something always bothered Estes. Before he began growing his own, he typically took his business to Haight Street or Telegraph Avenue. It was a dangerous pastime; just because he wanted to relieve his discomfort, he was mugged three times and. occasionally suffered the indignity of being dumped out of his chair. In the'SOs, as AIDS swept through fhe country, Estes began clipping press accounts of "Brownie Mary," the elderly woman who used to walk the halls of San Francisco General Hospital, handing out marijuana-laced treats to the terminally ill. Slowly, he began to think that this wasn't just a drug, but a cause. In 1.992, he signied over his share of the salons to his business partner and started distributing pot, going to demonstrations, and working to decriminalize medical cannabis. "Everyone thought I was crazy, but I said I wanted to -pursue this," he recalls, "I'm tired of being looked at as a doper, as a pothead, as somebody less than somebody else because I used marijuana." Yet as .Estes became a fixture in the medical cannabis scene, his life became increasingly chaotic and dangerous. At the very time that Proposition 215 liberated thousands ofinedical-marijuana smokers from prosecution, Estes began a long, almost farcical slide into crime. Even scoring on street corners didn't compare to what was to come. "No guns in the face at that point, he says of his early years. "That came later, with. the medical-marijuana movement." Estes began his cannabis activism by volunteering at the Oakland Cannabis Buyers cooperative. From the beginning, the ca-op has been at the cutting edge of the movement; where San Francisco clubs have a looser, anarchic spirit, it's all business at the Oakland Co-op, whose members have pioneered security and medical protocols with a determined air of professionalism. Jeff Jones, the co-op's executive director, doesn't even smoke pot. Growing up in South Dakota, Jones watched his father waste away and die from a terrible illness and vowed to find a way to bring medical marijuana to the terminally ill. Jones first joined the co-op in 1995 and soon found himself making home deliveries of dope to AIDS and cancer patients. 43 75A-52 If Estes is a creative but befuddled libertine, Jones is rigid and dogmatic. Frorn the start, the two rubbed one another the wrong way. After passage of Proposition 215, the co-op emerged. from the shadows and began distributing pot out in the open. But no one had any idea how to go about it. There were simply no rules; one day medical pot was illegal, the next day it wasn't. Proposition 215 is one in a long series of brief, poorly conceived initiatives whose implementation has proven to be a giant headache. The "Compassionate Use Act of 1996" offers no guidance on how pot should be distributed.; indeed, the initiative is a si;lgle page in length and merely encourages the federal and state governments to "implement a plan. to provide for the safe and affordable distribution of marijuana to all patients." Six years later, no one in Sacramento has figured out what this means. No state agency has ever issued. binding directives on how to distribute pot, or to whom. Until the California legislature passes a law to govern distribution, neither the attorney general nor the state health department. has the legal authority to innovate any such protocols. "Proposition. 215 did not address prescriptions,'" says Hallye Jordan, spokeswoman for Attorney General Bill Loclcyer. "The initiative did not authorize or spell out any specific scheme for dispensing marijuana. Nor did it say who is entitled. to it, or how much marijuana is required for which ailment. 1 think everyone recognizes that Proposition 215 was not the best-written u~i.tiative. But the voters passed it." With the state paralyzed, it has fallen to local governments to regulate medical marijuana. But most localities have adopted a strictly laissez-faire approach and done virtually nothing to ensure that the distribution of pot adheres to the spirit of Proposition 21.5. The portion of the Berkeley municipal code governing medical pot, for example, is so ridiculously lax that it plays right into the city's worst stereotypes, and yet it's as strict as virtually any other Bay Area city. Although the code limits the amount of pot a club can have on hand, there are n.o provisions limiting how close a pot club can be to a school, or requiring doctors to conduct an actual evaluation of patients, or requiring background checks for pot distributors -- which is standard practice for anyone who wants to run a liquor store. Yet the code does encourage pot clubs to use their best efforts to deternlu~e whether or not cannabis is organically grown.." City Councilmembers Linda Maio and Dona Spring say the city can't even write up a specific-use permit for cannabis clubs, because doing so would violate federal law. The end result is that medicat pot is actually less regulated than candy bars, which must at least have their ingredients printed on the wrapper. Anyone can distribute medical pot anywhere, in any fashion they please, and. virtually no one is watching them. Club operators disagree on whether this is good or bad. Jeff Jones wants the government to step in and bring some common sense to pot's distribution. "We thought the government would get involved in distributing medical marijuana as per the state Iaw," he says. "I never though that f ve or ten years Later, we'd still be operating in a vacuum." Others worry that i.f the state takes a firmer hand, a conservative governor or attorney general might interpret the law so narrowly as to effectively recriminali.ze medical cannabis. But everyone agrees that since the government hasn't set up rules, club operators must police themselves. The Oakland Cannabis Buyers Collective was at the forefront of this effort, keeping and verifying patient records, hiring security guards, and establishing a rigorous dual-identification system, in which patients had to pass through multiple checkpoints. "To be a member, they had to turn in a note from a licensed physician that we could verify," Jones says. 44 75A-53 "Even cancer and AIDS patients had to renew the note every year. They were a little mad about this, but we had to confirm that (heir medical. status hadn't changed, and they still needed our services." Once Oakland officials were assured. that, unlike at San. Francisco clubs, patients would never smoke dope at the site, relations between the co-op and the city have generally been cordial. The city council contracted with the co-op to distribute pot to seven thousand patients on its behalf, and the co-op's membership cards became the definitive means of identifying medical. pot patients throughout the East Bay. Tones even. teaches classes on medical. tnzrijuana to recruits at the Oakland police academy. "We've never given them a reason to question what we're doing here," he says, "The local poi.ice like us because we give them an alternative to going out on the street. Our group have never done anything that has been deemed illegal, and we've never gotten complaints from anyone -- except the federal government." Berkeley's tlu'ee clubs went through the same process, experimenting with various security and patient-verification protocols. In the beginning of 2001, the Berkeley Patients Group on San Pablo Avenue, the Cannabis Buyers Cooperative on Shattuck, anal. the Patients Care Collective on Telegraph. formed the Alliance of Berkeley Patients and agreed upon aten-point platform. This included organizing as a collective or .nonprofit, contacting physicians to confirm a patient's medical. condition, scrupulously keeping patient records, hiring security guards, and maintaining good relations with their neighbors. "We agreed to police ourselves, so we don't have to have any outside regulators that might not have the patient's best interests in mind," says Berkeley Patients Group member Don Duncan. There was just one problem: none of these regulations had the force of law behu3d them. Even the police, hamstrung by a city council cognizant of the overwhelming public support for medical pot, can do virtually nothing to crack down on rogue clubs. If someone wanted. to hand out pot like candy, no one could stop him. His neighbors along University Avenue soon f gored this out. Accounts differ as to what Estes did when he first showed up at the Oakland co-op's door in 1995. Some say he taught the co-op's pot cultivation classes; others claim he weighed out the boggles and sampled the wares to categorize their potency. Estes says he did both. But one thing seems clear: he and Jeff Jones didn't get along. "Jeff always thought Ken should cut his hair -- look more appropriate for you guys, the media," says one co-op member who asked. not to be named. "Ken was like, `You know, I don't have to look right for the press. I'm a patient."' Jones won't say much about what he thought of Estes, but Estes recalls, "Jeff said, 'Look, if you cut your hair, you'll go places around here.' I said, 'C'mon, you're sounding like the people on the streets 1've been dealing with for years. You're sounding like the conservative white guy who doesn't like anyone lookin' different from himself.' So yeah, we had a lot of trouble. I told him one time, 'I wanna get out of my chair and beat your ass."' Whether the Oakland co-op itself was entirely above-board is a matter of some dispute. According to Trainor's statement to the Contra Costa DA, the co-op paid Estes in pot and unreported. cash. "Part of the marijuana he received as payment from the club he would sell to other people, including persons who had no medical prescription for marijuana," her statement reads. Jones denies paying Estes in under-the-table cash, but refuses to comment on whether he paid Estes with dope. Estes claims he received a paycheck, not cash. But he acknowledges the pot-for-labor arrangement. "l got herb for working," he says. "They gave me herb, that was the trade-off. I worked there till it closed, and then I went out and opened my new shop." 45 75A-54 In October 1998, the feds managed to get an injunction prohibiting the Oakland co-op from dispensing marijuana. The co-op fought it all. the way to th.e Supreme Court, where it eventually lost. Jones and his lawyers are preparing a new challenge, but except for a one-month period during which the injunction was Lifted, the co-op has not handed out a dime bag since 1998. Seven thousand patients needed another supplier, anal Estes jumped in to fill the void. But he needed customers, so Trainor says Estes called a friend who worked there, This employee gave Estes the names, addresses, and phone numbers of (ive hundred patients, and Estes soon started drumming up customers- No one at the co- op knew the two had done this; certainly the patients had no idea that their confidential information was being bandied about like just another mailing list. Estes concedes he made no effort to call their doctors anal confirm their medical condition -- he just started. making deliveries to anyone with a card from the Oakland club. By the time that Estes went into business for himself, he, Trainor, and their three children had moved to a house in Concord, where he began. growing pot to supply his growing army of patients. On September 20, Concord police officer David Savage took a cal]: Estes' neighbor claimed that she could see a bumper crop of pat plants growing in his backyard. Savage stopped by and peeked over the fence. Later that afternoon, he returned with a search warrant. Savage's police report indicates that he found pot everywhere. He found roughly fifty plants in a makeshift greenhouse in the backyard. He faund an elaborate hydroponics system in the garage; behind sheets of dark plastic, dozens of plants were growing on plastic trays and. in children's swimming pools; grow lights wheeled back and forth on a track hanging from the ceiling. He found baggier of weed stuffed in desk drawers and scattered along the floor, and plants hanging in the closets. In the master bedroom, underneath a crib where one of the children slept, Savage found two garbage bags with dried marijuana in them. "None of the growing and dried marijuana was in a secure place," Savage wrote in his report. "Most of the marijuana was accessible to the children in the residence. Estes told [me] he was not concerned with the children having access to the marijuana because 'They know it is for daddy."' Estes denies leaving bags of dope near his children's cribs. But Savage didn't la~ow what to do with Estes. Estes had an Oakland co-op card certifying him. as a patient, as well. as patient records indicating lie was a legally valid caregiver. How much dope did Proposition 215 allow him to have? "They got a judge on the phone, and I talked to the judge," Estes says. "I said, 'Please don't make me pull these plants out. These are good strains with medical benefits."' In the end, the cops confiscated the plants and the gn'owing system, and ratted him out to Child Protective Services. In deference to Proposition 215, they left Estes with three plants and an ounce .for his own use. But Estes complains Savage took all the kind buds, and left him just a bag of leafy shit. Fifteen months later, the cops would be back. By then, Estes had bought some property near Clear Lake, and Trainor had moved up north with the kids, growing more dope in a shed behind the house. Meanwhile, Estes' cousin. Tim Crew had moved into the house to help him grow a crop That dwarfed his prior stash. This period marks the beginning of one of Estes' most foolish habits: keeping massive amounts of drugs and money lying around. "People told me, 'Don't put more than a certain amount in the bank, or you could get in trouble,"' he says. "We had a lot of money, and I kept it with me. I'd hide it in my closet, hide it in my suitcase. I just di.dn't want to put it in a bank." 46 75A-55 As more and more people got hip to Estes' stash, his cavalier attitude would provoke a spate of armed robberies that left laic University Avenue neighbors terrified. The first robbery happened in Concord on January 1, 2000. Neighbors called the cops and reported that several. men had burst out of Estes' house and raced down the street, leaving the door ajar. When Concord officers arrived at the scene, they found that the front door had been forced open. They also found no fewer than 1,780 marijuana plants in various stages of cultivation, even after the break-in. This time, the cops wouldn't be satisfied with confiscating his stash.. The DA charged Estes with four felony counts of possession and cultivation. of marijuana for sale, and wi l probably argue that the volume of pot on hand proved that he was an outright dealer, not a medicinal caregiver. His trial is set to begin. on August 5. With the heat coming down in Concord, Estes eyed Berkeley. Taking out a business license and a zoning permit to sell "herbs and other homeopathic remedies," Estes set up shop at 1672 University Avenue. From the very beginning, Berkeley Medical Herbs was characterized by his permissive business style. Michael "Rocky" Grunner showed up at Estes' door just months into his new operation and handed him a bag of quality product. Estes says Grunner told him. there was more where that carne from, and he was certainly happy to buy it. Grunner began hanging out at the club, and Estes thought everything was working just fine. The massage table was up and ruiming, patients were streaming through the door, the smoke was flowing freely. But over time, a tense, nervous atmosphere infected the club. Finally, Estes claims, a friend came to him and broke the bad news: Grunner was deal.i.ng crank out of the back room. Estes says he promptly threw Grunner out of the club. But the club's neighbors were beginning to wont' about the sketchy new element. Machinist Richard Graham is a longtime area resident and has been known to take a h.it upon occasion.. But he even he draws the line at Estes' way of doing business, A few months after Estes opened the club, Graham dropped off a package mistakenly delivered to the wrong address. When Graham asked the man behind the counter how business was holding up, he offered to set him up with a physician. for $200. "1 asked them how their operation works, and they told me you just need a note from the doctor, and. we have a doctor, and you can. get a note for just about anything," Graham says. "Then he told me the prices, the registration fee to get the note, $200 per year. I got what I thought was an aggressive sales pitch. He said their doctor writ help me get it. He looked at me and profiled me, said'You're 51, you've got arthritis, we can help you.'... I just got the impression that these are people in it to sell marijuana as a business. I didn.'t feel that these were people motivated to help sick people, which I think other people are, It was a decidedly unclinical. atmosphere, let's put it that way." In fact, Estes' operation was so unclinical that it even advertised in the Berkeley Daily Planet. Superimposed over the image of a big fat bud, the club announced that it had plenty of pot for sale, listing killer strains such as "Jack Frost, Mad Max, Romulin, G- Spot, and more." Other club operators groaned in dismay wheza they read the notice: "One-source shopping for all your medicinal needs! First visit, first gram free with mention of this ad?" Soon., kids were lining up outside, neighbors and police report, and the club's busiest hour was between three and four in the afternoon, when Berkeley High students got out of class. "The biggest complaint was the kids going in and out of there," says Lieutenant Al Yuen, head of the Berkeley Police Department's Special Enforcement Unit, which handles narcotics investigations. "We looked. into that and watched kids going in and out. 47 75A-56 We never caught him selling to kids without a card. He claims that the kids had medicinal cards, but he doesn't keep records on who he sells to..,. He was advertising in the papers, he allowed tons of kids going though. his place. He didn`t have a screening process, didn't have security." l.n fact, Trainor told. the DA's office that Estes sold his product to anyone with the cash. She estimated that seventy percent of the club's buyers were patients from the Oal~land co-op, and that the other thirty percent were recreational users. And Trainox alleged that even many of the so-called patients may have had. fraudu.len.t doctor's notes. She claimed that Estes referred everyone without a card to Dr. Frank Lucido, a Berkeley family practitioner who allegedly charged. a fee for every note. "Estes would tell his buyers to go to Lucido, give him $215, and he would give the person a prescription.... Trainor said that regardless of whether a buyer told Estes they had a medical problem or not, Estes would refer the buyer to Lucido to get the prescri.ption." Trainor said she knew how Lucido operated because she went through the process herself. During her interview, she meticulously described her visit from start to finish. "Trainor went to the doctor's office, where she met a nurse who collected $215 from her. She was brought into an exam room, where she waited until. Lucido came u1 and asked her what she wanted. She told him she had a bad back and wanted. a prescription for marijuana. Trainor said the doctor performed a mini physical, checked her blood pressure, and had h.er bend over backward to check the condition of her back.... Lucido then wrote her a prescription for marijuana. Lucido did not ask her questions about treatment or diagnosis from any other physician. Lucido gave her no advice on the amount of marijuana to use and. did not advise her of any other therapy or medication that might treat back problems. Lucido did not tell her to come back for afollow-up exam." Fo.r a while, Estes says, he even accepted photocopies of Lueido's notes, and neighbors used to fmd them littering the sidewalk in front of his club. One neighbor, who asked not to be named, still has a copy of one such note from Lucido's office. The patient is a mere 21 years old and suffers from back pain. Lucido says he used to write such notes and rely on patients to provide verification later. But he says he discontinued that practice two years ago, and now requires independent verification of his patients' ailments from another physician. Lucido says Estes has been a headache for his medical practice. Two years ago, the doctor says, Estes printed business cards that claimed he was working in conjunction with. Lucido. The physician says that as soon as he found. out, he had a lawyer call Estes and tell him to stop making that claim immediately. "I'm not connected with the clubs, and I don't refer people to the clubs," he says. "I'm sure people mention my name, but it's never the case that we work in conjunction with each other." Lucido said he couldn't remember Stacey Trainor. Why is Trainor telling so many tales out of school? It all. began two years ago, when she began an affair with Rocky Gruuner. The feud culminated on August 31, 2000, when Trainor swore out a temporary restraining order against Estes, claiming that Estes threatened to kill her. When the Lafayette cops arrived at his house to serve it, they found more plants growing in the basement. Back went Estes into the pokey, and the cops even raided the club and seized product and financial. records. Two months later, Lafayette narcotics agents raided Grunner's own. house and seized seventeen pounds of marijuana. Trainor eventually broke off her affair. Grunner could not be reached for comment. Six months ago, as Estes became the subject of a Contra Costa district attorney investigation, Trainor met with assistant district attorney Phyllis Franks and county investigator Tony Arcado. 48 75A-57 Over the course of several hours, she told the story of their life together. According to h.er statement, Estes didn't start his new career dealing medical pot --but cocaine. "After selling the tanning salon, Estes earned income by selling cocaine," Arcado wrote in his ~~ summary of Trainor s interview. Trainer [sic] said the income from the cocaine business ran out. in 1993, and Estes switched to selling marijuana." Estes vehemently denies the charge and claims that Trainor, who declined to comment for this story, is lying as part of achild-custody dispute. "That's false, not true at all," he says. "No, I didn't sell th.e salons, l didn't sell cocaine. She was lying because she thought she was moving to Canada with. the kids, and she thought that before she left, she could throw a bunch of stuff in the rnix to mess me up in court, Because she downright hates me for dumping her." It was bad enough when neighbors watched police raid the club and kids line up for weed -- then the robberies began.. On the evening of Friday, October 12, 2001, the club was winding down. after a long day when someone knocked on the door. An employee pulled the door open and stared straight down the barrel of a silver handgun. "We opened up the door, same as for everybody: 'Hey, what's up?"' Estes says. "The guys came in. They put everybody on the ground and took everything." Time was running out for Estes. The kids and the police raids were bad enough, but now men were waving guns around and racing off with drugs. At the time, Estes had no security guards, no iron gate on the door, just a l.ot of cash and pot. Soon, the other pot-club operators came a-callin'. The robbery put new heat on alt of them as City Councilinember Linda Maio started .making noises. Don Duncan from the Berkeley Patients Group visited the club and found it pleasant enough, but Estes had clearly failed to implement even. basic security procedures. "There weren't a lot of people around, the club was fairly deserted, and that was a security challenge," Duncan says. "And the front gate was a problem." When Duncan suggested retaining security personnel, Estes responded by hiring a couple of g~.rys he knew from around town. Neighbors and police representatives claim that this just made things worse. The men were not professional guards, and scared people away from the neighborhood by loitering on the sidewalk during business hours. Estes says the neighbors are giving way to their own racist fears. "If you tall: to them, they're big, soft, easygoing guys," he says. "But unfortunately they're black. And in this society, you think of black as criminal. So the moment you see black people standing around, looking at your ID, I guess it looks like a crack house. I have black friends, and that seems to be held against me. None of the other clubs seems to be scrutinized as much as me." Not only did the guards not sit well with the neighbors, they also didn't stop the crime. On the evening of December 13, 2001, as the guards had drifted back into the club and Estes' employees began stacking the chairs, one last patient, a young woman, knocked on the door. As an employee opened the door for her, he glanced down to his left and saw three men crouched low. The woman turned and walked back to the sidewalk and the men rushed through the door. One pulled out an Uzi submachine gun, and the second robbery in two months was under way. The thieves probably wouldn't have kept coming back i.f there hadn't been so much to steal.. Estes refuses to say how much pot was lost during the first robbery, but he says he kept an average of three pounds of dried marijuana in his store at all times. "Some of it was in ounces, some of it in eighths, prepackaged in a variety of amounts," he says. "Plus we had hash, we had kief, we had oils and other extracts from marijuana. We had baked goods, brownies, carrot cakes, Reese's peanut butter cups that were done like that. 49 75A-58 We had everything." At $65 an eighth, that meant thugs could make off with about $25,000 with one quick hit, to say nothing of the cash he kept on hand. With this, the city had. finally had enough. City Councilmember Linda Maio convened a neighborhood meeting about the club -- which Estes didn't bother to attend -- and told. the rest of Berkeley's cannabis dispensaries to bring their colleague to heel. "I called Don Duncan and his folks and said, you guys have to be part of the solution here," she says. "Tt's not okay that this happens, and it's not acceptable if this is just a rare thing. Don knows that this is not acceptable -- he urdcrstands That this would jeopardize the whole movement if it's allowed to get worse." Estes' new offtce manager, Dorrit Geshuri, sat down with City Manager Weldon Rucker and. police officials, and other Alliance members, and together thev hammered out a series of reforms. On January 2, Geshuri agreed. to the following terms: the club would only operate five hours a day: less than a pound of dope would. be on the premises; newspaper advertising would stop immediately; a professional security company would be retained; and security cameras would be installed. The final robbery on June 5 spelled the end for Ken Estes. Despite his promise not to keep more than a pound of pot at the store, neighbors report that during the getaway, the robbers' duffel bag was so heavy that they had to drag it down to the car. As for- the security cameras, club officials claimed that they had mysteriously broken down that day, and there was no film of the incident. Estes had used up his last store of good. faith, and even the other clubs agreed he had to go. "I don't think Ken is a bad guy, but it's no longer appropriate for him to operate in Berkeley," Duncan says. "The consensus of the Alliance is for Ken to leave the city, to either move on or find another career. That conclusion has been some time in coming. We're happy to have him as a friend, but it's in the best interest of the patients that Ken close for real." Duncan's abandonment h.as left Estes fairly bitrter. "Yeah, they don't want the competition," he says. "They can keep the prices high, and they can control the game. It's business, it's all about business..tf you're Starbuck, you want Peet's out of town." Still., Estes has finally agreed to get out of town.. He, his brother Randy Moses, and Geshuri have signed a lease at a new club in Oakland, near the corner of 18th Street and Broadway, where he promises to tighten up security. The numerous car dealerships have given in this part of town its historic name, "Auto Row," but it should really be called "Pot Row." Virtually all the pot clubs in Oakland are clustered in this neighborhood, and they're not happy to see Estes join them. If Estes waists to defy Janes, his new neighbors, the cops, and the entire city of Oakland, there's not much. anyone can do about it. Linda Maio was at a loss when. it briefly looked like Estes had decided to stay in Berkeley; she ineffectually threatened to circulate a petition and prepare a nuisance complaint. As for, say, an undercover operation to catch Estes selling to customers without a valid doctor's note, she never considered that option for a second, and police won't say whether they did. If this the hest local government can do, Estes is in the clear. But medical. marijuana's era of raw capitalists may be coming to an end. State Senator John Vasconcellos has drafted a new bill regulating the industry, and now that it has the support of both the California District Attorneys' Association and the California State Sheriffs' Association, Govenzor Davis has indicated that he might sign it. The bill would establish a statewide registry of medical-marijuana patients and caregivers, who would receive a card certifying their medical status. Physicians would submit candidates for medical pot to the county Health Department, which would approve or reject applicants based on a review of the accuracy of the medical records. 50 75A-59 The state Department of Health Services would develop regulations that define how much pot dispensaries can grow and store, bypassing the many nebulous questions surrounding how pot clubs currently get their wh.o esale product. Although the bill's primary intent is to protect patients facing reactionary and unjust arrests, the bill could have the secondary effect of regulating cultivators. This may explain why Californians for Compassionate Use, tike organization that thought up Proposition 21 S, has joined the Committee on Moral Concerns in opposing the bill. But get this: the registry system is sirictly voluntary. Vasconcellos' bill is mare focused cn reining in the police, and so ~t barely dwells on reining in medical-pot cultivators. The new cards offer absolute protection. from scary Modoc County sheriffs, but in return both patients anal. caregivers must operate responsibly. For operators in progressive cities such as Berkeley and Oakland, who already can move in the light of day, there's no incentive to sigm onto the deal. And so, through a strange accident of history, marijuana seems likely to remain the least-regulated ingestible substance ul California. Of course, good old-fashioned drug laws may solve the Ken Estes problem for us. Assistant district attorney Phyllis Franks of Contra Costa County is preparing to try Estes on four felonies stemming from the Concord. raids, and if convicted, he'll be out of business. This brings up the final legal question unresolved by Proposition 215: how do prosecutors determine whether someone is a legally sanctioned caregiver, or a drug dealer? The answer is there is no answer. District attorneys around. the state have relied on counting pot plants; if you've got too many, you must be a dealer. How many plants is too many? No one knows. While a handful of cities such as Berkeley have capped the amount of pot cannabis clubs can have on hand, prosecutors more typically eyeball the plants and make a simple judgment call. That's what they've done with Estes, but the system is hardly precise. If Estes is convicted, he will pay a terrible price for this lack of precision; the charges carry a possible prison sentence of three years and. eight months. But his complex reputation also could be laundered overnight. When Estes turned himself in, forty demonstrators accompanied him to the station, and his image -- the martyr of medical marijuana, persecuted by vindictive prosecutors -- was flashed across the nightly news throughout the Bay Area.. Stacey Trainor's allegations aside, Ken Estes seems a kind, generous man, ready to take you into his company at a moment's notice. But nothing out there can protect us from his tendency to trust the wrong people, of whom there are still plenty in the shadowy, twilight world of marijuana. Estes admits he's made some mistakes, and vows to improve his operation. "We began. something here, and we didn't know where it would go," he says. "I've made mistakes in retrospect, but we tried to work it out. Stacey and all that stuff was a big problem -- I had no problems before that. I believe I know who's behind this, the robberies. All this stuff that's gone on has happened since Stacey went to the police, and the police behoved her, They told me that many times women turn on their drug-dealing boyfriends, and this seems like a case of that, I wish I could have hired better people, but I can't say that I would have done anything different. I really didn't foresee the criminal element making its presence like it did. But I can only do so much." And should Estes revert to his old, seat-of his-pants ways, we may have no choice but to put up with. him. www comnassionatecoalition orb/comment/reply/3789 51 75A-60 iVledical marijuana merchant defies Oakland order to close. Othea•s might go underground, as city's new rule gets mixed reaction from consumers, business owners Oakland Tribune (CA) Wednesday, June 02, 2004 By Laura Counts, STAFF WRITER OAKLAND -- Medical marijuana patients who packed into the Dragonfly Holistic Solutions dispensary on Telegraph. Avenue on Tuesday seemed. unaware the business h.ad been told by the city to shut down. They said they were seeking the most potent medicine in town -- a strain of marijuana called "Barney Purple" -- and didn't like hearing that new city rules will limit them to four city-sanctioned establishments. "If you enjoy feeling pain-free, this is the place to be," said Sullivan Wallace of Oakland, who says he has a cannabis prescription to fight chronic pain and anxiety. Seven existing dispensaries and one proposed club had applied for the four business permits available. After a series of hearings and several delays, the clubs were notified Friday afternoon whether they made the cut. Those that received licenses wil] have to pay a $20,000 annual fee. Those that did not were supposed to close Tuesday. Dragonfly did not make it, but owner Ken Estes said he will continue to operate in def7ance of city rules until. he is arrested. He planned a protest outside the dispensary Tuesday morning, but the only sigms of one emerged when the doors to the club opened 15 minutes late. "There is some kind of discrimination. going on behind the scenes," Estes said. "Or else the city is out of touch with the patients, because we are the preferred club. When we opened, we forced prices down and brought in higher quality (than the other clubs)." Other club owners, including some who were issued permits, criticized the city's process as arbitrary and complained that three days wasn't enough notice for them. or the employees on their payrolls. Still, no one except Estes continued business as usual. One dispensary owner contended there are clubs that did not even apply for a city permit and may try to operate under the radar. "There are some who chose not to pay $300 and sign a confession, said Richard Lee, owner of the Bulldog Cafe, who got a permit for his cafe on Broadway but not for h.is sma1I SR71 Cafe on 17th Street, according to the city manager's office. Even though Lee received a permit, he contended the process was arbitrary and the four-club limit does not make sense..He plans to move to a larger location to serve the additional. customers the closures will bring. "This thing is getting too big for them to say there can only be four clubs. There are too many people who appreciate getting marijuana in a civilized way," said Lee, one of the backers of an initiative now collecting signatures for the November ballot that would all but decriminalize adult use of marijuana in. Oakland. Sparky Rose, operator oi' Compassionate Access on Telegraph -- which also was approved -- said he serves 7,000 patients and is expecting more. He plans to soon move to a larger location nearby. "It was difficult to gauge what was important to the city when. we were presenting ourselves. There wasn't a lot of transparency in the process," Rose said, adding that everyone was asked for the same information. "They should have extended the deadline, because a lot of clubs have a lot of employees and a holiday weekend. isn't much notice." The city inspected the clubs for code violations, checked for any complaints against them, and asked for information ranging from number of patients to products to prices. 1n the end, according to a letter from the city's Administrative Hearing Officer Larry Carroll to Estes, the city seemed to put more stock on who had. operated the longest. 52 75A-61 The three clubs issued permits in the "uptown" area had operated between two and five years, though. the fourth club on West Grand is a relative newcomer. The Lemon Drop Coffee shop on Telegraph is one of the more established clubs in the area, nicknamed "Oaksterdam," but it did. not receive a permit.. Owner Mark Belote said the well-stocked coffee shop will continue to sell its mochas and pastries, gelatos and cakes, but stop pot sales. "I want to do everything legally. I've always been honest with them., so we'll see what happens," he said. "I have an eight-year lease here, so the cafe will stay open." 1~arry Carr of The Green Door dispensary on Webster Street said he fully expected to get a permit. The building met all code requirements and there were no complaints against the club. It opened last October with the blessing of the city, even. stating it was a cannabis dispensary on its business license. The city renewed its license in February. The Green Door is now seeking an injunction to stay open until it can. get a court hearing..lts owners contend the application process was fraudulent. Under the new rules, denial of permits cannot be appealed, Carroll said. The fu1a1 determination was made by City Administrator Deborah hdgerl.y, who could not be reached for comment Tuesday. As for those that continue to operate in violation, Carroll said, "the city is considering its options." Carroll said he will send final warning letters and may give them a short grace period. However, he noted, "all of those operating without permits are outside of the city's low policing priority with regards to medical marijuana, so the police could take action." The city will. review the new Hiles in six months. Jeff Jones, director of the Oakland Cannabis Buyers' Cooperative -- which issues identification cards but does not dispense -- said he has been advising clubs to follow the rules. "The city is our friend, and we are in this together. They are doing what they feel they need to do," Jones said. "I think the best practice is to close down quietly, and we'll spend the next six months lobbying to increase the limit." http'//www marijuana ors/OaklandTrib6-02-04.htm Marijuana Clubs Question Ethics Of City's Order To Close Friday, May 19, 2006 by Tom Lochner Contra Costa Times Richmond, CA -- With the crafting of a medical marijuana regulating ordinance stalled, the Richmond City Attorney's office has ordered the immediate closure of two cannabis clubs, the only ones known to operate in the city. One, Natural Remedies Health Collective on Macdonald Avenue, promptly closed. The other, Holistic Solutions on Hilltop Mall Road, remained open Thursday. Owner Ken Estes said he hopes to persuade Richmond officials and council. members that his business benefits both patients and the city at large. In acease-and-desist order dated May l 6, Assistant City Attorney Trisha Aljoe told Natural Remedies owner Linda Jackson that failure to comply will result in the filing of criminal charges. Estes said he received a similar letter. With no land-use standards permitting medical. marijuana dispensaries in th.e city, the letter reads, "your continued marijuana operation is in clear violation of the Richmond .Municipal Code and constitutes both a public nuisance per se, as well as a criminal misdemeanor." 3ackson closed her shop Wednesday, but on Thursday, she questioned the legality and ethics of the city's order. "This is taking away my livelihood and putting my patients in. harm's way," said Jackson. 53 75A-62 She also questioned how the city could prosecute her, because no city ]aw specifically addresses cannabis clubs, which are legal under California law --unless the city decides to enforce the federal taw. In 1996, the state's voters approved marijuana for medical use on the recommendation of a doctor. The federal government, however, considers marijuana an illegal drug, with no medical use. Aljoe did not return calls Thursday. The city's administrative chief, Janet Schneider, said the city attorney's office takes the stand that cannabis clubs are illegal since the city code does not explieitl.y permit them. lvloreover, she said, the city's zoning ordinance rules out unlawful activities in general. Richmond's legal stand differs from that of some other Contra Costa cities, which passed urgency moratoriums on the opening of cannabis clubs. Those cities, among them Antioch, Oakley, Pinole and San Pablo, reasoned that without a moratorium, their cities lacked. the legal mechanism to keep cannabis clubs from opening absent any reference to them in their municipal codes. Richmond, too, once had a moratorium; it lapsed in October. A draft ordinance that would limit cannabis clubs to certain commercial areas bounced among the Planning Commission, Public Safety Committee, City Council and city staff for months. On Thursday, the committee declined to adopt a recommendation by the city staff to declare cannabis clubs a "non-permitted use" and referred the matter to the city council. to consider as part of a general plan overhaul. Police Chief Chris Magnus said Thursday that camiabis clubs are a drain on police resources. But earlier this year, Richmond Police spokesman Lt. Mark Gagan quipped that Things were so quiet at Natural remedies he had virtually forgotten it existed. Magnus said there was a burglary at Natural. Remedies in M.ay 2005. But Jackson said that occurred under a previous owner. And at Holistic solutions, Magnus said, Richmond officers observed a steady stream of young people coming and going, causing him to doubt they were there for medical reasons. But Estes said many younger people use medical marijuana far pain resui.ting from injuries and that police should come inside to observe how he checks out h.is patients. Copyright Contra Costa Newspapers Inc. www.hemp. net/news/index.php?arti c1e=1149877045 C1earlake, CA: iVioratorium on marijuana dispensaries (June C, 2006) Submitted by Nathan on Mon, 06/12/2006 - 9:24am. Lake County California Moratorium on marijuana dispensaries Ob/06/200b Denise Rockenstein, Lake County Record-Bee Source: http•//www record-bee.con>/oanews/ci 3906208 Should weed stay or should weed go now? In 1996, Caltfornia voters said that it should stay. Yet, 10 years after the passage of the Compassion Use Act, barriers are still. blocking patients' access to medicinal marijuana. The City of Clearlake i taking a backseat in the movement, placing a moratorium on the issuing of business permits for marijuana dispensaries. It is the city's hope that the issue will be resolved in Federal Court befoxe the moratorium, which has been extended to 10 months, 15 days, is complete. The moratorium prohibits the issuing of business permits for medicinal marijuana dispensaries. Furthermore, it does not provide for renewal of business permits for existing businesses that provide patient access to marijuana medicine. 54 75A-63 The purpose of the moratorium is to allow city staff time to establish zoning regulations pertaining to medical marijuana dispensaries. According the staff report submitted to the council on May 25, "Clearlake currently has no permitted Dispensaries, but the Police Department believes there may be businesses distributing medical marijuana in the City, and that it is likely that persons will seek land use entitlements and permits from the City to distribute medical marijuana." Holistic Solutions, a natural healing center that provides m.edicin.al marijuana, has been operating on Lakeshore Drive in Clearlake for more than a year under City of Clearlake Business License Inc. 4535. Another distributor, Barrett Consulting, which operates Alternative Patient Services out of the Java Express Mall., has been a permitted business in the City of Clearlake for more than four years. In years past, there has not been a particular business license application available in the city that specifically licenses a marijuana dispensary-type business. The city's business application does however, require a description of the type of business for which the license is being sought. Both Holistic Solutions and Barrett Consulting have been. successful in obtaining a business license as well as renewals of those licenses. As with all City of Clearlake business licenses, both will expire on Sept. 30, 2006. °lf something doesn't change before (Sept. 30) I will. be out of business," said James Barrett, Barrett Consulting proprietor who began his business after recognizing a need for local access. He further identified the elderly as being most affected by access barriers, stating that the teenage population basically has unlimited street access to marijuana. "The thing with. the moratorium is that there is going to be a lot of (elderly) patients that can`t get their medicine." Barrett agrees that zoning regulations on medical marijuana dispensaries are needed as does Holistic Solutions co-owner Dave Moses. "Zoning regulations are badly needed," Barrett said, "but, in my opinion, that should have been taken care of in 1997." Moses has extended his assistance to the city staff in establishing regulations on businesses providing medicinal marijuana to patients. Moses, along with his brother Ken Estes, have been involved in the marijuana movement for more than 13 years. Estes, president of Holistic Solutions, began using medical marijuana following a paralyzing motorcycle accident in 1993. "When i was going through my rehab 1 tried marijuana for the first time and it really worked. It did something that the pills weren't doing. It gave me my appetite back and I could sleep," Estes explained from his wheelchair. "The pills were breaking me down and the marijuana was kind of filling me up. Making me eat; giving me a good positive attitude. There are some good characteristics to marijuana that pharmaceuticals long to have." Estes and Moses were instrumental in the establishment of regulations in the San Francisco area where they operate two more dispensaries. An. outline of those regulations has been submitted to city staff. As of Tuesday, June 6, tl~e city has made no attempt to contact either Estes or Moses although they are eager to help put zoning regulations in place. "We want regulation. and control because we believe in that," Moses said.. "We don't think that we should be within 100 feet of a school, or operate all hours of the night, for example, and we would be like to be contributing our fair share to the city's coffers." Although. Moses had requested that the council include in its moratorium authorization for renewal of existing business licenses, his request was denied. However, Mayor Joyce Overton recommended that the item be brought back before the council for a progress update in August. Contact Denise Rockenstein at drockenstein(cr~clearlakeobserver.com. 55 75A-64 RIVERSIDE COUNTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY' S OFFICE WHITE PAPER MEDICAL MARIJUANA: HISTORY AND CURRENT COMPLICATIONS September 2006 Table of Contents: History of Medical Marijuana Federal Law California Law Riverside County Practical Issues in California Conclusion In November of 1996, California voters passed the Proposition 215 initiative. ' The initiative set out to make medical marijuana available to people with certain illnesses. The initiative was later supplemented by the Medical Marijuana Program Act; which was enacted as Senate Bili 420 by the state legislature in 2003 and became effective in January of 2004. Across the state, counties have varied in their responses to medical marijuana. Some counties have allowed businesses to open and provide medical marijuana. Others have disallowed all such establishments within their borders. Several counties once issued business Licenses allowing medical marijuana stores to operate, but no longer do so. This paper discusses the legality of both medical marijuana and the businesses that make it available. History of Medical Marijuana The world history of marijuana for medicinal use is long and varied. Among other illnesses, the Chinese used it to treat gout, malaria and memory. Hindu sects have used it as a stress reliever. Ancient physicians prescribed marijuana for pain, childbirth and earaches. Early Americans used it to treat skin .i.nflammation, rabies, and tetanus.- However, evidence that marijuana lessens the symptoms of any medical condition is largely anecdotal. Additionally, medical marijuana is normally administered by smoking and not a single Federal Drug Administration approved medication is smoked.' Federal. Law Federal law clearly and unequivocally states that all marijuana related activities are illegal. Consequently, all people engaged in such activities are subject to federal prosecution. The United States Supreme Court recently decided, Gonzales v. Raich, (2005) 125 S.Ct. 21.95, making the federal position absolutely plain. The court has declared that, despite the attempts of several states to partially Legalize marijuana, it 75A-65 continues to be wholly illegal since it is classified as a Schedule I drug. As such, there are no exceptions to its illegality. The mere categorization of marijuana as "medical" by some states fails to carve out any legally recognized exception regarding the drug. Marijuana, in any form, is neither valid nor legal. C early the United States Supreme Court is the highest court in the land. Its decisions are final and binding upon ail lower courts. The court invoked the United States Supremacy Clause and the Commerce Clause in reaching its decision. The Supremacy Clause declares that all laws made in pursuance of the Constitution shall be the "supreme law of the land" and shall be legally superior to any conflicting provision of a state constitution or law. s The Commerce Clause states that "the Congress shall have power to regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes."~ Gonzales v. Raich addressed the concerns of two California individuals growing and using marijuana under our state's medical marijuana statute. The court explained that under the Controlled Substances Act marijuana is a Schedule I drug and is strictly regulated. "Schedule I drugs are categorized as such because of their high potential for abuse, lack of any accepted medical use, and absence of any accepted safety for use in medically supervised treatment."K The court ruled that the Commerce Clause is applicable to California individuals growing and obtaining marijuana for their own personal, medical use. Under the Supremacy Clause, the federal .regulation of marijuana, pursuant to the Commerce Clause, supersedes any state's regulation, including Californ.ia's. Th.e court found that the California statutes did not provide any federal defense if a person is brought into federal. court for cultivating or possessing marijuana. Accordingly, there is no federal exception for the growth, cultivation, use or possession of marijuana and all such activity remains illegal.9 California's Compassionate Use Act of 1996 and Medical Marijuana Program Act of 2004 do not create an exception to this federal law. Al.l marijuana activity i absolutely illegal and subject to federal regulation and prosecution. California Law On November 5, 199b, California voters adopted Proposition 215, an initiative statute authorizing the medical. use of ma~~ijuana. "' The initiative added Health and Safety code section 1.1362.5 which allows "seriously i.11 Californians the right to obtain and use marijuana for medical purposes where that medical use is deemed appropriate and has been recommended by a physician ...."1' The codified section is known as the Compassionate Use Act of :1996.'z Additionally, the state legislature passed Senate Bill. 420 in 2003; i.t became the Medical Marijuana Program Act and took effect on January 1, 2004.13 This act expanded the definitions of "patient" and "primary caregiversl~ and created guidelines for identification cards.15 It defined the amount of marijuana that "patients" and "primary caregivers" can possess.' It also created a Iimi.ted affirmative defense to criminal prosecution far qualifying individuals that collectively gather to cultivate medical marijuana.l~ Despite their illegality, the medical marijuana laws in California are specific. The statutes craft narrow affirmative defenses for particular individuals with respect to enumerated marijuana activity. All conduct, and people engaging in it, that falls outside 75A-66 of the statutes' parameters remains illegal under California law. Relatively few individuals will be able to assert the affirmative defense i.n the statute. To use it a person must be a "qualified patient", "primary caregiver", or a member of a "cooperative". Once they are charged with a crime, if a person can prove an applicable legal status, they are entitled to assert this statutory defense. A strict construction of California law The California Attorney General, Bill Lockyer, has also spoken on medical marijuana. His office issued a bulletin to California law enforcement agencies on June 9, 2005. The office expressed the opinion that Gonzales v. Raich did not address the validity of the California statutes and, therefore, had no effect on California law. The office advised law enforcement to not change their operating procedures. The Attorney General made the recommendation that law enforcement neither arrest nor prosecute "individuals within the legal scope of California's Compassionate Use Act." When California's medical marijuana laws are strictly eonsta~ued our two offices come to a point of agreement. We believe that Gonzales v. Raich does afi~ect California law. However, we also acknowledge that the California statutes offer some legal protection to "individuals within the legal scope oP' the acts. The medical. marijuana laws speak to patients, primary caregivers, and true collectives. These people are expressly mentioned in the statutes and, if their conduct comports to the law, may have some state legal protection for specified marijuana activity. Conversely, all medical marijuana establishments that fall outside the letter and spirit of the statutes are not legal; including dispensaries and store-front facilities. These establishments have no legal protection. The Attorney General's opinion does not present a contrary view. Conduct Health and safety code sections 11362.765 and 1.1362.775 describe the conduct for which the affirmative defense is available. If a person qualifies as a "patien.t", "primary caregiver", or is a member of a legally recognized "cooperative" they have an affirmative defense to possessing a defined amount of marijuana. Under the statute no more than eight ounces of dried marijuana can be possessed. Addi.tional.ly, either six mature or twelve immature plants may be possessed.ls Note that if someone claims patient or primary caregiver status, and possesses more than this amount of marijuana, he can be prosecuted for drug possession. The qualifying individuals may also cultivate, plant, harvest, dry, and/or process marijuana; but while still strictly observing the permitted amount of the drug. The statute may also provide a limited affirmative defense for possessing marijuana for sale, transporting it, giving it away, maintaining a marijuana house, knowingly providing a space where marijuana can be accessed, and creating a narcotic nuisance. ~~ However, for anyone who cannot lay claim to the appropriate status under the statutes: all instances of marijuana possession, cultivation, planting, harvesting, drying, processing, possession for the purposes of sales, completed sales, giving away, administration, transportation., maintaining of marijuana houses, knowingly providing a 75A-67 space for marijuana activity, and creating a narcotic nuisance continue to be illegal under California law. Patient Under section ] 1362.5(b)(1}(A}, a patient is anyone a physician has determined will benefit from the use of marijuana in the treatment of cancer, anorexia, AIDS, chronic pain, spasticity, ~laucoma, arthritis, migraine, or any other ill»,ess for which marijuana provides relief zc A physician's .recommendation that indicates medical marijuana will benefit the treatment of an illness is required before a person can claim to be a medical marijuana patient. Accordingly, such proof is also necessary before a medical marijuana affirmative defense can be claimed. 3. Primary Caregiver A primary caregiver is an individual who has "consistently assumed responsibility far the housing, health, or safet of a patient".21 The statutory definition includes some clinics, health care facilities, residential care facilities, and hospices. I,f more than one patient designates the same person as the primary caregiver, all individuals must reside in the same city or county. In most circumstances the primary caregiver must be at least 18 years of age. It is important to note that it is almost impossible for astore-front medical marijuana business to gain true primary caregiver status. Businesses that call themselves "cooperatives", but function like store-front dispensaries, suffer this same fate. In People v. Mower, the court was very clear that the defendant had to prove he was a primary caregiver in order to raise the medical marijuana affirmative defense. Mr. Mower was prosecuted for supplying two people with marijuana.22 He claimed he was their primary caregiver under the medical. marijuana statutes. This claim required him to prove he "consistently had assumed responsibility for either one's housing, health, or safety" before he could assert the defense.' The key to being a primary caregiver is not simply that medical marijuana is provided for a pati.ent's health: the responsibility for the health must be consistent. Any relationship astore-front medical marijuana business has with a patient is more likely to be transitory than consistent. A patient can go to any dispensary he chooses. He can even visit different ones on a single day or any subsequent day. Courts have found that a patient's act of signing a piece of paper declaring that someone is a primary caregiver does not necessarily make them one. The relationship between patient and primary caregiver must be consistent over time. Any business that cannot prove its relationship with the patient meets these requirements is not a primary caregiver. Functionally, the business is a drug dealer and is subject to prosecution as such. 4. Store-front medical marijuana cooperatives and dispensaries Since the passage of the Compassionate Use Act of 1996, many store-Eton. t medical marijuana businesses have opened in the state.24 Some are referred to as 4 75A-68 dispensaries, some as cooperatives; but it is how they operate that removes them. from any umbrella of legal protection. These facilities operate as if they are pharmacies. Most offer different types and grades of marijuana. Some offer baked goods that contain marijuana.'`5 Monetary donations are collected from the patient or primary caregiver when marijuana or food items are received, The items are not technically sold since that would be a criminal violation of the statutes'fi These facilities are able to operate because they apply for and receive business licenses from cities. Federally, all existing store-front medical marijuana businesses are subject to search anal closure since they violate federal law.' Their mere existence violates federal law. Consequently, they have no right to exist or operate, and arguably counties in California have no authority to sanction them. Similarly, in California there is no apparent authority for the existence of these store-front medical. marijuana businesses. The Medical Marijuana Program Act of 20s04 allows patients and primary caregivers to grow and cultivate marijuana, no one else. Although Health and Safety Code section 11362.775 offers some state legal protection for true collectives and cooperatives, no parallel protection exists in the statute for any store-front business providing any narcotic. The common dictionary definition of collectives is Chat they are organizations jointly managed by those using its facilities or services. Legally recognized cooperatives generally possess "the following features: control and ownership of each member is substantially equal; members are limited to those who will avail themselves of the services ftrnished by the association; transfer of ownership interests is prohibited or limited; capital invertrnent receives either- no return nr a limited return; economic benefits pass to the members on a substantially equal basis or on the basis of their patronage of the association; members are not personally liable for obligations of the association in the absence of a direct undertaking or authorization by them; death, bankruptcy or withdrawal of one or more members does not terminate the association; and [theJ services of the association are furnished primarily for the use of the members."2' Medical marijuana businesses, of any kind, do not meet this legal definition. Actual medical dispensaries are commonly defined as offices in hospitals, schools, or other institutions from which medical supplies, preparations, and treatments are dispensed. Hospitals, hospices, home health care agencies, and the like, are specifically included in the code as primary caregivers as long as they have "consistently assumed responsibility for the housing, health, or safety" of a patient.30 Clearly, it is doubtful that any of the store-front medical marijuana businesses currently existing in California can claim that status. Consequently, they are not primary caregivers and are subject to prosecution under both California and federal laws. Riverside County There appear to be four dispensaries currently operating in the County of Riverside: the Healing Nations Collective in Corona, Compassionate Caregivers in Palm Springs, C.A.P.S. in Palm Springs and CannaHelp3i in Palm Dessert. The County of Riverside is currently considering ordinance number 348.4403 which provides for the zoning and licensing of medical marijuana cooperatives in the 75A-69 county, As discussed above, all such store-front medical marijuana businesses are illegal. Consequently, all are subject to criminal prosecution. Practical Issues in California A. How existing dispensaries operate Despite their clear illegality, some cities do have existing and operational dispensaries. Assuming arguendo, that they may operate, it may be helpful to review the mechanics of the business. The former Green Cross dispensary in San Francisco illustrates how a typical medical marijuana dispensary works.' A guard or employee may check for medical marijuana cards or physician recommendations at the entrance. Many types and grades of marijuana are usually available. Sales clerks wil l probably make recommendations about what type of marijuana wrli best relieve a given medical symptom; although employees are neither pharmacists nor doctors. Baked goods containing marijuana may be available and sold; although there is usually no health permit to sell baked goods. The dispensary will give the patient a form to sign declaring that the dispensary is their "primary caregiver" (a process fraught with legal difficulties). The patient then selects the marijuana they want and is told what th.e "contribution" will be for the product. The code specifically prohibits the sale of marijuana to a patient so "contributions" are made to reimburse the dispensary far its time and care in making "product" available. However, if a calculation is made based on the figures in the article, it is clear that these "contributions" can easily add up to millions of dollars per year. That is a very large cash flow fora "non-profit" organisation denying any participation in the retail sale of narcotics. Before its application to renew its business license was denied by the City of San Francisco, there were single days that Green Cross sold $45,000.00 worth of marijuana. On Saturdays, Green Cross could sell marijuana to forty-three patients an hour. The marijuana sold at the dispensary was obtained from growers who brought it to the store in backpacks. A medium-sized backpack would hold approximately $16,000.UO worth of marijuana. Green Cross used many different marijuana growers. It is clear that dispensaries are running as if they are businesses, not legally valid cooperatives. Additionally, they claim to be the "primar}~ caregivers" of patients. This is a spurious claim. As discussed above, the term "primary caregiver" has a very specific meaning and defined legal qualifications. A primary caregiver is an individual who has "consistently assumed responsibility for the housin ,health, or safet of a patient".~'' The statutory definition includes some clinics, health care facilities, residential care facilities, and hospices. If more than one patient designates the same person as the primary caregiver, all individuals must reside in the same city or county. In most circumstances the primary caregiver must be at least 18 years of age. It is almost impossible for astore-front medical marijuana business to gain true primary caregiver status. A business would have to prove that it "consistently had assumed responsibility for [a patient's] housing, health, or safety."~4 The key to being a primary caregiver is not simply that medical marijuana is provided for a patient's health: the responsibility for the patient's health must be consistent. 75A-70 As seen in the Green Cross example, astore-front medical marijuana business' relationship with a patient is most likely transitory. In order to provide a qualified patient with marijuana, astore-front medical marijuana business must create an instant "primary caregiver" relationship with him. The very fact that the relationship is instant belies any consistency in their relationship and the requirement that housing, health, or safety is consistently provided. Courts have found that a patient's act of signing a piece of paper declaring that someone is a primary caregiver does not necessarily make them one. The consistent relationship demanded by the statute is mere fiction if it can be achieved between an individual and a business that functions like a na<~cotic retail store. B. Secondary effects of dispensaries and similarly operating cooperatives Uf equal concern are the secondary effects of these dispensaries and store-front cooperatives. Throughout the state, many violent crimes have been committed that can be traced to their proliferation. On February 25, 2004, two men in Mendocino County committed a home invasion robbery to steal medical marijuana. They held a knife to a 65-year-old man's throat, and though he fought back, managed to get away with large amounts of marijuana. They were soon caught and one of the men received a sentence of six years in the state prison.35 At least two murders can be traced to the existence of medical marijuana dispensaries. On August t9, 2005, 18-year-old Demarco Lowery was shot when he and his friends attempted a takeover robbery of a store-front medical marijuana business in the City of San Leandro. The owner fought back and a gun battle ensued. Demarco Lowery was hit by gunfire and "dumped outside the emergency entrance of Children's Hospital Oakland" after the shootout.~0 He did not survive. The second known murder occurred on November 19, 200. Approximately six men broke into Les Crane's home in I~zytonville while yelling "this is a raid". Les Crane, who owned astore-front medical marijuana business, was at home and shot to death. Another man present at the time was beaten with a basebal3 bat. The murderers left the home after taking currency and processed marijuana.s' On July 17, 2006, the EI Cerrito City Council voted to ban all such medical marijuana facilities. It did so after reviewing anineteen-page report that detailed a rise in crime near these store-front dispensaries in other cities. The crimes included robberies, assaults, burglar..ies, murders and attempted murders.~g As recently as August 10, 2006, an armed robbery took place at a Santa Barbara dispensary. A small amount of currency and fifteen medical marijuana baggier were stolen. The owner says it is the fourth time he has been robbed. He failed to report the first three because "medical marijuana is such a controversial issue".~~ Even though medical marijuana store-front businesses do not currently exist in the City of Monterey Park, it issued a moratorium on them after studying the issuers August 2006.40 After allowing these establishments to operate within its borders, the City of West Hollywood recently passed a similar moratorium. The moratorium was "prompted by incidents of armed burglary at some of the city's eight existing pot stores and complaints from neighbors ahout increased pedestrian and vehicle traffic and noise ....i41 Medical marijuana store-front businesses have allowed criminals to flourish in California. This past summer the City of San Diego cooperated with. federal authorities 75A-71 and served search warrants on several medical marijuana locations. In addition to marijuana many weapons were recovered, including a stolen handgun and an M-16 assault rifle.4' The National Drug Intelligence Center reports that marijuana growers are employing armed guards, using explosive booby traps and murdering people to shield their crops. Street gangs of all national origins are involved in transporting and distributing marijuana to meet the ever increasing demand for the drug.4? Store-front medical marijuana businesses are very dangerous enterprises. C. Liability Issues With respect to issuing business licenses to medical marijuana store-front facilities a very real issue has arisen: counties and cities are arguably aiding and abetting criminal violations of federal law. Such actions clearly put the counties permitting these establishments in very precarious legal positions. Aiding and abetting a crime occurs when someone commits a crime, The person aiding that crime knew the criminal offender intended to commit the crime, and the person aiding the crime intended to assist the criminal offender in the commission of the crime. The legal definition of aiding and abetting is easily applied to counties and cities allowing medical marijuana facilities to open. A county that has been informed about the Gonzales v. Raich decision knows that all marijuana activity is federally illegal. Furthermore, such counties know that individuals involved in the medical marijuana business are subject to federal prosecution. When an individual in California cultivates, possesses, transports, or uses marijuana he is committing a federal crime. A county issuing a business license to a medical marijuana facility knows that the people there are committing federal crimes. The county also knows that those involved in providing and obtaining medical marijuana are intentionally violating federal taw. This very problem is why some counties are re-thinking the presence of medical marijuana facilities in their communities. There is a valid. fear of being prosecuted for aiding anal abetting federal. drug crimes. Presently, two counties have expressed concern that California's medical marijuana statutes have placed them in such a precarious legal position. Because of the serious criminal ramifications involved in issuing business permits and allowing store-front medical marijuana businesses to operate within their borders, San Diego and San Bernardino Counties have filed a lawsuit against the state. They seek to prevent California from enforcing the medical marijuana statutes which subject them to criminal liability. Conclusion. In light of the United States Supreme Court's decision and reasoning in Gonzales v. Raich, the United States Supremacy Clause renders California's Compassionate Use Act of 1996 and Medical Marijuana Program. Act of 2004 illegal. No state has the power to grant its citizens the right to violate federal law. People have been, and continue to be, federally prosecuted for marijuana crimes. We conclude that medical marijuana is not legal under federal law, despite the current California scheme. Furthermore, store-front medical marijuana businesses are prey for criminals and create easily identifiable victims. The people growing the marijuana are looking to and 75A-72 employing illegal. means to protect their valuable cash. crops. Many distributing marijuana are hardened criminals.44 The others distributing marijuana to the businesses are perfect targets for thieves and robbers. They are being assaulted, robbed and murdered. Those buying and using medical marijuana are also being victimized. Additionally, illegal medical. marijuana facilities have the potential for creating liability issues for counties and cities. The Riverside County District Attorney's Office believes that the cooperatives being considered are illegal and should not be permitted to east within the County's border's. They are a clear violation of federal and state law, they invite more crime, and they compronuse the health and welfare of the citizens of this County. ` Ten other states have enacted medical marijuana laws in some fashion: Alaska, Arizona, Colorado, Hawaii, Maine, Montana, Nevada, Oregon, Vermont, and Washington. 2 Stack, Inhaling to cure. ailments is a lot older than you might believe (October 27, 2002) Time Magazine. Zimmerman, Is Marijuana the Right Medicine for You (1998) chapter 3. a "Medical" Marijuana - the Facts United States Drug Enforcement Adminisu•ation, www.usdoj.gov. s U.S. Const. art. VL, cl. 2. e iJ.S. Const. art. I, section 8, cl. 3. ~ Gonzales u. Rai.ch, supra, 1.25 S.Ct. at page 2204. Id., see also Urxited States v. Oakland Cannabis Buyenr' Cooperative (2001) 121 S.Ct. 1711, 171.8. ~ Id. 10See People v. Mower (2002} 28 Ca1.4"' 457, 463. `' Health and Safety Code section 11362.5(b) (1} (A}. All references hereafter to the Hea][h and Safety Code are by section number only. is 1.1362.5(a). " 11.362.7 et. sey. ''' 11362.7. is 11362.71 - 11362.76. '~ 11362.77. " 11362.765; 11.362.775; People v. tJrziceanu (2005) 132 Ca1.App.4°i 747, 78fi. is 11362.77 '~ l 1357, 11358, ] 1359, 113GU, 11366, 11366.5, and 11570. 20 HS 1.1362.7(h) gives a more comprehensive list -AIDS, anorexia, arthritis, cachexia, cancer, chronic pain, glaucoma, migraine, persistent muscle spasms, seizures, severe nausea, and any other chronic or persistent medical symptom that either substantially limits the ability of a person to conduct one or more life activities (as defined in the ADA) or may cause serious htu-m to the patient's safety or physical or mental health i:f not alleviated. '' HS 11362.5(e); HS 1.1362.7(d)(1), (2),(3), and (e); see also People: ex rel. Lungren v. Peron (1997) 59 Cal.App.4'~ 1383, 1395. zz People v. Mower, supra, 28 Ca1.4'h at 476. Z' /d emphasis added. '4 For a statewide list: httpa/canorml.org/prop/ebclist.hgnl. zs McClure, Fuming Over Pot Clexbs (7une 2006) California Lawyer Magazine. z~ 11362.765(c); see, e.g. Ur,,>,iceunu, supra, 132 Ca1.App.4`h at page 764. 2' Gonzales v. Raich, supra, 125 S.Ct. at page 2195. za People v. Urziceanu (2005) 132 Ca1.App.4°i 747; see also HS 11362.765. ''`' Pack.el, Organization and Operation of Cooperatives (4th ed. 1970) American Law Institute (1970) pp. 4- 5; italics added. 7° 11362.7(d)(1). 31 As of August 2006, the store CannaHelp leases is undergoing renovations and it is not currently o~erating out of that fac'slity; it is unknown if it is operating out of another location. ' See e.g, McClure, Fuming Over Pot Clxrbs (June 2006) California Lawyer Magazine. 9 75A-73 31 HS 11362.5(e); HS 11362.7(d)(1}, (2),(,), and (e}; see also People ex rel. Lun,t;ren v. Peron. (1997) 59 Ca1.App.4"' 1383, 1.395. '~ People v. Mower, supra, 28 Ca1.4°i at 476, emphasis added. a5 Scaramella, Nu Good Deed Goes Unpunished, (June 16, 2004) www.theava.com. ~`' Graham, Police Link Suspect to Pnt Club Robbery, (August ~?, 2006) www.insidebayarea.com. j' Clark, Brealci.ng News: Medical Marijuana Supplier Les Crane Killed, (November 19, 2005) Ukiah Baity journal; C.larlc, Les Crane Murder hrvestigtition Continues, (November 27, 2005) Ukiah Daily Journal. ax Planning Commission Agenda, evww.el-cerrifo.or<~; El Cerrito Bcuts Ui.rpensaries, www.420girls.wm. 39 Indy Staff, Medical Moa-ijuczna Shop Robbed, (August 10, 2(K)6) San[a Barbara .independent. °0 Ortega, City bans outlets for mectical marijuana, (August 28, 2006) San Gabriel Valley Tribune. ' ~ Id. a2 Crime statistics, www.sandiego.gov. a3 National Drug Intellige<ice Center, Marijuaut (January 2001) www.usdoj.gov. ~'' !d. 10 75A-74 El Cerrito Police Department Memorandum January 12, 2007 To: Scott C. Kirkland Chief of Police From: Commander M. Regan Subject: Recent Information Regarding Marijuana and Dispensaries As we have discussed, I have continued to follow current events as they relate to Marijuana and Dispensary related issues. I have assembled some of the information I have collected into four categories, irrunerging trends, secondary effects, ordinance related stories and medical. issues. A majority of the entries are excerpts from news articles obtained from the Internet. Immerging Trends: Reports from Californian, National and Canadian sources suggest that there will be a significant increase in "in-door grows" as a means of producing marijuana. These type of grows are becoming popular in that they axe more difficult to detect than out door grows and the controlled enviromnent allows up to four growing "seasons" per year dramatically increasing the output per square foot utilized and therefore increasing the profit potential. As demonstrated in these articles and our own experience, these grows can take place anywhere and the growers will no doubt take steps to protect their investment by arming themselves and possibly using booby traps. There is intelligence to suggest that the larger in-door grows are connected to organized crime factions. As these operations are set up in communities, these communities can expect the associated crimes that accompany this type of endeavor; murder, robbery, arson, extortion etc. Another factor we know from experience is the money made from the sales of illicit drugs are often used for other criminal. enterprises. Grow-op bust a snapshot of market High-rise seiaure of ,;I6-million in pot reflects Canada's major-source status, police officials say TIMOTHYAPPLEBYAND NICOLE O'REILLY In all, 18 soil-filled apartments in the same Jane Street. high-rise were found to have been transformed into indoor gardens, bursting with an estimated $6-million worth of plants. Current police intelligence suggests there are up to 1.0,000 marijuana grow-ops in the Greater Toronto Area...As for that $b-million figure -- based on expectations of a $1,000 yield for each of the 6,000-plus plants seized, "that's not out of line at al.l," Supt. Allen said. And if shipped across the U.S. border -- as are hundreds of tonnes of Canadian marijuana. each year, most commonly concealed in trucks -- the profit could be two or three times as much. That price differential -- a half kilogram of high-grade marijuana. worth upward of $1,600 in Canada is worth at least $3,000 (U.S.).... 75A-75 Also unsurprising, in light of arrest patterns on both sides of the border, is that two of the three men charged in Thursday's raids are of Vietnamese origin. The other man is listed as the building's superintendent.....itbas long been recognized by police that a sizable chunk of Canada's lucrative marijuana industry, whether hydroponic or soil-based, as with this particular crop, is run. by criminal entrepreneurs of Vietnamese origin. There is no monopoly within the pot industry. The Hells Angels, who are almost entirely white, have been profiting from it for years, particularly in British Columbia, where the business first took root. A U.S. Department of Justice report on the cross-border narcotics industry released this month nonetheless concluded that "high-potency marijuana production, smuggling and distribution by Canada-based DTOs [drug-trafficking organizations] primarily of Vietnamese ethnicity, is increasing." As well, Canada-based Asian crime syndicates are n.ow the predominant distributors of the drug ecstasy (MDMA), the report states.....As with many of the roughly 250 grow-ops shut down. in Toronto last year, the police who raided the Jane Street high-rise said yesterday they suspect the haul was destined for export..... Videotape of two of the raided apartments, shown to reporters, provided a glimpse of how things worked. In one apartment the kitchen contained the young plants, while the two bedrooms were for the next two stages of growth. In the apartment next door, the marijuana was dried, with holes drilled through walls to run the watering system and provide ventilation. Strategically placed pictures and furniture served. as props, in the event that somebody glanced through an open door, Detective Dave Malcolm said, noting that the threat of fires, mould and discarded fertilizer posed a real threat to the building's 700 residents. "The people that are doing this, they really don't ca~•e," he said. Indeed, a marijuana grow-op caused a fire in April, though it was unclear whether it was connected to this multi-pronged operation, which police suspect was running for about a year..... Owner Harry Birman.....reckoned the episode will likely cost him about $25,000 in repairs and lost rent. Source: Httpa/www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/stor l~ LAC.20061I25.GROW25/TPStory/TPNa tional/Ontario/ Brentwood police discover multi-house marijuana farm BR1/NTWOOD -Two men were arrested Friday after Brentwood police found a "sophisticated" marijuana-growing operation spread across three homes....are suspected of growing up to $SOO,000 worth of marijuana in specially renovated houses they rented....Police were called to the house on Pebble Beach .Drive midday Friday after the homeowner became suspicious when he arrived to appraise the building. The house had been cleaned out by the time police arrived, Silva said, but investigators found soil, growing lights and a handful of marijuana leaves on the property. Authorities served search warrants on the other two houses and found bagged marijuana and about 120 2-foot-tall plants. The growers had installed loud fans and insulated the doors to contain the smell, Silva said. Source: Http://www.mercurynews.com/mld/mercurvnews/news/breaking news/16304454 htm 2 75A-76 Oakland cops raid three houses in pot bust Police say more than $1 million of marijuana seized and two arrested in family-run operation By Hairy Harris, STAFF WRITER Article Last Updated: 12/16/2006 OAKLAND - At least $ I million worth of marijuana, including almost 1,300 thriving plants, was found at three houses used in a family-run cultivation and distribution operation, police said Friday.....Gang Unit Officer Doug Keely said police received information that Hin Hoang was a major marijuana dealer throughout Oakland who always carried a gun and grew th.e marijuana at three houses.... Each house had sophisticated growing operations, including timers, lighting, heaters, plant food, irrigation and ventilation systems, Keely said. ILeely confrmed Hin Hoang was wanted by San Francisco authorities on a no-bail warrant for failing to appear in court on concealed weapon and marijuana charges. He also is on probation. for a gun conviction, police said. He was spotted about noon Thursday driving away from the Coolidge Avenue house in a Lexus and was stopped by Gang Unit Officer Gino Guerrero. Kee1y said Hoang had about $1,000 worth of crystal methamphetamine on him, and asawed-off shotgun was found in the car. After the car stop, Gang Unit officers joined by Targeted Enforcement Task Force officers raided the three houses. A total of 1,298 plants, ranging from less than a foot high to several feet tail were found at the three houses, as well as more than 20 pounds of dried marijuana ready for sale. Keely said the Coolidge and. Dolores houses, which Hin Hoang rented under other names, were used strictly to grow marijuana, and the family had built an addition to the Foothi}l house for the weed..... Besides the marijuana at the Foothill house, police also found $40,000 in cash, transaction records that included nicknames of clients, and an assault rifle and bulletproof vest in Hin Hoang's bedroom. Hin's mother and father were at the Foothill house and admitted involvement in the operation, Keely said. The mother said the family "needed the money" the marijuana generated. Police confiscated the father's 2006 Mercedes E320. Besides his parents' involvement, Keely said Hin Hoang employed others to tend to the crops, paying them at least $100 a day. Source: http://www.insidebayarea.com/localnews/ci 4852099 Trio faces amplified drug charges manufacturing charges filed for trio in pot case SAN RAMON: Trial fuels debate between medical marijuana advocates and law enforcement officials By Bruce Gerstman CONTRA COSTA TIMES A fire and explosion in a suburban San Ramon garage in February exposed alesser- .known form of marijuana and ignited a debate about its safety. Prosecutors say three men were mixing butane with. crushed marijuana leaves to extract what is known as honey oil, a concentrated form of cannabis, which was going to be used in a medical marijuana dispensary. In what county prosecutors call a first for a marijuana case, the District Attorney's Office has fixed charges against the three men for manufacturing a controlled substance -- a charge usually associated. with methamphetamine and rock. cocaine. A conviction on the charge carries a penalty more than double that of cultivation charges. "If you're going to say this is medicine, then the public has a right to know how it's made," said deputy district attorney Dana Fillcowski. The District Attorney's decision brings out a dispute between law enforcement officials who say the manufacturing process might harm sick people and medical marijuana advocates who say butane use poses no health risk and patients know about the process...... 75A-77 They are charged with manufacturing a controlled substance, cultivating marijuana, possessing marijuana for sale, conspiracy and poisoning. The trio appeared last week in Contra Costa Superior Court in Walnut Creek where a judge reduced their bail from $1.2 million to $620,000 each. They have pleaded not guilty. Their attorneys did not return calls to the Times. Filkow.ski .said they were malting oil for Ken Estes, owner of a Riclzmand medical rrzariiuanu dispensary, who was arrested last month when police pulled his truck over on a routine traffic stop and found 27 pounds of marijuana inside. Honey oil is produced by extracting THC from marijuana Ieaves..Butane is added to crushed marijuana to separate the chemical from the leaves. Users consume the oil in food or smear it on cigarettes or marijuana joints.....Filkowski said the men were working with dozens of canisters of butane, which could have been ignited by even a small spark. She said the idea behind the manufacturing charge, which carries a sentence of up to seven years in state prison, is that the then used the butane to transform one material into another with different properties. "It turns the marijuana into another substance," she said... A half-dozen doctors who prescribe medicinal cannabis contacted by the Times said they were aware of the oil, but did not know how safe it is. Sausalito- based physician and psychiatrist Eugene Schoenfeld said butane might pose a threat of explosion to the makers, but not to the patient. "I don't tlunk there would be enough butane in the hash oil. to affect people," he said. "I don't think the butane is much of a danger to the consumer." Dydek said people who consume the oil are not at risk. "(The butane) would tend to dissipate. It doesn't tend to hang around very long," Dydek said. "The toxicity of butane is not very great. "I think there would be more problems with. people manufacturing it," he said. Source: CONTRA COSTA TIMES High-tech 'pot factories' popping up in suburban homes in California By DON THOMPSON Associated Press Writer ELK GROVE, California- Leon Nunn stepped out his front door one recent afternoon only to be waved back by a squadron of drug agents using a battering ram on a neighbor's home. The $500,000 home in the quiet subdivision was stuffed with high-grade marijuana, plants covering nearly every square foot. Th.e bust is one example of a phenomenon that has come to light recently in subdivisions around Sacramento, the capital of California. Marijuana growers with suspected. ties to Asian organized crime have been buying suburban homes many in newer developments because of the anonymity the dnig dealers believe the neighborhoods afford. They close the blinds and get to work gutting the inside, converting otherwise nondescript tract homes into the latest battleground in the state's campaign against marijuana cartels.....The Nun.ns installed security lights and. cameras and said some of their neighbors are talking of moving away...... More than three dozen homes have been found to be hiding marijuana groves in just the past seven weeks, most in. Sacramento, Elk Grove and Stockton. Like the others, the home on Elk Grove's Mainline Drive had been converted to what law enforcement officials call a hothouse, with 1,000-watt lights for growing and irrigation networks feeding high-tech hydroponic growing systems. Walls anal ceilings were smashed to allow for complex ventilation and ai.r filtration systems that vented the telltale odor through the attic. 4 75A-78 A web of extension cords and makeshift electric panels illegal y tapped into the outside grid to avoid detection and save thousands of dollars in power bills. Hundreds of thousands of dollars were spent to convert each of the homes to grow millions of dollars worth of marijuana. Most of the targeted homes were purchased for between $400,000 and $600,000.... "They're going into these cookie-cutter communities and making cookie-cutter marijuana factories," said Gordon Taylor, who heads the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration region that runs from Bakersfield to the Oregon border. "All of a sudden, (the neighbors) have an organized crime marijuana factory right next to them. It's alarming." Some neighbors said they were too frightened. to be quoted..... For a1I the sophistication of the operations, many neighbors said they were suspicious because the owners neglected to mow or water their lawns. "We suspected it, when you spend $500,000 on a home and let it go to pot, so to speak," said Marilyn. Smith, wh.o lives across from another Elk Grove home that was converted to a marijuana factory.....Thephenornenon began in British Columbia, Canada, where Vietnamese organized crime outfits gutted houses to grow potent "B.C. Bud" that can sell for $5,000 or more a pound {450 grams} in the United States, said Corporal. Pierre Lemaitre of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police. Growers headed south to avoid increased border protections after the 2001 terrorist attacks. "It's definitely a concerted c1fvrt by Asian vr~anized crime eroarps in Canada to move earl of their operation down tv the United States, "said Rodney Benson the DEA's special went in charge of Washington 4r~on Alaska and Idaho. The Central Uallev home s are linked tv San Franci s•co's Chinatown and have "all the markings ofAsian organized crime "said the DEA's Taylor Five San Francisco residents were charyed with federal marijuana crimes last month in connection with some of the busts in Elk Grove. Police in Elk Grove and Stockton have arrested several other people in recent daLs. The Internal Revenue Service also is tracing the homes' owners. Until now, West Coast law enforcement agencies have been. more concerned about large-scale outdoor marijuana gardens, which often are planted on public forests or park land by violent Mexican drug cartels.....The Drug Enforcement Agency reported a 50 percent increase in indoor farms last year, Taylor said. Those operations have several advantages: They can't be spotted by an airplane or hunter, and the plants also can be grown year-round. Source: http://www.poIiceone.com/drug-interdiction-narcotics/articles/1.1.79674/ Los Angeles :Home Turns into Burning Joint Updated: January 2nd, 2007 01:05 PM PDT RON MYERS Los Angeles Fire Department On Monday, January 1, 2007 at 2:42 AM, sixteen Companies of Los Angeles Firefighters, four LAFD Rescue Ambulances, two Arson Units, one Urban Search and Rescue Unit, one Rehab Unit, one Hazardous Materials Team, two EMS Battalion Captains, three Battalion Chief Officer Command Teams, one Division Chief Officer Command Team, alt under the direction of Battalion Chief Robert Rose responded to a Greater Alarm Structure Fire.....It took 1 0 Firefighters one-half hour to gain control of the fire and ensure that no residents were trapped within the house.. ,.During firefighting operations it was noted that the only furniture contained within the home was a table, couch, and two beds. 75A-79 The entire home was filled with Marijuana plants, in various stages of growth and production....Firefighters remained on scene for over 12 hours assisting LAPD with the investigation and scene management..... The cause of the fire is listed as electrical anal the loss is estimated at X330,000. Source: http•//~~~ww officer com/article/article.jsn?siteSection=l&id=34230 Marijuana-filled home uprn smoke EL SOBRANTE: Authorities find evidence of more than 1,000 plants, say about two- thirds were destroyed i.n blaze By Karl Fischer CONTRA COSTA TIMES Firefighters extinguishing a house fire in the El Sobrante hills over the weekend discovered a large cache of marijuana plants growing inside, state authorities said Monday. Agents from the West Contra Costa Narcotics Enforcement Team recovered about 380 plants from inside the house......."We believe that represents about one-third of the operation," Ladeck said. "The rest appeared to have been destroyed in the fire."..... While putting out thetwo-alarm blaze, however, firefighters did discover an elaborate indoor marijuana farm. More than 700 plants burned, authorities said. The cause of the fire remains under investigation, Hopkins said, and estimates of the damage were not available. The neighborhood is in an expensive section of West County ....Authorities have made no arrests in the case but continue to investigate, Ladeck said. Reach. Karl Fischer at 510-262-2728 or kfischer~aicctimes.catn. Source: http•/lwww contracostatimes com/mldJcctimes/news/16.167334.htm SAN BRiJNO Police blow up pipe bomb found in home Sabin Russell, Chronicle Staff Writer Tuesday, January 2, 2007 SaJ1 Mateo County explosive experts safely detonated a pipe bomb found at the San Bruno home of a suspect arrested in connection with the discovery of a large indoor marijuana-growing operation 3 miles away.....The pipe bomb was found under Seits' bed in a room where investigators also found a handgun and clips of ammunition, officials said. Neighbors were evacuated, and the San Mateo County Bomb Squad was called to the scene. They detonated the bomb at the home at about 6 a.m., according to official reports. Seits' arrest followed the discovery of an indoor pot farm by San Bruno firefighters who were called to extinguish a fire at a rented house on the 31.00 block of Fleetwood Drive.....Narcotics investigators said they found 1,298 marijuana plants inside the house, as well as a small quantity of buds and some big guns: an AK-47 with. 100- roundmagazines and ahigh-powered rifle with a sniper scope. "It was fortunate the way these weapons were discovered, in an etnpt~~ home," Capovilla said. "To see that sort of firepower in such a quiet neighborhood, it could have made the day ugly for law enforcement." The street value of the marijuana was estimated at more than ~1 million. E-mail Sabin Russell at srusselll~sfchronicle.com. Source: http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2007/O1/02/BAGVRNBDJNI.DTL 75A-80 Indoor .Marijuana Gardens According to a California D.O.J. Intelligence report dated November 2006 (Vol.. 71) the number of indoor Marijuana gardens has increased 49% from 2004 to 2005 with Asian Organized Crime groups dominating the indoor marijuana gardens, while Mexican nationals dominate the outdoor gardens. Homes are being used for the sole purpose of cultivating marijuana. Indoor marijuana gardens are more profitable due to the climate controlled. conditions which yield three to four harvests a year and are more easily concealed than outdoor grows. "It is suspected more criminal organizations will become involved with indoor marijuana gardens due to the minimal risks and. huge profits." Good year for bud busts most marijuana seized in S.B. County in past 15 years By Melissa Pinion-Whitt, Staff Writer Article Launched: 12/26/2006 12:00:00 AM PST The Sheriffs Department found and removed more than 97,000 plants, the most since ].991. The county also ranked fifth in the state for plants seized with the assistance of a state eradication group...... Law-enforcement officers assigned to marijuana farms say the county's high raiilcing this year is due to more and more growers discovering the San Bernardino National Farest is ideal for concealing their lucrative enterprises......The Department of Justice said 2006 was arecord-setting year for pot plant seizures, with. 1.7 million plants removed mostly from public lands such as state and national parks and forests. That's an increase of about 540,000 plants over 2005. The plants were worth an estimated $6.7 billion. The department's Campaign Against Marijuana Planting, or CAMP program, conducted 477 raids in 34 counties during the growing season, which typically starts in late July and ends as late as November, depending on the weather. Marijuana seizures in 2006 under the Campaign Against Marijuana Planting Total plants seized: 1,675,681. Estimated value: $6.7 billion Raids: 477 Arrests: 27 Weapons seized: 29 1. Lake - 314,603 6. Riverside - 84,752 2. Shasta - 227,488 7. Sonoma - 73,460 3. Mendocino - 135,736 8. Trinity - 68,544 4. Fresno - 102,814 9. Humboldt - 59,616 5. San Bernardino - 91,286 10. Santa Clara - 52,416 Source: htt~://www.dailybulletin.com/newslci_4901173 Marijuana crop ruins iVlt. Diablo's rare plants By Denis Cuff CONTRA COSTA TIMES In their most. recent trashing of California's environment, pot growers destroyed rare plants on Mount Diablo land that conservationists are buying to protect fragile wildlife and plants. The growers sneaked onto the 208-acre ranch land in the hills above Concord to hack an opening in a thicket of desert olive, the group Save Mount Diablo said. 75A-81 The olive plant, a leftover from long ago when the Bay Area resembled. a desert, is found only in two or three places in the counry.....Investigators from the Sheri.fi's Office came out and verified that the site was not booby-trapped. before conservationists started the cleanup, said Seth Adams, Save Mount Diablo programs manager..... With tighter border controls since the. Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks, drug dealers are finding it easier to grow pot in th.e United States rather than smuggle it in, state and federal authorities say....But they left a significant wound on a fragile mountain area that supports two other rare plants besides the desert olive, which grows an inedible olive..... "These plants are so rare we want to protect the few that are left," Adams said. "This is a biological hot spot because of the diversity of rare plants and animals." The crew removed traps meant to kill pests that might have danlaged the crop. On Mount Diablo, however, the traps could have killed threatened Alameda whipsnakes that like to hide in thickets.....About 75 percent of the marijuana seized during the state's annual Campaign. Against Marijuana Planting this year came from parks and public lands, according to Attorney General Bill Lockyer.....Growers also left a path of environmental destruction in the Point Reyes National. Seashore in Marin County, where 43,000 plants were seized in August and September in nine locations...."These massive plantings are threatening the very mission of our parks: to preserve our natural resources and environment and. provide a safe place for visitors," said John Del]'Osso, the Point Reyes chief of interpretation. To irrigate their crops, growers tapped into local streams, leaving less for federally protected coho salmon and steelhead. Pesticide runoff from the pot farms may have poisoned creeks and soil. Park workers also worry tl-iat terraces carved into steep slopes are ripe for erosion during winter, possibly polluting creeks anal smothering fish spawning areas. The pot farm caretakers were apparently armed, too, because they left behind gun shells. Reach. Denis Cuff at 925-943-8267 or d.cuff c~cctimcs.com. Recent Law Enforcement Actions: These are incidents involving Iaw enforcement D)JA, IRS, Modesto Police Raid. Medical Marijuana Business Written for the web by C. Johnson, Internet News Producer Written for the web by Elizabeth Bishop, Senior Internet News Producer Agents from the Drug Enforcement Administration, the Internal Revenue Service and. the Modesto Police Department raided what they say is one of the biggest medical marijuana dispensaries in Northern California. This morning, officers went to the California Healthcare Collective...to serve seven search warrants.....Between the business and several residences named in the warrants, agents recovered 60 pounds of marijuana, 30 pounds of baked. goods laced with marijuana, two pounds of hashish, three loaded guns, $16,000 in cash., a 2007 Mercedes-Benz and a 2006 Dodge pick-up truck.....In the investigation, a DEA spokesman. said as many as 400 people a day were going into the Collective, Undercover agents were able to use fake identification. and fake physician prescriptions to buy marijuana. They observed individuals coming into the shop, buying marijuana and then selling it in the shop's parking lot. The collective employed security guards making between $120 and $150 an hour. There was an ATM and amoney- counting machine inside the business. 75A-82 Quarterly financial. statements on record with. the city showed tl~e Collective took in $125 million in the first two quarters of 2006. The DEA said they've raided seven such operations calling themselves marijuana dispensaries and today's operation. was by far the largest. Source: http://www.newsl0.net/storyfu112.aspx?storyid=20305 SAl`dTA CRI1Z MAN >FACII~TG MARIJUANA DISTRIBUTION CI-r.ARGES 12!l 3/06 4:40 PST SANTA CRUZ (BCN) A Santa Cruz man is expected in court Friday to face charges connected with what the Santa Cruz County Sheriffs Office described as one of the biggest marijuana busts of the year, sheriffs Sgt. Steve Carney said today. Last Friday, Santa Cruz County sheriffs deputies seized 100 pounds of high-grade marijuana bud and $35,000 cash.... That search resulted in the seizure of $489,225 in cash from a locker that belonged to Hoey, Carney said. In addition to the cash at leis residence and i.n the storage locker, police seized another $330.000 from his bank. account and the Sheriffs Office expects to seize even more money from another account, Carney said. The marijuana was packaged in different bags weighing different amounts suggesting the intent to distribute, Carney said. Deputies also confiscated a money counting machine, a scale and other items they believe are related to distribution of marijuana.Hoey's defe~xse attorney, Ben Rice, said taday his client was distributing only to one of Santa Cr-uzs two medical marii1~ana dispensaries and only,for medical mariizsana patients. "The only people he provided to were medical marijuana patients," Rice said. "It's a gray area in our law," Rice said. "The problem with current laws in. California is there are no guidei.ines regarding how people are to get their medicine." "My client is the person who provides one of these dispensaries with the bulk of their medicine," Rice said. "It sounds like a lot of marijuana but it's really just a month's supply." Hoey has one previous conviction for cultivation in 1988, eight years before the medical marijuana measure Proposition 21.5 passed in 1996, Rice said. 2 Arrested In Fed Raid On Hayward Med Pot Co-op (BCN} Bay City News Service, December 12, 200b (BCN) HAYWARD The owner and manager of a medical marijuana dispensary in Hayward were arrested by U.S. drug and tax agents Tuesday on federal marijuana charges......in addition to arresting the pair, Drug Enforcement Administration and Internal Revenue Service agents seized hundreds of marijuana plants, marijuana cookies and brownies, two inert grenades, cash anal several expensive cars.....DEA Special Agent Kenny Lee alleged in an affidavit filed with the complaint that fhe co-op purports to sell the drug to patients under California's medical marijuana law, but in fact sells it to healthy people. Lee wrote, "I believe that Hayward Local Patients Co-op seeks to disguise the breadth of its criminal. activity by claiming that it caters exclusively to people suffering from medical illnesses, when in fact persons without any medical condition can purchase marijuana ... at the retail. establishment."....Even before Tuesday's arrests, the cooperative was under order by I~Iayward City .Manager Jesus Annas to cease operations by Dec. 31. 9 75A-83 Arenas said that he told Squiex on Nov. 3 that the cooperative must close by Dec. 31 because police found substantial amounts of marijuana there this fall in violation of a 2003 operating agreement with the city. Under the pact, the city agreed to suspend enforcement of certain zoning laws against the cooperative so long as the group had no more than 3 pounds at the site at one time. Arenas said Hayward police found 30 pounds of marijuana at the cooperative in September and allegedly found more than 200 pounds during a second visit in October. Squier disputed the amount found in October, but agreed it was more than 30 pounds, Arenas said. Secondary Effects AUTHORITIES FIl\'D MARLIUANA, ASSAULT RIFLE AT CASTRO VALLEY HOME 11/19/06 1 U:10 Y57 Police reported finding a pound of marijuana and an assault rifle at a Castro Valley home that was the scene of an attempted armed robbery Friday morning, according to Sgt. M Rores of the Alameda County Sheriffs Office. A woman was struck in the mouth. by the butt of a gun. wielded by one of three or four men. who went into the home in the 4000 block of Seven Hills Road around 9 a.m. Friday. The group of men also hurt a man at the house by striking him on the head with the butt of the gun, according to Rores. The men left the house without taking anything, Rores reported. Police served a search warrant on the house later than day and found the marijuana and the assault rifle, according to Rores. None of the suspects in the attempted robbery have been taken into custody. Th.e man and the woman at the house were treated for their injuries. Police are investigating the source of the marijuana and the assault rifle and have not made any arrests, Rores said. Source: http•//cbs5 com/localwire/localfsnews/ben/2006/] 1/19/n/Headlu~eNews/ARMED- ROBBERY/resources bcn html. SLO Home Invasion's Goal: Medical Marijuana The three masked men were armed with a rifle and a baseball bat By: Stacy Daniel Thursday, November 30, 2006 A recent home invasion robbery in San Luis Obispo has investigators believing the victims were specifically targeted. They say the robbers were after a stash of medical marijuana they knew was inside the home.... One of the suspects was armed with a rifle, another with a baseball bat. The suspects forced one of the victims to open. a safe, containing marijuana and a large amount of money. After taking what was in the safe, the suspects then took personal items from the victims, ... Police believe the house was targeted. because of what was inside: two pounds of medical marijuana. They believe the robbers knew what they were looking for and exactly where to go to get it...... Since the victim was licensed to have marijuana, police do not plan to charge him with a crime. if you have any information about this crime, call the San Luis Obispo Police Department. Source: http~//www.ksby.com/home/headlines/4795576.htm1 I0 75A-84 Slaying suspect cleared By Daniel Witter/Appeal-Democrat A Linda man accused of double homicide in a botched medical marijuana .robbery attempt last year was freed Monday after a Yuba County jury cleared him of the charges....The two men were shot to death Sept. 27, 2005, i.n the backyard of Hance's Chesriaut Road home in Olivehurst.....Grifiin and five others were accused of trying to steal medicinal. marijuana from the Chestnut Road residence. The killings involve the largest number of suspects ever for a Yuba County murder trial, according to the Yuba County Sheriffs Department. Source: http://www.appeal-democrat.com/articles/2006/12/05/news/local news/news4.txt. CALIFORNIA: Victim tells of pot grab By Rob Young/Appeal-Democrat 1t was one tnan with a sword trying to keep fve men with guns from taking his medical marijuana, according to testimony Thursday in Sutter County Superior Court.. The robbery victim, who is not being named, said the men pulled up at his Meridian house about 1 a.m. Sept. 25 and stripped the plants he was growing legally in his backyard. while firing shots into the air....The robbery occurred even though his backyard "was lit up like daylight" with two halogen lights, the victim said.. On.e of the men pointed a handgun and said, "Freeze, or I'll blow your (expletive) head off," the victim told prosecutor Susan Green....It was recovered by police but Sutter County Undersheriff J. Paul Parker said it would not be returned to hiin without a court order. Don Wahlberg Jr., one of three defense attorneys in the case, asked the victim if smoking marijuana had affected his memory of events. "I ain't answering that. I plead the Fifth," the victim responded. Appeal-Democrat reporter Rob Young can be reached at 749-4710. You may e-mail him. at ryoung@appeai-democrat.com. Source: http://www.appeal-democrat.com/articles/2006/12/22/news/local_news/news5.txt Ordinance .Issues Tracy orders marijuana club closed City attorney says retail sale of pot violates ordinances By Mike Martinez, STAFF WRITER Article Last Updated:l2/01/2006 02:42:57 AM PST TRACY - It wasn`t exactly what Tracy City Manager Dan Hobbs had in mind for his "greening of Tracy" plan. The medical marijuana dispensary, which opened under the nose of city late last month on the outskirts of downtown Tracy, has been ordered to close. Although there is nothing in the city code specifically banning medical marijuana dispensaries, there's also nothing that allows them. The Valley Wellness Center Collective was ordered to "discontinue the non-listed use of distributing medical marijuana" in Tracy on or before Dec. 5. ".... City officials said t31e group misrepresented itself on its business license. The collective said its activity would be "retail sales conducted by a nonprofit corporation.".... 11 75A-85 Phil Urie, a deputy District Attorney with San Joaquin. County, said the way the county interprets the law, the retail. sale of marijuana, even those who have a doctor's recommendation, is not legal He said other counties throughout the state that allow storefront sales are wrong, as dispensaries are outside the realm of the proposition. "The law simply does not allow the sale of marijuana," Urie said. "People are allowed to posses and cultivate it, but They can't buy it. lt's a huge hole that's always been there in Prop. 21.5. There is no legal mechanism for obtaining marijuana." mmartiiier~i>,trivallevherald.com. Source: httna/www.visidebavarea.com/dai.lvreview/localnews/ci 4753809 Store selling marijuana, say police By LAITH AGHA Herald Staff Writer Ghetto-Tech in Seaside has a license to be in the clothing business. But Seaside police say the urban. apparel store's involvement in a different kind of business has its owner and an accomplice facing serious charges..... Following leads that connected Ghetto-Tech with drug activity, Seaside detectives said they apprehended Fitzgerald after he exited the stare. Police said they found more than two ounces of marijuana and $1,500 cash on him. Officers searching the store said they discovered marijuana stowed inside shoes for sale. Police said. they found four digital scales, baggies, cash and a loaded semi-auto2natie pistol.. Source: http://www.montereyherald.com/mldJmontereyheraldlnews/IocaU l 6202071.htm San Francisco Rejects Storefront Marijuana Shop Wednesday, December 27, 2006 This Los Angeles Times article details the interesting story of Kevin Reed, a medical marijuana dispenser in San. Francisco who had to close up shop despite the city's liberal reputation: Kevin Reed. launched his medical marijuana business two years ago, armed with big dreams and an Excel spreadsheet. Happy customers at his Green Cross cannabis club were greeted by "bud tenders" and glass jars brimming with high-quality weed at red-tag prices. They hailed the slender, gentle Southerner as a ganja good. Samaritan. Though Reed set out to run it like a Walgreens, his tiny storefront shop ended up buzzing with jazzy joie de vivre. Turnover was Starbucks-style: On a good day, $30,000 in business would walk through the black., steel-gated front door. Today, the 32-year-old cannabis capitalist is looking for a job, h.is business undone by its own success and unexpected opposition in one of America's most proudly tolerant places. Critics in nearby Victorian homes called Reed a neighborhood. nuisance. Although. four of five San Francisco voters support medical marijuana, the realities of dispensing the contentious medicine have proved far more controversial......Today, about 200,000 Californians have a doctor's permission to use cannabis, which they can obtain through more than. 250 dispensaries, delivery services and patient collectives - 120 of them in Los Angeles County alone. Medical marijuana, activists say, has become a $1-billion. business. There's been plenty of blowback. Local governments have been grappling with how to regulate storefront sales, still prohibited under federal law despite California's tolerance. 12 75A-86 Though two dozen cities and seven counties -including Los Angeles, Riverside and Santa Barbara -have approved regulations allowing dispensaries, more than 90 others have passed. moratoriums on new suppliers or banned them. outright.......His operation generated local controversy in San Francisco's Fair Oaks community -- located between the Mission District and the Noe Valley neighborhood -- when it started becoming more like a ca»nabis club for the healthy and hi~~ than a weed venda~ to the afflicted. FAIR Oaks locals, most of them. believers in medical marijuana, at first were laid back about the little pot shop. But feelings hardened as customers flocked in. Reed says his bi.g mistake was revving up business with a newsweekly ad offering ahalf--off special. Pot patients arrived from across the Bay Area, many bereft after a dispensary crackdown in Oakland's downtown "Oaksterdam." Residents compared the revolving door of 300 daily patrons to a beehive on a sunny afternoon. They grumbled about customers double- parking, blocking driveways, flipping off homeowners..... Neighbors watched some youthfirl customers emerge and share their wares with. friends, high-fiving all around. A few reportedly harassed some eighth-grade schoolgirls. One patient was robbed at gunpoint. Crime worries grew. "I saw people coming up on bikes and skateboards, with backpacks, healthy-looking young men," said Dr. Charles Moser, a physician who, like many in Fair Oaks, voted for Proposition 215. Neighborhood critics said they were all for cannabis compassion, but not this free-for-all. Proposition 215 encouraged government plaruiing for safe and affordable distribution, but it didn't mention pot clubs. Source: http://burkeanreflections.blog~ot.com12006/l.2/san-.francisco-reiects- storefront.html. CannaHelp owner to defy city cease-and-desist letter The Desert Sun December 19, 2006 CannaHelp, th.e medical marijuana in Palm Desert, is staying open. in defiance of a cease- and-desist letter from the city. "I'm going to stay open by myself," said owner Stacy Hochanadel, after sending his other employees home. "I don't think it's right what they're doing." The city issued the letter, which Hochanadel received today, following a City Council vote in closed session last Thursday, said City Attorney David Erwin..... Councilman. Robert A. Spiegel said the reason. for the closed session vote was an investigation "not by our police department but by another police department in California. "When they were investigated, they sold marijuana to an undercover police person who did not have correct credentials to buy marijuana," he said.......Hochanade] signed an agreement with. the city earlier this year that the dispensary would only sell medical marijuana to patients with a medical. marijuana identification card issued by Riverside County. But, he said, that part of the agreement had been put on hold following discussions with then-Mayor.lim Ferguson, due to the financial impact on the business which would have had to turn away significant numbers of customers...... CannaHelp has had a business license issued by the city since it opened in October 2005. The dispensary was closed briefly earlier this month when the Special Investigation Unit of the Riverside County Sheriffs Department served a search and seizure warrant on the business But, said Capt. Steve Thetford, chief of the Palm Desert Police Department, "The Palm Desert (department) hasn't made any significant arrests out of CannaHelp" in recent months, the county investigation notwithstanding.. ,.. ]3 75A-87 Source: htt~//www.thedesertsun.con~/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=120061.219/(JPDATI//6 i 219027 Medical Concerns Marijuana more addictive for youth Bruce Ward, CanWest News Service; Ottawa Citizen Published: November 24, 2006 OTTAWA -Young people can easily become dependent on marijuana because their brain is still developing, says an expert on youth substance abuse. "Kids can get addicted really quickly, like six months," said Kathy Szirtes, who spoke Thursday at a public forum in Ottawa on problematic marijuana use among youth. "An adult may take two years, but kids can take six months because their bodies are still soft and. b*rowing. The teen brain really isn't done l,~rowing." For young people who use marijuana to deal with anxiety or to get to sleep, the drug "can literally become hard-wired into them in terms of a dependency," she added. "You see this in adults who say, 'Oh 1 need a few drinks before I'm going to dance.' The same thing happens with kids who use weed and say, 'I can't relax in a movie for that long unless I'm stoned. A lot of it is psychological," said Szirtes. It is a myth that marijuana use is not harmful, said Szirtes, a specialist in youth mental health. and substance abuse who works in Victoria, B.C. "We're seeing massive numbers of kids who can't use weed safely. And so you get these frustrated parents who might be saying, 'Why can't you just use on the weekend. Come on, we used to."' Marijuana can be "very addictive both psychologically and physiologically,'" she said, adduig that "it has a Little bit gentler withdrawal effects than other drugs." The debate on decriminalization and legalization of marijuana has been misinterpreted by many young people who believe th.e drug is not harmful, added Szirtes. "1 do know a lot of kids have taken that message and just only read the piece that says it's probably not harmful. It's not harmfitl to everyone, but in fact it's harmful to a lot of people," she said, noting when young people get into marijuana dependency cycles, it causes behavior changes. "You start wrecking relationships with family, with teachers, your memory goes, you can't sleep properly unless you have a toke before bed and on it goes. We're certainly seeing a rise in problems in the high schools." Because marijuana interferes with sleep, "kids are at school and they're exhausted," added Szirtes. Marijuana cravings for young people often look like Attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder symptoms. Other sigms include changes in friends, sleep disturbances, and. mood swings. "I think the average parent should be as con.cei~~ed about marijuana as they would be about any other hard drug," said Szirtes. "While marijuana is not necessarily immediately detrimental to the system, because of its long-term effects it is overall just as harmful as any other hard drug." Anew Centre for Addiction and Mental Health drug use survey shows that about one in four Ontario high school students have used marijuana at least once in the past year, and that one in 12 report symptoms of dependence. After alcohol, marijuana has become the drug of choice in Ontario high schools. Ottawa Citizen ©CanWest News Service 2006 Source: http://www.canada.com/topics/bodyandhealth/story.html?id=748cad2e-2e93- 4b70-be0b-cb99bd9e6626&k=98371 14 75A-88 Marijuana wreaks havoc on brain's memory cells 11:38 20 November 2006 NewScientist.com news service Roxanne hh.atnsi Smoking marijuana often causes temporary problems with memory and learning. Now researchers think they know why. The active ingredient in the drug, tetrahydrocannabinoid (THC), disrupts the way nerves fire in the brain's memory centre, a new study shows. David Robbe at Rutgers University in New Jersey, US, and colleagues gave rats an injected dose of THC, proportional to the amount inhaled. by a person smoking an average-sized. marijuana joint. The team monitored the drug's effect using wire probes placed in a memory centre i.n the animals' brains -the hippocampus. Th.e probes monitored the nerve impulses as they fired. Normally, cells ui hippocampus f re in sync, creating a current with. a total voltage of around 1 millivolt. But THC reduced the synchrony of the firing. The drug did not change the total number of firings produced, just their tendency to occur at the same time -and. this reduced the combined. output voltage of the nerve signals by about 50%. Abnormal firing occurs because THC binds to a receptor on the surface of the nerve cell., and so indirectly blocks the flow of current, Robbe believes. 1/ncore! Nerves need to signal in sync to send a powerful message within the brain, Robbe notes. He likens the process to an audience clapping together -rather than randomly - to make their desire for an encore performance known. Rats that had more synchronous nerve signaling in their brains performed better on a memory test, the team found. In this test, the animals had to choose whether to turn right or left in a T-shaped maze. In order to receive a treat, they had to turn in the direction opposite to the one they chose in their previous run. Normal rats accurately alternate their routes about 90% of the time. But rats given THC, which caused asynchronous nerve firing, chose a random direction. on each run, and so chose the correct route 50% of the time. The disruptive effect of THC wore aff within a few hours. Robbe says he hopes to Fnd out whether chronic exposure to the drug causes lasting effects on the hippocampus in rats. Scientists studying people have found that long-term marijuana users gradually become worse at ]earning and remembering things (see Pot-smoki.n~~your way to memory loss). Previous experiments have shown that THC can disrupt the signaling of nerve cells in a Petri dish. But Robbe says this is the first detailed account of what happens to memory cells in a live animal. He adds that the new findings help explain why people high on marijuana sometime lose their train of thought in mid- sentence, forgetting what they were saying. Journal reference: Nature Neuroscience (DOI: 10.1038/nn1801} Source: http://www.newscientist.com/channel/health/dn].0607-mat~ijuatla-wreaks-havoc- on -brains-memory-c el ls.html Marijuana may cause pregnancies to fail. 22:00 O1 August 2006 NewScientist.com news service Michael Day Smoking marijuana at the time of conception could cause pregnancies to fail, new research in mice suggests. The same problem may occur as a result of taking the slimming drug, rimonabant. The wan~ings come from embryologists who have discovered key factors that govern an embryo's chances of successful implantation. A IS 75A-89 after fertilization in humans and mice, the egg faces a perilous path from the place of conception in tb.e fallopian tube down. into the womb. The team from Vanderbilt University Medical Centre, Tennessee, US, has shown that precisely the right levels of a chemical called anandatnide are required for this passage to be completed safely. lncreasing or decreasing the amount of aJ~andamide drastically harnls mouse embryos' chances of normal implantation and survival. Their research reveals that anandamide levels in the fallopian tubes are governed by two enzymes: one called NAPE-PLD increases levels of anandamide, while NAAH reduces them. Cannabinoid receptor Significantly, the team also found that exposing the mice to certain drugs disrupted this delicate balance, thereby impeding an embryo's ability to pass into the womb. One such substance is tetrahydrocannabinol (THC}, the major psychoactive component of marijuana. Like anandamide, it binds to the cannabinoid receptor CBl, thereby displacing anandamide and. boosting levels of the chemical present in the oviduct. The discovery poses worrying questions about the ability of marijuana, the most widely used illegal drug among women of reproductive age, to harm pregnancy, says the lead researcher, Sudhansu Dey. "This is worrying because embryo retention. is a significant cause of ectopic pregnancy in women," he says. He also notes that the incidence of such. abnormal and dangerous pregnancies has risen sharply in. tl.~e past decade. Another expert in .reproductive biology, Herbert Scheel at the State University of New York in Buffalo, US, points out that some new medicines also interacted with CB] receptors and therefore had the potential to disrupt amandine levels and embryo development. One such drug, the slimming pill rimonabant -- sold. as Acomplia - is already licensed in the UK. "Given the results of the study, we need to be very sure that rimonabant doesn't have unwanted effects on women of reproductive age," Scheel says. CB 1 receptors are not just present in the brain but all over the body, including the reproductive system, he adds, "so we shouldn't be surprised i.f it has unwanted effects". A spokeswoman for rimonabant's manufacturer, Sanofi-Aventis, said the company dial not recommend the use of rimonabant during pregnancy anal advised patients who are planning to become pregnant to seek immediate medical advice. 3oumal reference: Journal of Clinical Investigation (vol. 116, p 2087) Source: http://www.newscientist.com/channel/health/dn9653-marijuana-may-cause- pregnancies-to-fail.html Why teenagers should steer clear of cannabis 1.6:21 OS :Culy 2006 NewScientist.com news service Gaia Vince Adolescents' use of marijuana may increase the risk of heroin addiction later in life, a new study suggests. Researchers say the work adds to "overwhelming" evidence that people under 21 should not use marijuana because of the risk of damaging the developing brain. The idea that smoking cannabis increases the user's chance of going on to take harder drugs such as heroin is highly contentious, Some dub cannabis a "gateway" drug, arguing that peer pressure and exposure to drug dealers will tempt users to escalate their drug use. Others insist that smoking cannabis is unrelated to further drug use. Now research. in rats suggests that wing marijuana reduces future sensitivity to opioids, which makes people more vulnerable to heroin addiction later in life. It does so by altering the brain chemistry of marijuana users, say the researchers. 16 75A-90 "Adolescents in particular should never take cannabis -it's far too risky because the brain areas essential for behavior and cognitive functioning are still developing and. are very sensitive to drug exposure," says Jasmin Hurd, who led the study at the Karolinska Institute in Sweden. But Hurd acknowledges that most people who use cannabis begin in their teens. A recent survey reported that as many as 20% of 16-year-olds in the US and Europe had illegally used. cannabis in the previous month. "Teenage" rats. In order to explore how the adolescent use oFcannabis affects later drug use, Hurd and colleagues set up an experiment in rats aimed to mirror human use as closely as possible. In the first part of the trial, six "teenage" rats were given a small dose of THC -the active chemical in cannabis -every three days between the ages of 28 and 49 days, which is the equivalent of human ages ] 2 to 18. The amount of THC given was roughly equivalent to a human smoking one joint every tlu-ee days; Hurd explains. A control group of six rats did not receive THC. One week after the first part was completed, catheters were inserted in all i2 of the adult rats and they were able to self-administer heroin. by pushing a lever. "At first, all the rats behaved the same and began to self-administer heroin frequently," says Hurd. "But after a while, they stabilized their daily intake at a certain level. We saw that the ones that had been on THC as teenagers stabilized their intake at a much higher level than the others -they appeared to be less sensitive to the effects of heroin. And this continued throughout their lives." Hurd says reduced sensitivity to the heroin means the rats take larger doses, which has been shown to increase the risk of addiction. The researchers then examined specific brain cells in the rats, including the opioid and cartnabinoid receptors. They found that the rats that had been given THC during adolescence had a significantly altered opioid system in the area associated with reward and positive emotions. This is also the area linked to addiction. "These are very specific changes and they are long-lasting, so the brain may `remember' past cannabis experimentation and be vulnerable to harder drugs later in life," Hurd says. Neurologist Jim van Os, a cannabis expert a.t the University of Maastricht in the Netherlands told New Scientist the research was a welcome addition to our understanding of how cannabis affects the adolescent brain. "The issue of cross-sensitization of cannabis/opioid receptors has been a controversial one, but these findings show the drug's damaging effects on the reward structures of the brain," van Oshe says. "There i.s now overwhelming evidence that nobody in the brain's developmental stage -under the age of 21 -should use cannabis." The research appears in the online edition oi'Neuropsychopharmaeology. Source: httg:/Iwww.newscientist.com/channel/heal.th/dn94K8-why-teenagers-should- steer-clear-of-cannabis.htm l Cannabis link to mental illness strengthened 23:01 21 November 2002 NewScientist.com news service Emma Young The link between regular cannabis use and later depression and schizophrenia has been significantly strengthened by Three new studies. The studies provide "little support" for an alternative explanation -that people with mental illnesses self-medicate with marijuana -according to Joseph Rey and Christopher Tennant of the University of Sydney, who have written an editorial on the papers in the British Medical Journal, l7 75A-91 One of the key conclusions of the research is that people who start smoking cannabis as adolescents are at the greatest risk of later developing mental health problems. Another team calculates that eliminating cannabis use in the UK population could reduce cases of schizophrenia by l 3 per cent. Until now, say Rey and Tennant, there was "a dearth of reliable evidence" to support the idea that cannabis use could cause schizoplu-enia or depression. That lack of good evidence "has handicapped the development of rational public health policies," according to one of the research groups, led by George Patton at the Murdoch Children's Research Institute in Melbourne, Australia. The works also highlights potential risks associated with using cannabis as a medicine to ease the symptoms of muscular sclerosis, for example. Patton's team followed over 1600 Australian school pupils aged l 4 to 15 for seven years. Daily cannabis use was associated with a rve-fold increased. risk of depression at the age of 20. Weekly use was linked to a two-fold increase. The regular users wexe no more likely to have suffered from depression or anxiety at the start of the study. The reason for the link is unclear. Social consequences of frequent cannabis use include educational failure and unemployment, which could increase the risk of depression. "However, because the risk seems confined largely to daily users, the question about a direct pharmacological effect remains," says Patton. In separate research, a team led. by Stanley Zammit at the University of Cardiff, UK, evaluated data. on over 50,000 men who had been Swedish military conscripts in 1.969 and1970. This group represents 97 per cent of men aged 18 to 20 in the population at that time. The new analysis revealed adore-dependant relationship between the frequency of cannabis use aid schizophrenia. This held true in men with no psychotic symptoms before they started using cannabis, suggesting they were not self-medicating. Finally, researchers led by Terrie Moffitt at King's College London, UK, analyzed comprehensive data on over 1.000 people born in Dunedin, New Zealand in 1972 and 1973. They found that people who used cannabis by age 15 were four tinier as likely to have a diagnosis of schizophreniform disorder (a milder version of schizophrenia} at age 26 than non-users. But when the number ofpsychotic symptoms at age 11 was controlled for, this increased risk dropped to become non-significant. Tlus suggests that people already at greater risk of later developing mental. health. problems are also more likely to smoke cannabis. The total number of high. quality studies on cannabis use and mental health disorders remains small, stress Rey and Tennant. And it is still. not clear whether cannabis can cause these conditions in people not predisposed by genetic factors, for example, to develop them. "The overall weight of evidence is that occasional use of cannabis has few harmful. effects overall," Zammit's team writes. "Nevertheless, our results indicate a potentially serious risk to the mental health of people who use cannabis. Such risks need to be considered in the current move to liberalise and possibty legalise the use of catuiabis in the UK and other countries." Journal references: British Medical Journal (vo1325, p1195, p1199, p1212, p1 l83) Source: http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn3098-cannabis-link-to-mental-illness-strengthened.html 1.8 75A-92 True Agenda? 2006 Newsmaker Andrea Tischler: Fighting to legalize marijuana By Sharma McCord Sentinel. staff writer SANTA CRUZ -When city voters passed Measure IC in November, Santa Cruz went on the map as a national leader .in the effort to legalize marijuana. Measure K forces Santa Cruz police officers to make adult marijuana crimes their lowest priority. The measure, primarily organized by Andrea Tischler, won easily with more than 60 percent voter approval. But Measure K is not just about Santa Cruz. its design is part of a natio~iwide strategy to convince state anal federal governments that marijuana should be a legal drug -taxed and regulated like alcohol and tobacco. "This really is an interim measure on the way to frill. legalization of marijuana for personal use," said Tischler, a longtime leader in many local marijuana causes. "It's happening city by city. We're moving in that direction of legalizing marijuana in the state," she said. The federal government, however, has not wavered on its stance that marijuana is an illegal drug. Since California voters approved Proposition 215 in 1996 to allow sick people to use marijuana to ease pain and suffering, the medical marijuana cause has faced numerous lawsuits and investigations by federal authorities. Measure K faces potential legal problems as police are sworn to uphold state laws, which say marijuana is an illegal drug when used recreationally, Any effort to legalize the drug is expected to be hard-fought in court. Tischler, who recently closed the medical marijuana bed and breakfast she and her partner had run for six years on Laurel Street. anal moved to Hawaii, stumbled into the marijuana movement in the 1960s, a decade synonymous with liberal attitudes. She was 22 and teaching social studies at a Chicago high school u~ 1965 when some colleagues offered Tischler her first joint. "I said, 'Geez, this isn't bad.' I didn't have a hangover the next morning line I did with alcohol," she said.. From that first experience, Tischler has been fighting for the right to smoke pot legally. ".It's the same as someone coming home from work and having a couple of martinis," she said. After stints in Guam and San Francisco, Tischler moved to Davenport in 1988 and quickly became involved in local marijuana issues. In 1994, Tischler convinced administrators at Pacific Elementary School in Davenport, which her son attended, to drop the DARE program because she believed nurses should be teaching the effects of drugs, not police officers. Marijuana issues are Tischler's cause celebre. She believes the drug is no worse for the human body than alcohol and tobacco. "Marijuana makes people peaceful in their hearts and in their minds," she said. Due to the work of Tischler and others who share her passion for pat, ordinances similar to Measure K have been passed in cities such as Oakland, Seattle, Santa Monica, Santa Barbara and San Francisco. More are on the way, she said. The ordinances to make marijuana crimes a low priority for police seem. to be picking up momentum across the county. Mike Corral, who founded the Wo/Man's Medical Marijuana co-op in 1993 with his wife, Valerie, believes legalized marijuana would allow police to focus on more serious crimes and generate more revenue for the government in the form of new taxes. Government regulation of pot also would produce a safer, higher quality product, Corral said. "I see general legalization as a win-win situation all around," he said. "There is a bigger wave building in America around general Legalization." Local police have said Measure K could hinder law enforcement efforts because marijuana is involved in many crimes in Santa Cruz. 19 75A-93 The marijuana measure was put on the Santa Cruz ballot after at least 3,400 registered city voters signed their name to a petition earlier this year in support of easing up on pot smokers. The local. measure was funded almost entirely by Peter B. Lewis, a billionaire insurance tycoon in Cleveland who has spent millions of dollars to support marijuana causes nationwide. Contact Sharma McCord at smccord~a~sa.naacruzsentinel.com. Yrside i•9~asure fC • Adult marijuana crimes on private property are the lowest law enforcement priority, Santa Cruz police are not allowed to participate in countywide marijuana busts. • Santa Cruz police are not allowed to testify in marijuana cases. • Citizens oversight committee, appointed by the City Council, will monitor police reports related to marijuana crimes. • Santa Cruz cannot accept federal funds designated for fighting marijuana crimes. Source: httn://www.santacruzsentinel.com/archive/2000/December/29/local/stories/04iocal htm Santa Cruz's Compassion Flower Inn owners heading for another joint BY SHANNA MCCORD SENTINEL STAFF WRITER SANTA CRUZ -The Santa Cruz bed, "bud" and breakfast, the butt of many jokes and center of media attention worldwide, has closed its doors. The owners of the Compassion Flower Inn on Laurel Street packed their bags and moved to Hawaii on Tuesday, leaving empty the inn established in 2000 primarily for medical marijuana users. "It's been a fun. ride," said Andrea Tischler, Compassion Flower Inn co-owner. "We are proud of our achievements in Santa Cruz and leave a considerable legacy behind." Tischler and her longtime partner, Maria Mall.ek-Tischler, who have been leaders in local efforts to legalize marijuana, said their business was hampered by problems in the neighborhood. They plan. to take their brand of medical marijuana business to Hawaii, where they want to open a care home for aging gays and lesbians. The two restored. the 140-year-old Victorian and converted it into a bed and breakfast that allowed guests to smoke joints with a doctor's permission. The inn h.ad five guest rooms that ran from $125-$17S a night. Decorating touches i~lcluded the mosaics on the tubs in the shape of a marijuana leaf, and a large marijuana leaf mosaic in the sidewalk leading to the front porch. Hemp leaves are painted on th.e walls, and guests were given complimentary bars of soap made with hemp. The drapes, bed spreads and pillowcases are all made from hemp fibers. The inn was known for its hemp seed pancakes, and late-night comedian Jay Leno joked during a monologue years ago that "Santa Cruz has a pot hotel, a place you can. find doobies under the pillows." Tischler said ongoing behavioral problems in the neighborhood contributed to its closure. She cited drug anal alcohol use by people hanging around the inn as factors that made staying in business difficult. "We'd be kept awake every night," Tischler said. "They would use our front yard and. parking lot as a bathroom. They'd steal anything not fastened down." 20 75A-94 Tischler, 63, also said the constant cleaning and. cooking, and other upkeep required to stay in business, had become too much for her and Mallek-Tischler. The inn is up for sale, otherwise Tischler hopes someone will lease the house and keep the inn going or turn the place into a yoga or massage retreat. In Hawaii, the two plan to start a "gay, gray and gourmet" business - an assisted-care facitity for seniors. "As our population ages, I believe we will see the demand for more compassion 'kine bud' nursing homes in th.e states That have approved medical marijuana," she said. "If you have only months or a few years to live, why not reduce suffering and be happy?" Tischler was a driving force behind the passage of Measure K in Santa Cruz. Measure K was a ballot initiative passed in November that makes adult use of marijuana the lowest priority for Santa Cruz police oftcers. Contact Sharma McCord at smccordre~santacruzsentinel com, Source: http://www.santaeruzsentinel com/arc;hive/2006/December/20/local/stories/021ocal htm 21 75A-95 El Cerrito Police Department Memorandum Date: April 18, 2007 To: Scott C. Kirkland Chief of Police rrom: Cmdr. M. Regan Subject: Marijuana Information January !March 2007 I have continued to collect information related to marijuana dispensaries and. related issues. I have assembled the information in the following categories; • Juveniles and Marijuana • Associated Crimes • Trends • Opinions on the abuse of "Medical Marijuana" model Each entry is an excerpt of t13e original article. The full article can be found at the listed source link. One of the most disturbing issues related to our states position on marijuana is the ease with which marijuana Ends its way into the hands our children. We have asserted from the begimaing that the lack of regulation involved in the recommendation process has led to the issuance of these recommendations high school students. While we believe this to be an on-going problem, it is not regularly publicized. However, I believe the problem to be very real. Over the past few months, there have been a number of sensational cases involving children which have garnered media attention. Medical Marijuana Readily Available To California High School Students Web Editor: Matt Bush, Online Content Producer Created: 3/9/2007 1.:47:21 PM /Updated: 3/9/2007 2:09:22 PM Some California teens are giving a new meaning to "high" school. Students are finding easy access to medical marijuana cards and presenting those cards to school authorities as a legitimate excuse for getting high.. "It's not a get out of jail free card at all," said Cathrine Martin, of the Grossmoirt Union School District. Martin says even though -nedical marijuana is legal in California, the law doesn't apply to schools which are subject to federal law. The district also says the students most recently suspended for being high with cards in hand, didn't have major illnesses. "Students are getting them for things like sleeplessness and stress, it just draws into question how easy is it for people to get their hands on these cards," said Martin. According to the district attorney's office, it's extremely easy if you know where to look. During a series of recent under cover sting operations, DA investigators identified a handful of San Diego Doctors who prescribe marijuana to just about anyone, so long as they had a symptom and money. 75A-96 One such location was an office called Medimar. NBC has learned Dr. Kenneth Johnson of Medimar is the same doctor who signed off on at least one of the Grossmont District students. His business was among those targeted. and shut down in the police sting. "It was pretty much you had a sLlort consultation. Come in and filled out a short questionnaire, talk to a couple guys about it, get a prescription and then you'd walls across the hall and get your prescription filled," said Ben Martin, a neighboring tenant to Medimar. Source: http://www.wcsh6.con>/news/watereooler/arti.cle.aspx?storyid=54559 Caution: Marijuana may not be lesser evil By Rita Rubin, USA TODAY Tyreot Gardner first smoked marijuana when he was I3. "The main reason I tried it was curiosity," Gardner recalls. "I wanted to see what it felt like." He liked what it felt like, and by age 15, he was smoking pot every week. Ile supported his habit with the money his parents gave him for getting straight A's on his report card. They didn't have a clue. "By I6, when I got my License, it turned into a fairly everyday thing," says Gardner, now 24. "I believe it i.s very addictive, especially for people with. addictive personalities."....studies have shown that when regular pot smokers quit, they do experience withdrawal symptoms, a characteristic used to predict addictiveness. Most users of more addictive drugs, such as cocaine or heroin, started with marijuana, scientists say, and the earlier they started, the greater their risk of becoming addicted. Many studies have documented a link between smoking marijuana and the later use of "harder" drugs such as heroin and cocaine, but that doesn't necessarily mean marijuana causes addiction to harder drugs.....says Harvard University psychiatrist Harrison Pope, director of the Biological Psychiatry Laboratory at Boston's McLean Hospital. "There's just no way scientifically to end that argument one way or the other."......"I would bet you. that people who start smoking marijuana earlier are more likely to get into using other drugs," Pope says. Perhaps people who are predisposed to using a variety of drugs start smoking marijuana earlier than others do, he says. Besides alcohol, often the first drug adolescents abuse, marijuana may simply be the most accessible and least scary choice for a novice susceptible to drug addiction, says Virginia Tech psychologist Bob Stephens. No matter which side you take in the debate over whether marijuana is a "gateway" to other illicit drugs, you can't argue with "indisputable data" showing that smoking pot affects neuropsychological functioning, such as hand-eye coordination, reaction time and memory, says Wesley Clarke, director of the federal Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Admin.istration......in 2006, 11.7% of eighth-graders said they had used marijuana during the past year, compared with 6.2% of eighth-graders in 1991. Among 12th-graders, 31.5% said they had used marijuana in the previous year; in 1991, 23.9% said they had. "You are at school, and your main job as an adolescent is to learn and memorize," NIDA director Nora Volkow says. But if you keep becoming intoxicated by smoking marijuana, she says, you'll fall further and further behind in your studies. "How are you going to catch up?" 2 75A-97 In a study comparing heavy marijuana users with people who'd h. ad minimal exposure to the drug, Pope found that the former had lower verbal. IQ scores than the latter..... Research shows marijuana users are significantly less satisfied with the quality of their lives than non-users, a revelation "as telling as any very fancy story of molecules," Volkow says. Yet, she says, "I think there is a general sense that marijuana is a relatively benign drug and does not produce addiction." Although over the past decade, "research clearly has provided unequivocal evidence that ... some people car. become addicted to marijuana." Stephens has conducted seven large treatment studies of marijuana dependence, or addiction. "There's never any shortage of people who meet this definition," says Stephens, who edited the 2006 book Cannabis Dependence. Pot as predecessor....Pope has studied heavy marijuana users..."We were able to show there i.s a clear withdrawal syndrome.".....Marijuana today is more potent and Therefore more toxic than marijuana grown in the 1970s, Volkow says. Back then, she says, plants typically contained only 2% THC. Today, she says, marijuana plants typically contain 15% THC. Source: http://www.usatoday.eom/news/health/2007-02-OS-marijuana_x.htm While still only "anecdotal" in nature, there is demonstrable crime associated with the distribution of marijuana. The articles below describe homicides and a burglary associated with in-door grows and dispensaries. The article documenting the burglary also furthers the suggestion that crimes associated with these establishments are still under reported. Pot theft claimed in boy's shooting death By Tami Abdollah and Richard Winton Times Staff Writers January 23, 2007 A 13eilflower man who said he was growing marijuana to ease pain from liver cancer is in custody on suspicion of fatally shooting a 15-year-old boy who allegedly was trying to steal some of the plants with his older brother. Prosecutors will have to decide whether Jeny Cress acted in self-defense and was in reasonable fear for his life when he shot Jacob Walker with asmall-caliber handgun shortly before daybreak Sunday, said Los Angeles County Sheriff's Homicide Capt. Ray Peavy...... In an unusual twist, the dead boy's brother, Duane Berry, 24, could be charged with murder because the shooting occurred during the alleged commission of a felony. Detectives said Jacob and his brother were attempting a burglary. Berry had recently been released from jail on a narcotics sales charge that is to go to trial next month. "The kids in neighborhood had learned the guy had pat plants on his property, and some had broken in before," Peavy said. "These two la~ew there was a pretty large quantity."...... Peavy said Cress told detectives he had liver cancer and "it appears he has been self-medicating for a period of time." In this diverse working-class neighborhood in Bellflower, near the border with Paramount, news of the shooting came as a shock. But the existence of the marijuana crop was well-known to many teenagers. Some who spoke to The Times said many people had attempted to raid the crop before. Source:http:/lwww.latimes.com/news/printedition/californialla-me- pot231an23 1,7100043.story?colt=la-headlines-pe-California 75A-98 Police evaluating pot find in fatal home invasion, Son says marijuana was for medical. use to combat pain Friday, January 12, 2007 Pittsburg police said Thursday that they are cautiously weighing a claim that marijuana found in the home of a slain PC World senior editor was grown and used by his son for medical purposes. Four masked men burst into the Pittsburg home of Rex Farrance, 59, about 9 p.m. Tuesday, fatally shooting him anal pistol-whipping his wife after demanding money, police said. Na arrests have been made. Police summoned to the home on Argosy Court found a large quantity of marijuana and said the couple were involved in the possession and passible sale of drugs.......the couple's son said that he was growing the drug at the home for medical reasons. The motive for the incident was definitely robbery, and. whether any drugs on the premises are related to the home invasion "feeds right back into the entire reason for exploring whether there's a nexus between the possession of a controlled substance and targeting that particular residence for residential robbery." Source: http://sfgate.coin/cgi-bin/article.egi?f=/c/a/2007!01/1.2/BAGNQNHGDII.DTL Killings related to marijuana grow? By M.ATTHIAS GAFNI and J.M. BROWN, Times-Herald staff writers Article Launched: 01/26/2007 07:10:16 AM PST A Glen Cove home where two men were shot to death last week contained hydroponics equipment and other material commonly used for growing marijuana....During atour of the home... a reporter and photographer saw several large plant trays, ventilation systems and chemicals consistent with those used to cultivate marijuana...... Thursday's findings offered the first insight into other factors that could be linked to the killings of James Werder and Manuel Catdera, partners in an ice cream truck business....In interviews this week, loved ones denied the men were drug dealers, saying instead they were good men excited about selling ice cream to children from their hip-hop styled truck.......Werder, 35, and Caldera, 27, were found dead inside the Name Jan. 17, where they had sustained multiple gunshot wounds. 1?ol.ice have made no arrests and will not say whether they have any leads.......In the garage, there were five large plant beds that each could hold ~5 individual. cultivation blacks, and the walls, including the garage door, were covered iu inch-thick insulation. There also was aforced-ai.r heater in the garage and a large exhaust tube to direct air to the outside through the roof. There were other pieces of hydroponics equipment and. a weekly feeding chart attached to a wall. In a back bedroom, a large circular hale had been drilled into a wall so ventilation tubing could push heat directly into the room from a hallway furnace. The floor was littered with potting soil and plant leaves. In the hallway bathroom, there was more soil in the sink. Turley said none of the equipment or modifications to the home's heating system existed before he rented the house just over a year ago......Turley said he dial not know whether the slain. men lived in the home, but said Molina -who alv~ays paid the ~ 1,650 monthly rent in cash -was not allowed to sub- lease the three-bedroom, two-bath house. Source: http:l/www.timesheraldonline,com/ci 50)3434 4 75A-99 Claremont marijuana dispensary burglarized By Will Bigham, Staff Writer /Article Launched: O1/28/2007 12:00:00 AM PST CLAREMONT -Burglars stole nine marijuana plants after breaking into the city's medical marijuana dispensary, police discovered Friday morning. Police responded at about 7:45 a.m. to Claremont All-Natural Nutrition Aids Buyers Information Sexvices in the 600 block of S..Indian Hill Boulevard, after a city official driving past the location saw that a window had been broken......The controversial dispensary, which has bathed City Hall since it opened in September without a business license, is now coming under closer scrutiny from. city officials, as one central fear -that the business would attract crime -appears to have been realized. "Potentially these dispensaries can serve as a crime magnet in a community," Councilman Corey Calaycay said. "Having a dispensary in town could. put an additional burden on our police, and we already have needs for other public safety priorities in our community." Kruse conceded Saturday that his dispensary was an attraction for criminals, but h.e disputed the suggestion. that it's more of a target than any other business. Source: http~i/www dailybulletin.cam/newsici 51045 ! 4 MARIJUANA RIND LINKED TO PIPE BOMB IN SAN BRUNO HOME 01/02/07 2:55 PST /SAN BRUNO (BCN) San Mateo County narcotics investigators detonated a pipe bomb hidden under a San Bruno man's mattress Friday when they went tv arrest him in connection with an elaborate indoor marijuana grow in a nearby rental property. San Bruno firefighters discovered th.e pot around 8:15 p.m. after responding tv neighbors' reports of sparks coming from the roof of a home.....When firefighters went inside the home "they stumbled over a marijuana grow inside the house. The entire house had been converted into a marijuana operation," he said.. Same 1,298 plants with a combined potential street value of more than $1 million...... When narcotics task force investigators arrived at the home they found ahigh-velocity AK-47 and other weapons along with the pot. Nobody was at the home at the time, Capovilla said. But "it could have been really ugly for law enforcement going in," he said. "Somebody has fortified the place ... in a nice little neighborhood."....After searching Setts' residence, investigators came across a pipe bomb, along with. a police scanner, additional weapons, ammunition and stolen property. The pipe bomb was detonated after Setts' home and. neighboring residences were evacuated, Capovilla said. The pot haul wasn't especially unusual, Capovilla said, adding that there is a fairly high demand for marijuana in California. In October and November the county's narcotics task force dealt with much larger finds in Daly City and San Bruno, each in yielding more than 3,000 square feet of marijuana, he said. Source: httg://cbs5.ann/localwire/localfsn ews/bcr~/20(i7/O 1J02/n/Head[i neNews/1VIAKIJUANA- BOMB/resources ben html. Death Of Marijuana Advocate Could Lead To Changes Riclc Sallins~er(CBS4) DENVER Police are still searching for a suspect in the murder of marijuana advocate Ken Gorman. He was shot to death at his Denver home Feb. 17 in what police think was a robbery. 75A-100 Gorman grew pot in his home for himself and others. Just days before his murder, he spoke to CBS4 of the dangers. "T've had a gun stuck to my head," Gorman said. "I've had people stabbed here, in my house, from people trying to get my marijuana." Gorman called Colorado's amendment legalizing medical. marijuana "a great, great law,"....."You try your luck dawn on Colfax and get shot," May said. "Or, get your car hijacked fora $20 bag." In response to the violence, medical marijuana dispensaries are now opening, like Cannabis Therapeutics Dispensary in Colorado Springs. Matt Schnur of Cannabis Therapeutics said they have bulletproof glass and a steel door for security. There is also an extensive camera system.....But Colorado's Attorney General John Suthers believes such dispensaries may be exploiting the law. "This is the medical marijuana law being abused for purposes of wide scale marijuana distribution," Suthers said. Source: htt~//cbs4denver_com/tc)pstaries/local story OSb17()23H.htm1 As we have discussed in the past, trends in the United Sates appear to follow those from Canada. Canadian. Law Enforcement began to report the increase on "in-door" grows some time ago. They have recently reported the involvement of organized crime in the larger growing operations. Th.e articles below suggest that these trends are already in place within the United States, specifically in the State of California. D.E.A. agent Taylor opines in one of the articles that part of the attractiveness of Marijuana sales in California is due partly to "medical marijuana Iaws that have created a permissive attitude." I partially concur with this assessment. However, I would add into the equation the fact there are at feast 3551a~own Marijuana dispensaries operating in California (CAL NORML website, up from 240 last summer) and these dispensaries are likely selling a couple of pounds of Marijuana each day. Someone has to be supplying the Marijuana to those dispensaries and I would suspect it is likely that a majority of the Marijuana produced in these indoor grows finds its way to a dispensary. The indoor grow business has turned into an industry of its own. Our representative to the local Drug Enforcement Team stated that in all but one of the indoor grow cases he has worked this year, the suspect has raised the defense that the marijuana was being cultivated for a dispensary. The articles below begin to describe the increase in indoor grows as well as the rise in level of sophistication. Tliey alsa provide us with. a glimpse of the involvement of organized crime in these activities. Pot growing moves to Calif. Suburbs Illegal marijuana growers turning hot real estate into hothouses By Jahn Ritter USA TODAY LATHROP, Calif. -Rick Estrada didn't think it particularly odd that he never saw his next-door neighbor or that curtains were always drawn. On his block of new homes, everyone was a recent arrival. In fact, some homes still sit empty, owned by investors hoping to "flip" them at a profit. Never in his darkest dreams did Estrada think the two- story house a few feet from his contained an indoor marijuana-growing operation that authorities believe is the latest wrinkle in drug traffickers' efforts to hide their illegal business..... 6 75A-101 Estrada watched on Jan. 12 as federal drug agents busted into the unoccupied, stucco-clad house, hauling out enough marijuana plants to fill a truck, along with high-intensity lights, fans and other indoor hydroponics growing equipment. Agents that day raided five other houses nearby in Lathrop and one in Tracy, both suburban cities full of commuters to San Francisco Bay Area jobs. In August and September, 41 houses were busted in Elk Grove, Sacramento and Stockton. Gordon Taylor, a Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) special agent in Sacramento, says investigators believe the houses are linked to an organized crime syndicate based in San Francisco's Chinatown. Taylor says. "Our theory is they're picking newer neighborhoods because of the relative anonymity.......The prevalence of illegal marijuana cultivation in California -more plants are seized in the state annually than in any other - is due partly to "medical marijuana laws that have created a permissive attitude," Taylor says. "Couple that with the fast profits that can be made and relatively tax penalties a person faces under California marijuana laws, and you're more or less inviting organized crime to enter the industry." Indoor pot seizures in California have skyrocketed, according to DEA figures, from 54,569 in 2004 to 196,000 last year, although it's unclear whether tougher enforcement or more growers is the reason. The 1~'orthern California suburban busts since August have netted 23,602 plants with an estimated X94 million street value, the DEA says.... What is new is the size and sheer audacity found in the suburbs. The operations followed a similar pattern....Growers paid up to $750,000 for houses in new subdivisions, usually obtaining 100% financing and putting no money down. They gutted interiors and used every inch to grow pot, knocking down some walls and cutting holes in others to run water lines and ducts. They installed irrigation systems with timing devices and brought in water tanks, pumps, generators and power packs. They built scaffolding to raise plants 2 feet off the floor. To avoid suspicion from large power usage, growers bypassed a utility's electric meters and created their own circuit boxes. No one lived in the houses. After neighbors tipped off police last summer that garbage cans weren't being taken to the street on trash day, the growers started putting the cans out. They also hired gardeners to cut the lawn......Feelings are mixed over whether their neighborhoods are now safe. "It still seems like a .nice neighborhood," says Richard Johnson, who moved here a month ago. "lt happened, they're gone, so hopeful y it won`t happen again." Samantha Malone says she's moving. "I have babies. I don't want to be around that," she says. "Who's to say it's all taken care of anyway, or it's not going to happen next month." Source: http:/;www.policeone.com/drug-inierdiciion-narcotics/articles/1210)241 3 men found in marijuana cultivation house arrested By The Associated Press SOUTH LAKE TAHO)/ -- Three men were arrested after marijuana with a street value of more than X800,000 was found at a South Lake Tahoe rental home...Acting on a lip by a property management company, police found about 200 plants and 10 pounds of dried marijuana Thursday.....Debettencourt was on federal probation after a conviction for growing marijuana in at least four residences in Sonoma County, South Lake Tahoe police said. 7 75A-102 Police Sgt. Brian Williams said 1)ebettencourt is aself-described caregiver and grower of marijuana foe• people with medical needs. Williams said the suspect was renting the home. A fourth suspect was being sought, police said. Source: http://www.dail~reezc.comhlews/rek.5ta.te/articles/5187496.htrnl Police: 1Vlarijuana-Growing Operation Found In Roseville Home ROSEVILLE, Calif. - A house fre led to the discovery of an indoor marijuana-growing operation in a Roseville neighborhood Thursday morning, police officials said. Fire crews were called to a home.....to extinguish an electrical fire i.n the garage of the home. Authorities said when firefighters went inside the home, they found evidence ol'an extensive marijuana-growing operation. "There may be several hundred plants inside the house along with a sophisticated growing system, including lighting, irrigation, timers and obviously, a bypassed electrical. system.....Police said the home had been modified in the same way as other homes with marijuana-growing operations discovered in Elk. Grove, Stockton and other Northern California caminunities. The other homes were determined to be part of an organized ring based in the Say Area. Roseville police said they don't yet know if the Glenwood Circle home is tied to the Bay Area ring. Source: htt~~://www.kcra.com/news/.10785674/detail.html Marijuana growing operation discovered by firefighters 1/24/2007 Approximately 150 marijuana plants were confiscated from a house.....after firefighters responding to a call about a fire at the residence discovered an indoor growing operation......An Eureka police officer reported seeing an electrical circuit breaker that was attached to the outside of the garage on fire as he drove by the residence....The owner of the residence was not at the house when firefighters arrived and entered the garage to contain the fire, at which time they discovered the growing operation....,In addition to the marijuana plants, which ranged in height from 8 to 10 inches tall, Sheriff's deputies also seized six 1,000-watt growing lights froth the garage, as well as $1,500 from. inside the residence for possible asset seizure. The case remains under investigation and arrests are expected to follow Source: http:/Iwww.curekareporter,cam/ArticleUisplay.aspx?ArticlelD=19757 Marijuana-Growing Operation May Have Sparked Fire OCEANSIDE, Calif. -- A pre-dawn fire Thursday was apparently sparked by an overload of electricity that may have been tapped illegally to power lighting for a suspected marijuana- growingoperation, authorities said. Firefighters responding to the hlaze,.....entered the home's garage and found a "very elaborate and well insulated indoor greenhouse and what appeared to be several hundred marijuana plants being cultivated under artificial lights..... Heavy smoke filled the garage, adding that that flames shot from a wall near an electrical panel and traveled up the wall and into the home's attic. The flames were knocked down within 15 minutes, but du.e to additions in the garage and thick insulation around the alleged plant-growing area, crews remained on scene until 2:30 a.m. extinguishing pockets of fire..... Paramedics treated a resident at the scene for smoke inhalation. The man was later- airlifted to UCSD Medical Center for treatment, Lawrence said. Afire investigator detemlined the blaze originated in an area of the wall where the home's occupants illegally tapped into power lines feeding the residence, Lawrence said, 75A-103 The fire caused about $45,000 damage to the home's structure and contents, Lawrence said, adding that none of the suspected marijuana plants were burned. The Oceanside Police Department is investigating. Source: http:/1~uww.lOnews.com/news/1OS433)9/detail.htsnl Utility scam leads to pot Nearly $2 million in marijuana found in home with sophisticated electrical system K~u,.herine Koseriber~7, January 26, 2007 APPLE VALLEY -The numbers are about as staggering as the stench of marijuana was to investigators when they served a warrant at a local. home. Realizing they were being ripped off to the tune of $25,000, Southern California Edison. employees requested the help of the San Bernardino County Sheriffs Department in investigating a Riverside Drive home where the electrical system had been circumvented so that the residents were receiving free electricity....When officials arrived they found more than asix- to eight-month-long utility scam -the home was filled with 571. marijuana plants with the potential to gross nearly $2 million....... "It was really elaborate. I haven't seen one that good in years." Proctor also explained that there was roughly $50,000 in cultivation equipment alone. He said there was a processing room where seedii.ngs matured and a grooming room where trimming took place. The three-car garage was converted into a "grove" where heat lamps and cooling systems were on timers, water was filtered and carbon dioxide was pumped into the room to promote growth. "These people knew what they were doing. It was a very nice set up. These weren't amateurs," Proctor said. But the sophisticated system was also very dangerous to the community. Proctor said that Edison officials told him the daily kilowatt hours going into the home were 670 percent more than the kilowatt hours in an average home with the air conditioner running. "It was so hot it's a wonder That the house didn't catch on fire, it was that bad...... Source: http://www.vvdailypress.com/news/20070126/utility-scam-leads-to-pot California Agents Make $6 Million Pot Bust Updated: February 8th, 2007 11:36 AM EDT A major indoor marijuana growing operation was raided in West Sacramento on Wednesday. Authorities said the operation was discovered. inside a warehouse near a home on Jefferson Boulevard. Investigators said fh.ey received a tip about suspicious activity in the area and staked out the property. The West Sacramento investigation also led police to four other locations in Oakland. Authorities said four homes were searched and about 1,500 pot plants were found with a street value of $6 million. Five men and one woman were arrested in Oakland. Authorities said the bust would not have been possible without a tip from. a neighbor. Source: http://www.officer.cam/article/artic(e.Jsp`?siteSection=l&id=3481.3 Crackdown on Oakland marijuana ring; six arrested Henry .[..Lee, Chronicle Staff Wi-itc;r /Wednesday, February 7, 2007 OAKLAND --State and local law-enforcement swooped in on several Oakland homes today, including one across the street from an elementary school, as part of a crackdown on a Northern California marijuana-growing ring that produced plants with a street value of $6 million, authorities said. 9 75A-104 A total of six people were an-ested in Oakland and San Francisco.....Authorities seized 1,500 marijuana plants during raids of homes in Oakland and West Sacramento. Each plant had. a high content of the active ingredient THC and was capable of producing a pound of the drug....... Investigators found that every room there had been converted to grow marijuana and seized 700 plants......Authorities also found evidence of a marijuana-growing operation -- but no drugs -- at a home on the 1700 block of 11th Avenue in Oakland, Giorgi said. Al] six suspects were arrested on suspicion of conspiracy and cultivation of marijuana and wore each. being held in lieu. of $1 million at Yolo County Jail. Source: http://www.s(;~ate.com/egi- 17in/article.cgi'?f /c/aJ2007/02/07/BAGE6O0LSIL93.DT1_, BAhERSFLELD, Calif. --Benjamin Martinez, 21, was arrested at this home Wednesday in south Bakersfield. Police said they found 144 mature, high-quality marijuana plant`s and 35 non-budding plants inside his home, which altogether police estimate have a street value of $500,000. Along with the plants, police seized three pounds of processed high-grade marijuana and $12,200. Police also allegedly found Martinez in possession of a 9 mm Tec-9, a 9 mm Uzi pistol and a bullet restraint vest. Police said he could face weapons charges for having these guns. Martinez had completely sealed. the garage of the home that he rented three months ago and installed grow lights and a watering and feeding system, police said. Police called this a very sophisticated marijuana growing operation. Neighbors said that lvlartinez was quiet and. that they very rarely saw him outside. The BPD could not get into how it learned about this operation, but said that it believe he intended to sell the marijuana Source: http:i/www.ttu-nto23.corn/news/1097372.4/cletaii.html Marigolds make way for marijuana in suburbia By Patrik Jonsson ~ Staff writer of The Christian Science Monitor CREEKWOOD DRIVE:....Raids on 40 houses in 12 suburban Georgia counties over the past two weeks are one recent sign of what police say i.s a national trend in marijuana marketing: growing the illicit crop year-round indoors, using suburban homes as "grow- houses." Grow-houses - a spacious incarnation of the old grow-room -have proliferated.... as antidrug squads have chased growers off remote mountainsides and out of conifields. In these basements, lights hum with. thousands of watts across a sea of plants lodged in a hydroponics soup of nutrients. Upstairs, there's usually no furniture, police say, except a cot, a chair, and arabbit-ear TV. "It's the most impressive thing I've seen in 20 years of law enforcement," says Lt. Jody Thomas of the Fayette County Drug Taskforce.....The trend also signals that "production is moving closer to consumption" - a path that leads straight to the suburbs, says Jon Gettman; editor of the Bulletin of Cannabis Reform in Lovettsville, Va., which promotes legalizing marijuana for medicinal. use..... Experts say it was only a matter of time before syndicates began applying basic black-market principles: higher potency and consistent yields equal more profit........Here's how it worked...A wealthy buyer tied to a group of Cuban nationals in Miami bought homes in the endless suburbs of metro Atlanta. So as not to raise suspicion, growers illegally cut into public utilities such as water and electricity. Fences would go up in the backyards, and basement windows would be blacked over..... 10 75A-105 Harvested at 90-day intervals, the cured "buds" fetched as much as $6,000 a pound in New York City, where most of the suburban Atlanta crop was shipped. Police say a single Douse could yield more than $1 rnill.ion in profit a year......Growers may have had several reasons for setting up shop in subdivisions like Summit Chase here in Snellville. A key one, though, is the privacy ethos. Darrell Lamb, a local high schooler, says the smell of pot would "slap me across the face" as he and some friends shot arrows in the nearby woods. But he never called the police......Pre-bust, the biggest gossip in the neighborhood was how the house at 2851 Creekwood fetched one of the highest sales prices in the subdivision, $219,000. Post-bust, speculation centered on whether it would affect property values. Source: h~://abcnews.go.com/LtS/CSM/staz_•~'id=2022922 :Hotline launched to combat marijuana grow ops toronto.ctv.ca: In an effort to combat a rapidly increasing problem, Toronto police have launched a hotline for tipsters to report marijuana grow operations. In 2003, police busted 140 grow ops across the GTA, but that number more than doubled last year to 287. Officers raided two more large operations i.n the region last week. Police say grow ops are a dangerous problem plaguing neighborhoods. Now, they are asking the public to anonymously report any information on the drug activity so they can shut down. the illegal operations. Both police and members of the Chinese business community ai-e trying to get the word out to residents of Asian descent in particular who may have information on those linked to the organized crimes......McTeague says electrical safety authorities who notice spikes in electricity use should be mandated to report it to police. "We can pinpoint exactly where people are using unusual levels, high levels, unsafe levels, of electricity," he said. "Chances are there's probably marijuana grow operations." The hotline number is 41 b-808-3681. All information will be kept confidential and police won't ask for the caller's identity Source: http://toonto. ctv.ca/servlet/an/local/CTVNews/20070201/grow_op_hotline_070201/2007 0201 ?hub=TorontoHome Grow Op Criminals Using Deadly Booby Traps to Foil. Intruders Friday November 24, 2006 The hazards found in that massive n1ar~~juana apartment r~ ow_op on Thursday may have been mainly to building residents, a consequence of strained and overburdened electrical outlets that could easily have started a fre.....Police say organized crime has planted roots in the industry and that's raised things to a whole new level. And they warn those behind the illegal agriculture are getting increasingly nasty about protecting their investments. In addition to the usual pistols, cops have been confronted with caches of homemade bombs, machine guns and suspects wearing bulletproof vests or body armor. What the authorities are calling "pot pirates" often set booby traps to catch intrudea-s. And soiree of them are both astounding and potentially lethal.....But not everything is relegated to lethal force. In one case a suspect in full police regalia turned up at a pot plantation, trying to rip off a competitor. "He was a pot pirate trying to come in and steal someone else's illegal contraband." Rae refuses to reveal how her people avoid the traps, but admits "there's always something new coming along.".... 11 75A-106 They've shut down 450 different operations across Ontario so far this year and destroyed nearly 1.93,000 plants. The bottom line? If you suspect your neighbor is actually mm~ing a grow op, don't play amateur detective before you call the police. "If people have suspicions about it, don't go in and investigate, because you don't know what you're going to come across, but let our officers go in who are specially trained. Source: http://www.citynews.ea/news/n.ews_5562.aspx 1`darcotics task force had a busy year By BRAD SMITH Daily News Staff Writer Published: Wednesday, January 24, 2007 2:46 PM CST SISKIYOU COUNTY -Last year proved to be a very busy one for the Siskiyou County-wide Interagency Narcotics Task Force and its agents......"The numbexs are going up. Everything is increasing with the exception of heroin.. Humboldt County is having problems with heroin but not us. Not yet," Dunwoody said. According to Dunwoody, the task force, along with the SCSO's marijuana eradication team, has seen the abuse of the Proposition 215 medical marijuana recommendations. "It's unfortunate. lt's a problem that we'll have until the state takes a stand on the medical marijuana l.aw," Dunwoody said. "There are people who take advantage of the law for financial reasons, not medical. When you can get more than $3,000 for a pound of processed dope -1 would call that a big incentive." Along with marijuana, methamphetamine is the county's biggest drug problem. Source: ~://www.sisk~ot~daily.com/articles/2007/01 /24/news/doc45b7c473ee1~ 1 1)9369502.tx t 20-Month-Old Child Discovered In Alleged Marijuana Grow-Op Thursday .March 15, 2007 It's becoming a far too common occun•ence -marijuana grow-ops located in the middle of a neighborhood where no one suspected a thing. Now authorities have found two more of the alleged drug gardens....Both homes are in Brampton. and involve the combined seizure of nearly 250 plants and 95 pounds of freshly harvested pot, along with some cold cash. But the alleged pot find isn't what really disturbed the officers involved. One house contained something far more valuable and far more vulnerable - a 20-month-old child.......The parents of the youngster were among four people arrested. lt's the third time this week that officers have found kids in a place where danger is lurking......The child is now in the custody of the Children's Aid Society, But Burnham wishes there was more that could be done to protect the innocent. "I'tn appalled," she declares. "I wish there was a way that John Q. Public could spot these things faster."....There have been far too many instances of children found i.n grow-op or drug producing homes in the GTA this year. Here are just a few of them: January 6`~'; Cops raid. a home on London Road in Newmarket and find 350 pot plants in the basement and two kids, ages 10 and 12, living inside. Both are turned over to the Children's Aid Society (CAS) and two men are arrested.. 12 75A-107 January 23"~; A silent 911 call forces police to check out a home on Simonston Boulevard. in Markham. Whoever made it will regret the unexplained hang-up. Authorities are surprised to find agrow-op on the premises. Mare than 100 plants were inside and so were a 10 and. a 15-year-old. Both were turned over to the Children's Aid Society. January 24ti'; York Police visit an address on Weldrick Road in Richmond HiII and find 450 pot plants, a lot of hydroponics equipment and two kids. One is 12 years old, the other only 11 months. Source: http://www.citynews.ca/news/news 5562_a~x As scrutiny has increased, some dispensaries have been exposed as mere money making enterprises despite the supposed restrictions of "non-profit" or "reasonable compensation". Even these blatant manipulations of Prop 215 and SB420 are defended by the likes of the Americans for Safe Access and former Senator Sohn Vasconcellos. Marijuana clinics prompts U.S. crackdown The Associated Press /Published: March 10, 2007 LOS ANGELES: U.S. drug agents trailed Sparky Rose as he drove a Porsche convertible to his medical marijuana clinic. Under California law, clinics are supposed to dispense marijuana only to seriously ill people, and clinic owners are to get only "reasonable compensation." But to the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration, the sports car suggested that Rose might be pocketing big money from his purportedly nonprofit clinic.....According to court papers, an investigation found records showing $2.3 million was deposited in a clinic bank account over eight months starting in December 2005, and Rose wrote himself weekly checks of $9,fi00 ($499,200 per yr). California was the first of 12 states to allow the sale of marijuana for medicinal purposes; and it is regarded as having the loosest regulations. Oversight is lax, and there are few specific guidelines for buyers and sellers of a drug still illegal under U.S. law......Federal officials raided 1 l Los Angeles-area dispensaries in one day in January, the largest such crackdown....DEA spokeswoman Sarah Pullen said authorities chose clinics that were making big money, had became hot spots for crime or were part of large franchises. The raided clinics on average made $20,000 in profits each day, she said......Police, clinic owners, activists and legislators -even the law's author -cannot say for sure how much money clinic owners can legally earn. "A profit is in the eye of the beholder," said Joseph David Elford, a lawyer for Americans for Safe Access, a medicinal marijuana advocacy group. 1Llford said ahands-oft government approach to the clinics should boost competition, keeping marijuana prices affordable for those who need it and forcing owners to limit profits. Pullen said that has not happened. The author of the 2003 law, then-state Sen. John Vasconcellos, has no problem with clinic owners earning Hefty salaries as long as they provide help for ill people........ "We're helping people who are sick and they have this fascist mentality against good health and pleasure," Vasconcellos said...... Source: htt.p:/!www,i]}t.comlarticles/ap/2007/03/]0/america/NA-GEN-US-Medical- Mari juana.php 13 75A-108 DEA targets marijuana providers 01.13.07~Tribune By Rone Tempest Until federal drug agents arrested. him earlier this month., Shon Squier was one of Hayward's most successful and generous young businessmen. Customers lined up outside his downtown storefront, particularly on Mondays, when he offered free samples to the first 50 visitors......But Squier's success as a dynamic medical marijuana entrepreneur also was his downfall. Federal drug agents raided his home and business, arresting Squier and his store manager, freezing bank accounts containing $1.5 million and confiscating several expensive cars, motorcycles and $200,000 in cash. Medical marijuana advocates claim that the raid constitutes unfair, selective enforcement by the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) of the estimated 170 medical marijuana dispensaries in the state, including 85 in the San Francisco Bay Area.... The federal drug agency...contends that the amount of money involved proves that the medical marijuana trade is high-stakes drug dealing, complete with the same high-rolling lifestyles. "These people will tell you they are just uiterested in the terminally ill," said Gordon Taylor, DEA special agent in charge of the California eastern federal district, "but what they are really interested. in is lining their pockets with illegal drug money.....With the proliferation of medical marijuana dispensaries of all sizes across the state, the DEA and Internal Revenue Service recently have concentrated their investigations on young, high-profile operators such as Squier, 34, and Luke Scannazzo, 26, co-owner of a Modesto dispensary. Scarmazzo got the DEA's attention by producing a rap video that showed him counting stacks of X100 biIis; blowing billows of smoke at the camera and flipping off federal agents......between January and. June of last year, Scarmazzo, who has a previous felony conviction, and his associates recorded $3.4 million in sales of marijuana products with brand names that included "911,"AK47" and "Train. Wreck."...... Source: http://www.marijuana.corn/420/drug-war-headline-news/51833-ca-dea-targets- marijuana-providers.html DEA raids 11 marijuana outlets Agents seize drugs, guns and cash, prompting W. Hollywood protests. Twenty are detained, but no charges are filed. By Tami AbcioIlah, Times Staff Writer /January 18, 2007 Federal agents Wednesday raided 11 medical marijuana outlets in Los Angeles County, seizing several thousand pounds of processed drug, hundreds of marijuana plants, an array of guns and bagfuls of cash. The simultaneous raids, part of an ongoing investigation by the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration, were the largest such operation in the county in recent memory......The action by federal agents angered some local officials and was taken despite a state law permitting possession and cultivation of marijuana for qualified medical patients.....Sarah Pullen, spokeswoman. for the DEA's Los Angeles field division, said agents seized large quantities of marijuana-laced edibles that included "anything from ice cream. bars to lollipops to cookies to candies and candy bars."..... 14 75A-109 West Hollywood off cials said they were taken by surprise, only learning of the raids as they occurred. West Nollywood has a "long-standing commitment" to the use of medical marijuana for people with such catastrophic illnesses as HIV and AIDS, city spokeswoman Helen Goss said. "We've been fighting to support the access of medicinal marijuana for many, many years and there's just a great disconnect between the federal government and communities like West Hollywood," Councilman Jeffrey Prang said......According to Pullen, neighboring businesses and residents had complained about a significant number of the dispensaries, and there had been increased reports of crime in the areas around the outlets. "Anyone in possession, selling or distributing marijuana is in violation of federal law and subject to prosecution," she said....... Times staff writer Stuart Silverstein contributed to this report. Source: htt~//www latimes.com/new:s/~~rintedition/cali.tornia/la-me- n~ari j uana 18 j an 18 1 14fi8f 04.story'?coil==la-headlines-fie-California&ctrack==1 &cset-true Owner of Claremont marijuana dispensary fined Associated Press CLAREMOI~TT, Calif. -City officials are fining the owner of a medical marijuana dispensary $500 a day for staying open despite being found guilty last week of operating without achy-issued business license. The city is also seeking a court injunction to force Darrell Kruse to shut down the dispensary, City Manager Jeff Parker said. If Kruse stays in business, his fine will work out to more than $10,000 a month, which will be added to the city's general fund, Parker said. Kruse said he intends to stay in business as long as he can afford it. "I was figuring they would find a way to tax it, and they have," Kruse said of th.e f nes. State law permits possession and cultivation of marijuana for qualified medical patients. Kruse's business, Claremont All-Natural Nutrition Aids Buyers Information. Services, or CANNABIS, opened in mid-September. The city subsequently passed a moratorium on medical marijuana dispensaries. The moratorium can run no longer than. two years, and the city must at that time decide whether to allow and. regulate dispensaries. Information froth: Inland Valley Daily Bulletin. Source: http~//www mercurynews.com/mld/mercurynews/news/breaking news/1(49131.S.lrtm Moratorium sought on new pot clinics Bratton cites opening of 94 medical marijuana dispensaries in L.A. in a year and calls for rules to regulate the facilities. By Patrick McGreevy, Tunes Staff VVriier Janii~ry 1 G. 2007 State laws have been 'exploited and abused for both profat and recreational drug use.' -L.A. Police Chief William J. Bratton Concerned by a 2,350% increase in the number of medical marijuana dispensaries in Los Angeles in a one-year period, Police Chief William J. Bratton is calling for a moratorium on new facilities until strict rules can be adopted governing them. In a report to the Police Commission, Bratton said he wants to ban. existing dispensaries within 1,000 feet of schools, churches, parks and places designated exclusively for the care of children. l.5 75A-110 He also advocates limiting their hours to 10 a.m. to 6 p.m.....Bratton said the number of dispensaries increased from four in November 2005 to 98 a year later. "This has fostered an increasern ... crime problems and caused quality-of--life issues for families and communities, as evidenced by the l10 complaints received from neighbors, business owners and concerned citizens concerning these dispensaries," Bratton's report states. The Police Commission will. consider his recotmnendations today. Los Angeles Police Department officers have been called Co clinics because of problems i.n.ciuding robberies, burglaries and drug use in front of the clinics, Lt. Paul. Vernon said. Without regulations, he said, officers are hamstrung. In the absence of specific zoning rules, 12 of the medical marijuana dispensaries in Los Angeles have opened within 1,000 feet of schools, Bratton said. "One clinic blatantly resorted to placing fliers on the windshields of vehicles parked in and around Grant .High School in an obvious effort to entice children," Bratton said......The clinics have proliferated elsewhere as well, although Los Angeles, as the state's largest city, has the most, said Joseph Elford of Americans for Safe Access, a group in support of the clinics. But San Francisco, with about 30 clinics, has more per capita, or about one per 25,400 residents, while Los Angeles has one dispensary for every 39,200 people. On i1~Ionday, advocates for medical marijuana disputed that the dispensaries are magnets for crime, and expressed. concerns that Los Angeles officials may reduce patients' access to the drug.....the spirit and intent of this act has been exploited and abused for both profit and recreational drug use by many of the medical marijuana dispensaries in the city of Los Angeles," Bratton said...... ap trick.mcaree ~vlatimes.com Source: http://www.latimes.com/news/printedition/californialla-me- drugs 16jan 16,1,1958373.story?coil=la-headlines-pe-California Some Santa Cruz pot users, sellers find loopholes in state's medical marijuana laws By Shanna McCord /Sentinel staff writer SANTA CRUZ - Hal f the calls t.o criminal defense attorney Ben. Rice are people busted for growing, selling or usiig marijuana. Rice has developed a reputation for protecting the rights of those who buy and sell the drug under the 10-year-old state law that makes marijuana legal for sick people. While most of those seeking Rice's services are legitimate medical marijuana patients or caregivers, he estimates 30 percent are not. These people aren't sick, he says, and are simply trying to hide behind the Compassionate Use Act for recreational or profit-making reasons. "Absolutely, no question about it, some people do take advantage of the law," Rice said.....Authorities say they regularly see perfectly healthy people, some found with several pounds of marijuana, claim the drug is for a sick friend or relative. The problem, authorities say, is proving otherwise. Ambiguities in the laws force police to let many people off scot- free because it's often difficult to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt in a court of law, said sheriff s Sgt. Steve Carney, the head of the county's Marijuana Enforcement Team. Out of 10 people stopped on suspicion of marijuana crimes in the county, only two cases are sent to the District Attorney's Office on average, Carney said...... 16 75A-111 "The percentage we deal with that I believe are truly legitimate is 1 percent," Carney said....Prosecutors say cases like that of Edwin Hoey, which is now going through the local legal system, are an example of someone hiding behind. the medical marijuana law for profit. Hoey, a Santa Cruz man, was arrested in December when deputies found 100 pounds of marijuana at his residence during an investigation. His attorney, Rice, claimed Hoey was providing pot for local medical marijuana dispensaries. However, more than $500,000 in cash and a French wine collection valued at $150,000 found in Hoey's possession lead prosecutors to believe he was selling marijuana to make a big profit. They say he sold pot to non-medicinal customers on the East Coast. Hoey has been. charged with three counts of selling marijuana. "I-Ie was taking advantage of the medical marijuana law," prosecutor Pamela Kato said. "This really is a case of greed. It's a travesty of the law" Rice denies Kato's assertion, saying "the vast majority" of Hoey's marijuana was intended for people with a medical need......The state Attorney General's Office agrees abuse of the medical marijuana system is widespread because the unclear laws leave plenty of room for cheating. "The medical marijuana Iaw left a lot to be desired in terms of clarity," said Nathan Barankin, spokesman for the state Attorney General's Office. "There's more work to be done" Many in the legal community hope the ambiguities of th.e law will be sorted out in the courts. Several cases regarding medical marijuana are currently pending in the courts to help determine parameters for users and caregivers. Kato, the county prosecuxor, said clearer rules would make her job easier and put tnore people behind bars. No other state medical marijuana-related bills are in the works at this time, however the deadline to propose legislation for this year is Feb. 23. Source: http~//wwtiv.santacruzsentinel.com/archive/2007/ 1 anuaryl2$/local,/stories/02loca.l.htm Just Say No to Marijuana Dispensaries in SCV Commentary By Frank Ferry /Sunday January 28, 2007 Much has been written IateIy about the licensing of medical marijuana here in our community. As chair of the city of Santa Clarita's Blue Ribbon Task Force and an avid opponent of marijuana use and dispensaries, I feel compelled to share some facts and research with you, as well as some opinions I have as a parent and school. administrator. First and foremost, you need to know that drug use, especially marijuana use, among teens doesn't just exist in the Santa Cl.arita Valley. It is rampant. Now, I know for same of you parents, Phis is not troubling to you. Heck, you used marijuana in your teens; you smoked and drank beer; you see i.t as a right of passage and you are not concealed. What you might not know is that the marijuana that is available to teens today is much stronger than. the marijuana that was available in the 1960s or 1970s. Sometimes it is also laced with other, more potent drugs. Marijuana is physically addictive. Each year, 1.00,000 teens are treated for marijuana dependence. Teens who smoke marijuana heavily experience many the same symptoms of withdrawal as users of nicotine. Between 1991. and 2001, the percentage of eighth graders nationally who used marijuana doubled from 1 in 10 to 1 in 5. Kids are using marijuana at an earlier age. Research indicates that the earlier teens start using marijuana, the more Iikely they are to become dependent on this or other drugs later in life. 17 75A-112 Of teens admitted for treatment for marijuana dependence, 56 percent had first used the drug by 14 years of age, and 26 percent had begun by 12 years of age (Kids and iYlariju.ana). According to a National I-Iousehold Survey on Drug Abuse (NHSDA}, marijuana was the most frequently used drug of choice by teens...... This "slippery slope" is what concerns me. Those truly in need and eligible. for medical. marijuana in our community are a very small group compared with the large number of teens who may "slip through the system" and be able to obtain marijuana from a dispensary. White ,you might say that "kids will get it anyway," 1 say, let's not be our kids drug dealer! ......If you are interested in learning more about the Blue Ribbon Task Force or becoming a member, contact the city at (661) 255-4965. We welcome your support. Frank Ferry is a member of the Santa Clarita Ciiy Council. His column reflects the city's views, and not necessarily those of The Signal. Source: http://www.fhe- si.gnal. com/?modul e=displaystory&story_id=45924&foimat=html Medicinal pot dispensaries under scrutiny By Sandy Mazza Staff Writer WHITTIER -Some arrived wearing hippie clothes and facial piercings; some wore suits; others were dressed in jeans and sweat shirts. The diverse group of people filled out paperwork as they sat silently inside a waiting room at the Holistic Clinic on Whittier Boulevard. All of them had come for one reason - to receive a physician's recommendation for medical marijuana. For just two hours every Thursday evening, a doctor opens shop at the clinic, evaluating people seeking marijuana. They come with $150 for the doctor's fee and an assortment of ailments -from cancer to AIDS to migraines, menstrual cramps and even sore muscles. ...ambiguity has spawned a booming cottage industry of medical marijuana providers.....Same police officials say abuse of medical marijuana is widespread and growing, and includes recreational users easily getting marijuana recommendations from profit-motivated physicians; dispensaries turning to illegal growers for supplies; and people selling their medical pot on the streets. Surveying this new landscape, Proposition 215 co-author the Rev. Scott Imler laments this is not what he envisioned when he helped write the measure on behalf of severely ill patients, he said. "When we wrote 215, we were selling it to the public as something for seriously ill people," said Imler, who opened the state's first marijuana dispensary, in West Hollywood. "It's turned into a joke. I think a lot of people have medicalized their recreational use."..... Although some local police officials report seeing the state's marijuana laws being abused, they complain they are powerless to stop it. "What's happening is that every pothead out there is pulling the wool over the public's eyes, paying a doctor for a recommendation," said. Lt. Jim Bitetto of the Los Angeles County Sheriffs Department. "The majority of people who go into those places are younger and don't appear to be ill at all. It's making a joke of the whole system." Imler, too, believes that many dispensaries now buy marijuana illegally from drug dealers. While medical marijuana patients are allowed to grow up to 12 plants each under Proposition 215, most dispensaries have found it is cheaper and less labor-intensive to buy it, Irnler said. 18 75A-113 As a result, patients who could truly benefit from marijuana are paying high prices for the drug, he said. "The sad thing is that, ] 0 years later, you. still have to have $$0 to get marijuana if you h. ave cancer or AIDS. Our program was a charitable program ... We were based on being off the black market." At the Holistic Clinic, Armando said many medical marijuana users get negative reactions from their families and friends, Arn~ando said. "People come in here afraid of being put into a database, afraid of their mothers, fathers knowing,".... Source: http-~~~h~ww 5{*~~tribune.com/news/ci 5159040 While collecting information on this topic, I had an opportunity to view some interesting viewpoints proffered from those both in and outside of California as well as abroad. What they have to say about Marijuana's medical use and our current system is tnteresting reading. Even people who initially supported legalizing or providing marijuana for medicinal purposes are reexamining their position or at least calling into duestion the abuses of our current system. England: Cannabis: An apology In 1997, this newspaper launched a campaign to decriminalize the drug. If only we had known then what we can reveal. today... By 3onathan Owen Published: 18 March 2007 Record numbers of teenagers are requiring drug treatment as a result of smoking skunk, the highly potent cannabis strain that is 2.5 times stronger than resin sold a decade ago. More than 22,000 people were treated last year for cannabis addiction - and almost half of those affected were under 18. With doctors and drugs experts warning that skunk can. be as damaging as cocaine and heroin., leading to mental health problems and psychosis for thousands of teenagers, The Independent on Sunday has today reversed its landmark campaign for cannabis use to be decriminalized.....The decision comes as statistics from the NHS National Treatment Agency show that the number of young people in treatment almost doubled from about 5,000 in 2005 to 9,600 in 2006, and that 13,000 adults also needed treatment. The skunk smoked by the majority of young Britons bears no relation to traditional cannabis resin - with a 25-fold increase in the amount of the main psychoactive ingredient, tetrahydrocannabidinol (THC), typically found in the early 1990s. New research being published in this week's Lancet will. show h.ow cannabis is more dangerous than LSD and ecstasy. Experts analyzed 20 substances for addictiveness, social harm. and physical damage. The results will increase the pressure on the Government to have a full debate on drugs, and a new independent UK drug policy commission being launched next month will call for a rethink on the issue. The findings last night reignited the debate about cannabis use, with a growing number of specialists saying that the drug bears no relation to the substance most law-makers would recognize. Professor Colin Blakemore, chief of the Medical Research Council, who backed our original campaign for cannabis to be decriminalized, has also changed his mind. 19 75A-114 He said: "The link between cannabis and psychosis is quite clear now; it wasn't l0 years ago." Many medical specialists agree that the debate has changed. Robin Murray, professor of psychiatry at London's Institute of Psychiatry, estimates that at least 25,000 of the 250,000 schizophrenics in the UK could have avoided the illness if they had not used cannabis. "The number of people taking cannabis may not be rising, but what people are taking is much more powerful, so there is a question of whether a few years on we may see more people getting i11 as a consequence of that." "Society has seriously underesrimated how dangerous cannabis really is," said Professor Neil McKeganey, from Glasgow University's Centre for Drug Misuse Research. "We could well see over the next 10 years increasing numbers of young people in serious difficulties."...... Source: http://news.independent.ca.uk/uk/health_medical/article236$994.ece A British survey finds that half of a^ crime suspects and 57 percent of young offenders admit recent smoking of marijuana. The Home Office, for the first tune, questioned people who had just been arrested, the Daily Mail reported. The rate of marijuana use was significantly higher than. expected. The government downgraded cannabis from a Class B to a Class C drug in 2004. "These alarming statistics raise serious questions about the consequences of the government's chaotic and confused policy on drugs," said David Davis, the Conservative Farty's Shadow Home Secretary. "We have long said that drugs fuel all sorts of crime. This is because they both undermine a person's sense of responsibility but also because takers anal addicts need money to feed their habit." White 57 percent of those arrested were identif ed as problem. drinkers, far smaller percentages said they had used heroin or cocaine. Source: ht~~/lwww playfuls com/news 10 7742-Stud.v-Links-Marijuana-To-Crime.html Canada: Speakers to talk about marijuana use By STEPHANIE WA.DDBLL It might only be a joint, but territorial prevention consultant Sandy Bowlby wants Yukoners to know there are harmful effects that come with it. "It is a drug and it is addictive," Bowlby, a prevention consultant with. the territory's prevention services department, said in an interview earlier this week. New studies have indicated marijuana is physically addictive, heightens cancer rates and risks to mental health and impacts short-term memory, Bowlby said....Over the past 15 years, cannabis use in the territory has risen from 1 b per cent of Yukoa~ers to 21 per cent....Meanwhile throughout the country, the study showed ] 4 per cent of Canadians smoke pot. There seems to be a perception. that pot is a safe drug, Bowlby said. Recent studies, however, have indicated it can be physically addictive. In the past, marijuana has been regarded as a drug that is not physically addictive. Research done in more recent years, Bowlby said, has shown heavy pot smokers who quit suffer from anxiety, sleeping problems and have shown anger issues while their bodies are getting rid of the drug. It's also been found recently that when a marijuana user also smokes tobacco, his or her risk of cancer not only increases by a little bit, but multiplies. 20 75A-115 There are also ties linked to marijuana use and psychophrenia, not to mention the short-term memory loss that can have an impact on learning and everyday tasks such as driving, Bowlby said. The information, she said, has come from a number of studies done throughout North America. In recent years, it's also been teamed marijuana has more THC (a chemical i.n pot) in it than it had in the past. "That will change what it does in someone's body," Bowlby said. While Bowlby stressed pot may not be a gateway drug for everyone, it has been shown the younger a person starts snicking weed, the more likely he or she is to become addicted to it or move on to other drugs, Source: http•//www whitehorsestar cony/auth.php`?r=45899 National: In Their Words: What the Experts Say: The American Academy of Ophthalmology: "Based on reviews by the National. Eye Institute (NEI) and the Institute of Medicine and on available scientific evidence, the Task Force on Complementary Therapies believes that no scientif.c evidence has been found that demonstrates increased benefits and/or diminished risks of marijuana use to treat glaucoma compared with the wide variety of pharmaceutical agents now available." Complementary Therapy Assessment: Marijuana in the Treatment of Glaucoma, American Academy of Ophth.ahnology, M.ay 2003 The American Medical Association: "...AMA. recommends that marijuana be retailed in Schedule I of the Controlled Substances Act...AMA believes that the NIH should use its resources and influence to support the development of a simoke-free inhaled delivery system for marijuana or delta- 9-tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) to reduce the health hazards associated. with the combustion and inhalation of marijuana..." Policy Statement H-95.952, American Medical Association, http•//www.ama-assn.or~ The National Multiple Sclerosis Society: "Studies completed thus far have not provided convincing evidence that marijuana or its derivatives provide substantiated benefits fox symptoms of MS." The M.S :Information Sourcebook, Marijuana (Cannabis), National Multiple Sclerosis Society, September 18th, 2006 The Institute of Medicine (TOM): "Because of the health risks associated. with smoking, smoked marijuana should generally not be recommended for long term medical use." Marijuana and Medicine: Assessing the Science Base, Institute of Medicine, 1999 Source: http•//www wlvtehousedrugpolicy aov/druufactJfactSht/medical mariiuana.h.tml 21 75A-116 Drug Violence: State 1VledicallVlarijuana Laws Creating More Confusion and Abuse Posted Friday, March. 02, 2007 1.2:13 PM Today's New York Times covers the laiest murder generated by the passage of State- based "medical" marijuana laws. For years, marijuana legalization groups have worked to bypass the Su . reme Court`s decision, the PDA's ofi5cial lntera~;ency Advisory, and Federal. law regarding medical marijuana. Symbolic medical marijuana laws which have been. passed in some U.S. states have given too many citizens the false impression that growing and distributing marijuana is safe and legal...... "Since 1997, after the first medical marijuana law was passed in California, as many as 201egal marijuana providers have been killed around the country, mostly in robberies..." ..Mr. Gorman's killing, legal experts say, has exposed the paradoxes and ambiguities about medical marijuana that most states have failed to gn'apple with. The Colorado Department of Public Health and )nviranment, which administers the marijuana program, is not authorized, for example, to provide i.nforrnation about where the 1,100 patients who are certified under the program can obtain thew drugs, according ~~ to the department s Web site... Not only do these State laws create confusion, but they also foster abuse. As we've noted previously, the co-founder of California's medical marijuana has lamented its passage stating that, "We created Prop. 215 so that patients would not have to deal with black market profiteers. Bu.t today it is all about the money. Most of the dispensaries operating in California are little more than dope dealers with store fronts." Source: http:/(pushingback.com/blogs/pushing_back/archive/2007/03/02/30b03.aspx Oregon 1Vledical marijuana abusers {February 7th, 2007] In preparation for a state law enforcement conference last year, Portland Police Sgt. Pat Walsh called drug units across Oregon to aslc what they were most worried about. The answer: medical. marijuana. "It's not Grandma with stomach cancer that we have a problem with," Walsh says-it's the scores of people using the law as a cover for slinging dope, giving those with a Legitimate need a bad name. So in the name of the legit growers in our Jan. 24 cover story, "Garden of Weedin'," we make medical marijuana abusers this week's Rogues . Law-enforcement officials say once a medical marijuana card is issued, there's little oversight to make sure the right amount of pot is being grown and that all the nugs are going to patients. Portland police don't keep separate statistics onmedical-marijuana cases, but estimate they investigated about 30 such cases last year. In one such case, residents of a home on Portland's North Terry Street had two medical. marijuana cards, letting them legally grow 12 marijuana plants. Source: htt~//www wweek com/editorial/3313/8516/ 22 75A-117 Calil:arnia How does a person get a Medical Marijuana card? How did you get yours? There are certain Doctors who specialize in prescribing Medical Marijuana or "Cannabis" (as they ]ike to call. it). They advertise in the LA Weekly and some are more legit than others. I have seen a CA Medical Marijuana card before but I do not have one and that is not what legally allows you to posses Marijuana for personal use. It is the Doctors prescription and you need that before you get any cards. Most doctors don't care if you are "sick" or not. Besides, some of the legitimate reasons a person CAN be prescribed Medical Marijuana are as vague as, "Pain". So, the Doctors are trying to help sick people feel better AND they are trying to help healthy people feel better!.....I had to fill out normal Doctor's Office forms and write about how I needed Cannabis for whatever medical reason I chose (They were listed on the form in case I wanted to choose one on the spot}. I chose pain because of my many sk8baarding injuries and proceeded to pay his secretary $250.00 for a one year prescription for Medical Marijuana. I couldn't believe it...... Then what did you do? I made some calls and got this number - (213) ~###-#####. It only costs S 100.00. I called and made an appoin.tinent for the next week. Before the next week could come a friend of mine text messaged me about a "Prescription Party" he was having where a Doctor would be signing prescriptions {for a fee of course). I showed up late and most people had gone home or drank and smoked themselves into a stupor. Lucky for me the Doctor was included in the drunk, smoked out portion of the partygoers. 1 managed to get away with paying him only X50.00 and I gat a prescription for Vicodins too! My point is - It is very cheap and easy to get a prescription now and no one seems to care that the majority of the people taking advantage of alI this- aren't terminally ill. Why is it better than buying pot from the neighborhood pot dealer? #1}The hest quality and variety in the world. There are over 100 "weed stores" from Long Beach to The Valley and the weather is right! #2) They accept credit. You can have no money in the bank and walk out of a weed store with an ounce of OG KUSH. #3) You can complain. If "Lil Smoker" down the street sells you a short I/4, you're shit out of luck. But when the weed store shorts you, you can tell them. and they will hook you up. #4) Less risk. Sure, these places get raided every once in a while but the customers are never arrested. At worst, you might get questioned for a short period of time, but who cares? If you are doing a drug deal at a gas station or something, that's sketchy. Or worse, sitting in the drug dealer's living room with an ounce in your pocket when he gets raided, you are going to jail. #5} Convenience. With so many stores and Internet access (www.canorml.or~) You can find a good place, close to you that will be open when they say they are (a lot of places are open until midnight}! 23 75A-118 Are most of the people shopping at the Medical Marijuana Clinics legitimately sick? No. But, is anyone legitimately sick`? What is the best/worst thing about having a medical marijuana card? The best thing is always having the best weed. The worst thing is spending all my money on always having the best weed. Source: http://www.laist. com/archives/2007/01 /22/laist_interview_a_local_medical_marij uana_c ardholder.php SANTA CRUZ: OPINION: As We See It: Medical marijuana abuse? March 1 Z, 2007 Like Capt. Renault in the movie classic "Casablanca," we were shocked -shocked! - to discover that some proprietors of medical marijuana clinics have pulled down millions of dollars, even as "nonprofit" cI.inics. We're also shocked -shocked! - at reports that just maybe some people without a medical condition are picking up their pot at medical marijuana stores. Most people in Califonlia, including us, support the idea of those in need of relief from disease or from chemotherapy being provided wi#h marijuana to take away pain. But we can't understand what has led this state to adopt a system of distribution thatts so easily corrupted. The 1996 state initiative that allowed legal medical marijuana is such a badly conceived law that we think even pot smokers should have voted against it.... Former state Sen. John Vasconcellos has bias#ed the federal Drug Enforcement Agency for keeping an eye on medical marijuana clinics. He told The Associated Press recently: "We're helping people who are sick and they have this fascist mentality against good health and. pleasure" Actually, there's more to this than "good health and pleasure," and Vasconcellos should know better. Far example, agents went into a Sacramento marijuana clinic and took away two loaded handgwls and 60 pounds of processed marijuana. In Los Angeles, agents raided several clinics, and discovered that the average clinic lead about $20,000 in profits each day. There were four dispensaries in Los Angeles in 2005; today, there are more than 100.... Los Angeles Police Chief William Bratton has actually gone on record saying that the outlet operators are more interested in big money than they are in. providing a service to ill people. Police officers and narcotics agents found that the operator of another clinic in Los Angeles deposited $2.3 million a bank account within eight months of starting business. We realize that some clinic operators are doing so out of concern for clients in need. Not every clinic is a problem. But it's obvious -handguns, millions in bank accounts, Porsches, huge amounts of processes marijuana -that there's some abuse going on here. Some might say that marijuana trafficking is a kind of victimless crime and. that at least sick people are being served. But any time you have big money, handguns and suspicious involvement from people on the street, you know there's a problem. Local cities and towns more and more are going to be looking at ways of keeping trouble out of certain areas. 24 75A-119 After all, cities try to regulate the number of liquor stores and bars, just because abuse can happen. It's obvious that pot clinics need regulation as well. What we'd prefer seeing is putting marijuana prescriptions in the hands of doctors, and removing the potential for abuse in obviously under-regulated marijuana dispensaries. Source: http://www.santacruzsentulel.comlarchive/2007/March/12/edit/stories/01 edit.htm hiding Nigh 01.27.07~Los Angeles Business )oun~~By Deborah Crowe With tittle fanfare until this month, Los Angeles County has quietly become the country's capital of medical marijuana. In the last tvvo years the number of marijuana dispensaries in the county has ballooned from a relative handful to more than 200, according to most estirnates......Maiiy of them. have opened in strip shopping centers, typically using such. names as "compassionate caregivers" ar "patient collectives" -names that seldom mention marijuana. Even the Rev. Scott linter, who co-authored the ballot initiatwe that legalized medical. marijuana, thinks the industry that he inadvertently helped create has gotten out of control. "We created this beast that t'rankly the state and. local governments have been too slovr to regulate," Imler said. "We're a liberal state and everyone wants to bend over baclzwards to be compassionate and. understanding and. groovy. And they get taken advantage of." .....A report presented to an Oakland oversight committee last faU estimates Californians consume between $870 million and $2 billion worth of medically related marijuana each year.... Mi~shiroaming Indzr,slt~~ California was the first of 10 states to pass a medical marijuana law. But no other metropolitan area has nearly as many marijuana storefronts as Los Angeles. The Bay Area, for example, has about 70. Still, the medical marijuana industry got a slow start in California......However, in 200] a West Noilywood cooperative that was organized by haler was raided by federal authorities and shut down......As that case made its way through the courts, the Califol7~ia Legislature in 2003 passed SB 420, which recognized the right of patients and caregivers to associate collectively to cultivate medical marijuana. Subsequent court decisions expanded thai protection to retail-style dispensaries. However, the industry remained stunted because of criminal cases such as Imler's. But in 2005, Im1er's case was settled.. He got one year's probation. Attorney John Duran, a councilman in West Hollywood who successfully defended Tinier, said that once it was clear that. tinier wouldn't be heading to prison, local. entrepreneurs were emboldened to launch their own clinics -despite the threat of federal raids. The dispensaries were aided by the tack. of specific regulations covering these businesses within many jurisdictions of Los Angeles County, particularly in the city of L.A. The county and many cities inside it scrambled to enact moratoriums to give them time to decide whether to regulate or ban the shops. At Least eight cities now have moratoriums in place, while Torrance and Pasadena in the past year have banned clinics. In November, Los Angeles police offcials began. talking seriously about enacting a moratorium. 25 75A-120 That set off' a scramble by many to open shops to beat any decision - and led to the 45 shops that opened in the city. lr.~ all, the city of Los Angeles has ] 4g retail-like medical marijuana shops or home-delivery services. "Out of the chaos, that's where the opportunists move in," Duran. said. Dispensary owners who contend they work. hard to run. a reputabtc operation take issue with the opportunist label, though several. declined to calk to the Business Journal for this story......Uuder state l.aw, in order to receive medical marijuana, patients must get a doctor to provic]e a written recomrl~endation -nicknamed. scripts, although they're technically not prescriptions. The scripts also give the recipients the right to legally grow marijuana f<~r medical purposes. For roughly $70 to ~ 100, depending on the neighborhood, patients with a script can ptrrchase one-eight}. of an ounce of processed n~ariju.atla for personal use......Prices at dispensaries, sometimes known as cannabis clubs, tend to be equivalent to or slightly higher than pot available on the street, with clinic owners touting the greater safety and. cleanliness of their facilities. (Wltilc~ ASA and others complain about inflated dollar estimates for seizures, at $70- $100 per US rru~xce that is equivalent to $b',96(/-$12,800 per pouted. As mentioned beloK~ they are pcrre/Tasing at $3,000-$4,000 per pound w/zich realizes a profrt of $4,960 to $8,800 per pound.) Investigators contend that much of the marijuana sold by L.A. clinics comes from many of the same sources as what's available on the street. It's often imported from Canada and. lviexico, Pullen said, in violation of California Law that: reduires medical marijuana to be grown within the state. A dispensary might pay $3,000 to 54,000 wholesale for a pound of marijuana then mark that amount up by as much as 100 percent, according to the DEA. Sut efinic owners such as Ed consider the DEA's contentions ludicrous, at least for clinics that care about their clients....... Tcrkrng Precautir~ns• However, even. some patient advocates admit larger dispensaries often. tutor to underground. fnowers. '111e DEA also believes that clinic sales to people without scripts or under false pretenses are more widespread. than the clinic community acknowledges. Ed said he drills his staff on state ]aw and. recommended codes of conduct promoted by patient advocacy g~t•oup Americans for Safe Access. Still, many law enforcement officials and community critics paint a sordid picture of the clinics as crime magnets that are often located too close to schools and parks and are too lax in screening clients. They also are apt to become targets of robberies and other crimes themselves because of their large caches of drugs and cash.. Source: http://www marijuana cam/420/dry-war-headline-news/52099-ca-ridin~- hit~h.htrnl 2b 75A-121 License to Chili SURGEON GENERAL'S WARNING: SMOKING MARIJUANA CAN BE HAZARDOUS TO YOUR HEALTH, UNLESS YOU LIVE IN CALIFORNIA AND SUFFER FROM. ANOREXIA, ARTHRITIS, CANCER, CHRONIC PAlN OR ANY OTI-IER ILLNESSES I>y r~Liclui~l Croldsieir~ l~ebru.ary 1 k, 007 I'm not talking about Xanax or Prozac or Vicodin or their siblings. I have a "recommendation" (not a prescription, a recom.men.dation) for pot. This puts me in a legally and socially problematic condition. The state of California says I can ingest marijuana for medicinal purposes, but the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration thinks I'm a criminal if I do......In Los Angeles County a recommendation can be filled at more than 100 dispensaries, many of which .have been raided by the DEA......I was aware of these laws long before last summer but hadn't felt the urge to take advantage of them until someone stuck a flier under my windshield. It was from California Natural Pain Relief on. Ventura Boulevard in Studio City, and it informed me, misspellings and all, that Medical cannabis can be recommended for the care and treatment of Cancer, Cronic pain,1arthritis, Migraines, Diabetes, Insomnia, Anxiety, Aids Nausea, Epilepsy, Lupus, Depression, Eating Disorders, Menopause, PIv1S, Asthma, etc." When I visited California Natural Pain Relief, the folks there directed me to a doctor at another office. Since I experience occasional but painfizl attacks of gout, a form of arthritis, as well as other foot and knee pain, I brought a load of medical records and a vial full of Vioxx that I had been too scared to take. The doctor gave me a brief physical. exam. and a blood pressure test, discussed how marijuana could alleviate the pain and inflammation and wrote and signed an official-looking, green-trimmed recommendation. This included the doctor's signature, a photocopy of my driver's license and a key phrase: "approve of the use of cannabis for my patient." I paid $150 cash. Armed with my license to chill, l drove back to Ventura Boulevard, smiled at the beefy bodyguard, strolled inside and handed the recommendation to the dispensary operator. There was a faintly agricultural scent in the air. Under a glass countertop were vials labeled Master Kush, Cotton Candy and OG Kush; also on display were variants of cannabis strains known as chronic and ganga. I forked. over $50 for an eighth of an ounce and received a small pipe as anew-patient gift..... ($SO.for 118`x' equals $6,400 per pound).......With edibles, I never knew how much THC I was actually putting into my system. One evening I ate half a brownie after dinner and couldn't get to sleep until 2 a.m. 1 felt anxious and dizzy. I got lost in the darkness, spinning in the corridor between the bedroom and the bathroom. At fhe movies I downed a My Kushbar (a concoction of dark. chocolate, blueberries and crisp rice), and my wife had to poke me as 1 sat catatonically watching "Dreamgirls." I shook my head and handed her the car keys......Marijuana did help calm my foot-pain problems. Also, my appreciation of everyday beauty was enhanced. At Balboa Park, the end-of-summer foliage and the grass, sky and late-afternoon. pollution around the sun appeared in Technicolor sharpness. At the swine time, I was anxious and confused. I hadn't taken so much poi in years. For six months (in the spirit of scientific inquiry) I consumed maybe one gram every two weeks; my previous marijuana purchases had been on the order of aquarter-ounce every two or three years through the usual. friend-of-a-friend channels. 27 75A-122 When I started smoking pot on the East Coast in the'70s,1 remerriber the choices being basically Jamaican, Colombian a.nd skunkweed. Today the strains are dizzying in variety and power, and all are available at the dispensaries. lt's a real business: The Los Angeles Journal for the Education of Medical Marijuana, a free monthly, lists doctors, collectives and lawyers and covers events such as the 2006 DOESHA Cup, a tasting event in which California marijuana growers compete. lt's all a bit overwhelming for a boomer.....Dispensaries are more like cash-and-carry package stores in states that control liquor sales. Another party stopper: Sharing or reselling a .patient's medical cannabis is illegal. Sotne dispensaries try to make it all seem. like a party, though. They advertise with slogans such as "KushMart: Where It's 4:20 Always (4:20 being shorthand for smoking pot or getting high-and, incidentally, the number of the 2003 state Senate bill). There's also a tnaybe- not-sa-clever propensity for employing words such as "therapeutic" and "herbal" and ~~ compassion -so that the initials of dispensaries, including Therapeutic Health. Care and Today's Holistic Caregivers, are TIIC. I found. one outfit that doesn't mess with any of that: The Natural Relief Center in Canoga Park, which doesn't advertise and shuns windshield fliers. Owner Michael Levitt got into the business one year ago. "I was comfortably retired," he told me, "but my wife didn't like me around the house so much." What motivated him were myriad health problems, including diabetes and high blood pressure. "At 51 years old, it doesn't wear well to deal with. street thugs to get medication. I thought I could help people and bring the game up as a businessman." He described his ,~ storefront as "a community spot. There s a hairdresser on one side and a newsstand on the other. In L.A., City Councilman Dennis Zine of the West Valley wants dispensaries to be located in industrial, commercial or business areas, where they re not going to have an impact on young people." I'm all for that. {By the way, the City Council's Planning and Land Use Management Committee voted in January in favor of enacting a moratorium on new dispensaries until the city devises rules governing them.} 1 learned a lot during my months as a medical marijuana user and came to three conclusions: My tolerance is low; pot should be legal as a pain reliever; the distribution system in place right now has room for improvement. But it's like Winston Churchill said about democracy-it's the worst form of government, except for al] the others. Source: http•//www latimes cam/features/nrin.ted.ition/mah~zine/la-tm- mari'uana06i'eb1.1.1.7379401.sto '?coil=la-headlines-m.a TaZIt1G:&ctraclc=l&cset=true 28 75A-123 1 2. 3 4' 5 6 7 8 9 10 ~ 11 oW ~~ 12 ~~ ~ ~~ 13 ~~~ ~~ 14 U ~ ~ 16 17 1$ 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 JACK L. WHITE, CITY ATTORNEY MOSES W. JOHNSON, IV, DEPUTY CITY ATTORNEY STATE BAR N0. 118769 200 South Anaheim Boulevard, Suite 356 Anaheim, California 92805 (714)765-5169 (714} 765-5123 FAX m jolulsonnanaheim.net Attorneys for Defendant CITY OF ANAHEIM SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF ORANGE, CENTRAL JUSTICE CENTER, UNLIMITED QUALIFIED PATIENTS ASSOCIATION an Unincorporated Association, LANCE MOWDY, an individual, Plaintiffs, vs. THE CITY OF ANAHEIM, et al. , ) Defendants. ) CASE NO. 070009524 JUDGE: DAVID A. THOMPSON DEPT: C28 DECLARATION OF CHIEF OF POLICE JOHN A. WELTER IN SUPPORT OF OPPOSITION TO ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE RE PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION DATE: September 28, 2007 TIME: 9:30 a.m. DEPT: C28 Comp, filed: 9/4/07 TRIAL DATE: None Decl Opp to OSC Re Preliminary Injunction 1 of 36 75A-124 2 3 4 51 6~ 7 8 9 10 ~ 11 ~~ ~ 12 QW ~~g~~ 13 W~~* 14 o ~ ~~ 15 ~ 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 I, JOHN A. WELTER, hereby declare and say: 1. I am the Chief of Police for the Anaheim Police Department. 2. I have personal knowledge of the facts attested to herein and, if called to testify concerning the same, I could and would do so competently. 3. As Chief of Police, I have personal knowledge of the policies, procedures, and practices of the Anaheim Police Department. 4. Proposition 215, the Compassionate Use Act of 1996, was approved by California voters and allows personal possession and cultivation of marijuana for medical purposes. The Act does not provide the patient with absolute immunity from arrest, but provides limited immunity allowing the patient to raise a medical use defense. 5. Senate Bi11420, the Medical Marijuana Program Act, took effect January 1, 2004 to clarify the scope of Proposition 215, and to allow cities and counties to adopt and enfaree rules and regulations regarding medical marijuana. It also established the amount of marijuana a qualified patient can possess. 6. One purpose of the Compassionate Use Act and the Medical Marijuana Program is to encourage the federal and state governments to implement a plan to provide for the safe and affordable distribution of marijuana to all patients in medical need of marijuana. However, neither the federal nor state government has implemented a plan to provide medical marijuana under these guidelines. This leaves cities with a lack of direction about how the Act is intended to be implemented, particularly in regard to distribution of medical marijuana through dispensaries. The Medical Marijuana Program provides additional statutory guidance for medical marijuana use and cultivation, but does not explicitly address the role of dispensaries, nor does it require cities provide for or allow the establishment and/or operation of medical marijuana dispensaries. 7. The Federal Controlled Substances Act categorizes marijuana as a Schedule I drug. Under Federal Law it is illegal to manufacture, distribute, dispense, or possess with intent to manufacture, distribute, or dispense a controlled substance. There is no medical necessity exception for marijuana under federal law. However, there are currently eleven states, including 1' Decl Opp to OSC Re Preliminary Injunction 2 of 36 75A-125 aw~ ~~~s~~ W ~ ~~ ~o ,~~ ~' ~ ~ E~ ~ ~ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 '~ California, having laws that support or are sympathetic to the medicinal use of marijuana. 8. Medical marijuana dispensaries are retail businesses specializing in the sale of marijuana and marijuana products; such facilities are not licensed pharmacies and do not qualify as primary caregivers within the meaning of California Health and Safety Code § 11362.7. Primary caregivers are defined by the California Health and Safety Code as individuals who consistently assume responsibility for the housing, health or safety of a patient. Medical marijuana dispensazies simply sell marijuana to primary caregivers, qualified patients, and persons with a medical marijuana identification card. Presently, medical marijuana dispensaries are not defined under the Compassionate Use Act or the Medical Marijuana Program Act. Unlike licensed pharmacies that operate under stringent government controls regarding the medical products they possess and sell, medical marijuana dispensaries operate without any governmental control. 9. Medical marijuana dispensaries have been established in numerous locations in California, including Anaheim. As a consequence, local agencies have reported negative secondary effects on the community, which include, illegal drug activity and drug sales in the vicinity of dispensaries; robbery of persons leaving dispensazies; driving under the influence of a controlled substance by persons who have obtained marijuana from a dispensary; persons acquiring marijuana from a dispensary and then selling it to anon-qualified person; burglaries and robberies; and an increase in vacancies in the commercial areas in the vicinity of the dispensary. Many of these documented negative secondary effects and others have been experienced in Anaheim. 10. The California Police Chiefs Association has compiled an extensive report detailing negative secondary effects associated with medical marijuana dispensaries. A complete copy of this report is attached as Exhibit "C." The report contains persuasive anecdotal and documented evidence that medical marijuana dispensaries pose a threat to public health, safety, and welfare. 11. A prohibition ordinance on medical marijuana dispensaries does not conflict with any Federal or Califomia State legislation. According to the California League of Cities, more than 40 cities in California have successfully enacted bans on medical marijuana dispensaries '2' Decl Opp to OSC Re Preliminary Injunction 3of36 75A-126 aw ~~ ~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ LL ~ ~ ~ 1 2 3 4 5 6~ 7~ 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 and none have been invalidated by court action. Anaheim ordinance no. 6067 does not prohibit i nor eliminate the availability and use of medical marijuana. Anaheim ordinance no. 6067 guards against abuses of the law and responsibly protects the health, safety, and welfare of Anaheim's citizens and businesses. 12. On July 31, 2007, I reported to the City Council that years of research had gone into issues related to medical marijuana dispensaries and the ordinance before the City Council for consideration would prohibit the establishment of such a facility in Anaheim. As of July 31, 2007, there is one medical marijuana dispensary operating in Anaheim to the Police Department's knowledge. 13. I informed the City Council that Proposition 215 was approved by voters in 1996 and allowed for limited possession, cultivation and use of medical marijuana for certain seriously ill patients, however, that legislation did not provide much detail or explanation as to how the public could obtain the substance or any guidance to government on how to deal with this issue in general. SB 420 was passed and took effect in 2004 and was expected to provide some clarification into the questions which arose from Prop 215. It establishes the amount of marijuana qualified persons can possess and allows cities to adopt and enforce regulations regarding medical marijuana. Attached as Exhibit "G" is a true and correct copy of my Power Point presentation to the City Council on July 31, 2007. 14. I emphasized to the City Council that marijuana use was a clear conflict between State and Federal law and police departments are caught in the middle. Experts in the field have looked at this issue and believe the vast majority of people using medical marijuana are not seriously ill and in fact are using these facilities to purchase marijuana and use it in illegal ways. Under the Act, I pointed out to the City Council that dispensaries are not defined, and cities are not required to allow them, and, in fact, the dispensaries are retail businesses, selling untested, unregulated products of unknown strength. 15. Additionally, I reported to the City Council that there were no safeguards in place to protect the buyer, and each one of these facilities could sell what they want to whomever they want with no age limits on who could purchase. Standard pharmacies, on the other hand, I 3 - Decl Opp to OSC Re Preliminary Injunction 4of36 75A-127 1 2 3 4 5 6~ 7 8 9 10 ~ 11 ~~~ 12 <w ~~~~ 13 ~~ ~~ ~o Yc 14 ~~ ~ 15 o ~ 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 '~ 24 25 26 27 28 pointed out to the City Council, were strictly controlled and regulated by the government. 16. I stated to the City Council that in California, serious problems have been documented in many communities which contain medical marijuana dispensaries and in Anaheim, when the first dispensary opened, there was a violent armed robbery, frequent illegal drug activity and a perceived decrease in public safety by a number of businesses surrounding the dispensary. I commented that businesses were closing and relocating because of these facilities in many communities, including Anaheim. 17. 1fie ordinance, I explained to the City Council, did not conflict with SB 420 or federal law. I remarked to the City Council that over 100 cities in California have temporarily suspended the opening up of medical marijuana dispensaries or permanently banned them in their communities due to the negative impacts. Six cities in Orange County have also done the 'same. 18. I informed the City Council that there were a compilation of research papers attached to my written report detailing the negative effects on jurisdictions and impacts resulting from these dispensaries and I recommended that the City Council adopt the attached ordinance as a crime prevention measure. 19. Attached are true and correct copies of the following documents that were presented to the Anaheim City Council on July 31, 2007: a) Staff report dated July 31, 2007. Exhibit "A." b) Anaheim Medical Marijuaiza Dispensary Ordinance. Exhibit "B." c) California Police Chiefs Association Compilation Report on Medical Marijuana Dispensaries Negative Secondary Effects. Exhibit "C." d) Riverside County District Attorney's Office White Paper on Medical Marijuana. Exhibit "D." e) EI Cerrito Police Department Memorandum dated April 18, 2007. Exhibit "E;" and f} El Cerrito Police Department Memorandum dated January 12, 2007. Exhibit "F." g) Medical Marijuana Dispensary Ordinance Ban-Power Point presentation. Exhibit ~ «G „ - 4 - Decl Opp to OSC Re Preliminary Injunction 5 of 36 75A-128 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ~ 11 ~g~ 12 ~~ ~~~ 13 w~ ~~~ ~o ~+~ 14 ~~ c~ 15 LL N 16 o ~ 17' 18 19 20 21 22 2`3 24 25 26 27 28 I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true and correct. DATED this_~ th day of September, 2007 at naheim, California. ~~ _ A. WELTER - 5 - Decl Opp to OSC Re Preliminary Injunction 6of36 75A-129 PROOF OF SERVICE 1013A (3) CCF Revised 5/1/88 STATE OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF ORANGE I am employed in the County of Orange, State of California. I am over the age of 18 and not a party to the within action; my business address is 200 S. Anaheim Boulevard, Suite 356, Anaheim, California 92805. On September ~ 2007 ,1 served the foregoing document described as: DECLARATION OF CHIEF OF POLICE JOHN A. WELTER IN SUPPORT OF OPPOSITION TO ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE RE PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION on interested parties in this action by placing the true copies thereof enclosed in sealed envelopes addressed as follows: Anthony L. Curiale, Esq. ~ ~ r (.r~ ~Z 5 _ 7Z ~ y 418 S. Brea Boulevard Brea, CA 92821 (X) BY MAIL: As follows: I am "readily familiar" with the firm's practice of collection and processing correspondence for mailing. Under that practice it would be deposited with U.S. postal service on that same day with postage thereon fully prepaid at Anaheim, California in the ordinary course of business. I am aware that on motion of the party served, service is presumed invalid if postal cancellation date or postage meter date is more than one day after date of deposit for mailing in affidavit. ~BY FACSIMILE: I caused the contents of said envelope to be delivered by Facsimile machine to the number indicated after the address(es) noted. () BY PERSONAL SERVICE: I delivered a copy of the document by hand to the address(es) noted. {x) STATE: I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the above is true and correct. () FEDERAL: I declare that I am employed in the office of a member of the bar of this court at whose direction the service was made. Denise Silberman 7 of 36 75A-130 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 z ~ ~ ~ 12 ~~ ~ ~R 13 ~~ ~~ 14 0 ~c ~~~~ 15 ~ ~ 16 17 18 19 20 21 ~, 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 JACK L. WHITE, CITY ATTORNEY MOSES W. JOHNSON, IV, DEPUTY CITY ATTORNEY STATE BAR NO. 118769 200 South Anaheim Boulevard, Suite 356 Anaheim, California 92805 (714)765-5169 (714) 765-5123 FAX mjohnson cr,anaheim.net Attorneys for Defendant CITY OF ANAHEIM SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF ORANGE, CENTRAL JUSTICE CENTER, UNLIMITED QUALIFIED PATIENTS ASSOCIATION an Unincorporated Association, LANCE MOWDY, an individual, Plaintiffs, CASE NO. 070009524 JUDGE: DAVID A. THOMPSON DEPT: C28 vs. ~, THE CITY OF ANAHEIM, et ai. , Defendants. DECLARATION OF LT. TIM MILLER IN SUPPORT OF OPPOSITION TO ORDERTO SHOW CAUSE RE PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION DATE: September 28, 2007 TIME: 9:30 a.m. DEPT: C28 Comp. filed: 9/4107 TRIAL DATE: None Decl Opp to OSC Re Preliminary Injunction 8of36 75A-131 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 91 10 I ~ 11 ~~~ 12 a w ~~~ ~~ 13 ~o ~~ 14 ~~ ~~ 15 ~ ~ 16 17 18 19 20 21~ 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 I, TIM MILLER, hereby declare and say: 1. I am currently a Lieutenant for the Anaheim Police Department ("APD"). I was the Supervisor of the Anaheim Police Department's Street Narcotic Unit. I make this declaration in support of the City of Anaheim's Opposition to PIaintiffs' OSC Re Preliminary Injunction. 2. I have personal knowledge of the facts attested to herein and, if called to testify concerning the same, I could and would do so competently. 3. I received a Bachelor's of Business Administration with a Major in Marketing from the University of Texas in 1985. I have over 21 years of law enforcement experience at A.P.D. I am currently assigned as a Patrol Lieutenant and Watch Commander. I was most recently the supervisor of the Street Narcotic Unit in the Special Operations Division and a supervisor on the SWAT Team. I have supervised officers in Patrol, Field Training Officer Program, Bike Team, Community Policing, Safe Schools Program, and the Gang Enforcement Unit. 4. I was assigned as a Patrol Officer, Field Training Officer, Street Narcotic Unit Investigator and Crime Task Force Investigator prior to promotion to Sergeant. I am a Department certified Spanish translator. 5. I have arrested hundreds of subjects for being under the influence of alcohol and ~ various controlled substances such as cocaine, heroin, methamphetamine, phencyclidine, marijuana and lysergic acid diethyiamide. I have also assisted and supervised other officers with ~ their arrests of subjects under the influence of controlled substances on hundreds of occasions. 6. I have personally spoken with hundreds of persons, who are users of various controlled substances. I have observed subjects use controlled substances in my presence, while working as an undercover officer on numerous occasions. I have observed the onset of apparent symptomatology commonly associated with the particular types of controlled substances that were used (cocaine, cocaine base, heroin, marijuana and L.S.D.). 7. I have taught individual officers and law enforcement classes as well as given briefing training on a variety of narcotic related subjects, including identifying and investigating subjects under the influence of controlled substances. I am a certified Drug Recognition Expert ("DRE") Instructor and instruct and certify DRE students. -1- Decl Opp to OSC Re Preliminary Injunction 9of36 75A-132 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ~ 11 ~~~ 12 < W ~ 13 ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ 14 ~~ ~~ ~ 15 ~ ~ 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 8. I have testified in Superior Courts in Orange and Los Angeles Counties on numerous occasions as an expert witness regarding narcotic investigations including use/influence, identification, usable quantity, possession for sales and sales of various controlled substances. 9. I maintain a current understanding of trends used by narcotic offenders, as well as investigation and enforcement of narcotic laws by reading books, manuals, articles, reports and training bulletins pertaining to these subjects. I am a Life Time Member of the California Narcotic Officers Association and a member since 1989. 10. As the Supervisor of the Anaheim Police Department's Street Narcotic Unit, I prepared reports in support of the City of Anaheim's Medical Marijuana Dispensary Ordinance. 11. The contents of my reports provide background information regarding Proposition 215, codified as Health and Safety Code § 11362.5 and Senate Bill 420, which clarified the scope of Proposition 215; the availability of marijuana; how other jurisdictions are dealing with the medical marijuana issues; and the impact that medical marijuana is having on the City of Anaheim. PROPOSITION 215 12. Proposition 215, the Compassionate Use Act of 1996 ("CUA"), was approved by California voters with the intent to "ensure seriously ill Californians the right to obtain and use marijuana for medical purposes where that medical use is deemed appropriate and has been recommended by a physician who has determined that the person's health would benefit from the use of marijuana in the treatment of [specified illnesses]." This proposition is codified as Health and Safety Code § 11362.5, and allows personal possession and cultivation of marijuana for medical purposes. This section does not provide the patient with absolute immunity from arrest, but provides limited immunity allowing the patient to raise a medical use defense. Attached as Exhibit 1 is a true and correct copy of Proposition 215, Section 1. 13. Senate Bi11420 took effect on January 1, 2004 to clarify the scope of Proposition 215, and to allow cities and counties to adopt and enforce rules and regulations regarding the CUA. // - 2 - Decl Opp to OSC Re Preliminary Injunction 10 of 36 75A-133 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ~ 11 ~~~~ 12 ~~~ ~~ 13 ~~ ~~ 14 ~ ~ c~ 15 ~ 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 PROBLEMS WITH PROPOSITION 215 14. Marijuana is still classified federally as a Schedule I substance under the Controlled Substances Act. Schedule I drugs, which include heroin and LSD, have a high potential for abuse and serve no legitimate medical purpose in the United States. The California Health and Safety Code also classifies marijuana as a Schedule I drug. 15. As originally enacted, there is no specificity as to the strength, quality or quantity of marijuana to be used for medical purposes. Since its origin is also unregulated by the government, marijuana is obtained by patients through a variety of sources. It may be obtained through a health care provider, a cannabis club, cooperative, or illicitly on the black market. 16. Delta 9 Tetrahydrocannabinol, or THC, is the active ingredient in marijuana. Its concentration in marijuana varies greatly depending on a variety of factors such as geographic origin, plant lineage, and method of growth. The percentage of THC present in marijuana commonly available ranges from 3.5 % to almost 40 %. The effects marijuana has on a user vary greatly depending upon the strength of the marijuana (amongst other factors). 17. The California Medical Marijuana Information Report by the United States Department of Justice indicates large-scale drug traffickers have been posing as "care givers" to obtain and sell marijuana. The local news is frequented with reports of large-scale marijuana grows being discovered on public lands, such as the Cleveland National Forest in Orange County recently, and the Angeles and Los Padres National Forests, just to our north. These large cultivations on public lands are of minimal cost to the growers, yet cost the State tens of millions of dollars to locate and eradicate. Since there is no "govemment grown" marijuana for dispensaries, it is apparent the dispensaries obtain their marijuana from a variety of sources, including marijuana grown illegally on public land. 18. Marijuana is also obtained by the dispensaries through traditional illicit drug smuggling routes. Organized crime and other drug trafficking organizations are earning millions of dollars through the drug trade involving "medical marijuana." Some marijuana may arrive in California through interstate routes; however international corridors through Canada and Mexico are most common. Billions of dollars have been spent nationally attempting to eradicate these - 3 - Decl Opp to OSC Re Preliminary Injunction 11 of 36 75A-134 1 sources of illegal drugs, yet Proposition 215 encourages their continued use and actually makes 2 them even more profitable with less risk. Law Enforcement officials in Mexico are currently 3 being killed with greater frequency in part due to increased demand for marijuana in parts of the 4 United States. California is one of the nation's leading consumers of marijuana. Marijuana is 5 considered to be one of California's highest grossing crops, along with grapes. 6 19. There are no scientific studies demonstrating a medical benefit from "smoking" 7 marijuana. Marijuana is a "gateway drug" to other "harder" drug use and is dangerous, 8 psychologically addictive and has a high potential for abuse. The Office of National Drug 9 Control Policy has reported more persons are being admitted to treatment for marijuana use than 10 heroin addiction. 11 20. Marijuana could never pass the Food and Drug Administrations pure drug standards. z ~ 12 With hundreds of crude chemicals, including carcinogens stronger than those found in tobacco, a ~ ~ ~ 13 ~~ the California and American Medical Associations and every other credible medical group ~~ ~ ~~ 14 oppose the use of medical marijuana. Since marijuana is not approved by the FDA, and is still a o ~ ~ ~ 15 Schedule I drug, Proposition 215 encourages citizens to violate Federal Law. There are only a o ~ 16 few medical doctors who support marijuana's medical use and, will actually issue marijuana 17 recommendations. 18 21. Proposition 2 i 5 does not address the consumption of marijuana by minors. 19 Although the age limit for smoking tobacco is 18 and for the consumption of alcohol it is 21, 20 there is no age restriction for marijuana consumption under the provisions of Proposition 215. 21 22. Marijuana is the most widely available drug and most abused illegal drug in 22 California and the United States. Juvenile aged high school student's use of marijuana is a 23 significant and growing problem. Marijuana is responsible for behavioral, intellectual and 24 cognitive deficits. Marijuana use been linked to a higher incidence of throat cancer, and has 25 severe pulmonary, reproductive and immune system side effects. Marijuana use is also known 26 to trigger attacks of manic depression, schizophrenia and memory loss and an increase in teen 27 suicides has reportedly been linked to marijuana use. Marijuana is a predominant component of 28 "polydrug" use, which is more frequently encountered today by law enforcement. -4 - Decl Opp to OSC Re Preliminary Injunction 12 of 36 75A-135 2 23. While marijuana dispensaries have attempted to "demonstrate their responsibility" 2 by providing documentation to their customers indicating marijuana causes, "intoxication and 3 effects on the nervous system which lead to slowed reaction time and loss of coordination which 4 lasts for hours after ingestion and these affects make driving a car or operating machinery 5 hazardous and therefore should be avoided while under the influence of marijuana." However, 6 the dispensaries fail to clarify the real picture. 7 24. Studies have been conducted where licensed aircraft pilots were given a small dose 8 of THC. Twenty-four hours later the pilots were placed in a flight simulator and all ten of the 9 test subjects experienced errors in landing. A second similar study supported the first. Roughly 10 80% of the test subjects displayed signs of impairment 24 hours after the drug was consumed. 11 Only one of the test subjects was aware of the fact his performance was being affected 24 hours a~ ~ 12 after marijuana use. These and other similar tests indicate marijuana impair one's ability to ~ 13 ~~ operate a motor vehicle long after the noticeable effects have worn off. ~ ~ ~~ 14 25. In the past few years Anaheim has become aware of this phenomenon and has o ~ ~~ 15 experienced a number of fatal traffic collisions involving subjects under the influence of ~ ~ .. 16 marijuana. Non-fatal traffic collisions involving man~uana-impaired dnvers occur regularly. 17 AVAILABILITY 18 26. In 1985 the Food and Drug Administration ("FDA") approved a THC medication 19 known as Dronabinol, which is marketed under the name Marinol in a capsule form. 20 Dronabinol is a synthetic THC, laboratory produced and available through traditional Physician 21 prescriptions and obtained at Pharmacies. The drug is used for the treatment of nausea and 22 vomiting in cancer patients undergoing chemotherapy and treating AIDS related anorexia by 23 stimulating the appetite. Dosages are regulated at 2.5, 5 and 10 milligrams. Since Marinol has 24 been tested and regulated by the FDA, its strength and quality remain constant. 25 27. Proposition 215 and SB 420 do not specifically deal with the issue of "where" 26 patients obtain marijuana for medical purposes. Simply put, there are no government owned or 27 operated marijuana cultivations, warehouses or retail outlets for medical marijuana. The law 28 only designates a "qualified patient" or "primary caregiver" to grow, obtain or possess medical - S - Decl Opp to OSC Re Preliminary Injunction 13 of 36 75A-136 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ~ 11 ~W ~ 12 ~~~s~~ 13 Wo~~ 14 ~~ ~ 15 ~ ~ 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 marijuana. If a "qualified patient" or "primary caregiver" does not cultivate marijuana, it is obtained illicitly either by the patient or caregiver or someone else who supplies it to them. Patients may also purchase marijuana through mail order or Internet services throughout the state. 28. Patients attempting to obtain marijuana legally may do so through dozens of medical marijuana dispensaries, cannabis clubs, collectives and cooperatives in Southern California. ~ Numerous dispensaries exist in Los Angeles County along with at least two in Orange County, including one currently operating in Anaheim known to the Anaheim Police Department. The number of businesses appears to be expanding rapidly in Southern California. Many of the dispensaries and primary caregivers will deliver the marijuana to the patient at home. OTHER JURISDICTIONS 29. Different jurisdictions have dealt with the medical marijuana issues in a variety of ways throughout the state. One jurisdiction in Los Angeles County researched the concept of having a "City operated" and regulated dispensary; however the project was discontinued prior to implementation. 30. The Northern California City of Hayward adopted ordinances to regulate the establishment and operation of medical marijuana facilities. However, after experiencing many problems at and around their dispensary, Hayward passed an ordinance to ban dispensaries in 12006. 31. In July 2004, the Northern California City of Rocklin became the first city in the state to approve and adopt a zoning ordinance effectively prohibiting medical marijuana dispensaries ("MMD") in their jurisdiction. This ordinance has not been overturned. Numerous other cities in the state have followed Rocklin's suit, banning MMD's, including Costa Mesa and Cypress. Fullerton is also looking at modifying their zoning ordinance to prohibit MMD's. 32. According to the California League of Cities as of September 2006, 141 cities surveyed have taken some action regarding MMD's. Seventy three cities have enacted moratoriums on these businesses allowing the city more time to study the issue. Twenty eight cities have chosen to allow MMD's and forty cities are prohibiting MMD's in their community. - 6 - Decl Opp to OSC Re Preliminary Injunction 14 of 36 75A-137 1'~ 2, 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ~ 11 z ~~ ~ 12 ~~ ~ ~~ 13 ~o ~~ 14 ~~ ~ 15 ~ ~ 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Attached as Exhibit 2 is a true and correct copy of the survey results of Medical Marijuana Dispensaries in California Cities as of September 2006. 33. San Diego and San Bernardino Counties have joined in a lawsuit against the State of California seeking to overturn the Compassionate Use Act. These counties have argued that the state law conflicts with federal law and an international narcotics treaty signed by the United States in 1961. The case is currently on appeal. 4th Dist., Div. 1, Case No. D050333. 34. Kurt Smith, the Director of Community Analysis and Technology for the City of ~ Redlands summed up that community's response to medical marijuana. "Prevalence should not equal acceptance. Furthering the distribution and availability of marijuana increases the opportunity for crime and may further destabilize neighborhoods and endanger those at highest risk for its use- children in our community." 35. The City's Planning Department and Police Department have worked to be leaders in researching the topic of medical marijuana and dispensaries. The City has shared its experience with an MMD, documentation and research with numerous other jurisdictions in California. Two of those cities in this county and at least one outside the county have also adopted ordinances prohibiting marijuana dispensaries. 36. In October 2006, the City of Los Angeles announced, while they had previously regulated MMD's, they have initiated a lengthy moratorium on the establishment of any new dispensaries. They have discovered the open dispensaries are not complying with regulations and appear to be in violation of criminal statutes. IMPACT ON ANAHEIM 37. "420 Primary Caregivers" at 421 N. Brookhurst Street, Suite #130 obtained a '~ business license from the City of Anaheim on May 19, 2004. The type of business was listed as a primary caregiver. By the fall of 2004 the Police Department began to receive complaints from neighboring businesses in the multi-unit complex regarding "420 Primary Caregivers." In January 2005, "420 Primary Caregivers" and its employees were robbed at gunpoint and physically beaten by three masked suspects who took both money and marijuana from the location. - ~ - Decl Opp to OSC Re Preliminary Injunction 15 of 36 75A-138 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ~ 11 ~~~~ 12 aw ~~ ~5~~ 13 w ~ '~~ 14 ~ ~c ~~ c~ 15 ~ 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 38. On April S, 2005 members of the Anaheim Police Department met with the Property '~ Management Company, owners and representatives from the businesses at 421 N. Brookhurst Street to discuss their concerns. The main issue was the safety for employees of businesses near "420 Primary Caregivers." Many businesses believed they too will become victims of a robbery or shooting, based on the previous robbery. Patrons were also scared to use the public restrooms in the complex because of the perception that many customers at "420 Primary Caregivers" are criminals not patients. Other issues concerning the patrons include use of marijuana in the parking lot surrounding the complex, the strong marijuana odor in the ventilation system, and continued interruption of neighboring businesses by "420 Primary Caregivers" customers. Many businesses believed they were losing their own clients based on the clientele of "420 Primary Caregivers" loitering in the courtyard and parking area at the complex. 39. Two businesses terminated their lease at the property and moved. A law office, specializing in criminal defense, and a ten year occupant at the property, moved out of Anaheim to another city citing, "marijuana smoke has inundated [their office] ... and they can no longer continue to provide a safe, professional location for ... clients and employees." A healthcare business moved after six years, citing their business is repeatedly interrupted and mistaken multiple times each day for "the store that has the marijuana." The owner "fears he or his employee may be shot if they are robbed by mistake and the suspects do not believe they do not have marijuana." The property manager indicated at least five other businesses have inquired about terminating their leases for reasons related to "420 Primary Caregivers." Both businesses that left the development indicated their moving expenses were costly, but felt it was the only acceptable alternative. 40. "420 Primary Caregivers" is operating in close proximity to Brookhurst Junior High School, Juliette Low Elementary School, the Brookhurst Community Center, Brookhurst Park, Tiger Woods Learning Center, Dad Miller Golf Course and a day care center. Also nearby are Savanna, Gilbert-East, Fairmont and Servite High Schools and Melbourne Gauer Elementary School. 41. Arrests have been made of "qualified patients" purchasing marijuana with a 8 - Decl Opp to OSC Re Preliminary Injunction 16 of 36 75A-139 I 2 3'' 4 5 b 7 8 9 10 ~ 11 ~ ~ W ~ R 12 ~~ ~~ 13 ~o ~~ 14 c ~~ ~ 15 ~ ~ 16 17~ 18J 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Doctor's recommendation, and then supply it to their friends for illicit use. Criminal investigation has also revealed "420 Primary Caregivers" is obtaining its marijuana from a variety of sources including marijuana smuggled into the United States from South or Central America. Besides selling a variety of qualities of dried marijuana, "420 Primary Caregivers" also sells marijuana plants and food products made with concentrated cannabis, heavily laden with THC. Three subjects related to "420 Primary Caregivers," including the owner, have been arrested and charged by the Orange County District Attorney's Office with multiple felony counts including possessing marijuana for sale and child endangerment. People v. Stephen Glenn Lawrence, Orange County Superior Court Case No. OSNF1146. The felony counts include: H&S § 11360(a) [Sale or transport of marijuana]; H&S § 11359 [Possession for sale of marijuana]; PC §273a(a} [Child abuse and endangerment]; and PC §182(a)(1) [Conspire to commit a crime]. A substantial sum of cash has also been seized from the defendants pursuant to asset forfeiture laws. The Police Department conservatively estimated that "420 Primary Caregivers" to be generating approximately $50,000.00 a week income. Attached as Exhibit C are true and correct copies of the crime reports, DR OS-14298, regarding this criminal investigation that I reviewed, approved and signed as the supervisor. RECENT DEVELOPMENTS 42. Under the Federal Controlled Substances Act there is no compassionate use exception. However, eleven states including California have laws allowing medical marijuana or are sympathetic to the issue. The United States Supreme Court addressed the issue of medical marijuana distribution by dispensaries in United Stated v. Oakland Cannabis Buyers' Cooperative and Jeffrey Jones, 532 U.S. 483, on May 14, 2001, ruling there is no medical necessity defense under federal law. This makes the distribution of marijuana through a medical marijuana dispensary illegal under federal law. 43. On June 6, 2005, the United States Supreme Court overruled Raich v. Ashcroft, (9"' Cir. 2003) 352 F.3d. 1222. The US Supreme Court decision on this medical marijuana case from Northern California allows Federal Agencies to continue to enforce Federal Law in states with Compassionate Use/ Medical Marijuana laws. Gonzales v. Raich (2005) 545 U.S. 1. - 9 - Decl Opp to OSC Re Preliminary Injunction 17 of 36 75A-140 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ~ I1 ~~~ 12 W . ~~ s~~ 13 o ~--~, 14 ~~~~ 15 '~ 16 o ~ 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 44. Numerous investigations into California medical marijuana dispensaries and providers have resulted in seizures of marijuana and assets valued in the hundreds of millions of dollars. The United States Attorney has indicated the marijuana dispensaries are illegally cultivating marijuana, laundering money and distributing other illegal drugs. 45. Due to the extensive financial success of "420 Primary Caregivers" in Anaheim, numerous individuals and groups have inquired about obtaining business licenses to open and operate marijuana dispensaries in Anaheim. The Planning Department has referred these applicants to the Police Department and most have been successfully discouraged from pursuing their interest here. One individual was not dissuaded and signed a commercial lease for f ve years on North Harbor Boulevard to open a marijuana dispensary. The Police Department contacted the property owner prior to the dispensary opening to inquire about the owner's knowledge of the type of business. The owner was unaware of the individual's intent and the owner terminated the lease agreement. 46. The June 6, 2005 Raich decision caused "420 Primary Caregivers" to cease selling marijuana temporarily. "420 Primary Caregivers" was still operating at the location to register new "patients," take orders for delivery and to supply customers with a secret "access code" to order marijuana from "420 Primary Caregivers" via the Internet. Attached hereto as Exhibit D is a true and correct copy of a printout from "420 Primary Caregivers" website printed 6/9/05. 47. After a few months "420 Primary Caregivers" reopened its doors for retail sales of marijuana. Since reopening, the Police Department has received complaints from two businesses regarding the marijuana dispensary. One business is in the complex at 42l N Brookhurst and cites concerns regarding marijuana smoking on the property, the proximity to local schools and the children who pass directly by "420 Primary Caregivers" on their way to and from school. Another business, not in the complex but neazby, has been mistaken for being a marijuana dispensary and has expressed concern for its employees due to the aggressive nature of the subjects demanding marijuana. 48. "420 Primary Caregivers" moved and is now located at 231 N Brookhurst St. Anaheim. - l 0 - Decl Opp to OSC Re Preliminary Injunction 18 of 36 75A-141 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 to ~ 11 ~~~ 12 ~`~~~~ 13 ~~ ~~ 14 o ~~ o ~ ~~ 15 ~' 16 o ~ 17i 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 CONCLUSION 49. Jurisdictions that have medical marijuana dispensaries report experiencing numerous negative impacts or secondary effects on their communities. The information provided comes from the following jurisdictions: Roseville, Oakland, Hayward, Lake County and Fairfax, but many of the same effects have already been felt in the City of Anaheim. 50. These negative secondary effects include: 1) Street level dealers selling to those going to the dispensary at a lower price. 2) Public marijuana smoking around the dispensary and at nearby parks. 3) Increased marijuana DUI accidents/ arrests. 4) Increased burglaries and robberies at/near the dispensaries. 5) Marijuana dealers obtain a doctor's recommendation to obtain marijuana from the dispensary, and then conduct illega! street sales to those who do not have a recommendation 6) Criminals are robbing medical use patients of their cash and/or marijuana. 7) Other illegal drugs are sold at the dispensaries. 8) Dispensaries are obtaining marijuana from illicit dealers. 9) Dispensaries attract criminals from outside the immediate area. 10) Minors become involved illegally in marijuana use; and 11}Legitimate businesses near dispensaries experience problems with perceptions of lack of safety for clients and employees and suffer actual financial loss due to increased criminal activity decreasing clients desire to frequent the legitimate business. 51. All of these negative secondary effects on the community can be avoided if marijuana dispensaries are not allowed to open or operate in the City of Anaheim and other communities. I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the ~ foregoing is true and correct. DATED this /~ th day of September, 2007 at Anaheim, California. TIM ~LL~ -11- Decl Opp to OSC Re Preliminary Injunction 19 of 36 75A-142 PROOF OF SERVICE 1013A (3} CCP Revised 5/1/88 STATE OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF ORANGE I am employed in the County of Orange, State of California. I am over the age of 18 and not a party to the within action; my business address is 200 S. Anaheim Boulevard, Suite 356, Anaheim, California 92805. On September ~ 2007 , I served the foregoing document described as: DECLARATION OF LT. TIM MILLER IN SUPPORT OF OPPOSITION TO ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE RE PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION on interested parties in this action by placing the true copies thereof enclosed in sealed envelopes addressed as follows: Anthony L. Curiale, Esq. ~ ~/~~ rj"Z ~ _ ~ ~ to y' 418 S. Brea Boulevard Brea, CA 92821 (X) BY MAIL: As follows: I am "readily familiar" with the firm's practice of collection and processing correspondence for mailing. Under that practice it would be deposited with U.S. postal service on that same day with postage thereon fully prepaid at Anaheim, California in the ordinary course of business. I am aware that on motion of the party served, service is presumed invalid if postal cancellation date or postage meter date is more than one day after date of deposit for mailing in affidavit. ~BY FACSIMILE: I caused the contents of said envelope to be delivered by Facsimile machine to the number indicated after the addresses} noted. (} BY PERSONAL SERVICE: I delivered a copy of the document by hand to the address(es) noted. (x) STATE: I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the above is true and correct. () FEDERAL: I declare that I am employed in the office of a member of the bar of this court at whose direction the service was made. ~~ Denise Silberman 20 of 36 75A-143 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ~ 11 z ~ o ~~ 12 <~ . ~~~ ~~ 13 ~o ~~ 14 ~~~~~ 15 Yi ~ 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 JACK L. WHITE, CITY ATTORNEY MOSES W. JOHNSON, IV, DEPUTY CITY ATTORNEY STATE BAR NO. 118769 200 South Anaheim Boulevard, Suite 356 Anaheim, California 92805 (714)765-5169 (714) 765-5123 FAX mj ohnsonnanaheim .net Attorneys for Defendant CITY OF ANAHEIM SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF ORANGE, CENTRAL JUSTICE CENTER, UNLIMITED QUALIFIED PATIENTS ASSOCIATION an Unincorporated Association, LANCE MOWDY, an individual, Plaintiffs, vs. THE CITY OF ANAHEIM, et al. , Defendants. CASE NO. 070009524 JUDGE: DAVID A. THOMPSON DEPT: C28 DECLARATION OF INVESTIGATOR RICHARD LAROCHELLE JR 1N SUPPORT OF OPPOSITION TO ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE RE PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION DATE: September 28, 2007 TIME: 9:30 a.m. DEPT: C28 Comp. filed: 9/4/07 TRIAL DATE: None Decl Opp to OSC Re Preliminary Injunction 21 of 36 75A-144 K~ ~ ~ ~ lg8 4 eu ~~~~~ ~~ ~~sc ~ ~ ~~ 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 i 2~5 _6 27 28 I, RICHARD LAROCHELLE JR., declare: l . I have personal knowledge of the facts attested to herein and, if called to testify ' concerning the same, I could and would do so competently. 2. I am a Police Officer with the City of Anaheim and have been so employed since December of 1994. As a police officer, I have been assigned to various duties including: Patrol, ~ Field Training Officer, Primary Response Officer, Community Policing- South District, Detective in the Tourist Oriented Policing Detail, Vice and now Criminal Intelligence. 3. I have been assigned as an Investigator with the Anaheim Police Department Criminal Intelligence Detail since Apri12005. I have received 40 hours of specialized training in criminal investigations from the San Diego County Sheriffs Department and 40 hours of specialized training in Criminal Intelligence, information resources and rules related to 28 CFR (Code of Federal Regulations) from the California Department of Justice. 4. I have developed through "on the job'' training, experience, and contacts in the field regarding public corruption, terrorism/terrorist and anti-government individuals/organizations, outlaw motorcycle gangs, Internet crimes, organized crime, and nazcotics. l have conducted interviews and had conversations with these contacts in order to increase my knowledge of these activities. In many instances these contacts include, but are not limited to, subjects arrested for conducting various forms of the above-mentioned illegal activities. I have also conducted hundreds of criminal investigations involving the above mentioned illegal activities. 5. During my time as an Investigator within the Criminal Intelligence Detail 1 have been a member of an ATF {Department of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms) task force formed to investigate and dismantle a portion of the outlaw motorcycle gang. I have testified as a Motorcycle Club expert in Orange County Superior Court Central Justice Center.. 6. On March 28, 2005, I was contacted by Investigator T. Hoang reference an on-going narcotic investigation involving a doctor writing recommendations for subjects to purchase clinical marijuana. Investigator Hoang directed me to call the doctor's office located in Lake Forest to make an appointment to see the doctor for a marijuana prescription. Attached hereto as Exhibit "A" is a true and correct copy of Crime Report DR OS-15112 on this investigation. -1- Decl Opp to OSC Re Preliminary Injunction 22 of 36 75A-145 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ~ 11 ~~ ~ 12 aw~~~ 13 ~~~ -~ ~~~ ~~ 14 ~ ~ c~ 15 ~ 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 7. I called the supplied phone number of (949) 855-8845 and asked for "Candice" as directed. A female answered the phone, stating "Good afternoon Doctor's Denney and Sullivan's office". I asked the female if she was "Candice" and she confirmed that she was. I then told her that a friend had referred me to her for a doctor's note to purchase marijuana. "Candice" immediately began to tell me that she could set an appointment for me; however, there were no openings until April 18`x. I then told her that I would be taking the appointment time of my friend, which was on Tuesday at Noon. "Candice" asked me for the name of my friend and I gave her Investigator K. Schlueter's fictitious name, which the original appointment was under. "Candice" placed my fictitious name on the schedule and then explained to me that I would have to bring three items with me at the time of the appointment. 8. These items included two hundred dollars (cash only per Candice}, a valid California Driver's License or ID, and medical records. "Candice" explained that the first recommendation would cost two hundred dollars and then every year after that I would just have to pay a renewal fee of one hundred dollars. At this point I told "Candice" that I did not have any medical records. "Candice" then stated that I could bring in my doctor's name and phone number so tha# she could call for my records at a later time. I then told her 1 did not have a regular doctor and "Candice" told me that I could just write my own medical history and bring that in. I asked her what she meant by this and she then asked me what my medical problem was that I needed the marijuana for. I told "Candice" that I did not have any medical problems and that I just wanted to smoke "pot" (Slang for marijuana). "Candice" explained that I would have to write some type of medical problem or symptoms into my medical history that could be eased by the smoking of medical marijuana. 9. "Candice" then gave several examples of medical problems that could be alleviated by smoking marijuana. These included back pain, sore joints, arthritis, glaucoma, or cancer. ``Candice" then asked me how old I was and I told her I was thirty-two. "Candice" told me that was good because if I were younger, for example, eighteen I would have a hard time writing a medical history for myself, but since I was older I could get away with writing my own history. I then confirmed with "Candice" that a handwritten medical history signed by me would be - 2 - Decl Opp to OSC Re Preliminary Injunction 23 of 36 75A-146 I 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 ~ 11 ~~~ 12 ~~ ~ ~~ 13 ~~ ~~ 14 $~ ~~~ 15 Yj LL ~ 16 O 17~ 18 I 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 sufficient to receive a recommendation for medical marijuana. "Candice" said, "Yup, that's it." I then ended my conversation with her at that point. 10. Un March 29, 2005, I responded to 22691 Lambert St, in the City of Lake Forest for my appointment at the Medical Cannabis Evaluations Center. Assisting me were Sergeant T. Miller #S91 and Investigators T. Hoang #490, K. Weber #489, and G. Bonham #193. For evidentiary and officer safety purposes I wore a concealed audio transmitting device on my person when I entered the above listed location. Investigator G. Bonham monitored and recorded the incident for evidence. 11. The listed location is located on the north side of a multiple unit business complex. The location has a glass front entrance and door leading into a lobby area with approximately 9 chairs and two small tables. Within this lobby area there is a reception desk with a phone, desk calendar, and other desk supplies; however, there was no computer on the desk. I also noticed that there were at least two rooms on the west side of the interior of the business with a double door closet between the two rooms. There was a small office at the south side of the interior of the location, which appeared to be an office for both doctors working out of this location (Dr. Denney and Dr. Sullivan). There was also a small restroom along the east wall directly behind the reception desk. 12. When I first entered the location I was the only person in the lobby area, but I could hear a male and female conversing with one another inside the first room south of the main entrance. Within a few seconds the female inside the room exited and greeted me. The female was wearing a white lab coat over her clothes and she appeared to be the receptionist. The female was later identified as being "Candice" when she answered the phone and identified herself as such. "Candice" had me fill out a form that requested my name, address, and phone number. I filled out the form with my fictitious information and then "Candice" took the form and my fictitious CDL and filled out another form used to create a file on me. "Candice" then asked me for my medical records and I showed her my typed medical history that consisted of a paragraph stating that I suffer from back pain and soreness in my knees. My medical history also stated that I use a "Teener' (slang for 1/16th of an ounce of marijuana) a day because it -3' Decl Opp to OSC Re Preliminary Injunction 24 of 36 75A-147 1 2 3 4 5 b~~ 7. 8'' 9 10' ~ 11 z i~ Qw ~ 12 ~ ~ ~~ 13 ~~ ~c 14 ~!~ ~~ 15 o ~ 1bl 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 2b 27 28 i helps with the pain that Tylenol or Motrin do not. This medical history was made up by Investigator Hoang and signed by me. "Candice" directed me to hold on to my medical history ~ and show it to the doctor when he calls me in. 13. I then took a seat in the lobby and within a few minutes another male subject entered the location. This subject also filled out what appeared to be the same paperwork I did and then another subject entered and did the same. After approximately ten minutes "Candice" had me stand up and do an eye test by standing near the front door and read an eye chart that was attached to the door of the south office. "Candice" then directed me to stand on a scale so she could document my weight and height. "Candice" then had me take a seat back in the lobby area and told me to wait for the doctor. While seated in the lobby area waiting, the location received several phone calls where "Candice" explained to the person calling the items needed for the appointment, which were identical to the items she had told me to bring. While seated in the lobby I noticed that there was a Diploma from Southern California University awarded to Robert Sullivan, certifying him as a doctor. 14. After approximately thirty minutes "Candice" directed me to the southwest room and had me take a seat next to a small desk located along the west wall of the room. There were four chairs along the wall and an examination table on the east wall. Once I was seated next to the desk "Candice" took my blood pressure and temperature. "Candice" then asked me for my payment of two hundred dollars. I gave her two hundred dollars of city of Anaheim funds and "Candice" gave me a receipt showing that I had paid. This receipt was later booked as evidence by Investigator Weber. Attached hereto as Exhibit "B" is a true and correct copy of the $200 Receipt. Approximately thirty minutes later a male subject, later identified as Dr. Sullivan entered the room. 15. Sullivan began to ask me several questions about what I did for a living and he read my typed medical history. While reading my medical history he saw that I was complaining of back pain and soreness in my knees; therefore, he began to ask me questions regarding my stated medical problems. Sullivan then started asking me about my marijuana usage. Sullivan told me ~ he was not aware of the terminology Iused - "Teener," I explained that it was a sixteenth of an 4 - Decl Opp to OSC Re Preliminary Injunction 25 of 36 75A-148 1 2 3 41 5 6 7 8 9 10 ~ ~ 11 a~ 12 aw ~~ ~ ~~ 13 ~~ ~~ 14 o ~ ~~ 15 LL ~ 16 0 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 ounce. Sullivan then concluded that I was probably using ahalf--ounce of marijuana per week. Sullivan then recommended that I receive three-quarters of an ounce per week and he signed the ~ medical marijuana recommendation. I6. Once Sullivan finished signing the recommendation he directed me to take a seat on the exam table at which time he began to listen to my lungs and heartbeat and ask me where I was feeling the pain. At this point I pointed to my back and Sullivan stated that the spot I was pointing to was actually my middle back and not my lower back. Sullivan then asked about my knees, but he never looked at my knees or conducted an examination of my knees. Sullivan merely grabbed my ankles briefly and then checked my shins. Sullivan then concluded my examination and we began to discuss where I could obtain the marijuana/cannabis. Sullivan told me I could grow it, buy it or use the black market. Sullivan then also stated that if I was comfortable using my regular "Connect" (Slang for drug dealer) then continue to use him. Sullivan also stated that I could also go to the different cannabis clubs and that he would supply me with a list of those locations. 17. I then asked Sullivan if I would ever have to supply real medical records because I told Sullivan that I really did not have any medical problems. Sullivan immediately said, "1`Io, no, no this is all you need" pointing to the recommendation. Sullivan then explained what a caregiver was and how to find them. Sullivan told me that I could nominate anyone I wanted to grow marijuana for me. Sullivan told me he was not sure if an organization such as "420 Primary Caregivers" could be my primary caregiver because it is real "fuzzy" in the law right now. I then concluded my consultation with Sullivan, who went to his office, made a copy of my recommendation and returned with a green folder containing a stamped original of the recommendation and the copy. The green folder also contained a sheet explaining responsible use, how to use, sources and how to review the law. There was also a list of cannabis clubs in Southern California, which included the location in Anaheim called "420 Primary Caregivers." Once I was given the green folder I exited the location. It should be noted that when I concluded my consultation with Sullivan and re-entered the lobby area to wait for the green folder I observed approximately six people wanting to see the doctor, which included one woman with a - 5' Decl Opp to OSC Re Preliminary Injunction 26 of 36 75A-149 1 2 3 4 5 b 7 8 9 10 ~ 11 z ~ aw~ 12 ~~ ~ ~~ 13 ~~ ~~ 14 ~~ c~ 15 ~ ~ 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 small male child who appeared to be approximately 4 years old. All of the forms in the green folder were later booked as evidence by Investigator Weber. Attached hereto as Exhibit "C" is a ~ true and correct copy of all the forms in the green folder. 18. On March 29, 2005, I assisted Investigator T. Hoang with a narcotic investigation at 421 N. Brookhurst St., Anaheim, which is doing business as a medical marijuana supplier. Assisting me were Sergeant T. Miller #S91 and Investigators T. Hoang #490, K. Weber #489, and G. Bonham #193. After receiving a medical marijuana recommendation from the Medical Cannabis Evaluations Clinic in Lake Forest, Dr. Sullivan, I responded to the 421 N. Brookhurst location to purchase marijuana. For evidentiary and officer safety purposes I wore a concealed audio transmitting device on my person when I entered the listed location, which was monitored and recorded by Investigator G. Bonham # 193. Attached hereto as Exhibit "D" is a true and correct copy of Crime Report DR 05-15113 on this investigation. 19. Upon entering the listed location I was under directions from Investigator T. Hoang to purchase at least ahalf--ounce of marijuana. I entered the location and was greeted by an unidentified female standing behind the reception counter, which over looks a small waiting room. The unidentified female asked me if it was my first time to the location and I told her it was. The female then handed me a clipboard and asked me to fill out and sign the two forms ~ attached to the clipboard. 20. As directed I filled out the forms, which consisted of basic name and address information and a waiver nominating a "Steve Lawrence" as my primary caregiver. Upon completing the forms I handed the paperwork back to the female and she asked me for a valid CDL and my recommendation to purchase medical marijuana. I handed these items to the female and upon making a photocopy of my CDL she handed it back to me, in addition to a packeC explaining about the company. The female then escorted me to the backroom area, which was through a door adjacent to the reception area. Once in the back room area the female showed me two rooms that were filled with mazijuana and marijuana paraphernalia. 21. The first room had at least three large glass refrigerator coolers against the north wall and at least two steel shelf units along the west and south walls. Contained within the - 6 - Decl Opp to OSC Re Preliminary Injunction 27 of 36 75A-150 1 2 3 4 5 6. 7' 8 9 10 ~ ~ 11 12 d W ~~ ~~ 13 ~o ~~- 14 ~ ~c ~~~~ 15 16 17 I 18~ 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 coolers were novelty items containing marijuana, such as candy bars called "Baby Jane"-designed like the popular candy bar-"Baby Ruth." There were also suckers made of marijuana and small plants of marijuana growing within these coolers and shelves. I estimated that there were approximately fifty small plants inside this room. The female told me that all the items within this room were for sale and that it was called the edibles room because of all the novelty candy items. The female then directed me to another room that was northeast from the first room. Inside this room was a cash register and at least three glass display cases containing several plastic containers of marijuana. 22. All of the containers had names printed on them such as, "Sweet Tooth" and were packaged in one-eighth of an ounce amounts. The prices also ranged from twenty dollars per eighth of an ounce to seventy-five dollars per eighth. I selected a half-ounce of the "Sweet Tooth" marijuana, which sold for seventy-five dollars each and the female packaged up four of the containers in a brown paper bag. Assisting the female was an unidentified male going by the nickname of "Scandalous." "Scandalous" showed me several different types of marijuana from the display cases and showed the female how to ring up the transaction. Once the marijuana was placed in the bag I told the female and male that I wanted a candy bar also, therefore, I selected a "Baby Jane." I then gave the female three hundred and twenty three dollars of Anaheim city funds for the marijuana. I then left the location. 23. The marijuana was given to Investigator T. Hoang and later booked by Investigators in the Street Narcotic Unit. The infonnation on the listed location that was supplied by the unidentified female white was given to Investigator Weber and later booked as evidence. Attached hereto as Exhibit "E" is a true and correct copy of the infonnation supplied to me by the female at 420 Primary Caregivers. I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true and correct. DATED this ~th day of September, 2007 at Anaheim, California. A A HE L -~' Decl Opp to OSC Re Preliminary Injunction 28 of 36 75A-151 PROOF OF SERVICE 10I3A (3) CCP Revised 5/1/88 STATE OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF ORANGE I am employed in the County of Orange, State of California. I am over the age of 18 and not a party to the within action; my business address is 200 S. Anaheim Boulevard, Suite 356, Anaheim, California 92805. On September r? 2007 , I served the foregoing document described as: DECLARATION OF INVESTIGATOR RICHARD LAROCHELLE JR. IN SUPPORT OF OPPOSITION TO ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE RE PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION on interested parties in this action by placing the true copies thereof enclosed in sealed envelopes addressed as follows: Anthony L. Curiale, Esq. 418 S. Brea Boulevard Brea, CA 92821 (X) BY MAIL: As follows: I am "readily familiar" with the firm's practice of collection and processing correspondence for mailing. Under that practice it would be deposited with U.S. postal service on that same day with postage thereon fully prepaid at Anaheim, California in the ordinary course of business. I am aware that on motion of the party served, service is presumed invalid if postal cancellation date or postage meter date is more than one day after date of deposit for mailing in affidavit. Y FACSIMILE: I caused the contents of said envelope to be delivered by Facsimile machine to the number indicated after the address(es) noted. (} BY PERSONAL SERVICE: I delivered a copy of the document by hand to the address(es) noted. (x) STATE: I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the above is true and correct. () FEDERAL: I declare that I am employed in the office of a member of the bar of this court at whose direction the service was made. (1-~.~. Denise Silberman 29 of 36 75A-152 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 ~~ ~ 12 ~~ ~s~~ 13 x~ ~~: 14 F- 'r C o~ ~~ 15 Y~ ~ 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 JACK L. WHITE, CITY ATTORNEY MOSES W. JOHNSON, IV, DEPUTY CITY ATTORNEY STATE BAR NO. 1 18769 200 South Anaheim Boulevard, Suite 356 Anaheim, California 92805 (714) 765-5169 (714) 765-5123 FAX miohnson. cr,anaheim.net Attorneys for Defendant CITY OF ANAHEIM SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF ORANGE, CENTRAL JUSTICE CENTER, UNLIMITED QUALIFIED PATIENTS ASSOCIATION ) an Unincorporated Association, ) LANCE MOWDY, an individual, } Plaintiffs, ) vs. ) } THE CITY OF ANAHEIM, et al. , Defendants. CASE N0. 070009524 JUDGE: DAVID A. THOMPSON DEPT; C28 DECLARATION OF POLICE OFFICER KEVIN SCHLUETER IN SUPPORT OF OPPOSITION TO ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE RE PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION DATE: September 28, 2007 TIME: 9:30 a.m. DEPT: C28 Comp. filed: 9/4/07 TRIAL DATE: None Decl Opp to OSC Re Preliminary Injunction 30 of 36 75A-153 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 l0 ~ ~ 11 z ~~ ~~ 12 aw~ U~ ~~ 13 ~~ ~c 14 o ~ ~~ 15 o ~ 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 I, KEVIN SCHLUETER, declare: 1. I have personal knowledge of the facts attested to herein and, if called to testify concerning the same, I could and would do so competently. 2. I am a Police Officer with the City of Anaheim. 3. On March 2, 2005 at approximately 11:00 a.m., I was working in an undercover capacity. I was wearing a wire transmitter at this time for officer safety purposes only. Investigators made no recordings of the incident. 4. I went to 421 N. Brookhurst, Suite # 130, in the City of Anaheim, which is a business that dispenses marijuana for medicinal purposes (420 Primary Caregivers). I went to the business to attempt to purchase marijuana. I walked into the business and noticed there were approximately 4 people waiting in line to purchase marijuana from the business. There was a female employee at the front desk window who asked me if I had been there before. I explained to the female that I had never been there and she asked me if I had I.D. I gave the female employee my identification and she told me to wait a few minutes. Approximately 5 minutes later the female returned and asked me to my letter of recommendation from my doctor to purchase marijuana. I explained to the female that I did not have a letter of recommendation and I asked her if they would sell me marijuana anyway. The female told me that I needed a letter of recommendation to purchase marijuana. 5. The female employee I had been talking to told me her name was "Ashley" and she recommended that I see a doctor named Dr. Denny. "Ashley" told me that Dr. Denny could ', provide me with a letter of recommendation to purchase marijuana and his office is located in i~ the City of Lake Forest. "Ashley" told me that there is a female named "Candice" who schedules appointments for Dr. Denny. "Ashley" told me to telephone (949) 855-8845 and to ask for "Candice." "Ashley" said "Candice" would schedule an appointment f'or me to see Dr. Denny to obtain a letter of recommendation for marijuana. 6. "Ashley" explained to me that it would cost $200.00 to get a letter of recommendation from the doctor and it is good for 1 year to purchase marijuana from locations which dispense it for medicinal purposes. "Ashley" told me that it costs $100.00 to renew the -1- Decl Opp to OSC Re Preliminary Injunction 31 of 36 75A-154 1 2' 3 4 5 6 7 8'' 9 10 ~ 11 z ~ ~ ~ 12 a'w 13 ~3 a ~$~' ~~ ~ ~ ~o ~~~ 14 W~~ ~~ 15 U ~ ~` 16 17 I 18 I 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 I letter of recommendation upon its expiration date. 7. While I was inside the front office of the location, there was a male customer talking to the female employee through the office window. I heard this male customer ask the female employee if they deliver the marijuana that has been subscribed. The female employee did not know the answer to the question and she asked for an older male employee to come to the office window. I heard this male employee explain to the male customer that they do deliver marijuana upon request, however, they need a 24-hour notice. This male employee further explained t.o the male customer that if he needed a delivery of marijuana, not to call, for example, at 11:OU a.m, and request for a delivery at 12:00 noon. The male employee again reiterated to the male customer that if he wants it delivered, that they will accomodate him, but just give them 24-hour notice. 8. I then Ieft the location and the investigation continued. Attached hereto as Exhibit "A" is a true and correct copy of Crime Report DR OS-1189S on this investigation. I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true and correct. DATED this ~3 th day of September, 2007 at Anaheim, California. S L E R. - 2 - Decl Opp to OSC Re Preliminary Injunction 32 of 36 75A-155 PROOF OF SERVICE 1013A (3) CCP Revised 5/1/88 STATE OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF ORANGE I am employed in the County of Orange, State of California. I am over the age of 18 and not a party to the within action; my business address is 200 S. Anaheim Boulevard, Suite 356, Anaheim, California 92805. On September t ~ 2007 , I served the foregoing document described as: DECLARATION OF POLICE OFFICER KEVIN SCHLUETTER IN SUPPORT OF OPPOSITION TO ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE RE PRELIMINARY IN7UNCTION on interested parties in this action by placing the true copies thereof enclosed in sealed envelopes addressed as follows: Anthony L. Curiale, Esq. ~ 7/y) s`~ / ` ~ Z„~ ~j 418 S. Brea Boulevard / / Brea, CA 92821 (X) BY MAIL: As follows: I am "readily familiar" with the firm's practice of collection and processing correspondence for mailing. Under that practice it would be deposited with U.S. postal service on that same day with postage thereon fully prepaid at Anaheim, California in the ordinary course of business. I am aware that on motion of the party served, service is presumed invalid if postal cancellation date or postage meter date is more than one day after date of deposit for mailing in affidavit. `~BY FACSIMILE: I caused the contents of said envelope to be delivered by Facsimile machine to the number indicated after the address(es) noted. (} BY PERSONAL SERVICE: I delivered a copy of the document by hand to the address(es) noted. (x) STATE: I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the above is true and correct. (} FEDERAL: I declare that I am employed in the office of a member of the bar of this court at whose direction the service was made. ~~ r Denise Silberman 33 of 36 75A-156 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 z ~ g ~ 12 <W - ~~ ~ ~~ 13 ~o ~~ 14 ac o~ ~~ 15 o ~ 16 17 18 19 20' 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 JACK L. WHITE, CITY ATTORNEY MOSES W. JOHNSON, IV, DEPUTY CITY ATTORNEY STATE BAR N0. 118769 200 South Anaheim Boulevard, Suite 356 Anaheim, California 92805 {714) 765-5169 (714) 765-5123 FAX m j ohnson(c~,anaheim.net Attorneys for Defendant CITY OF ANAHEIM SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF ORANGE, CENTRAL JUSTICE CENTER, UNLIMITED QUALIFIED PATIENTS ASSOCIATION } CASE N0.07CC09524 an Unincorporated Association, ) LANCE MOWDY, an individual, } JUDGE: DAVID A. THOMPSON Plaintiffs, ) DEPT: C28 vs. THE CITY OF ANAHEIM, et al. , Defendants. REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE IN SUPPORT OF OPPOSITION TO OSC RE PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION DATE: September 28, 2007 TIME; 9:30 a.m. DEPT: C28 Comp. filed: 9/4/07 TRIAL DATE: None Req for Judicial Notice-Opp to OSC Re PI 34 of 36 75A-157 1 REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE 2 I. INTRODUCTION 3 On August 7, 2007, the Anaheim City Council adopted Ordinance no. 6067 prohibiting 4 medical marijuana dispensaries. Copies of the proposed Ordinance no. 6067, the Police Chiefs 5 staff report and exhibits submitted to the City Council were attached as Exhibits to the Police 6 Chiefs declaration. The City Council minutes and Ordinance 6067 as adopted are attached to 7 this request. Judicial notice may be taken of legislative enactments of cities. Evid. Code 8 §§452(b), 200 and official acts of government (city council minutes). Evid. Code §452(c). 9 Attached to the Police Chief s declaration are true and correct copies of the following 10 documents that were presented to the Anaheim City Council on July 31, 2007: ~ ~ 11 a) Staff report dated July 31, 2007. Exhibit "A." z ~ ~ 12 b) Anaheim Medical Marijuana Dispensary Ordinance. Exhibit "B." 4 lTl ~~ ~g~~ 13 c) California Police Chiefs Association Compilation Report on Medical Marijuana wo ~~ ~ 14 Dispensaries Negative Secondary Effects. Exhibit "C." x w~ c~ 15 d} Riverside County District Attorney's Office White Paper on Medical Marijuana. ~ o ~ 16 Exhibit "D." 17 e) El Cerrito Police Department Memorandum dated April 18, 2007. Exhibit "E;" and 18 f) El Cerrito Police Department Memorandum dated January 12, 2007. Exhibit "F." 19 g) Medical Marijuana Dispensary Ordinance Ban-Power Point presentation. Exhibit 20 "G." 21 Attached to this request for judicial notice are true and correct copies of: 22 1) City Council minutes of July 31, 2007 (pages 1, 10-11; item #24). 23 2) City Council minutes of August 7, 2007 (pages 1, 7; item #19}. 24 3) Ordinance 6067 adopted August 7, 2007. 25 DATED: September 14, 2007 JACK L. WHI ITY ATTORNEY 26 ~ y M S W. SON, V 27 D puty C' Attorney 28 A orne r Defendant City o A eim - ~' Req for Judicial Notice-Opp to OSC Re PI 35 of 36 75A-158 PROOF OF SERVICE 1013A (3) CCP Revised 5/1/88 STATE OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF ORANGE I am employed in the County of Orange, State of California. I am over the age of 18 and not a party to the within action; my business address is 200 S. Anaheim Boulevard, Suite 356, Anaheim, California 92805. On September ~ ~ 2007 , I served the foregoing document described as: REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE IN SUPPORT OF OPPOSITION TO OSC RE PRELIML~tARY INJUNCTION on interested parties in this action by placing the true copies thereof enclosed in sealed envelopes addressed as follows: Anthony L. Curiale, Esq. 418 S. Brea Boulevard Brea, CA 92821 C 2t~~).~~.~ - 7z G Y (X) BY MAIL: As follows: I am "readily familiar" with the firm's practice of collection and processing correspondence for mailing. Under that practice it would be deposited with U.S. postal service on that same day with postage thereon fully prepaid at Anaheim, California in the ordinary course of business. I am aware that on motion of the party served, service is presumed invalid if postal cancellation date or postage meter date is more than one day after date of deposit for mailing in affidavit. ~BY FACSIMILE: I caused the contents of said envelope to be delivered by Facsimile machine to the number indicated after the address(es) noted. () BY PERSONAL SERVICE: I delivered a copy of the document by hand to the address(es) noted. (x) STATE: I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the above is true and correct. () FEDERAL: 1 declare that I am employed in the office of a member of the bar of this court at whose direction the service was made. Denise Silberman '~- 36 of 36 75A-159 bk:8/26/07 ORDINANCE NO. NS-XXX AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA ANA ADDING ARTICLE XIII TO CHAPTER 18, AND ADDING SECTION 41-121 AND AMENDING SECTION 41-144 OF THE SANTA ANA MUNICPAL CODE TO PROHIBIT THE ESTABLISHMENT AND OPERATION OF MEDICAL MARIJUANA DISPENSARIES THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA ANA DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. The City Council of the City of Santa Ana hereby finds, determines and declares as follows: A. For the last two years the City Council has had a moratorium in place banning medical marijuana dispensaries from opening in Santa Ana. The moratorium expires on October 17, 2007. Under state law, such moratoriums cannot generally be extended beyond two years. B. Under federal law, marijuana is considered a Schedule I drug which denotes "a high potential for abuse, lack of any accepted medical use, and absence of any accepted safety for use in medically supervised treatment." But California has two statutes dealing with medical marijuana. The Compassionate Use Act of 1996 (the "Compassionate Use Act") was enacted through a popular initiative, Proposition 215. The Medical Marijuana Program Act of 2004 was enacted by the State Legislature in the belief that Proposition 215 was being ignored by California cities and counties. Both of these state laws provide a defense to criminal prosecution for possession, cultivation, and transportation of marijuana in certain circumstances. C. In June 2005, the United States Supreme Court, relying on the Commerce Clause and Supremacy Clause of the United States Constitution, held that this California state law does not provide a defense to individuals prosecuted in federal court for cultivation, transportation, or possession of marijuana. After the June 2005 Supreme Court decision, many cities, including Santa Ana, enacted moratoriums to study the issue of medical marijuana dispensaries. Ordinance No. NS-XXX Page 1 of 75A-160 Currently, many cities are facing the same predicament that Santa Ana is facing with their moratoriums about to expire. D. In Orange County, the cities of Tustin, Anaheim, Fullerton and Costa Mesa have all banned medical marijuana dispensaries from their cities. Anaheim recently enacted their ban and also decreed that any dispensaries already in existence would have to close. The City of Huntington Beach initially allowed medical marijuana dispensaries in general and limited industrial zones but is considering deleting this permission for medical marijuana dispensaries in its zoning code. On July 17, 2007, the Board of Supervisors for the County voted to approve a fee for the issuance of identification cards for patients and primary caregivers, which each county is mandated to issue under the state Medical Marijuana Program Act. The County has not addressed dispensaries from a land use perspective in the unincorporated areas. E. Elsewhere, Pasadena, Fresno, Susanville, and Concord, among others, are among at least 40 California cities that have adopted ordinances banning medical marijuana dispensaries; while another 100 cities have moratoria in place. (Source: League of California Cities.) Each of the aforementioned cities were sued by a non- profit group called the American Medical Marijuana Association (AMMA) that promotes the use medical marijuana. Susanville and Concord prevailed at the demurrer stage and the lawsuit against Pasadena was filed but never served. The lawsuit against Fresno has been stayed and during the stay, Fresno enacted an ordinance which appears to allow medical marijuana dispensaries and cooperatives in any zone district designated for medical offices but only if consistent with State and Federal law (therefore, it really bans them). F. The City of Los Angeles, which previously permitted approximately 100 medical marijuana dispensaries, in August 2006 adopted a one year moratorium on permitting any new dispensaries. The moratorium was based on findings that permitted dispensaries were not complying with existing regulations and were violating criminal laws. In supporting the moratorium, Los Angeles Police Chief Bratton testified before the city's Police Commission in January 2007: "The vast majority of people who use these premises are using them for recreational drug use." G. According to a report prepared by the Los Angeles Police Department, 24 cities and 7 counties had established ordinances Ordinance No. NS-XXX Page 2 of 4 75A-161 authorizing them one way or another. Atascadero, Berkeley, Elk Grove, Hayward, Oakland, San Francisco, San Jose, Santa Cruz, Santa Rosa, Visalia, West Hollywood, and Whittier are among some of the cities which allow medical marijuana dispensaries in specified zones. This statistic may be somewhat misleading, however. For example, while Whittier permits dispensaries in its industrial zone, it has ordered the only existing dispensary in the city to close within one year. H. Currently, Long Beach, Corona, Mission Viejo, Newport Beach, Santa Clarita, and Simi Valley, among others, still have moratoriums in place. Several other cities have opted not to address the issue at the Council level, on the theory that (a) any land use not expressly permitted by the zoning code is banned, and/or (b) no land use can be legally established that violates federal law. These cities include Orange, San Juan Capistrano, Burbank, and Glendale. Numerous law enforcement agencies have expressed concerns regarding medical marijuana dispensaries and cooperatives in their areas. The California Police Chief's Association (CPCA) recently compiled a report containing data from several jurisdictions which illustrates some of law enforcement's complaints about these facilities: the facilities violate federal law, street dealers often sell at lower prices to entice patients away from dispensaries, non- residents travel to the city to purchase marijuana, neighboring businesses have experienced a loss of customers, there appears to be an increase in unreported crime to avoid negative publicity, there have been robberies outside of and at the dispensaries, there have been home invasion robberies of individuals who utilize or are employed by the dispensaries, and patients selling to non-patients. In addition, the media have investigated and reported about several physicians suspected of providing prescriptions of medical marijuana when they have not evaluated the patient's medical condition or the patient has no serious medical condition that would warrant a prescription. J. The secondary effects outlined in the CPCA report, the EI Cerrito Police Department memorandum and the Anaheim declarations are likely to occur in Santa Ana if medical marijuana dispensaries are allowed to legally operate. Unlike the cities and counties which have opted to not adopt ordinances addressing this issue, Santa Ana has a broad zoning use classification of "retail and service" uses (Santa Ana Municipal Code section 41-144) which would appear to allow medical marijuana dispensaries. Accordingly, once the moratorium expires and without a ban, medical marijuana Ordinance No. NS-XXX Page 3 of _ 75A-162 dispensaries would be allowed to operate in all specific development (SD) districts which allow retail and service uses, as well as the city's C1, C2, C3A, C4, C5, and C-SM zones. K. The Council additionally relies on the facts and statements set forth in the Request for Council Action dated October 1, 2007, the Request for Planning Commission Action dated September 24, 2007and in the following expert reports that were submitted to the City Council, which all are incorporated by this reference as though fully set forth: (1) the California Police Chiefs Association Compilation Report on Medical Marijuana Dispensary Negative Secondary Effects; (2) the Riverside County District Attorney's Office White Paper on Medical Marijuana; (3) the City of EI Cerrito Police Department Memorandums; and (4) sworn declarations submitted by the Chief of Police of Anaheim and two other Anaheim police officers defending a challenge by an existing medical marijuana dispensary to Anaheim's ordinance banning medical marijuana dispensaries. L. All provisions of the Santa Ana Municipal Code which are repeated herein are repeated solely in order to comply with the provisions of section 418 of the Charter of the City of Santa Ana. Any such restatement of existing provisions of the Code is not intended, nor shall it be interpreted, as constituting a new action or decision of the City Council, but rather such provisions are repeated for tracking purposes only in conformance with the Charter. M. This ban on dispensaries does not impede the purpose of Compassionate Use Act because it permits individual caregiver to patient relationships as intended by Proposition 215. M. Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act a statutory and categorical exemption has been approved for this project. Ordinance No. NS-XXX Page 4 of 4 75A-163 Section 2. Article XIII is added to Chapter 18 of the Santa Ana Municipal Code to read as follows: Article XIII Medical Marijuana Dispensaries Sec. 18-610. Purpose and Findings. The City Council finds that federal laws prohibiting the possession, sale and distribution of marijuana, and alternatively their undesirable secondary effects, preclude the opening or operation of medical marijuana dispensaries sanctioned by the City, and in order to serve public health, safety, and welfare of the residents and businesses within the City, the declared purpose of this article is to prohibit medical marijuana dispensaries as defined in this article. Sec. 18-611. Medical Marijuana Dispensary Defined. (a) A medical marijuana dispensary is a facility or location, whether fixed or mobile, where medical marijuana is made available to, distributed by, or supplied to one or more of the following: (1) more than a single qualified patient, (2) more than a single person with an identification card, or (3) more than a single primary caregiver. The term "medical marijuana dispensary" includes a medical marijuana cooperative. (b) Unless otherwise regulated by this chapter or applicable law, a medical marijuana dispensary shall not include the following uses: (1) a clinic licensed pursuant to Chapter 1 of Division 2 of the California Health & Safety Code, (2) a health care facility licensed pursuant to Chapter 2 of Division 2 of the California Health & Safety Code, (3) a residential care facility for persons with chronic life-threatening illnesses licensed pursuant to Chapter 3.01 of Division 2 of the California Health & Safety Code, (4) a residential care facility for the elderly licensed pursuant to Chapter 3.2 of the California Health & Safety Code, (5) a residential hospice or home health agency licensed pursuant to Chapter 8 of Division 2 of the California Health & Safety Code, to the extent that such use strictly complies with applicable law, including but not limited to California Health & Safety Code section 11362.5. et seq. (c) A medical marijuana cooperative is two or more persons collectively or cooperatively cultivating, using, transporting, possessing, Ordinance No. NS-XXX Page 5 of 75A-164 administering, delivering or making available medical marijuana, with or without compensation. (d) All terms used in this section, including but not limited to "medical marijuana," "qualified patient," "identification card," and "primary caregiver," shall be as defined in California Health & Safety Code section 11362.5. et seq. Sec. 18-612. Medical Marijuana Dispensary Prohibited. It shall be unlawful for any person or entity to own, manage, conduct, or operate any medical marijuana dispensary or to participate as an employee, contractor, agent or volunteer, or in any other manner or capacity, in any medical marijuana dispensary in the City. Section 3. Section 41-121 of the Santa Ana Municipal Code is hereby added to define medical marijuana dispensaries as follows: Sec. 41-121. Medical Marijuana Dispensary. (a) A medical marijuana dispensary is a facility or location, whether fixed or mobile, where medical marijuana is made available to, distributed by, or supplied to one or more of the following: (1) more than a single qualified patient, (2) more than a single person with an identification card, or (3) more than a single primary caregiver. The term "medical marijuana dispensary" includes a medical marijuana cooperative. (b) Unless otherwise regulated by this chapter or applicable law, a medical marijuana dispensary shall not include the following uses: (1) a clinic licensed pursuant to Chapter 1 of Division 2 of the California Health & Safety Code, (2) a health care facility I~icensed pursuant to Chapter 2 of Division 2 of the California Health & Safety Code, (3) a residential care facility for persons with chronic life-threatening illnesses licensed pursuant to Chapter 3.01 of Division 2 of the California Health & Safety Code, (4) a residential care facility for the elderly licensed pursuant to Chapter 3.2 of the California Health & Safety Code, (5) a residential hospice or home health agency licensed pursuant to Chapter 8 of Division 2 of the California Health ~ Safety Code, to the extent that such use strictly complies with applicable law, including but not limited to California Health & Safety Code section 11362.5. et seq. Ordinance No. NS-XXX Page 6 of 4 75A-165 (c) A medical marijuana cooperative is two or more persons collectively or cooperatively cultivating, using, transporting, possessing, administering, delivering or making available medical marijuana, with or without compensation. (d) A medical marijuana dispensary is not the same use as a pharmacy. (e) All terms used in this section, including but not limited to "medical marijuana," "qualified patient," "identification card," and "primary caregiver," shall be as defined in California Health & Safety Code section 11362.5. et seq. Section 4. Section 41-144 of the Santa Ana Municipal Code is hereby amended to prohibit medical marijuana dispensaries as a retail or service use in the City such that it reads as follows (new language in bold, deleted language in strikeout for tracking purposes only): Sec. 41-144. Retail and service uses. Retail and service uses include any use of property for the purpose of offering merchandise or services to the public for compensation, and include banks, savings and loan associations, and similar financial institutions, but do not include the following: (a) Sheet metal shops, body-fender works, automobile paint shops, repair garages, and any activity which includes the processing, treatment, manufacturing, assembling or compounding of any product, other than that which is clearly and traditionally incidental and essential to a particular retail activity. (b) A medical marijuana dispensary as defined in section 41-121 of this Code. (cb) Any use which is more specifically identified as a permitted use or as a use which may be permitted subject to the issuance of a conditional use permit in one or more use districts pursuant to Article III of this chapter. Section 5. If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase or portion of this ordinance 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 ordinance. The City Council of the City of Santa Ana hereby declares that it would have adopted this ordinance and each section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase or portion thereof irrespective of the fact that Ordinance No. NS-XXX Page 7 of 75A-166 any one or more sections, subsections, sentences, clauses, phrases, or portions be declared invalid or unconstitutional. ADOPTED this day of .2007 Miguel A. Pulido Mayor APPROVED AS TO FORM: Joseph W. Fletcher, City Attorney By: Benjamin Kaufman Chief Assistant City Attorney AYES: Councilmembers NOES: Councilmembers ABSTAIN: Councilmembers NOT PRESENT: Councilmembers CERTIFICATE OF ATTESTATION AND ORIGINALITY I, PATRICIA E. HEALY, Clerk of the Council, do hereby attest to and certify that the attached Ordinance No. NS-XXX to be the original ordinance adopted by the City Council of the City of Santa Ana on ,and that said ordinance was published in accordance with the Charter of the City of Santa Ana. Date: Clerk of the Council City of Santa Ana Ordinance No. NS-XXX Page 8 of 4 75A-167 75A-168 REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE: OCTOBER 1, 2007 TITLE: PUBLIC HEARING - AMENDMENT APPLICATION NO. 2007-02, TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 2007- 04 (COUNTY MAP NO. 17071) AND SITE PLAN REVIEW NO. 2007-02 TO CHANGE THE ZONING FROM ARTERIAL COMMERCIAL TO SPECIFIC DEVELOPMENT NO. 81 AND TO SUBDIVIDE A LOT INTO 47 PARCELS AT 3321 SOUTH FAIRVIEW STREET - TON LLC, APPLICANT r' CITY MANAGER CLERK OF COUNCIL USE ONLY: APPROVED ^ As Recommended ^ As Amended ^ Ordinance on 15f Reading ^ Ordinance on 2"d Reading ^ Implementing Resolution ^ Set Public Hearing For_ CONTINUED TO FILE NUMBER RECOMMENDED ACTION 1. Approve and adopt the Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring Program, Environmental Review No. 2007-37. 2. Adopt an ordinance approving Amendment Application No. 2007-02 and Specific Development No. 81. 3. Adopt a resolution approving Tentative Tract Map No. 2007-04 (County Map No. 17071) as conditioned. 4. Adopt a resolution approving Site Plan Review No. 2007-02 as conditioned. PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION On September 10, 2007, the Planning Commission recommended that the City Council approve and adopt the Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring Program, Environmental Review No. 2007-37; adopt an ordinance approving Amendment Application No. 2007-02 and Specific Development No. 81; adopt a resolution approving Tentative Tract Map No. 2007-04 (County Map No. 17071) as conditioned; and adopt a resolution approving Site Plan Review No. 2007-02 as conditioned by a vote of 5:0 (Gartner and Leo absent) to change the zoning from Arterial Commercial (C- 5) to Specific Development No. 81 (SD-81) and to subdivide a lot into 9 parcels (six buildable lots and three open space parcels) at 3321 South Fairview Street. The Planning Commission added a condition to the tentative tract map that prohibited front and side yard fencing except for those fences shown on the site plan and landscaping plan. 75B-1 REQUEST FOR Planning Commission Action PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING DATE: SEPTEMBER 10, 2007 TITLE: PUBLIC HEARING - AMENDMENT APPLICATION NO. 2007-02, TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 2007-04 (COUNTY MAP NO. 17071) AND SITE PLAN REVIEW NO. 2007-02 TO CHANGE THE ZONING FROM ARTERIAL COMMERCIAL TO SPECIFIC DEVELOPMENT NO. 81 AND TO SUBDIVIDE A LOT INTO 47 PARCELS AT 3321 SOUTH FAIRVIEW STREET Prepared by Vince Fregoso Executive Dire for RECOMMENDED ACTION Recommend that the City Council: PLANNING COMMISSION SECRETARY APPROVED ^ As Recommended ^ As Amended ^ Set Public Hearing For DENIED ^ Applicant's Request ^ Staff Recommendation CONTINUED TO U~.vl Planning Man ger 1. Approve and adopt the Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring Program, Environmental Review No. 2007-37. 2. Adopt an ordinance approving Amendment Application No. 2007-02 and Specific Development No. 81. 3. Adopt a resolution approving Tentative Tract Map No. 2007-04 (County Map No. 17071) as conditioned. 4. Adopt a resolution approving conditioned. Site Plan Review No. 2007-02 as DISCUSSION Request of the Applicant Manning Homes is requesting approval of an the zoning of the property located at 3 Arterial Commercial (C-5) to Specific Additionally, the applicant is requesting map to subdivide the existing lot into include 38 condominium lots. EXHIBIT A amendment application to change 321 South Fairview Street from Development No. 81 (SD-81). approval of a tentative tract 38 parcels of land that will 75B-2 Amendment Application No. 2007-02 Tentative Tract Map No. 2007-04 Site Plan Review No. 2007-02 September 10, 2007 Page 2 Property Description The subject property is a six-acre, rectangular shaped parcel of land located on the southeast corner of Fairview Street and Alton Avenue. The site is currently occupied by a 53,000 square foot warehouse building that is being utilized by the Santa Ana Unified School District. The property is currently zoned Arterial Commercial (C-5) and is designated as Medium Density Residential (MR-15) at 15 units per acre on the Santa Ana General Plan. Surrounding land uses include multi-family residential to the north, commercial to the south, two-family residential to the east, and industrial uses to the west (Exhibits 1 and 2). Project Description Manning Homes is proposing to build Alton Court, a privately gated, single-family detached cluster development on the subject site. The project will consist of six individual clusters that will contain a total of 38 units. The clusters range in size from three units in Lot 3 to nine units in Lot 1, with six units in a typical cluster. Units within the clusters will access their garages through a shared 20-foot wide common driveway (Exhibit 3). As proposed, the houses have three different floor plans ranging in size from approximately 1,810 square feet to 2,255 square feet. Each residence will be a two-story, three-bedroom, two and a half bathroom home with a two-car garage. All units, with the exception of the units fronting the private street, have two uncovered parking spaces in the driveway that are separate from the shared common driveway. Units fronting the private street will be allowed to use the street for additional parking. Three different architectural styles are proposed for the project: Cottage, Spanish Colonial and Traditional. Each style will incorporate unique elements, finishes and materials commonly found within each architectural style. For example, the Spanish Colonial residence will incorporate Spanish style roof tiles and a smooth stucco finish, while the Cottage and Traditional models will incorporate flat roof tiles, sand stucco finishes and decorative porches and posts (Exhibits 4 and 5). 75B-3 Amendment Application No. 2007-02 Tentative Tract Map No. 2007-04 Site Plan Review No. 2007-02 September 10, 2007 Page 3 An extensive landscape palette will also be incorporated into the project. A 10-foot wide landscaped planter will be provided along Fairview Street and Alton Avenue that will contain a variety of 24-inch and 36-inch box Afghan Pine, Brisbane Box and Queen Palm trees as well as vines planted on the perimeter block wall to provide an enhanced project appearance. Within the interior of the project, a combination of Evergreen Elm/New Zealand Christmas Trees, African Sumac, Pistache Trees and Queen Palms will be planted within the five-foot parkway and front yard setbacks. Finally, a 6,000 square foot common open space will be provided for the development. This space will also include a variety of 24 and 36-inch box trees such as Afghan Pines, Evergreen Elms and Water Gums, shrubs, ground covers and small turf areas. The space will contain a decorative shade structure, gas barbeque, and park benches and picnic tables to serve as a community space for the residences. The common space will also allow access to Fairview Street and the adjacent commercial development by a secured pedestrian gate at the west end of the open space (Exhibit 6). Analysis of the Issues Amendment Application The Santa Ana Municipal Code establishes regulations for the creation of specific development (SD) zoning districts. The purpose of the SD districts is to protect the health, safety and general welfare of the City by encouraging the use of innovative planning concepts, promoting and enhancing the values of property, and encouraging orderly development for a planned residential project. The site is currently zoned Arterial Commercial (C5), which allows residential development that is limited to two-family (duplex) dwellings. Although the existing C5 zoning permits two-family dwellings, the development standards for this type of development do not allow for detached cluster development. The proposal, which provides detached single-family residences in a cluster setting, maximizes open space in the project by clustering the units and allowing them to share a common driveway. Since the project is incompatible with the C5 residential design standards, staff is recommending that the property be rezoned to a specific development (SD) plan designation (Exhibit 7). The SD is a tool that may be applied to allow for unique and innovative projects that are 75B-4 Amendment Application No. 2007-02 Site Plan Review No. 2007-02 Tentative Tract Map No. 2007-04 September 10, 2007 Page 4 otherwise consistent with the General Plan, but which do not conform to the adopted zoning standards for that area. The SD will contain the development standards for the project, including setbacks, landscaping and parking, while allowing development of an innovative project (Exhibit 8). Approval of the SD will be consistent with the General Plan Land Use Designation of Medium Density Residential (15 dwelling units per acre) since the development will be built at a gross density of 6.3 dwelling units per acre. Tentative Tract Map The applicant also proposes a tentative tract map for condominium purposes. In order to subdivide the parcel, the proposed subdivision needs to comply with all applicable development standards including lot size, lot frontage and appropriate Public Works Agency standards. Based on a review of the tentative map, the applicant has submitted a condominium project that has been designed to be in compliance with the applicable development standards found in Chapters 34 (Subdivision) and 41 (Zoning) of the Santa Ana Municipal Code. Additionally, the street, proposed as private and maintained by a homeowners association, will be designed to public street standards and will accommodate safety vehicles as well as street parking. Approval of the tract map will also be consistent with the goals and policies of the General Plan. The General Plan Land Use Element encourages a variety of residential land uses in the City and development that provides a positive contribution to the neighborhood character (Exhibit 9). Site Plan Approval Section 41-593.5 (c) of the Municipal Code requires that the Planning Commission review all plans within a Specific Development Plan area to ensure the project is in conformity with the approved Specific Plan. The review also ensures that the buildings, structures and grounds are in keeping with the neighborhood and will not be detrimental to the development of the Specific Development area. After analyzing the project, it was determined that the 38-unit single-family residential cluster project is in compliance with all applicable development standards, including Specific Development No. 81 (SD-81). Additionally, the architectural concepts for the project are in keeping with the surrounding community and will improve the desirability of investment in the area. Finally, the project has been determined to be in compliance with applicable parking, landscaping and fencing provisions governing the project. 75B-5 Amendment Application No. 2007-02 Site Plan Review No. 2007-02 Tentative Tract Map No. 2007-04 September 10, 2007 Page 5 On May 14th, the Planning Commission had a study session on the project. The main issues raised by the Commission related to street trees on the residential street, landscaping along the Fairview Street and Alton Avenue perimeters and pedestrian access to the adjacent commercial center. The applicant revised the plans and addressed the Commission's concerns by providing canopy trees along the residential street, enhancing and upgrading the tree and shrub palette at the project perimeter, and will install a secured pedestrian gate at the west side of the open space. The proposed project will enhance the image of the city through the development of a single-family residential project and will provide a positive reinforcement of the city's image around the county. The project will also provide a direct benefit to the community by providing additional housing opportunities in the city. Finally, the project will achieve many goals and policies of the City's General Plan by assisting in the development of a single-family project that promotes the community and by encouraging the development of a variety of residential land uses. As a result, staff recommends that the Planning Commission recommend approval of Amendment Application No. 2007-02, Specific Development Plan No. 81 and Tentative Tract Map No. 2007-04 as conditioned (Exhibits 10, 11 and 12). CEQA Compliance In accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act, a mitigated negative declaration has been prepared for this project. The Mitigation Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring Program were circulated for a 20-day public review from August 10 through August 31 and no comments were received. The report found that any potential environmental impacts could be mitigated to less than significant levels. Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring Program, Environmental Review No. 2007-37 has been prepared for this project (Exhibit 13). t. Vince Frego o, ICP Senior Plan VF jm of/reports/aa07-02&ttm07-04.pc 75B-6 _ ~ ~~ I R2-P D I~ I Fall ~ Iltill R2-PRD 11~i~ cu R2-P D C5 /H3 .-- R1- ~RD I__. ~4~ I ~~ NOD ~A Al GENERAL AGRICULTURAL -B PARKING MODIFICATION C1 COMMUNITY COMMERCIAL C1-MD COMMUNITY COMMERCIAL-MUSEUM DISTRICT C2 GENERAL COMMERCIAL C3 CENTRAL BUSINESS C3-A CENTRAL BUSINESS-ARTISTS'VILLAGE C4 PLANNED SHOPPING CENTER CS ARTERIAL COMMERCIAL CR COMMERCIAL RESIDENTIAL C-SM SOUTH MAIN STREET COMMERCIAL DISTRICT -F FLOOR AREA RATIO GC GOVERNMENT CENTER Mt LIGHT INDUSTRIAL M2 HEAW INDUSTRIAL MO MILITARY OPERATIONS 0 OPEN SPACE -OZ OVERLAY ZONE P PROFESSIONAL PCD PLANNED COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT PD PLANNED DEVELOPMENT PRD PLANNED RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT Rt SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENCE R2 TWO-FAMILY RESIDENCE R3 MULTIPLE-FAMILY RESIDENCE R4 SUBURBAN APARTMENT RE RESIDENTIAL ESTATE SD SPECIFIC DEVELOPMENT SP SPECIFIC PLAN AA 07-2/SD-81/TTM 07-4/SPR 07-2 ~ ALTON COURT ~~~'~ 3321 SOUTH FAIRVIEW STREET ~ - - = 500 FEET 1" = 1000 FEET P L A N N I N G A N D B U I L D I N G A G E N C Y VICINITY MAP 7IQ~T 1 INDUSTRIAL M U L T 1 F A M I L Y R E S I D E N T I A L ALTON AVENUE W J W J Q Q -r ~ ~ I- N Z Z w W Q ~ Q ~~II: ~ ~ J J ti ~ Q ~ Q ~ y ~ ~ W ~ C O M M E R C 1 A L Z LL AA 07-2/S D-81 /TT M 07-4/S P R 07-2 ~ ALTON COURT ~, 3321 SOUTH FAIRVIEW STREET P L A N N I N G A N D B U I L D I N G A G E N C Y LAND USE MAP 75E,~HI~IT 2 ~ee e+ ~~~ I ° ® O O Aeeae~ 33RYY yp ppnGn c J ~r S?44 ~~ 444 313 333 33 ~. ~ ~.. ~.,._ arm _ R e~ Si ARtl$ ~ W~ ~S¢ 1yj CF`~J ~cY~ CCC Sf R.,Y ^pR kR kk ~ ~ ~. ea 1€€~j, ~ ~~ ~~9 a~ q9q =~ ~A~Ay~y ,~ ~d~jd~ ^QL Q^ Stl ~q y ypy d AA J p XkxxR E E. ~F S 94 k~ QA ~ OQR ~i ax .ail ~ ! ~ ~~ [9 G~~~g~ R4~~~ y~ ia~~rB~ ~<a~d~~8~a 3A ' N~ 9< $3" ~_ Hur F s~ $ ---- - -" i"sa „a ~,~ sz I w1 BR zl ~ qq Rb ~~#]} ~~~~~ b q 3 -a ~ qb qg au ~3~g __ - ----J bgbb °~~~~ ~~~~~ " y~ 1 I §'s =5 rvl--_ ~ ~~~~~ b b LLLLLL q b Fa ___ b A~~R~ ~~J ® I I ~k~~~ ~~~~~ dq ..I I S b~$b -a -a Yy rn ~ ~ j ~ ^re~R3 vi ~.cl I woo8 ~ ii ~,o j zff 3 O=oa °11i~ ZsV~ - ~~ - Z~ oN ~. ~ • 3 p CC OZ G ~ _~~~zW¢$ °~oJ~~~ U pJ ~a~ ~UFW~_~ Z Z ~ ~~~~-~~ ~u-,(n Q >° g° r-~ ~ Q ~a(~o~ Z LL LL U F-~JR= Q V Q Z ~U O U Q Hiaorv $ R } ~ ~^~-1 {~ ~_ III I I w ~ ~; ~ ~ L4 L~ ~ ~ ~ ~. L~~y~L ~ ~~ -, I -rr; - ------- -= ---- = -- -- ---= ---~ '-a --- --~- rl I I _ _. Ir%~ e - - _ - - - - -_~ u - ~ I ~ ~ i ~ -i i i- I - o re ~IVa~ velilaF acc ss war easen,~nrr b ~ - - 4 ~ ~ `, '~ I I ~ Z I'I I ~ - - ~ Y -- (FWE LANE). _ n a ~~ `' V ~I I I O I I I `~ ~ _ T - ._ - _- _ - - - o s I I QIII /rY ~ ®~ ~ ®,t- ~ - I ®5N ® \ x ~ ~ I ` 6- I I, x I III _ w O I F- ° i I I III - - -- - - -- - - - _ - -- _ - I I - - ® F I J ® Q e'~ ® I I <.. or I I ------- --- ----- - - «r-- '~ r L --.-_i ~il ~__ -- --- -- ----- - _ ___----___ - ---I o. r _ --_ -- -- -- - - __-----_~ ~ eda~_ - ----- I ` - - - - x oxrol c es4m~ _ _ T- ' FAIRVIEW Q s STREET ------.\~ I i~------------ ----- --- --- --------- --- ----------------- ~ i j j ~ ~' ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ '~I ~ m ~ i i i .~ n ~ ~ ~ ~ Ohs I I I I ~ ~~ ~~ ~ ~ J~o I ~ ~ I I AA 0,3~6~81~TM 07-4/ . ~~ ...~. EXHIBIT 3 0 T~ ~~< jZ ~}! i1 E' Si ~ _~3A~F ~~ ~,~A° ~ Nu.~~,, =-~.b ~.-,Ft ~~~t~r C W1!: ~i 3<A~ ~~ --- _~ ~ W - - ~ ! i ~~ ,r ~- - - --. ~ _ Icy W Y Y ~ ~ ` ~ ~ ~ z _ < U. ~ u ~+ i Z !~ O ~_ _,.~ , C_~ V 3j m - r. ~w' ~ Y t ~ ~ ! f _ ~' .-~ ~~ ~~ a ~ ~~ t y ~ ~ 'Z` ~ m i.., __1~.. '~-_ f -1 ~ ~ ~ 'n u..Q ~ ~ N o ~ O O - '~ V S ~ ~ N Z Z Z m O Z ~ d N ~- Q CO M Q i AA 07-2/SD-81lTTM 07-4/ S~PR~07-2 Page ~of~3~ 0 0 N i ~ -~r.._.~ -~,~ o i Z ( ,'~ r- it ~ ti } ~ i x -i < ~ o U ~', J _'~ 5 ~ o I i' f Z ry H h O 1 ~ ~ i _~~` ~ ~_ - G r , ~ ~ ~~, 4 _ ~ -- -~~-_~__ ~ ~ -f _~ Q U ~ ~ cn Q ~ U N CV N m Z lf~ g (V ~z W 0 a m M -~ ~Pr ~Z ~ ~Y Q - 3 $ S ~ ~~#+~8 I.~di~ ~I~ES .~g~ ~` 3^w2 y O =- U ~- Z Z O Z ~. a ~ ~ =_ Q i 7=~1 0 cYi -~ ~~ ~~Z <- s ~A .~. ~~~~ ~~ N~~~ G~~if • ~ u( J J C WP. ~> L is I; ~ ~: ~ ~ ~~ ~__._.-. .n . 4 ,~ ~1 i z if 5 ~~ ~ I m x N ~ - ~ ~~ rv 4 m r- .-------- Z i' ~. O ~ ~ ~ „~ ,,, ` ~ W ~ l: < ~ !.;1 ~ G ~, =„ '~ ~~ Z a ~ T A a ~__r x ~ • ~' _ - . W o U Z Y Z r O i ' ~~ < II ~ L.._~ ~ U .- ~ ~ ~"~ ~ ~ ~' o Nu U ~ CV M Z - Z m O Z Z d. ~ cv J Q :' ~ m ` i r 7 3~-~32 ~' .i~l~~i .. ,1.} ^a~ .. , as ,I j .z. 1 ~ ~' ^a^ ~.~ ~ =` as I rr t; ~ r'~,~; i" .% s: }jrt .i:.ir '~ ~ i ~i'. ~ 1 i i a~~ ~~~ ^~~ ~~ ~~,, '~ ~3 t: t • ~~ ~}}~~ ^aa _'1 =3~ ?;~.=i. ^^^~', ,,:.• ~:~x y f' 1, r. r ~ - - i.. ~~ nos ,. ~. ,~ i w r 2 V s ri~ 1` f,. ~" is ~' ..i '-~~ `.~ t 're :~~ ~~1 ,~ . ~~s, :q~ t !~' Z 0 LL z O W J W W U O Q z J r .;~ ~,, ~; ~ :s z <-fix ''S ~~~g~' _\ NV ~~r ww~ a S_a ~ ~=fit ~r~fl~4 3a~€tYz ~ ~ o O S V ~ z z ~-- a ~ f Q AA 07-2/SD-81lTTM 07-4/ SPR 07-2 7 ~ ~HII~I~ ge 12 N IU ~FE ~Z ,~ i4 <`E~°5 IN~,~, .~ ~~~~~ ~~ u~k¢;~ _-~~.J ~=~{'s <~ ~£ ~c ~{; ~i 3<#~~ a.~ w ;C•:.~~~ _;.~ 1C °t;•i ';ir{:r .•{:I f `` - .. Z ~~ ~~,. _ I~ f~ ~ .. .. ,• ~_~_ .; _ __ ~ i ° a---- z ~~^^ p~. ~ ~~~~ < z .. ~ r ~p ~~:... _ ~ ~¢ ' ~z iu w o ' uQ U Q Z -" = U w LL ' ' ~M I W (' I, IZ ~~~~: .. `/~ ' =ii=j ~_~ ~ ____. 7CpP~e~of 12 z 0 c/') Z Q W J W J Q Z J 0 U Z o o m Q °- U Z ~ z O Q S U ~ Z ?s O Z z: ~ a y Q f i' ~ LlS` ~ i .- ~... ~ .. 'i ;: lof~- (i I ~}jr ; '~ r { ~ ' ~~ jjj ~I~ ~ ~ ~~~~ --- `~~ 'i E lr { ' ~-~ Ii' ' ~ Y~~~~~. ~(~ E ~~~~~ R ~'~~~i i~ ~° ,x I i ~~ ':.~ i r'~ :. , ~ ,, ;~'. - LY.~~ ~. r'! -.. ~~_-~ y i __ __- x U z _~ ~"'^ _ - l t ~~.~~~Y ~ ~, III ~ F ~ t~ii ~,; ~ 11{ i ~~ c ~~ ' z F , j t ~ i~ jj F~ I i + f tt. ~, -----q. ~ t ~ i i ~3 a^^ ~~ ~., i, Idf _..~ 5 . ~ ~ { a ~~ ~ h ~. ~~:' f1 r 't ' a f ~~~t. 1 ~~~ ~~~~~ ~~~~~~ 1 1 I IL~,~~. :~~i~. .9.9L ~,~.... I~,~.~ ~~i~~ \\ I r~, ._. Z Q Q w J W J Q Z 0 O F- U Z g M r ~~~~ ~:y <` ~x ~~ ^~~~~ ~~ g"3~z ~~ u~ ~ ~ =M ~i ~=~E1 ~~ g~ ~~` c wF ~iG ~a ~~ O Q V ~ z=. O z' z ~ a. J ~ Q i ~~~=~15 I { ~i:', !: N'. is .a'. si a-. A ' 4 't T _k r ai±~4 ~ ;: ~t ~~ ~~ •. ~~~~~. k" C ' ~ ~~~~% ~~~~i /',' ;. ~:" ~ IZ , I ~M 1 ILL i ~~ C t i C^ r _ ,L1.._ ~~ F ` ~ `~ «, , - .' , _ r ~ ' j ,r `~ , i ~i i i~~~ w U oe £.1 / .. y~,~ ~ ~ .. -~;l~ ~ ~~{_i. ~ }r,- H _~~~ ~ ~ ..~ 111111~~:^ ~~ ~-~ ~:. ~. KF~ ^~~ fin; l ^~~, II i .0'.8Z j;'+j~i j'~ ';: ,:~.{ }I ~ ~.a~ ~!! G1:1 ,V ~~.i :a ~` F"~; } ~'~~ I Z O Q W J W W U 0 U Q N Z J r N ui:a~ -z~, 5~~? u, S {A{yy ff~ _~ '13' ~~E',E 4`~# Sir 3<~s ~~ Li V7 - O S V ~ Z Z ~ z ~ a J f Q 5 g 4 '~5~-~ 6 N N ~"~. S:'n 1~~ /; a ~ ,r~ ~~~ ~ l ~. . {;,~ •,_ ! ~' ~ i;~~ ; f;; .+~. - ~iil .. •:~ t' `1' - ;- :j ~: ';.: ;~ ~Y ~.'I ~~ t . ;G ~o~ ~~u ,:.: ~~t ~ , ,;1 ~~ F~ it ~ ~ !1 n ~Y i. r. ~i ~,ti, 1, } •~: E_.~ 1 6 (W ~~ ,~~: ~~~~ Z Z O Q U Z W M Z z z~ o ~' yQj ~ N u3 o-> zg oLL Q U w Z w Q w~ z ay 4 v' ~ ~' Z Q ~ Z w ~ V Z Z ~ = O wQ F- 2 U L ;." j}ts~ ~ j~ 1 .i}:? ,~,? ~ ~r; i 1 ~~~ ,/ :'~ ~ >_~ ~. ~.;i ~ :i,,,! 1 ,~ \. ~~ '~~:t .~' ~~ ~` ~i I~ ~LL N Z Q W W W ~y U C7 zQ ~~ w° Q N Z Q J J~F. ~Z a'r' a1 G-.3 ): N ~A ~P E. ~ ~~ ~ x ~ a' __ u~~~ a 2~~~~ ~~R S Eu?~ ~~ CHI: ~> 34 ~s s., v~ O O S V ~ Z ?~ O Zr Z; ~ a- J ~ -_ Q 9 ~ ~~~~f~ / M N rt„~~C t .~ >• ~i ~' [` C 'i rt ~t ff~ y ,may --~ ;; c ~; :,~4i~ ~;<<: r '' `!t; c c ~t'. ~}~ tti..t ~. { l~l ~'~ -ir tt.Ii t YN~ Ju:i4 !~; ~`, 'mss ~~" 1 . _t. , YMI ...`. ~'!..'§ ~~~'. i } ` `%~. 1"~~i±~' ='=";I W i u L ~~ ~__ (~7 ILL ii ----- I ~.~'.. ~=}-"~ rC r==i __ '/ ;~ I_ :. '~ ^oi 1- -- -== .~ O t~ ~_ 1H'.]13H ~ l i'. '~NIOlIf1B t~a,dy~{~^^{ l.w~ ~u a1}t~ . . -_ r ' is ~ ` -. - y ..~: ~ ~ .Sr; _~= " ^ i ::r ,d ~ =' x U Z:.. ^ dl~ '~~^^` :/~^~ L ) ~ t~ ~~ I~ i_ ~_ ,~,~_. z 0 LL Z O Q W J W J Q Z 0 J U z oQ.. m N Z J a. ~Z~v~ a"- z~ ~s .lw ~g ~E ~~ ~~~qq8~; _~ NU?`id :u u, k£i S~~a~ fi~E Q~~~~~ ^s~',~ 3<i~x :. f v3 O O 2 V ~- Z 0 Z , z. J ~ - Q i ~~~ ~f~ V `}~~ .-- S. ~I Jit -il ~_(~` ~r~`~.j~ :• 'r`'~ ~~~1~ ' ^ r) ~r, i '~'(~ .<t 'r1_ ._,:C ul .t rte', ',. . { i r ~t *~ ,~" 4 iiu~ Na t '„ 1'•rn. ,i .~_`, #y ~ f :. ~,& . '~ y i.~.~ 4. 'C' 'i`rk ~~ '~ I~~~ ~~.____ E~ ~LL I C~ ~,, ~i . ~~ ~LL ~. ~: 1 ,- .'A ~~~r K x V K r 3 V Z Q 1~ :y~ ~. CS~ ~u 'Isit Ti~ .l: + ... '-- r L -~ ~~1 r¢ ``,; Y C~ ~Y~~' 7 .~~~~~F u!~u ',,,'"~~~"1 Z O Q W J W J Q pZ W 0 V ~ Z ~ Q U 2 = Z ~ w _ Z d m N Z Q J N T ~ ~: ~_ ~z~iC.~.~ C-s$°S ~~~'~' ~~ ~"S. y ~~ NV ~~: Ww~ S .-ay ~z~f ~U k y'$ C ~Y ¢Y ?ia$a_,~ ~~/ {j V7 w ~ O O U~ Z Z _ O Z . ~. Q J ~ - Q 7~'-~I ~ .~': ! ~ e- r~' ~t i :~ ~~ ^~^ , `li~~o- ~~~ : -: , ~ ~~~~. ~ r - w ..^; i4 ~ : : , ,~" i .. r =~~~l ti INN ,,- :i ~ ~~. ~ t i, ~f~ ~ Y_;.~; ;ri e~.; f w::. :x t {ir. r r~' {{ i ,S,i ~~`, :,: ^ k i ~ ~.~ i ~~t ~, , ;~ •~ ~ # ' z ~~ it '?' ! ~ ~ . 1 i~°~ LL Mfr ,. :'• '-7 ? ! ^\t ~p~ ~ { ~;I 1 } ~ ' ` '` ~ ,., ~ t ;{•y ~ ~ ~~ ~~ i i ltaic1t~;~ "~'~ ~i~i~ I 'v ~; ~~ 4~i •~ I~1~ .._.__ y~•ii 1,~~~•,~ ~ I{ _ - ~- C LL ' .. ~ ,fir ~~ ~ t` ~`# .^ ^^ ...~I .^^:~ "~ ~~ z 0 Q w J W W U O Q M Z Q J d ~~ M ~zu;t;~ a-,~~~ ga ~a ~~ ~^aF~~ _~ vU ~~ i~~~~ ~-RE i ~~~~~ 3~y= ~ ~ O ~ U ~ z ? - O z' z: ~ a J ~ Q Pa9~~~~~0 t'• 1 . i•tt ;`"'~ I w .a ~~ . +t.. _: . ' ~. i t' ~{~ , ~ t~+'~ ~ ^r { . ~ ~~ f ~ { ' O t O 111) _ ~ ~ , t ~Z±± F 1 ~ t~~Nj~ l ~ •~ ~ l u~ . ~: l j•1-'.: ....~ i ~" ~ i I' ~~ lu fi~ t: ~; t `~ ~ ~ 'u ii^ ^ ,:~~ __. ::, iR~ ~~ ;~, ^~ ~~ ~' i `` ~; ~'-` i 1H'~13H'~NI4lIf18 .0-.Bi 1' .. i 4` y ~. ,?-'~ t 't~> i;µj ~ LL 1 ~ ~~~~' ~ + ~~Y' ^ i J C4~ i ~.; ~~ ~u ~~~ ,, j ~-_ ~i ~-. e' oaf 11 z Q w D w U U zQ Z U Q M Z Q J N M I TJ~N. e'r J Z YI E-~35& ~~~ ~~ ~~ ~^x~~ ~~~ N~3<~a m 2 .. d y~ S ~ x red <~ ~~ ~, ~ckf G 3a ps ~.' w - O ~ v x V ~ Z ?~ O Z ` Z F- a ; J ~ '-_ Q ~ ~,:;, f ,~ r ' ~~ MN * ~ r: ~ i ' ~~ ~. t: y i ~ ~ ~~~~ p t I 1 ' ~ t ~ ~ { iiii { ~ ~ fy .3 ~~r ~-•- x ~' ' . ! t ' i~ I= ~ . . _ C ~ Y ~ MN ~ w ~ 4 '1'1 Ott IW `';~`;~; ," iii. ~~ :« ( rfi'~:F ~~ .^ ~~ ~YY ~ ~ ~ /~~~ ~~U ~~ r" i =_-_. s ~ ~ __ ,~ Y ~~ 2 ~P,. -' ~~~ .~ ~~ ~r }~ }{{ ie~ f~$.!~i.-i. 3 1 ~~ .... ~~~\ ~4 . ~~~`. ,~- .... z ~, ~~ !r••t: ~ ~~~~^ 't ~ l; d- ~'i : •~.. `. t +. }.. 1 t"#q ~~ t,># ~,f a t:1~. +z ,;; ~~. ~~' ~~ '~~~~~ 1~ 4 o _ .. !~*~^^~ ~r h~~ !t~^ iiii' ;~~• •' IZ .. ~"` I Pa / 1~~2 A A Z (/ 7 Z Q W J W J Q Z O F- 0 I- U M Z g ~. M M Z ~ ~x r.: ~Z~ 9~. < - s :~: =y# dJ ~~ ~~~tit t~ H~tt~ . =~t;ci ~~Gfs. ~~C ~Y 8 _ 3<~S ~~ LL ~ - O Q . U~ Z } Z Z i O Z ~ a J ~ Q i i~' ~~: X31 :~ t d a t:?"H ~ ~f ~ {,~~ ;:~~ jy7t, a~~- ~, ~~~.. fj ,. ~; ;; p ~~ ~1 ... , ~.~~~~' ;t' t !}},,t{,i :)r ~~ '~^.~ .S ^'Y . : ; .y y ~~. ~.[ li is i,~ ~ ~'~::1 <,~ -i ~,~~,~ ~~_.:._: w z Z a U Z U r~i Z ~- w Z w ~ ~ 0 N ~n w CC ~ K ~ LL Z Z O~ .c W~ r- QO ~ Z Z r ~ Z w~ VZ zp =o wz a ~ ~:I ! ~=~ j. 1.; (. ~~~.. ~ z z O Q W J W J Q Wz z0 ~. 2 ~ w ~ H U M Z Q J d d' c~ z~ ~e ~z~~~~ T-~~ N, ~., ~~ ~'xkr __~~~ i'~~Lx ~y~~# <~ a# ~~ C &$ rya 3<~~ _. CL ~ ~ O O S V ~z z z z ~ a J ~ Q 'I~ Page 11 of 12 75B-23 C% Y K d O O 0 U Z Z U H O z z z O J Q W z U F ` ~~ F Cr ~$ ~: , #a ;~.: ,•,. ?,.~, 'a~;~ `tr<. y~' '.`.f} ~ *: ~. fi~ .; f `r~: ~.; ~~. Ky ~~,, ~,~ . , .,~- ~~ ~~ ~i - ~~f~a fA ;'M"", ia1 y Y Y~ _ ~ ~'~i ? k.~~. ~~~ ~'' a Q ~ ,S i '~ ~i #D ~d ~~ ~~~~r ~~ r~~d d 2 ~ d ~~~cc ~xe~$ <~ ~~ ~~ ~cx~F $ '><~a;:R W f- ~ ~ h _. 3 ~ ~ '~ ~ ° a U ~ ~ z: Z -- W 'j U O Z ~n ~-- Q w J ~ Q 75~e11°42 mcroseero wcu'r~ x~ree iamMaH ai ~~.s rows x~ne~ms isice ,a'.°., ~» aoso NY1d 3dY~SONY1 S3WOH 9NINNVW ;~~`, ~ ~ ~ o~acoa' ~ ~ ~ AlIYNIWll3ad v[Haoa~~vo'vNVV~,HVS ~~ '"'xie;vwavn wW,,,,„ ~ '^ ixno~ uoszv »~ xN~~ _--- ~~..~ ~, b $o rya ryWW F A W ~, a x ~~ w4w~ E~ r ~ ~ ~~ 3 r ~ I ~$~ ~ ~ ~25w ~~~ , oaa ~~~ a~ ~ ~~ `~I ~3? zl ~~~ ~~ ~~ ~~~~~~ c~ x333se$ 8 I I II i~. ~i ' € ~ z 4'i~€'e _ -.,__. ._3.______ ]czar' :_; _ ~ n ~ __ -_ iai _ -. C £.: J ~T Yf Sf S SS ~ _ n ~+ n 4 ~~ ~ 8 '~ ~ a~ ~ ~ ~~ X ~~~ ~~~~ ~ §~~ ~~~ ~~ I?~ ~~ _ ~ R £ .. ,. x ~ ~ ~ ~4 ~ ~~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~~ ~~ ~a; 4 ~~ ~ I ~I 7 ~®"'yG~7 ~~ AA 07-21SD-81/TTM 07-4/ SPR 07-2 EXHIBIT 6 OOZ6YISZ-6t6 099Z6'VJ HJtl391YOdM3N OSI'315133N1S NJN13'MSISIOZ S3111N3W~ '? S3WOH 9NINN`dW ~~~~v~'~°~~~:'I°;°:,.wS;~ „' """° N dINbQ~I7d~ ~dNd d,~,Hb$ ~JNI'S3IVIJOSStl u. ONC WI R ~ ' m 1N3W3JaVlN3 ~!!~d *~'~] n3xJVwova ~OL9"'" ,I.L2If100 NOJ+ 1 V 11 ~Ntl» ~~'°" ~ J ° Y2 ~~ gg~ g~ wQ Q jb w~ W F N ZO 3 A° W I~ 13 W LL a F F w w = w ,q Q Y ~ N v = w w a LL Z QQ~ Qr w b F WW J Qw ,a. ~ ~ w ~ ry z w U Wp ~ d~ Q U~ 77 V ~'~ QZ Oa Qµ~ y 7 WN W r '~ pW~N r J ?N Q~UF w~ ~ j ~ w OJ Q ~ J = ~Q U R Q J bpd J Q Q '~~wd ~ C I 3 W Q WW J Q ~ CryW w Qw 3 J p~~QQW ~Q i0 ~7 U i3 FQ m l7Q .D F3 ~-Q Z 6 g n W ~ ~ w ~ ww 0'N ~_ U ~ J ~ ~L w ~~ ~~ ~ ~ N w Q W ~W a~ o m t pp 7J ~ Q ~ ~ 3 ~ N N z W ~' ~ Q~0 CQ LL-U. u~~ ~ _N _N ~d ;/~`~` o~ ~ ~~ W~ ~ Z zy~_ K O~~ 7~~ 6 iarroG. mM1 U992M1'V.l IUV381n(LM3N iri 3LS L?3lll5 x~nln'MSI410L ~~ w~ri ' ~p}p S3WOH~JNINNVW w __ ` -"'..rn M ~,alN3 lo3road tlINN031'Itl^J'tlNV tlLNtlS l~~~-//~- ~N~ saivuoss I o+ac wr ~ ~ ~ .I.~nO/ ~~.j.~ ~ $.'~~r'"~ nax~vwasr ~ ,~~ nra a ~~. b nro '^x>` MNVL I t h ~ N Q r F aPl _ W U O ;.~,~ .._ ~ J ~ ~ } H m ~( O m 4 F a Z O a > ~ w , J = W Y z w z z J O U w z O F N b H ,SL 3 Q 2 H Z W 7~L73 L INDUSTRIAL M U L T I F A M I L Y R E S I D E N T I A L ALTON AVENUE ' ~ W W ~ ~ F ~ ~ fA Z Z CHANGE w o o _ ~ w ZONINf~ w w _ ~ FRQM ~ ~ Cir TD SD-81 Q ~ ~ w 0 0 m g 3 ~ ~ W ~ C O M M E R C I A L Z ~ Lal. AA 07-2/S D-81 /TT M 07-4/S P R 07-2 ~ ALTON COURT ~, - 3321 SOUTH FAIRVIEW STREET P L A N N I N G A N D B U I L D I N G A G E N C Y ZONING MAP EXHIBIT 7 75B-28 SPECIFIC DEVELOPMENT PLAN NO. 81 Alton Court SECTION 1 - Applicability of Ordinance The Specific Development zoning district No. 81 for Alton Court is authorized by Chapter 41, Division 26 Section 41-593 et seq. of the Santa Ana Municipal Code. SD No. 81 contains the specific standards and regulations contained in the R1 and/or R2 residential districts, as herein amended, for the purpose of establishing land use regulations and standards. All other applicable chapters, articles, and sections of the Santa Ana Municipal Code are in effect unless superseded by regulations contained in this ordinance. SECTION 2 - Purpose The Specific Development Plan No. 81 for Alton Court consists of standards and regulations established for the purpose of protecting the health, safety, and general welfare of the people of the City of Santa Ana by promoting and enhancing the value of property and encouraging the orderly development of the property. SECTION 3 - Uses Permitted in Specific Development No. 81 The following uses are permitted in the SD-81 district: (a) One-family dwellings. (b) One temporary real estate office devoted to the sale of real estate in the tract in which it is located. (c) Accessory structures. (d) Child care facilities providing care to not more than 12 children, provided that if the number of children exceeds six (6), a land use certificate must be first obtained pursuant to Division 4 of Article V of this chapter. SECTION 4 - Uses Subject to a Conditional Use Permit in Specific Development No. 81 (a) Garages for four (4) or more vehicles. (b) Accessory structures more than 15 feet in height or more than one story. AA 07-2/SD-81/TTM 07-4/ 75B~T8 Page 1 of 4 SECTION 5 - Minimum Lot Area in Specific Development No. 81 Lots shall have an area of at least 17,999 square feet. SECTION 6 - Minimum Street Frontage in Specific Development No. 81 Lots shall have street frontage of at least 100 feet. SECTION 7 - Building Height in Specific Development No. 81 No primary structure shall exceed 27 feet nor two stories in height, as measured from the lowest adjacent grade of the structure to the top of the structure. SECTION 8 - Lot Coverage in Specific Development No. 81 No more than 40 percent of the lot shall be covered by structures. SECTION 9 - Front Yards in Specific Development No. 81 There shall be a front yard of not less than 13 feet from the street. Porches may encroach into the front yard a maximum of six feet. SECTION 10 - Side Yards in Specific Development No. 81 Each side yard shall be not less than five feet for each main building. SECTION 11 - Rear Yards in Specific Development No. 81 There shall be a rear yard of not less than 15 feet for each dwelling unit. Such rear yard may be reduced to not less than five feet for open patio covers. SECTION 12 - Development Standards in Specific Development No. 81 Lots in the SD No. 81 district shall comply with the following standards: (a) Front and street oriented side yards shall be landscaped with the exception of approved driveways and sidewalks. (b) Accessory structures shall not exceed 35 percent of the required rear yard area and shall not exceed 66 percent of the main structure square footage. 75~=~~`` SECTION 13 - Building Separation in Specific Development No. 81 (a) The building separation between primary structures shall be at least 10 feet. (b) The building separation between primary and accessory structures shall be at least five feet. SECTION 14 - Open Space Standard for Specific Development No. 81 A private open space shall be provided for the project. The lot shall be a minimum of 6,100 square feet in size and contain the following amenities: (a) Decorative shade structure (b) Two gas barbeques (c) A minimum of six benches (d) Two picnic tables (e) Pedestrian access gate on the west perimeter wall SECTION 15 - Landscape Standards for Specific Development No. 81 In the SD No. 81 district, all yards shall be landscaped. Each residential unit shall meet the following minimum requirements: (a) Front Yard: (1) Two 24-inch box canopy trees. (2) All trees shall be double-staked. (3) Six five-gallon size shrubs and 10 one-gallon size herbaceous perennials/shrubs as a foundation planting. (4) Turf or acceptable dry climate ground cover: i. Turf shall be drought tolerant variety and planted as sod or hydroseed. ii. Ground cover shall be well-rooted cuttings from flats and planted at appropriate spacing for that particular plant material. Page 3 of 4 75B-31 (b) Side Yard: (1) Corner lots shall require one 15-gallon size tree for every 30 linear feet of property abutting a street plus six five- gallon size shrubs as a foundation planting. Root barriers shall be required on all trees planted along the street oriented yards. (c) Project Perimeter Walls: (1) Flowering vines shall be provided and secured to a decorative masonry wall. (2) The vines shall be five-gallon size and be planted at a maximum 20-foot interval. They shall be secured to the walls with eye hooks and wire. (d) Irrigation Systems: (1) A pop-up sprinkler type irrigation system shall be provided for all yards for each residential unit. (2) The use of "xeriphytic" or dry climate type plant materials is encouraged. Irrigation systems may require special fittings to properly water dry climate plantings. (e) Screening: (1) All meters shall be appropriately screened from public view with trellis work and vines or a hedge type shrub or they shall be incorporated into the residential structure. (2) Any enclosed structure for utilities must not encroach into any required setback. (f) Maintenance: (1) All plant material shall be maintained per Section 41-609 of the Santa Ana Municipal Code. 75~g~`2~ a ~~ S l~ T~ ~Qa e ~ Q QQ '~ e~9y ~~~ ~~ ¢~~~ rQOH `~ J~ 6 woo8 j iv ~je~~~ ~ U QO~?V ~ ~ ~~~Op jlaf4 ~LJ ~-O 1 0~ op ~,~,~ O~QI-'~~ ~~°~ - v~ZU~~ z~s~ ~pg~~~ F.-W~O~~ ~ ;a ~ a~Z~ _ -a~ ~. W~~z~ ~ ~~~~~~~ >r o~ ~~W~~ Z~?~~ ~~~" z ~Q Q a ~~~~ ~~~0.~ ~~LI~ i ~~~ i io~'= ~ ,, AA V / -lJ ~71./~O 1 / 1 I IYI V / ~Y/ 7 .{~ 0$~ ~~ ~~ ~~~~ ~ I ~a I I ~ 4~p ~~~ ~ ~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~ ~~~~~~~~s~~E~~~~~~~ ~ ~ ~f~f11fB'1~y Tentative Tract Map No. 2007-04 September 10, 2007 Page 1 of 2 Findings of Fact A. The proposed project, as conditioned, and its design and improvements are consistent with the Medium Density Residential designation on the General Plan and are otherwise consistent with all other elements of the General Plan. Tentative Tract Map No. 2007-04 (County Map No. 17071) is consistent with the land use designation and density prescribed in the General Plan and will have no adverse affect on the surrounding land uses in the area. B. The proposed project, as conditioned, conforms to all applicable requirements of the zoning and subdivision codes as well as other applicable City ordinances. Tentative Tract Map No. 2007-04 (County Map No. 17071) is in keeping with the provisions of the site plan review (DP No. 06- 77) and Chapters 34 and 41 of the Santa Ana Municipal Code, all of which pertain to the subdivision of land and development standards for the site. C. The project site is physically suitable for the type and density of the proposed project. Tentative Tract Map No. 2007-04 (County Map No. 17071) is proposed for a six-acre parcel of land within an area that is proposed to be rezoned to Specific Development No. 81 (SD-81). The site has been determined to be capable of supporting the type and density of the proposed project. D. The design and improvements of the proposed project will not cause substantial environmental damage or substantially and avoidably injure fish or wildlife or their habitat. No fish or wildlife will be affected by the approval of this map or by the design and improvements of the project. Environmental Review No. 2007-37 has been prepared for this project and has identified mitigation measures aimed at reducing any environmental impact associated with this project. 7~~~4~0 Tentative Tract Map No. 2007-04 September 10, 2007 Page 2 of 2 E. The design or improvements of the proposed project will not cause serious public health problems. The design and improvements associated with this project have been prepared to comply with minimum City standards. The street system, although to be private and maintained by a homeowners association, has been designed to public street standards and will accommodate emergency vehicles. All other improvements have been designed to mitigate any serious problem resulting from this project. F. The design or improvements of the proposed project will not conflict with the easements acquired by the public at large for access through or use of property within the proposed project. Approval of Tentative Tract Map No. 2007-04 (County Map No. 17071) will not create conflicts with any easements necessary for public access through the subject property, as no such easements currently exist. Public access will be allowed to the site through the entrance and with homeowner authorization. 75B-35 SEPTEMBER 10, 2007 PAGE 1 OF 2 Conditions of Approval Tentative Tract Map No. 2007-04 (County Map No. 17071) is approved subject to compliance, to the reasonable satisfaction of the Planning Manager, with all applicable sections of the Santa Ana Municipal Code, the California Administrative Code, the Uniform Fire Code, the Uniform Building Code and all other applicable regulations. The applicant must comply in full with each and every condition listed below prior to exercising the rights conferred by this tentative tract map. The applicant must remain in compliance with all conditions listed below throughout the life of the tentative tract map. Failure to comply with each and every condition may result in the revocation of the tentative tract map. A. Planning Division 1. The Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions (CC&R's) for this project must be reviewed and approved prior to approval of the final tract map. 2. The CC&R's must include language that requires all required landscaping must be installed within a specified time period. 3. A fencing plan showing the location of all project fencing and the materials to be used must be submitted to the Planning Division prior to submittal into building plan check. 4. The perimeter fencing for the project cannot exceed eight feet in height, as measured from the height of the street sidewalk. 5. All real estate signage must be removed from the site within one year from the date of installation. An extension of time may be granted as determined by the Planning Manager. 6. The final map must be approved and recorded prior to issuance of building permits. 7. The final map and all improvements required to be made or installed by the subdivider must be in accordance with the design standards and specifications of the Santa Ana Municipal Code and the requirements of the State Subdivision Map Act. ~~'=~~„ SEPTEMBER 10, 2007 PAGE 2 OF 2 8. Development within the area of the map is subject to development and permit fees in effect at the time of permit issuance. 9. Development within the area of the map is subject to design and development standards in effect at the time of permit issuance. 10. The project must be in compliance with the provisions of Site Plan Review (DP No. 06-77). 11. Two copies of the recorded final map and CC&R's shall be submitted each to the Planning Division, Fire Department, Building Division, and Public Works Agency within 10 days of recordation. 75B-37 SEPTEMBER 10, 2007 PAGE 1 OF 1 Conditions for Approval Site Plan Review No. 2007-02 is approved subject to compliance, to the reasonable satisfaction of the Planning Manager, with all applicable sections of the Santa Ana Municipal Code, the California Administrative Code, the Uniform Fire Code, the Uniform Building Code and all other applicable regulations. The applicant must comply in full with each and every condition listed below prior to exercising the rights conferred by this site plan approval. The applicant must remain in compliance with all conditions listed below throughout the life of the site plan approval. Failure to comply with each and every condition may result in a building permit not being issued. A. Planning Division 1. All proposed site improvements must conform with the Site Plan Review approval of DP No. 06-77. 2. Any amendment to this site plan must be submitted to the Planning Division and Police Department for review. At that time, staff will determine if administrative relief is available or the Planning Commission must amend the site plan approval. 7~~~ 38 2 Alton Court Initial Study and Proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration Prepared fora City of Santa Ana, Planning and Building Agency 20 Civic Center Plaza, Ross Annex M-20 Santa Ana, CA 92702 Contact: Vince Fregoso, Senior Planner 714/667-2700 Prepared by: Jones & Stokes 17310 Red Hill Avenue, Suite 320 Irvine, CA 92614-5600 Contact: Chad Beckstrom 949/260-1080 August 2007 EXHIBIT 13 75B-39 Jones & Stokes. 2007. Alton Court Initial Study and Proposed Mitigated Negative Declaration. July. (J&S 00635.07.) Irvine, CA. 75B-40 Contents Page Chapter 1 Introduction and Overview ..................................................................1-1 Overview ............................................................................ .....................1-1 Authority ............................................................................. .....................1-1 Scope of the IS/MND ......................................................... .....................1-2 Impact Terminology ........................................................... .....................1-3 IS/MND Organization ......................................................... .....................1-3 Chapter 2 Project Description .......................................................... .....................2-1 Project Overview ................................................................ .....................2-1 Project Background ........................................................... .....................2-1 Project Location ................................................................. .....................2-2 Existing Conditions and Surrounding Land Uses .............. .....................2-3 Proposed Project ............................................................... .....................2-3 Internal Remodeling ..................................................... .....................2-3 Exterior Architecture and Signage ............................... .....................2-4 Driveway Access and Parking ..................................... .....................2-4 Landscaping ................................................................ .....................2-4 Project's Relationship to General Plan and Zoning ........... .....................2-4 General Plan ................................................................ .....................2-4 Zoning .......................................................................... ..................... 2-5 Discretionary Approvals Required ............................... .....................2-5 Chapter 3 Environmental Checklist ................................................. .....................3-1 I. Aesthetics ................................................................. ...................3-15 II. Agricultural Resources .............................................. ...................3-15 III. Air Quality ................................................................. ...................3-16 IV. Biological Resources ................................................ ...................3-18 V. Cultural Resources ................................................... ...................3-19 VI. Geology and Soils ..................................................... ...................3-19 VII. Hazards and Hazardous Materials ............................ ...................3-20 VIII. Hydrology and Water Quality .................................... ...................3-22 X. Mineral Resources .................................................... ...................3-24 XI. Noise ......................................................................... ...................3-24 XVII. Mandatory Findings of Significance ..................:........ ..................3-31 Chapter 4 Mitigation Monitoring Plan and Report ...............................................4-1 Introduction ......................................................................... ....................4-1 Project Overview ................................................................. ....................4-1 Alton Court August 2007 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration ~ J&S 00635.07 75B-41 Monitoring and Reporting Procedures ....................................................4-2 Mitigation Monitoring Plan Implementation .............................................4-2 Verification of Compliance ......................................................................4-3 Chapter 5 References ............................................................................................5-1 Chapter 6 List of Preparers ...................................................................................6-1 Appendix A. Air Quality Calculations. Appendix B. Report of Geotechnical Exploration, Appendix C. Phase I and Phase II Environmental Site Assessment Report, Appendix D. Water Quality Management Plan, and, Appendix E. Focused Noise Study. Alton Court August 2007 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration ii J&S 00635.07 75B-42 Tables Table Page 3-1 Table 3-1. Forecast of Regional Construction Emissions ........ ............3-18 3-2 City of Santa Ana Exterior Noise Ordinance Criteria ................ ............3-31 3-3 Existing Roadway Traffic Noise Levels ..................................... ............3-33 3-4 Remaining Capacity of Existing Landfills Serving the Project Area .............................................................................. ............ 3-40 4-1 Summary of Mitigation Monitoring Plan .................................... ..............4-3 Alton Court Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration August 2007 J&S 00635.07 75B-43 Figures Figure 1 Regional Location ........................ 2 Project Vicinty .............................. 3 Existing Conditions ...................... 4 Proposed Site Plan ...................... 5 Improvements ............................. . Alton Court August 2007 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration jV J&S 00635.07 75B-44 ~I ~'~ n i~ i~ i~ Acronyms and Abbreviations City City of Santa Ana IS initial study MND mitigated negative declaration CEQA California Environmental Quality Act GC General Commercial NHSP North Harbor Specific Plan SR-57 Orange Freeway SR-55 Newport Freeway SR-22 Garden Grove Freeway FMMP Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Project Basin South Coast Air Basin SCAQMD South Coast Air Quality Management District CO carbon monoxide 03 ozone PM 10 particulate matter 10 microns in diameter or less PM2.5 particulate matter 2.5 microns in diameter or less AQMP Air Quality Management Plan SCAG Southern California Association of Governments RCPG Regional Comprehensive Plan and Guide NESHAPS National Emissions Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants OSHA Occupational Safety and Health Administration Cal/OSHA California Occupational Safety and Health Administration CCR California Code of Regulations PCBs polychlorinated biphenyls BMPs best management practices WQMP Water Quality Management Plan SMARA Surface Mining And Reclamation Act of 1975 d13A A-weighted sound level CNEL Community Noise Equivalent Level STC Sound Transmission Class CMP Congestion Management Plan TIA traffic impact analysis OCTA Orange County Transit Authority RWQCB Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board MMP mitigation monitoring plan NESHAPS National Emissions Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants OSHA Occupational Safety and Health Administration Cal/OSHA California Occupational Safety and Health Administration CCR California Code of Regulations PCBs polychlorinated biphenyls Alton Court Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration August 2007 J8S 00635.07 ~ 75B-45 75B-46 n II LU Chapter 1 Introduction and Overview Overview The City of Santa Ana (City) has prepared this initial study (IS) and proposed mitigated negative declaration (MND) to evaluate the potential environmental consequences associated with the Alton Court Project. The proposed project consists of demolishing and removing an existing warehouse, preparing the site, and constructing 38 single family detached residential units. The proposed project includes a zoning ordinance amendment from Arterial Commercial (CS) to Specific Development No. 81 for this site. The project site is located at 3321 Fairview Street on the southeast corner of the intersection of Alton Avenue and Fairview Street in Santa Ana. As part of the City's permitting process, the proposed project is required to undergo an environmental review in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The initial study is a preliminary analysis prepared by a lead agency to determine whether an environmental impact report or a negative declaration is required. If the initial study concludes that the project may have a significant effect on the environment, an environmental impact report must be prepared. Otherwise, a negative declaration or mitigated negative declaration is prepared. The information in this initial study and related special studies supports the conclusion that a mitigated negative declaration is the appropriate CEQA compliance document. Authority The preparation of an IS/MND is governed by two principal sets of documents: CEQA (Public Resources Code Section 21000, et seq.) and the State CEQA Guidelines (California Code of Regulations Section 15000, et seq.). Specifically, Section 15063 of the State CEQA Guidelines and Sections 15070-15075 of Article 6 guide the process for the preparation of a negative declaration or a mitigated negative declaration. Where appropriate and supportive to an understanding of the issues, reference will be made either to the statute, the State CEQA Guidelines, or appropriate case law. Alton Court August 2007 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 1-1 J&500635.07 75B-47 City of Santa Ana Chapter 1. Introduction and Overview This IS/MND, as required by CEQA, contains 1) a project description; 2) a description of the environmental setting, potential environmental impacts, mitigation measures for any significant effects, and consistency with plans and policies; and 3) names of preparers. The mitigation measures included in this IS/MND are designed to reduce or eliminate the potentially significant environmental impacts described herein. Where a mitigation measure described in this document has been previously incorporated into the project, either as a specific feature of design or as a mitigation measure, this is noted in the discussion. Mitigation measures are structured in accordance with the criteria in Section 15370 of the State CEQA Guidelines. Scope of the IS/MND This IS/MND evaluates the proposed project's effects on the following resource topics: ^ aesthetics, ^ agricultural resources, ^ air quality, ^ biological resources, ^ cultural resources, ^ geology and soils, ^ hazards and hazardous materials, ^ hydrology and water quality, ^ land use and planning, ^ mineral resources, ^ noise, ^ population and housing, ^ public services, ^ recreation, ^ transportation/traffic, ^ utilities and service systems, and ^ mandatory findings of significance. Alton Court August zuu i Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 1_2 J8S 00635-07 75B-48 City of Santa Ana Chapter 1. Introduction and Overview Impact Terminology The following terminology is used to describe the level of significance of impacts: ^ A finding of no impact is appropriate if the analysis concludes that the project would not affect the particular topic area in any way. ^ An impact is considered less than significant if the analysis concludes that it would cause no substantial adverse change to the environment and requires no mitigation. ^ An impact is considered less than significant with mitigation incorporated if the analysis concludes that it would cause no substantial adverse change to the environment with the inclusion of environmental commitments or other enforceable measures that have been agreed to by the applicant. ^ An impact is considered potentially significant if the analysis concludes that it could have a substantial adverse effect on the environment. For the proposed project, no impacts were determined to be potentially significant. IS/MND Organization The content and format of this report are designed to meet the requirements of CEQA. The IS/MND consists of the proposed findings that the project, as mitigated, would have no significant impacts. The bulk of this IS/MND consists of the initial study and supporting studies. The report contains the following sections. ^ Chapter 1, "Introduction and Overview," identifies the purpose and scope of the IS/MND and the terminology used in the report. ^ Chapter 2, "Project Description," identities the location, background., and planning objectives of the project and describes the proposed project in detail. ^ Chapter 3, "Environmental Checklist and Analysis," presents the checklist responses for each resource topic. This section includes a brief setting section for each resource topic and identifies the impacts of implementing the proposed project. ^ Chapter 4, "Mitigation Monitoring Plan and Report," presents a list of the mitigation measures, identifies the time frame for implementation, identifies the responsible monitoring agency, and includes a reporting form for verification of compliance. ^ Chapter 5, "References," identifies all printed references and individuals cited in this IS/MND. ^ Chapter 6, "List of Preparers," identifies the individuals who prepared this report and their areas of technical specialty. Alton Court August 2007 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 1-3 J&S 00635-07 ~ 75B-49 City of Santa Ana Chapter 1. Introduction and Overview Appendices present data supporting the analysis or contents of this IS/MND. The appendices are: ^ Appendix A. Air Quality Calculations, ^ Appendix B. Report of Geotechnical Exploration, ^ Appendix C. Phase I and Phase II Environmental Site Assessment Report, ^ Appendix D. Water Quality Management Plan; and, ^ Appendix E. Focused Noise Study. Alton Court August ~uu i Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration ~~ J&S 00635-07 75B-50 1 Chapter 2 Project Description Project Overview The project proponent, Manning Homes, proposes to demolish and remove the existing warehouse located at 3321 South Fairview Street in Santa Ana and prepare the site for the construction of 38 single-family detached residential units. In addition, the proposed project includes widening and restripping of Alton Avenue to its ultimate planned design and improving South Fairview Street. The proposed project includes a zoning ordinance amendment from Arterial Commercial (CS) to planned residential district (SD) with a Specific Development No. 81 designation for this site and a tract map to allow the sale of the units as condominiums. Project Location The proposed project is located in the south-southwestern part of the City of Santa Ana, which is located in central Orange County. Figure 2-1 shows the regional location of the project area. The project site encompasses 6.03 acres located at 3321 South Fairview Street on the southeast corner of the intersection of Alton Avenue and South Fairview Street. Figure 2-2 shows the local vicinity of the proposed project site. Existing Conditions and Surrounding Land Uses The existing site is currently developed with an approximately 53,000 square- foot concrete tilt-up warehouse used by the Santa Ana Unified School District (SAUSD) as a maintenance facility for school district supplies and equipment. The warehouse serves as the SAUSD's Distribution and Support center, which provides pupil support services, computer labs, student testing, teacher training, and printing/publication services. SAUSD also uses the parcel for landscape maintenance storage in an unpaved area next to the warehouse. Approximately two-thirds of the existing site is paved, and one-third is the unpaved landscape maintenance and storage yard. In addition, a former railroad spur exists in the Alton Court August 2007 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 2_~ J&S 00635.07 75B-51 City of Santa Ana Chapter 2. Project Description northeast corner of the site. Approximately 130 paved parking spaces are on site, as well as approximately 30 unpaved parking spaces, for a total of approximately 160 onsite parking spaces. Several trees and planters exist at the main building entrance in the southwest corner of the property and at the northwest corner of the building. Access to the site is provided via four driveways along South Fairview Street and one driveway along Alton Avenue. As shown on Figure 2-3, surrounding land uses include commercial developments to the south and single-family attached residential units to the east. Both of these uses are separated from the project site by a masonry block wall. Light industrial businesses are located across South Fairview Street from the site to the west; a mobile home park is located across Alton Avenue and beyond the Southern Pacific Rail Road track to the north of the site. Proposed Project Manning Homes proposes to develop 38 single-family detached residential units and related improvements on the project site. The project includes the construction of private drives, common landscaped areas, a common recreational area, and other residential development improvements. The proposed physical improvements related to the project include: ^ Development of 38 single-family detached residential units (4.3 acres). ^ Realignment and/or closure of existing driveways and new onsite parking. ^ Landscaping improvements and open space (0.2 acres). ^ Common recreational area (0.14 acres). ^ Improvements to Alton Avenue and South Fairview Street (1.39 acres). Figure 2-4 shows the overall conceptual site plan. These activities are described in detail below. Single-Family Detached Residential Units The proposed residential units will consist of three single-family detached plan types located within six lots. Proposed units will range from 1,810 square feet to 2,255 square feet. All residential units will be two stories, and private garages will be provided for each unit. There are three proposed architectural designs for the residential units, which include a Cottage design, a Spanish Colonial design, and a Traditional design. None of the two story residential units will have a second story balcony. Alton Court August 2007 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 2_2 J&S D0635.07 75B-52 1 J City of Santa Ana Chapter 2. Project Description Driveway Access and Parking The proposed project would remove the four driveways along South Fairview Street and replace them with appropriate gutters, curbs, sidewalks, and streetscaping. A single driveway would provide access to the site via Alton Avenue through a gated entrance. The proposed project would include 76 covered parking spaces as garages and 54 parking spaces on the proposed driveways for a total of 130 off-street parking spaces. Additionally, 23 on-street, uncovered parking spaces will be designated along the private drive as part of the proposed project. Therefore, the proposed project will have a total of 153 parking spaces. Landscaping & Common Recreational Area Total landscaping will encompass approximately 20% of the site area. These areas include common open space areas located between proposed units and Lot 7, which is designated solely as an open space lot for recreational use for the residents of the project. Landscaping includes planted trees and shrubs, as well as potted ornamental plants. Off-Site Improvements to Alton Avenue & South Fairview Street The proposed project includes the widening and restripping of Alton Avenue to its ultimate planned width (Figure 2-5). This will involve widening the road shoulders and restripping, but it will not include additional traffic lanes on Alton Avenue. The Alton Avenue improvements also include the installation of the associated curbs, gutters, sidewalks, and landscaping. Additionally, South Fairview Street will be improved along the project frontage with a new median and a relocation of utilities to below ground. The four existing driveway cuts on South Fairview will be removed and replaced with new sidewalks, curbs, and gutters. Construction The entire project is has a construction schedule of approximately 18 months, extending from the fall 2007 to spring 2009. Demolition and removal of the existing structures on the proposed project site is expected to begin in November 2007 and continue approximately 1.5 months until December. This will include razing the existing structures and concrete parking lots and crushing the concrete on site to use as fill material. Grading the site to appropriate specifications is expected to begin after razing the existing structures and will continue approximately 1 month. Finally, the street improvements to Alton Avenue and South Fairview Street would occur concurrently with the construction of the ',' Alton Court Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 2-3 August J&5 00635.07 ~ 75B-53 City of Santa Ana Chapter 2. Project Description residential units and is expected to take approximately 14 to 16 months. The proposed project is anticipated to import a total of 6,638 cubic yards of fill material. Project's Relationship to General Plan and Zoning General Plan The site has an existing general plan designation of Medium Density Residential (MR-15). The proposed project is consistent with the MR-15 General Plan designation, and therefore the proposed project is consistent with the General Plan. Zoning The existing zoning designation for the site is Arterial Commercial (CS). The proposed project will require a zone change to accommodate the proposed use as a planned residential district (SD). A specific development plan is proposed to reflect the proposed design and development standards for the proposed project. Discretionary Approvals Required The City of Santa Ana is the lead agency under CEQA and is responsible for planning and implementing the project. The applicant requests the following discretionary actions to implement the project: ^ Zone Change. ^ Specific Development Plan Approval. ^ Tract Map approval. Alton Court Augustluu/ Initial StudylMitigated Negative Declaration 2-4 J&S 00635.07 75B-54 ..Y..61..y ~V.. Y~i04.. ~_ 5 J t? Newport 3 ~~Beach Y Y ::. _. ~ _ ~ .._.. ..., ..._. 1. ,~.' J L Pacific Ocean z L ~ N A ' Pacific 0 1 2 4 Ocean ' Miles S SOURCE: ESRI Streetmap USA (2006) 4 S^ Jones & Stokes Figure 2-1 Regional Vicinity Map Alton Court 75B-55 75B-56 _. _ .- ~ „ '^ - ~ .-. ~ 3~• ~ w r FAA ~ y • :~ . ~_. ~r Z„~.i~~~ ! USCOVBRNM~lirt' Y~-Y c5 •.~N •~' ti .~ ~~' ~ RESBRVATtON ~ ,~~~ ~ ~ ~ q 1 ,A ~ ~~ ~~ '= 1~ k ;~ ;i _~ 4._~~' a %~~ sa _. s ~ ^ _ __ ~. .~ ,. .. ss". Pari, ~~ `' ~ / ~ a i ~ _ i fff _ Ilil r G ~ ~ , _ / ^ - ~ *• • c r /~ •I'~ _ ~ 1 s~ ' ~~ =a ° ~ ; . ~YcFaddea 24 ~r~ . } f ,,: i,~ i _, _, ,~ ~~ ' ~~~; ~ r ~~ a 1 .•.' I' • . ~• • ~ Y. 1 , i .1 ~ ~ d • ~~ ! ir•+ier ~ ~ ~ i d ~~~~ r r P t r, ~ t ,. ~~~ ^ ~.,b~ ; ' ~' . w ~ SO! . HER _., Pack ~ %.,~ ~ ~ ~ ~!}r,(fi,~~ ~~~G y -~_+ `'.. .. .~.. . v .. _.. - _ ~ r~e.BER~ -w ~. ~ ~ 1,3, f .. • . ' M :. _ r ~ ~~ 1 ..: _ ~ - _____ . ~ ,~ x ~_ _ . _ ~._...,.....__ t ~, ___ ~: ~ . ~ -~~~-~Z1HC:ER VE ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~~` ~._J:. H _._ b ~ u ~ ,s ~ ~ .~ .,. i f ~1 s- _4 • . .Y ' ~t .rr~ ti ^ . + L.1h£ L cl i _s A a r'i ~Alt~ aE ra • MENOL PA~ .w #«.~ J z ~ . ~~ ~ A~~.: '_ -. ~tii~o 1~q"i"ff"'.~yy~} -n-.. - ~ +a I 11 ~ ~~ wear St ~ • I ~M t i I 'sy .. _ ~ ~~~ ~~ ~ `ice .~ z ~ E SOURCE: USGS 7.5' Quad., California: Newport Beach (Digital) 95~ Jones & Stokes Figure 2-2 Project Site Alton Court 75B-57 75B-58 75B-59 SOURCE: NAIP (2005) Figure 2-3 ~ Project Site 9555 ~ Jones & Stokes Alton Court 75B-60 3~~ ~~ ~ n y L V ' ~ ~ W 31M3A0 NOlI'J' ~4 1 U V W Z „ ,,,, ~i ~ Q a ~ O Z~ . ~ S ~ W W 0 ~ ~ ~~ u LL 3 u ~ U Gi LL ~ / \ ~/ \\ / ! / iii y ., ~ , ~ y ~ ~, ~ Y ` ' ~ ~~/ J } k ~ O~ ~ ~ 1 ~I~ 1 j ~, a ~ ;~ O m ~~ f ~ ~ 's i T~' ~ - 1 , ~ I - y . a ~ ,~ iR.. ~ ' y / • : / y y ` ~" u ~ a ' S,x x n l ~ ~ $ ~ - 4 , - ~. ~ - ,, ;, ;~.. t ~ ~ r ~; ° ~. ~w .~ r , i _ ~" I e u ~ i:~ -~ ~n~ ~ ,~ -C ,; w 4~F' ' y"~: w > '~ ~ I ~, a "t 8 I _ 1 ~ . ~ _ _ ___ _ \ ,~+` / ~% i•> ~~% Y f $ i . ._ a ~ , _ Eh ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ , . ~~ ~ i ~ f. _ ~f _ ~ ~. ;~ ~ j ~. : ,\ ~:. ,/ (LO-£l/_0) WAS 17NVldCASOdOHd\~O4dVW\L0 S£900\tlNdtl1NHS jOAIIJ `Sll3fOlid\S19 ~N ~ ~ ~ N C ~ ~ U ~ ,}A1 ~ N O Q. v C O ,~,`~ AV W •O a a~ N O a 0 a Q m vJ N C O U ~ O ~ U ~~ O {a, 75B-61 75B-62 ~f ~~1pYf33~ ~~6f~f-f~ N"dam ~-~ ~l ~I ~~~~ ~-~~~~r~r~s~ ~a€xr_ ~-an~.~. s~s-as ~ "ice p ~ L O >` ~~V v~a3~ ~om~., ±'' •~ Q aLL O ...~ ~ ~ 3 C p p N ~ ~ ~ C O ~ L a E ~13AV NO1~H ~~~--ri~~~~ 11 ~~~ I II II ~ II II I II II ~ 11 I I m-a II T~L II # II II ~ II II II .~srtaivr7 II r--ifv II II I l ~~----- ---- f - - /f--- ~I II N O U C/1 ~ ~ U ~, ~ ~I O ~, lL0-£t-LOl WlS IVS1N3W3AOiidWl', ~OQdtlW ~ LO S£900 `~ VNV V1NHS d0 .111 `, S1~3f021d `~ SI~'~. ~N 75B-63 75B-64 i~ i~ Chapter 3 Environmental Checklist For CEQA Compliance PLANNING DIVISION I. Project Title: Alton Court II. Project Numbers: Amendment Application No. 2007-02/Specific Development No. 81/Tentative Tract Map No. 2007-04 III. Lead Agency Name and Address: City of Santa Ana, Planning and Building Agency 20 Civic Center Plaza, Ross Annex M-20 P.O. Box 1988 Santa Ana, CA 92702 IV. Project Planner and Phone Number: Vince Fregoso (714) 667-2700 V. Location: 3321 South Fairview Street, Santa Ana, CA. VI. Environmental Determination. On the basis of this initial evaluation, I find that: A. ^ The proposed project COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment and a NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. B. ® Although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, there will not be a significant effect in this case because revisions to the project have been made by or agreed to by the applicant. A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION will be prepared. C. ^ The proposed project MAY have a significant effect on the environment and an ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT is required. D. ^ Although the proposed project could have a significant effect on the environment, because all potentially significant effects (a) have been analyzed adequately in an earlier EIR (EIR No. -)pursuant to applicable standards and (b) have been avoided or mitigated pursuant to that earlier EIR, including revisions or mitigation measures that are imposed upon the project, nothing further is required. E. ^ Pursuant to Section 15164 of the CEQA Guidelines, an EIR (EIR No. -)has been prepared earlier and only minor technical changes or additions are necessary to make the previous EIR adequate and these changes do not raise important new issues about the significant effects on the environment. An ADDENDUM to the EIR shall be prepared. F. ^ Pursuant to Section 15162 of the CEQA Guidelines, an EIR (EIR No. -)has been prepared earlier; however, subsequent proposed changes in the project and/or new information of substantial importance will cause one or more significant effects no previously discussed. A SUBSEQUENT EIR shall be prepared. .~. S ~' 07 Signature Date Printed Name Alton Court Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 3-1 August 2007 J8S 00635.07 75B-65 Environmental Checklist For CEQA Compliance Project Sponsor's Name and Address: Manning Homes 20151 SW Birch Street, Suite 150 Newport Beach, CA 92660 General Plan Designation: Medium Density Residential (MR-15) Description of Project: The project consists of the demolition and removal the existing warehouse and associated onsite parking lots and walkways located at 3321 South Fairview Street in Santa Ana for the construction of 38 single- family detached residential units. In addition, Alton Avenue would be widened to its ultimate planned designated width and South Fairview Street would be improved. The project includes a Zone Change from Arterial Commercial (C5) to the Specific Development No. 81 designation and a tract map to allow the sale of the units as condominiums. Surrounding Land Uses: The project site is surrounded by commercial developments to the south, single-family attached residential units to the east, light industrial separated from the project site by South Fairview Street to the west, and light industrial separated from the project site by Alton Avenue and a South Pacific Railroad track to the north. Zoning: The project site is designated Arterial Commercial (C5). The City of Santa Ana Municipal Code states that permitted uses include offices, retail and service uses, churches, government buildings, restaurants, schools, childcare facilities, and cyber cafes. Planned residential districts are not permitted within C5 land uses. The project would need a zoning amendment to accommodate the proposed use as a Specific Development No. 81 project site. The SD includes specific design guidelines for the proposed project that would be reviewed and approved. Alton Court August Zo177 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 3-2 J&S 00635.D7 75B-66 Environmental Checklist For CEQA Compliance Environmental Factors Potentially Affected: The en vironmental factors checked below reflect potentially significant impacts associated with the proposed project, as indicated by the checklist on the following pa ges. O Aesthetics O Mineral Resources O Agricultural Resources O Noise O Air Quality 0 Population /Housing O Biological Resources O Public Services 0 Cultural Resources 0 Recreation O Geology /Soils 0 Transportation /Traffic O Hazards and Hazardous Materials 0 Utilities /Service Systems O Hydrology /Water Quality 0 Mandatory Findings of Significance O Land Use and Planning Alton Court August 2007 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 3-3 J&S 00635.07 75B-67 - ~ - Environmental Checklist For CEQA Compliance Evaluation of Environmental Impacts: I. A brief explanation is required for all answers except "No Impact" answers that are adequately supported by the information sources a lead agency cites in the parentheses following each question. A "No Impact" answer is adequately supported if the referenced information sources show that the impact simply does not apply to projects like the one involved (e.g., the project falls outside a fault rupture zone). A "No Impact" answer should be explained where it is based on project-specific factors as well as general standards (e.g., the project would not expose sensitive receptors to pollutants, based on aproject-specific screening analysis). All answers must take account of the whole action involved, including offsite as well as onsite, cumulative as well as project-level, indirect as well as direct, and construction as well as operational impacts. III. "Potentially Significant Impact" is appropriate if there is substantial evidence that an effect is significant. If there are one or more "Potentially Significant Impact" entries when the determination is made, an EIR is required. IV. "Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated" applies where the incorporation of mitigation measures has reduced an effect from "Potentially Significant Impact" to a "Less than Significant Impact". The lead agency must describe the mitigation measures and briefly explain how they reduce the effect to a less than significant level. Less Than Significant Potentially with Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Issues & Supporting Information Sources Impact Incorporated Impact Impact I. Aesthetics -Would the project: A. Have a substantial adverse effect on a scenic vista? ^ ^ ® ^ B. Damage scenic resources, including but not limited ^ ^ ^ to, trees, rock outpourings and historic buildings within a state highway? C. Substantially degrade the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings? ^ ^ ® ^ D. Create a new source of substantial light or glare which would adversely affect day or nighttime views in the area? ^ ^ ® ^ Alton Court August 2007 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 3-4 J$5 00635.07 75B-68 i~ 1 ~~- - ~ Environmental Checklist ' For CEQA Compliance Less Than Significant Potentially with Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Issues 8~ Supporting Information Sources Impact Incorporated Impact Impact II. Agricultural Resources - In determining whether impacts to agricultural resources are significant environmental effects, lead agencies may refer to the California Ag ricultural Land Evaluation and Site Assessment Model prepared by the California Department of Conservation as an opt ional model to use in assessing impacts on agricultural farmland. Would the project: A. Convert Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland or ^ ^ ^ Farmland of Statewide Importance (Farmland) to non-agricultural use? (The Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program in the California Resources Agency, Department of Conservation, maintains detailed maps of these and other categories of farmland.) B. Conflict with existing zoning for agricultural use or ^ ^ ^ a Williamson Contract? C. Involve other changes in the existing environment ^ ^ ^ which, due to their location or nature, could individually or cumulatively result in loss of Farmland, to non-agricultural use? III. Air Quality -Where available, the significance criteria established by th e applicable air quality management or pollution control district may be relied upon to make the following determinations. Would the project: A. Conflict with or obstruct implementation of ^ ^ ® ^ applicable Air Quality Attainment Plan or Congestion Management Plan? B. Violate any stationary source air quality standard ^ ® ^ ^ or contribute to an existing or proposed air quality violation? C. Result in a cumulatively considerable net increase ^ ® ^ ^ of any criteria pollutant for which the project region is non-attainment under an applicable federal or state ambient air quality standard (including releasing emission which exceed quantitative thresholds for ozone precursors)? D. Expose sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant ^ ® ^ ^ concentrations? ' Alton Court August 2007 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 3-5 J8S 00635.07 75B-69 Environmental Checklist For CEQA Compliance Issues & Supporting Information Sources E. Create objectionable odors affecting a substantial number of people? IV. Biological Resources -Would the project A. Have a substantial adverse impact, either directly or through habitat modifications, on any species identified as a candidate, sensitive or special status species in local or regional plans, policies or regulations or by the California Department of Fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Services? B. Have a substantial adverse impact on any riparian habitat or natural community identified in local or regional plans, policies, and regulations or by the California Department of fish and Game or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service? C. Adversely impact federally protected wetlands (including, but not limited to, marsh, vernal pool, coastal, etc.) either individually or in combination with the known or probable impacts of other activities through direct removal, filling hydrological interruption, or other means? D. Conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources, such as tree preservation policy or ordinance? V. Cultural Resources -Would the project: A. Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historical resource as defined in Section 15064.5? B. Cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a unique archaeological resource pursuant to define Section 15064.5? C. Directly or indirectly disturb or destroy a unique paleontological resource or site? Alton Court Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 3-6 Less Than Significant Potentially with Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact ^ ^ ® ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ® ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ Jgust 2007 J$S 00635.07 75B-70 Environmental Checklist For CEQA Compliance Issues 8~ Supporting Information Sources D. Disturb any human remains, including those interred outside of formal cemeteries? VI. Geology and Soils -Would the project: A. Expose people or structures to potential substantial adverse effects, including the risk of loss, injury, or death involving: 1. Rupture of a known earthquake fault, as delineated on the most recent on the most recent Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zoning map issued by the State Geologist for the area or based on other substantial evidence of a known fault? 2. Strong seismic ground shaking? 3. Seismic-related ground failure, including liquefaction? 4. Landslides? B. Would the project result in substantial soil erosion or the loss of topsoil? C. Would the project result in the loss of a unique geologic feature? D. Is the project located on strata or soil that is unstable or that would become unstable as a result of the project and potentially result in on-or off-site landslide, lateral spreading, subsidence, liquefaction or collapse? E. Where sewers are not available for the disposal of wastewater, is the soil capable of supporting the use of septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems? Less Than Significant Potentially with Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact ^ ® ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ® ^ ^ ® ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ® ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ® ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ Alton Court August 2007 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 3-7 J&S 00635.07 75B-71 Environmental Checklist For CEQA Compliance Issues 8~ Supporting Information Sources VII. Hazards and Hazardous Materials -Would the project: A. Create a significant hazard to the public or the environment through the routine transport, use or disposal of hazardous materials? B. Emit hazardous emissions or handle hazardous or acutely hazardous materials, substance or waste within one-quarter mile of an existing or proposed school? C. Be located on a site which is located on a list of hazardous materials sites compiled pursuant to Government Code Section 659662.5 and, as a result, would it create a significant hazard to the public or the environment? D. For a project located within an airport land use plan or where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles where of a public airport or public use airport, would the project result in a safety hazard for people residing or working in the project area? VIII. Hydrology and Water Quality -Would the project A. Violate Regional Water Quality Control Board water quality standards or waste discharge requirements? B. Substantially deplete groundwater supplies or interfere substantially with groundwater recharge such that there would be a net deficit in aquifer volume or a lowering of the local groundwater table level (i.e., the production rate of pre-existing nearby wells would drop to a level which would not support existing land uses or planned uses for which permits have been granted)? Less Than Significant Potentially v~ith Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact ^ ® ^ ^ ^ ^ ® ^ ^ ^ ® ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ® ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ Alton court August 2007 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration g_g J&S 00635.07 75B-72 ~ ~ ~ Environmental Checklist For CEQA Compliance Less Than Significant Potentially with Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Issues 8~ Supporting Information Sources Impact Incorporated Impact Impact C. Substantially alter the existing drainage pattern of ^ ^ ® ^ the site or area, including through the alteration of the course of stream or river, or substantially increase the rate or amount of surface runoff in a manner which would result in flooding on or off- site? D. Create or contribute runoff water which would ^ ^ ® ^ exceed the capacity of existing or planned stormwater drainage systems or provide substantial additional sources of polluted run-off? E. Place housing within a 100-year floodplain, as ^ ^ ® ^ mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map? F. Place within a 100-year floodplain structures which ^ ^ ® ^ would impede or redirect flood flows? G. Place housing within a 100-year floodplain, as ^ ^ ® ^ mapped on a federal Flood Hazard Boundary or Flood Insurance Rate Map or other flood hazard delineation map? IX. Land Use and Planning -Would the project: A. Physically divide an established community? ^ ^ ^ B. Conflict with any applicable land use plan, policy, ^ ^ ® ^ or regulation of an agency with jurisdiction over the project (including, but not limited to the general plan, specific plan, local coastal program, or zoning ordinance) adopted for the purpose of avoiding or mitigating an environmental effect? C. Conflict with any applicable habitat conservation ^ ^ ^ plan or natural community conservation plan? Alton Court August 2007 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 3.9 J&S 00635.07 75B-73 Environmental Checklist For CEQA Compliance Less Than Significant Potentially with Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Issues 8~ Supporting Information Sources Impact Incorporated Impact Impact X. Mineral Resources -Would the project: A. Result in the loss of availability of a locally- ^ important mineral resource recovery site delineated on a local general plan, specific plan, or other land use plan? XI. Noi se -Would the project result in: A. Exposure of persons to or generation of noise ^ levels in excess of standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies? B. Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive ^ groundborne vibration or groundborne noise levels? C. A substantial permanent increase in ambient noise ^ levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without the project? D. A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ^ ambient noise levels in the project vicinity above levels existing without project? E. For a project located within an airport land use ^ plan or where such a plan has not been adopted, within two miles of a public airport or public use airport, would the project expose people residing or working in the project area to excessive noise levels? ^ ^ ® ^ ^ ^ ® ^ ^ ® ^ ^ ® ^ ^ ® ^ Alton Court August 2007 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 3-10 J&S 00635.07 75B-74 Environmental Checklist For CEQA Compliance Issues Z3<Supporting Information Sources XII. Population and Housing -Would the project: A. Induce substantial population growth in an area, either directly (for example, by proposing new homes and business) or indirectly (for example, through extension of roads or other infrastructure)? B. Displace substantial numbers of existing housing, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? C. Displace substantial numbers of people, necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere? XIII. Public Services A. Would the project result in substantial adverse physical impacts associated with the provision of new or physically altered governmental facilities, need for new or physically altered governmental facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental impacts, in order to maintain acceptable service rations, response times or other performance objectives for any of the public service: Fire protection? Police protection? Schools? Parks? Other public facilities? Less Than Significant Potentially with Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact ^ ^ ® ^ ^ ^ ® ^ ^ ^ ® ^ ^ ^ ® ^ ^ ^ ® ^ ^ ® ^ ^ ^ ® ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ Alton Court August 2007 Initial StudylMitigated Negative Declaration 3-11 J8S 00635.07 75B-75 - ~ - Environmental Checklist For CEQA Compliance Less Than Significant Potentially with Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Issues & Supporting Information Sources Impact Incorporated Impact Impact XIV. Recreation A. Would the project increase the use of existing ^ ® ^ ^ neighborhood and regional parks or other recreational facilities such that substantial physical deterioration of the facility would occur or be accelerated. B. Does the project include recreational facilities or ^ ^ ® ^ require the construction or expansion of recreational facilities which might have an adverse physical effect on the environment? XV. Transportation /Traffic A. Cause an increase in traffic which is substantial in ^ ^ ® ^ relation to the existing traffic load and capacity of the street system (i.e. result in a substantial increase in either the number of vehicle trips, the volume to capacity ration on roads, or congestion at intersections?) B. Exceed, either individually or cumulatively, a level ^ ^ ^ of service standard established by the county congestion management agency for designated roads or highways? C. Result in a change in air traffic patterns, including ^ ^ ^ either an increase in traffic levels or a change in location that results in substantial safety risks? D. Substantially increase hazards to a design feature ^ ^ ® ^ (e.g. sharp curves or dangerous intersections) or incompatible uses (e.g. farm equipment)? E. Result in inadequate emergency access? ^ ^ ® ^ F. Result in inadequate parking capacity? ^ ^ ^ Alton Court August 2007 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 5.12 J&S 00635.07 75B-76 Environmental Checklist For CEQA Compliance G. Conflict with adopted policies supporting ^ ^ ® ^ alternative transportation (e.g. bus turnouts, bicycle racks)? Issues & Supporting Information Sources XVI. Utilities and Service Systems A. Exceed wastewater treatment requirements of the applicable Regional Water Quality Control Board? B. Require or result in the construction of new water or wastewater treatment facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? C. Require or result in the construction of new storm water drainage facilities or expansion of existing facilities, the construction of which could cause significant environmental effects? D. Are sufficient water supplies available to serve the project from existing entitlements and resources or are new or expanded entitlements needed? E. Result in the determination by the wastewater treatment provider which serves or may serve the project that it has adequate capacity to serve the project's projected demand in addition to the provider's existing commitments? F. Is the project served by a landfill with sufficient permitted capacity to accommodate the project's sold waste disposal needs? G. Comply with federal, state and local statutes and regulations related to solid waste? Less Than Significant Potentially with Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Impact Incorporated Impact Impact ^ ^ ® ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ^ ® ^ ^ ^ ® ^ ^ ^ ® ^ ^ ^ ® ^ ^ ^ ^ Alton Court August 2007 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 3-13 J&S 00635.07 75B-77 ~ ~ ~ Environmental Checklist For CEQA Compliance Less Than Significant Potentially with Less Than Significant Mitigation Significant No Issues & Supporting Information Sources Impact Incorporated Impact Impact XVII. Mandatory Findings of Significance A. Does the project have the potential to degrade the ^ ^ ® ^ quality of the environment, substantially reduce the habitat of a fish or wildlife species, cause a fish or wildlife population to drop below self-sustaining levels, threaten to eliminate a plant or animal community, reduce the number or restrict the range of a rare or endangered plant or animal or eliminate important examples of the major periods of California history or prehistory? B. Does the project have impacts that are individually ^ ^ ® ^ limited but cumulatively considerable? ("Cumulatively considerable" means that the incremental effects of a project are considerable when viewed in connection with the effects of past projects, effects of other current projects and the effects of probable future projects). C. Does the project have environmental effects which ^ ^ ® ^ will cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly? Alton Court August 2007 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 3-14 J&S 00635.07 75B-78 i~ i~ n i~ i~ i~ r~ i~ G i~ i~ it i~ i~ Environmental Checklist For CEQA Compliance Aesthetics A. Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed project would not have a substantial affect on a scenic vista. The proposed project would result in ales-than-significant impact to a scenic vista because it would ultimately enhance the visual elements along the Fairview Street intercity corridor. The Scenic Corridors Element of the Santa Ana General Plan (City of Santa Ana 1982:27) identifies certain corridors that serve as major views and vantage points to the City of Santa Ana. These corridors consist of existing scenic vistas or views open to the public. The proposed project is located at 3221 South Fairview Street, at the intersection of Alton Avenue and South Fairview Street. South Fairview Street is designated as an intercity corridor. Intercity corridors act as major image-makers for the City of Santa Ana. Although the proposed project is located along an intercity corridor as designated by the general plan, the project is proposing to replace a 53,000 square foot concrete tilt-up warehouse with paved and unpaved parking areas with landscaped single family residences that would meet appropriate City of Santa Ana design requirements. Sound reducing walls along with landscape improvements would surround the proposed project site and would blend in appropriately with the streetscape. The proposed project would be a visual enhancement along the intercity corridor when compared to the existing land use. A less- than-significant impact would occur. B. No Impact. The Orange Freeway (SR-57), Newport Freeway (SR-55), and Garden Grove Freeway (SR-22) are the three state highways that can be found in the City of Santa Ana. The proposed project is a developed area and does not include any scenic resources (including, but not limited to, trees, rock outcroppings, etc.), nor is the project located on a state highway or a scenic highway. No impact would occur. C. Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed project would not impact the existing visual character or quality of the site and its surroundings because the proposed project would improve the visual character of the project site. The project is located in an area that is designated as medium density residential. The area to the east (Aries Court) is developed in the same character as the proposed project (single family residential units). The project would not result in substantial degradation of the existing visual character or quality of the site or its surroundings. Landscaping and building exteriors would be changed to be consistent with the surrounding land uses and would comply with the Specific Development Designs designated as part of the proposed project. Therefore, a less than significant impact would occur. D. Less Than Significant Impact. As mentioned above, the project is located in an area that is developed with medium density residential as well as commercial and light industrial uses. The existing site includes lighting around the existing building and pole street lights along South Fairview Street and Alton Avenue. The proposed project would include street lighting within the residential development and lighting on and around the residential units. All lighting would be hooded and appropriately angled away from sensitive land uses, and it would comply with the designated development design standards outlined in the Specific Development Plan. Furthermore, the lighting used for the proposed project would not introduce significant amounts of additional lighting to the surrounding land uses compared to the existing warehouse. Therefore, less-than-significant impacts would occur. Alton Court Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 3-15 August 2007 J8S 00635.07 ~ 75B-79 Environmental Checklist For CEQA Compliance II. Agricultural Resources A. No Impact. According to the Santa Ana General Plan and the Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Project (FMMP), no Prime Farmland, Unique Farmland, or Farmland of Statewide Importance is located on the project site or in the vicinity of the proposed project. The FMMP designates the project site as Urban and Built Up Land (California Department of Conservation, Division of Land Resource Protection, FMMP 2006). Therefore, no important farmland would be converted as a result of the proposed project. No impact would occur. B. No Impact. The Williamson Contract applies to parcels consisting of at least 20 acres of Prime Farmland or at least 40 acres of land not designated as Prime Farmland. The California Department of Conservation indicates that there are no Williamson Act Contract or Preservation lands on or near the project site (California Department of Conservation, Division of Land Resource Protection, Williamson Act Program 2006). Therefore, no Williamson Contract lands would be removed as part of the proposed project. The proposed project site is zoned as Arterial Commercial (City of Santa Ana 2005). Therefore, the proposed project would not conflict with existing agricultural zoning. No impact would occur. C. No Impact. The proposed project would not disrupt or damage the operation or productivity of any areas designated as farmland. As discussed above, no farmland is located within the project site or within the surrounding areas that would be affected by any elements of the proposed project. The project would not induce growth that could result in the premature conversion of existing farmland in the area. No impacts would occur. III. Air Quality A. Less Than Significant Impact. The project site is located within the South Coast Air Basin (Basin). The South Coast Air Quality Management District (SCAQMD) is required, pursuant to the Federal Clean Air Act, to reduce emissions of criteria pollutants for which the Basin is in nonattainment (i.e., 03, PM,o, and PM2.5). As such, the project would be subject to the SCAQMD's Air Quality Management Plan (AQMP). The AQMP contains a comprehensive list of pollution control strategies directed at reducing emissions and achieving ambient air quality standards. These strategies are developed, in part, based on regional population, housing, and employment projections prepared by the Southern California Association of Governments (SCAG). SCAG is the regional planning agency for Los Angeles, Orange, Ventura, Riverside, San Bernardino, and Imperial Counties, and it addresses regional issues relating to transportation, economy, community development, and environment.' A project is consistent with the AQMP if it is consistent with the population, housing, and employment assumptions that were used in its development. The most recent AQMP adopted by the SCAQMD incorporates SCAG's 2004 Regional Transportation Plan (RTP) socioeconomic forecast projections of regional population and employment growth. SCAG locates the project site within the City of Santa Ana Subregion. The 2004 RTP projects that population in this subregion will grow by about 1,517 households between the years 2005 and 2015. The proposed project's addition of 38 net new housing units would represent three percent (3%) of the total housing units projected for the subregion (assuming one housing unit per household). Such levels of housing unit/household growth are consistent ~ SCAG serves as the federally designated metropolitan planning organization (MPO) for the Southern California region. Alton Court August 2007 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 3-16 J&S 00635.07 75B-80 i~ i~ Environmental Checklist For CEQA Compliance with the forecasts for the subregion as adopted by SCAG, and as such are consistent with the AQMP. B. Less Than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated. As discussed above, the project site is located within the Basin. State and federal air quality standards are often exceeded in many parts of the Basin. The proposed project would contribute to air pollutant emissions during construction (short-term) and operations (long-term). A discussion of the project's potential construction-period and operations-period air quality impacts are provided below. Regional Construction Impacts The SCAQMD has established methodologies to quantify air emissions associated with construction activities such as air pollutant emissions generated by operation of onsite construction equipment; fugitive dust emissions related to site preparation activities; mobile (tailpipe) emissions from construction worker vehicles and haul/delivery truck trips; and off gassing emissions of reactive organic compounds (ROC), which occur during the application of architectural coatings and asphalt paving. Emissions would vary from day to day, depending on the level of activity, the specific type of construction activity occurring, and, for fugitive dust, prevailing weather conditions. With respect to the proposed project, construction activities are anticipated to start around November 2007 and require approximately 16.5 months to complete. Construction would occur in four phases. Phase 1 would require 6 weeks and would consist of the demolition of existing onsite structures. Phase 2 would require 1 month and would consist of grading and site work (24,917 cubic yards of cut and 31,555 cubic yards of fill). Phase 3 would require 3 months and would consist of roadway improvements and paving along West Alton Avenue. Phase 4 would require 14 months and would consist of the construction and finishing of the 38 detached single-family housing units. A copy of the anticipated construction schedule is provided in the air quality appendix to this IS/MND document (Appendix A). A construction-period mass emissions inventory was compiled based on an estimate of construction equipment, scheduling, and phasing assumptions provided by Manning Homes. More specifically, the mass emissions analysis takes into account the following: 1. Combustion emissions from operating onsite construction equipment, 2. Mobile-source combustion emissions from worker commute and haul-truck travel, and 3. Mobile-source and fugitive PM2.5 and PM,o emissions resulting from the 24,917 cubic yards of cut, 31,555 cubic yards of fill, and 6,638 cubic yards of soil import on site. Emissions for on-road mobile sources, off-road construction equipment, and off gassing were calculated using the URBEMIS 2002 emissions inventory model; fugitive PM~o emissions were compiled using the calculation formulas provided in the CEQA Air Quality Handbook (appendix to Chapter 9); and PM2.5 emissions were calculated using the SCAQMD guidance document. titled Methodology to Calculate Particulate Matter (PM) 2.5 and PM 2.5 Significance Thresholds (October 2006). A conservative estimate of the project's regional mass emissions during construction is presented in Table 3-1. As shown therein, ROC, CO, SOX, PM,o, and PM2_5 emissions would be less than significant, but NOX emissions would exceed the SCAQMD regional significance threshold of 100 pounds per day. As such, Alton Court Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 3-17 August 2007 J$S 00635.07 75B-81 Environmental Checklist For CEQA Compliance mitigation is required. Implementation of Mitigation Measure AQ-1 would reduce impacts to less than significant levels. Table 3-1. Forecast of Regional Construction Emissions Criteria Pollutant Emissions (pounds per day) Construction Phase ROC NOx CO SOx PM,aa PMZ 6a Demolition (1.5 months) 7 59 59 <1 6 2 Site Prep (1 month) 15 108 124 <1 15 6 Building Erection/Finishing (14 months) 63 90 118 <1 3 3 Roadway Improvements (3 months) 8 54 66 <1 2 2 Maximum Concurrent Regional Project 63 115 145 <1 15 6 Emissionsb SCAQMD Regional Emissions Threshold (Ibs/day) 75 100 550 150 150 55 Exceed Threshold? No Yes No No No No Fugitive PM,o and PM2.5 emissions estimates take into account compliance with SCAQMD Rule 403 requirements for fugitive dust suppression. Maximum concurrent emissions for NOx and CO occur in a three month period during simultaneous building construction of the homes and roadway paving; maximums for other criteria pollutants occur in a one month period during the final architectural coatings and paving stages of the homes. Source: Jones & Stokes 2007. URBEMIS 2002 outputs are provided in Air Quality Appendix. Mitigation Measures AQ-1. All onsite diesel construction equipment shall meet EPA Tier 2 emissions standards. Operational Impacts The proposed project would generate fewer daily and peak hour vehicle trips than the existing SAUSD warehouse that exists on the site (370 daily trips, 49 AM peak hour, and 52 PM peak hour trips compared to 364 daily trips, 29 AM peak hour, and 39 PM peak hour trips). Additionally, potential air quality impacts from residential heating equipment would likely be less than from mechanical equipment used at the warehouse and distribution center. Therefore, it can be concluded that operational air quality impacts would be less than significant. C. Less Than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated. The SCAQMD's approach for assessing cumulative impacts is based on the AQMP forecasts of attainment of ambient air quality standards in accordance with the requirements of the Federal and State Clean Air Acts. As discussed earlier in Response No. III-A, the proposed project would be consistent with the AQMP, which is intended to bring the Basin into attainment for all criteria pollutants.2 z CEQA Guidelines Section 15064(h)(3) states "A lead agency may determine that a project's incremental contribution to a cumulative effect is not cumulatively considerable if the project will comply with the requirements in a previously approved plan or mitigation program which provides specific requirements that will avoid or substantially lessen the cumulative problem (e.g. water quality control plan, air quality plan, integrated waste management plan) within the geographic area in which the project is located. Such plans or programs must be Alton Court August 2007 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration g_~g J&S 00635.07 75B-82 i~ i~ i~ Environmental Checklist For CEQA Compliance In addition, the mass regional emissions calculated for the proposed project would be less than the applicable SCAQMD daily significance thresholds (with the incorporation of Mitigation Measure AQ-1 ), which are designed to assist the region in attaining the applicable state and national ambient air quality standards. As such, cumulative impacts would be less than significant with mitigation incorporated. D. Less Than Significant Impact with Mitigation Incorporated. As described in Response No. III-B above, construction and operation of the proposed project would not result in any substantial localized or regional air pollution impacts (with the incorporation of Mitigation Measure AQ-1), and therefore would not expose any nearby sensitive receptors to substantial pollutant concentrations. E. Less Than Significant Impact. According to the SCAQMD CEQA Air Qualify Handbook, land uses associated with odor complaints typically include agricultural uses, wastewater treatment plants, food processing plants, chemical plants, composting, refineries, landfills, dairies, and fiberglass molding. The proposed project does not include any uses identified by the SCAQMD as being associated with odors and therefore would not produce objectionable odors. Potential sources that may emit odors during construction activities include asphalt paving and the use of architectural coatings and solvents. SCAQMD Rules 1108 and 1113 limits the amount of volatile organic compounds from cutback asphalt and architectural coatings and solvents, respectively. Via mandatory compliance with SCAQMD Rules, no construction activities or materials are proposed that would create a significant level of objectionable odors. As such, potential impacts during short-term construction would be less than significant. Other CEQA Considerations Climate Chanpe and Greenhouse Gas Emissions AB 1493 and AB 32 While climate change has been a concern since at least 1988, as evidenced by the establishment of the United Nations and World Meteorological Organization's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the efforts devoted to greenhouse gas3 (GHG) emissions reduction and climate change research and policy have increased dramatically in recent years. In 2002, with the passage of Assembly Bill 1493 (AB 1493), California launched an innovative and proactive approach to dealing with GHG emissions and climate change at the state level. AB 1493 requires the Air Resources Board (ARB) to develop and implement regulations to reduce automobile and light truck GHG emissions; these regulations will apply to automobiles and light trucks beginning with the 2009 model year. On June 1, 2005, Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger signed Executive Order S-3-05. The goal of this Executive Order is to reduce California's GHG emissions to (1) 2000 levels by i~ i~ specified in law or adopted by the public agency with jurisdiction over the affected resources through a public review process to implement, interpret, or make specific the law enforced or administered by the public agency." 3 Greenhouse gases related to human activity include: Carbon dioxide, Methane, Nitrous oxide, Tetrafluoromethane, Hexafluoroethane, Sulfur hexafluoride, HFC-23, HFC-134a, and HFC-152a Alton Court Initial StudylMitigated Negative Declaration 3-19 August 2007 J&5 00635.07 ~ 75B-83 Environmental Checklist For CEQA Compliance 2010, (2) 1990 levels by the 2020, and (3) 80% below the 1990 levels by the year 2050. In 2006, this goal was further reinforced with the passage of Assembly Bill 32 (AB 32), the Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006. AB 32 sets the same overall GHG emissions reduction goals while further mandating that ARB create a plan, which includes market mechanisms, and implement rules to achieve "real, quantifiable, cost-effective reductions of greenhouse gases." Executive Order S-20-06 further directs state agencies to begin implementing AB 32, including the recommendations made by the state's Climate Action Team. Climate change and GHG reduction is also a concern at the federal level; however, at this time, no legislation or regulations have been enacted specifically addressing GHG emissions reductions and climate change. According to the IPCC report, Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis: Summary for Policymakers (February 2007), there is no doubt that the climate system is warming. Global average air and ocean temperatures as well as global average sea level are rising. Of the last 12 years, 11 years have ranked as among the warmest on record since 1850. While some of the increase is explained by natural occurrences, the 2007 report asserts that the increase in temperature is very likely (> 90%) due to human activity, most notably the burning of fossil fuels. For California, similar effects are described in the California Climate Change Center report, Our Changing Climate: Assessing the Risks to California (July 2006). Based on projections using state of the art climate modeling, the temperatures in California are expected to rise between 3° F and 10.5° F (1.7° C and 5.8 ° C) by the end of the century dependent on how much California is able to reduce its GHG emissions. The report states that these temperature increases will negatively impact public health, water supply, agriculture, plant and animal species, and the coastline. Impacts Automobiles have been identified as the greatest source of greenhouse gas emissions, and the quantity of GHG emissions from automobiles is directly correlated with the amount of vehicle miles traveled (VMT). The SCAQMD is in the process of releasing an updated version of the URBEMIS 2002 emissions estimation/evaluation model that will calculate the impacts associated with greenhouse gas emissions, especially carbon dioxide emissions from mobile sources. Because automobiles are the largest contributor to COz emissions, it can be deduced that if a project does not result in an increase of daily trips or VMT, that the project would not result in an increase of GHG emissions. As discussed in Response XV-A. under Transportation/Traffic, the proposed project would result in a net decrease of 6 daily trips, 20 AM peak hour trips, and 13 PM peak hour trips. This net decrease in trips results in a net decrease of VMT, and ultimately in a net decrease of GHG emissions. Consequently, there would be an overall net beneficial impact to GHG emissions. IV. Biological Resources A. No Impact. The project site is located in a fully urbanized setting and is void of any native • vegetation or wildlife habitat; therefore, it does not have the potential to accommodate sensitive biological resources. No impacts would occur. B. No Impact. The site is void of any riparian habitat or other natural communities; therefore, it does not have the potential to accommodate sensitive biological resources. No impacts would occur. Alton Court August 200 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 3-20 gas oosss.o~ 75B-84 i~ ii i~ Environmental Checklist For CEQA Compliance C. No Impact. The project would not result in impacts to wetland areas because no wetlands are located on the project site. No impacts would occur. D. No Impact. The project site does not contain any biological resources that are protected by local policies. Therefore, the project would not conflict with any local policies or ordinances protecting biological resources. No impacts would occur. V. Cultural Resources A. No Impact. The project site does not have any structures listed on local, state, or federal historic resource lists and have not been determined to be eligible for such lists (City of Santa Ana 1998:A-54). The existing warehouse building is less than 50 years old and has no historic significance. No impacts would occur. B. Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated. The project site is located within an urbanized area and has been disturbed by previous and existing development; therefore, it is unlikely that any significant archaeological resources exist on site (City of Santa Ana 1998:A- 53). However, there is the potential for unknown resources to be discovered during construction and excavation at the site. Implementation of Mitigation Measure CR-1 below would reduce impacts to less than significant levels. Mitigation Measures CR-1. During construction activities involving grading or other site preparation activities that involve in-ground excavation, the construction contractor will monitor activities to ensure that potential archaeological resources are not damaged or destroyed. Should grading or excavation activities uncover any materials that are suspected of having any potential to be of archaeological significance, the contractor will halt construction activities in the immediate area (within 100 feet of the find) and notify the City. Such materials may include, but are not limited to, former building foundations, historic dump/trash sites (i.e., outhouse privies), glass from a historic era, pottery and ceramics, or other materials that are suspect of being associated with historic occupation of the area. In this event, the City will retain a Qualified Archeologist to make an immediate evaluation of significance and appropriate treatment of the resource. To complete this assessment, the Qualified Archeologist will be afforded the necessary time to recover, analyze, and curate the find. The Qualified Archeologist will recommend the extent of archeological monitoring necessary to ensure the protection of any other resources that may be in the area. Construction activities will be allowed to continue on other parts of the building site while evaluation and treatment of historical or unique archaeological resources takes place. C. No Impact. The project site is located within an urbanized area and has been disturbed by previous and existing development. No known paleontological resources are located within the vicinity of the project area. Additionally, excavation and grading of the site would be relatively shallow and is not anticipated to uncover any paleontological resources, should they exist in the area. Therefore, no impacts would occur Alton Court Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 3-21 August 2007 J&S 00635.07 75B-85 Environmental Checklist For CEQA Compliance D. Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated. The project site is not known to contain human remains interred inside or outside formal cemeteries. The proposed project site is not located o.n a cemetery or burial ground, is currently developed, and has been disturbed in the past. The proposed project would include grading and excavation. Discovery of human remains is governed by state law, which requires stop of work and reporting to authorities. Although it is unlikely that human remains would be discovered at the project site, in the event that human remains are discovered on the project site during construction activities, Mitigation Measure CR-2 would reduce any unforeseen impacts related to the discovery of human remains to below a level of significance. Mitigation Measures CR-2. In the event that human remains are found on the project site, all work will stop and the County Coroner will be called to assess the remains and exhume them. In the event that the County Coroner recognizes the remains as being of Native American origin, the County Coroner is responsible for contacting the Native American Heritage Commission within 24 hours. The Commission has various powers and duties to provide for the ultimate disposition of any Native American remains, as does the assigned Most Likely Descendant. Sections 5097.98 and 5097.99 of the Public Resources Code also call for "protection to Native American human burials and skeletal remains from vandalism and inadvertent destruction." VI. Geology and Soils A-1 No Impact. According to the most recent Alquist-Priolo Zoning Map, no known fault traces are located in the City of Santa Ana (California Department of Conservation, California Geologic Survey 2006). No impact would occur. A-2 Less Than Significant Impact. Seismic hazard from ground shaking is typical for large areas of southern California. The Newport-Inglewood (L.A. Basin) fault is closest to the site and is located approximately 5.4 miles (8.7 km) away (Associated Soils Engineering 2006). Other nearby active faults include the Newport-Inglewood (offshore) Fault and the Compton Thrust Fault, located approximately 7.8 miles (12.5 km) and 8.3 miles (13.4 km) away, respectively (Associated Soils Engineering 2006). Based on literature and analysis, the Newport-Inglewood (L.A. Basin) Fault would probably generate the most severe site ground motions (Associated Soils Engineering 2006). All of these faults are typical of southern California, and it is reasonable to expect a strong ground motion seismic event during the lifetime of any proposed project in the region. The probability and consequences of such earthquakes are unknown, but they could result in minor structural damage and possible injuries, ranging up to large-scale destruction and possible fatalities. The proposed project includes the demolition and removal of an existing onsite warehouse and the construction of 38 single family residential units. All demolition and building would occur in accordance with building and safety standards as specified by the City Building Division. All buildings would be constructed in compliance with the latest earthquake-resistant design and relevant codes available. All project components would be built in compliance with the most up-to-date building codes, which would minimize potential impacts. Potential impacts would be less than significant, and no mitigation measures would be necessary. Alton Court August 2007 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 3.22 J&S 00635.07 75B-86 1 II ~ 1 ~ Environmental Checklist For CEQA Compliance A-3 Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated. The site is within an area identified as having a potential for soil liquefaction when subject to a seismic event (Associated Soils Engineering 2006). The term liquefaction describes a phenomenon in which a saturated, cohesion less soil loses strength and acquires a degree of mobility as a result of strong ground shaking during an earthquake (Associated Soils Engineering 2006). The factors known to influence liquefaction potential include soil type and depth, grain size, relative density, groundwater level, degree of saturation, and both the intensity and duration of ground shaking (Associated Soils Engineering 2006). Catastrophic failure of structures due to soil liquefaction is not expected at the site, but the ground shaking associated with a large magnitude earthquake would likely cause settlement and/or small scale lateral displacements in local areas (Associated Soils Engineering 2006). All demolition would occur in accordance with building and safety standards as specified by the City Building Division. All site preparation (including grading) and construction of the residential units would occur in accordance with building and safety standards as specified by the City Building Division, which inherently provide for measures to reduce the potential impacts of liquefaction to structures. In addition, the geotechnical study provides for certain design measures during site preparation, excavation, grading, and construction, which would also reduce any potential impacts related to liquefaction (Associated Soils Engineering 2006). These design measures include, but are not limited to: • Specific site preparation and grading techniques to reduce liquefaction impacts such as over excavation. • Additional testing for the degree of soil expansion on site during or after rough grading operations. • Specific foundation designs to reduce provide sound structural design on potentially expansive soils. • Conformance of foundation design and asphalt design to Greenbook requirements. Therefore, the impacts to structures can be mitigated to less than significant with the implementation of mitigation measure GEO-1. Mitigation Measures GEO-1. To mitigate the effects of liquefaction, the applicant will follow the safety and building standards specified by the City Building Division as well as implement the appropriate combination of design recommendations outlined in the Associated Soils Engineering (2006) geotechnical report (Appendix B). The engineering plans will be submitted to the City's Building Department for a plan check along with the geotechnical report and will receive appropriate approvals and clearances prior to construction occurring onsite. A-4 No Impact. The project area is generally flat, and implementation of the proposed project would not require slope cuts that could result in landslides. There is no indication that recent landslides or unstable slope conditions exist on or adjacent to the project site that would otherwise result in a landslide hazard to the proposed project (Associated Soils Engineering 2006). According to the Seismic Hazards Zone Map, the site is not located within an area identified as having a potential for earthquake-induced landslides (CGS 1998 in Associated Soils Engineering 2006). Therefore, no impacts associated with landslides would occur. Alton Court August 2007 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 3-23 J&S 00635.07 75B-87 Environmental Checklist ~~~~~~~ For CEQA Compliance B. Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed project is currently developed and consists of 60% of impermeable surfaces (asphalt, concrete, and buildings) and approximately 40% of hard-packed unpaved sun`aces. Furthermore, low topographic relief on site is not significant; therefore, impacts associated with substantial erosion or loss of topsoil would be less than significant during construction or post-construction of the proposed project. C. No Impact. The project site has been previously developed and does not contain any unique geological or physical feature. No impact would occur. D. Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated. According to City of Santa Ana General Plan Land Use Element, the proposed project is not located in an area of subsidence (City of Santa Ana 1998: A-40). The project area is generally flat, and there is no indication that recent landslides or unstable slope conditions exist on or adjacent to the project site that would otherwise result in a landslide hazard to the proposed project (Associated Soils Engineering 2006). However, the project is located in an area of high to very high liquefaction (City of Santa Ana 1998: A-40, Associated Soils Engineering 2006). All demolition would occur in accordance with building and safety standards as specified by the City Building Division. All site preparation (including grading) and construction of the residential units would occur in accordance with building and safety standards as specified by the City Building Division, which inherently provide for measures to reduce the potential impacts of liquefaction to structures. In addition, the geotechnical study provides for certain design measures during site preparation, excavation, grading, and construction, which would also reduce any potential impacts related to liquefaction to less than significant (Associated Soils Engineering, 2006). Therefore, the impacts to structures can be mitigated to less than significant with the implementation of Mitigation Measure GEO-1 identified above. E. No Impact. Sewer access is available throughout the project area. No septic tanks or alternative wastewater disposal systems are included as part of the proposed project. The project site would tie into existing 8-inch sewer line located along South Fairview Street. No impacts would occur. VII. Hazards and Hazardous Materials A. Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated. Implementation of the proposed project may be associated with the disposal of hazardous substances as a result of the demolition of the various structures. Development of the proposed project would require the demolition of existing interior and exterior features on the site. The buildings on site were constructed between 1961 and 1962, and no extensive renovations to the existing structure have occurred since that time (TRC 2006). Asbestos-containing building materials have been previously identified in the existing warehouse (TRC 2006). In addition, due to the building's age, lead-based paint and/or lighting ballasts containing polychlorinated biphenyl (PCB) may be present (TRC 2006). Mitigation Measure HM-1 would ensure that proper disposal of any hazardous materials, if discovered, would be followed as directed by the City of Santa Ana Building Division and Fire Department. Impacts are therefore considered less than significant with mitigation incorporated. Alton Court August 2007 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 3-24 J&S 00635.07 75B-88 Environmental Checklist ~""'~ For CEQA Compliance Mitigation Measures HM-1 Prior to demolition of the existing warehouse on site, an asbestos-containing materials, lead-based paint, and polychlorinated biphenyl survey will be performed by a qualified environmental professional and conducted in accordance with all federal, state, and local requirements, including those established by National Emissions Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAPS) guidelines and the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA). A report will be furnished by said qualified environmental professional and will outline the occurrence of hazardous materials on the project site. If asbestos-containing materials are discovered during site investigations, all potentially friable asbestos-containing materials will be removed in accordance with federal, state, and local laws and the NESHAP guidelines prior to building demolition or renovation that may disturb the materials. All demolition activities will be undertaken in accordance with California Occupational Safety and Health Administration (Cal/OSHA) standards, contained in Title 8 of the California Code of Regulations (CCR), Section 1529, to protect workers from exposure to asbestos. Materials containing more than 1 % asbestos are also subject to SCAOMD regulations. Demolition performed in conformance with these federal, state, and local laws and regulations will avoid significant exposure of construction workers and/or the public to asbestos-containing materials. If lead-based paint is discovered during onsite investigations, all building materials containing lead-based paint will be removed in accordance with Cal/OSHA lead in construction standard, Title 8, CCR 1532.1, including employee training, employee air monitoring, and dust control. Any debris or soil containing lead-based paint or coatings will be disposed of at landfills that meet acceptance criteria for the waste being disposed. Demolition performed in conformance with these federal, state, and local laws and regulations will avoid significant exposure of construction workers and/or the public to lead-based paint. • If polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) are discovered during onsite investigations, all PCB-containing lighting ballasts will be removed and disposed of in conformance with federal, state, and local laws and regulations so as to avoid exposure of construction workers and/or the public to PCB-containing materials. B. Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed project is within 0.25 mile of an existing school. The closest school to the project site is Thorpe Elementary, located to the east of the proposed project at 2450 Alton Avenue. Additionally, Segerstrom High School is located approximately 0.4 miles southeast of the project site on MacArthur Boulevard. The proposed project would not regularly emit any hazardous waste or hazardous material, nor would it regularly handle acutely hazardous materials, substances, or wastes. There may be some emissions during construction, but these would be short-term and would be reduced through mitigation (See Air Quality Section). Therefore, less-than-significant impacts would occur. C. Less Than Significant Impact. A Phase I and Phase II Environmental Site Assessment was conducted for the proposed site in January 2006 (Appendix C). Per review and Alton Court August 2007 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 3-25 J&S 00635.07 75B-89 Environmental Checklist For CEQA Compliance recommendation by the Orange County Health Care Agency, a Phase II Subsurface Investigation was completed in February 2006, expanding the initial Phase I and II investigations to further characterize any potential subsurface contamination from past land use activities on site (Appendix C). The Phase I Environmental Site Assessment determined that the proposed project site is not identified as a hazardous material site, nor is it on any lists compiled by the City of Santa Ana Fire Department, the Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board (SARWQCB), or the California EPA Department of Toxic Substances Control (TRC 2006). The proposed project site was listed by SCAQMD as being permitted for certain emissions for a business that no longer exists on the property (TRC 2006). The Phase II Environmental Site Assessment included soil gas, soil matrix, and groundwater sampling, which revealed low concentrations of Perchloroethene (PCE) in soil vapor samples, and low concentrations of Dichloroethene (DCE) in groundwater samples (TRC 2006: 24). Additionally, concentrations of arsenic, benzo(K) fluoranthene, and benzo(a) pyrene were detected in the ballast samples collected from the railroad spur located in the eastern portion of the subject property at concentrations that exceeded the corresponding Preliminary Remediation Goal (PRG) for residential soils (TRC 2006: 24). However, the Phase II report concluded these are not likely to present a potential increased human health risk to future residents (TRC 2006: 24). Based on these results, Orange County Health Care Agency requested additional subsurface investigation to further characterize the nature of site contamination, including the lateral and vertical extent of the contamination along the railroad spur (TRC 2006: 3). This additional assessment was performed in the Phase II Subsurface Investigation. Twelve borings were completed to a maximum depth of 13 feet below ground surface, and soil and groundwater samples were collected at approved locations on site by the Orange County Health Care Agency (TRC 2006: 4). Overall, the results of the samples collected do not suggest that a significant release of hazardous wastes occurred on the subject property, and average concentrations were well below the PRGs for all compounds (TRC 2006: 6). Additionally, none of the samples collected and analyzed along the railroad spur were found to contain detectable levels of contaminants (TRC 2006: 6). The Phase II Subsurface Investigation concluded that no additional investigative actions were necessary or warranted for the site and requested the Orange County Health Care Agency to issue a "no further action" status for the proposed project site (TRC 2006: 7). Based on the information in the Phase I and Phase II Environmental Site Assessment, the Phase II Subsurface Investigation, and Mitigation Measure HM-2 incorporated below, impacts are considered less than significant. Mitigation Measures HM-2 Prior to the issuance of grading permits, the applicant will provide written evidence from the Orange County Health Care Agency to the City that a status of "no further action" for the proposed project site has been issued. D. No Impact. The project is not located within an airport land use plan or within 2 miles of an airport. The closest airport to the project site is John Wayne Airport approximately 3 miles southeast of the project site. The proposed project includes constructing 38 two-story single- family residential units. The proposed project would not result in hazardous obstructions to operations at John Wayne Airport. No impacts would occur. VIII. Hydrology and Water Quality Alton Court August 2007 Initial StudylMitigated Negative Declaration 3-26 J&S 00635.07 75B-90 i~ i~ i~ Environmental Checklist For CEQA Compliance A. Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated. The City of Santa Ana is included within four watersheds: San Diego Creek, Santa Ana River, Talbert, and Westminster. Each of these watershed areas are under the jurisdiction of the Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board and subject to the objectives, water quality standards, and best management practice requirements established in the Santa Ana River Basin Plan and Orange County Drainage Area Management Plan (DAMP). The City of Santa Ana Storm Water Management Program Ordinance (Municipal Code Ch. 18) governs all projects within the City to comply with the Orange County DAMP and the Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board MS4 permit, which is the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination (NPDES) permit that governs stormwater discharges into the public storm system (MDS Consulting 2007:1). The City of Santa Ana does not contain any impaired water bodies, as defined by Section 303 of the Clean Water Act. However, the City does contain several drainage facilities that convey surface water runoff into bodies of water that are classified as impaired. During construction, runoff from the project site would be managed by best management practices (BMPs) and would be managed as directed in the City's stormwater protection requirements. BMPs include, but are not limited to, treatments such as private storm filters and catch basins, the minimization of directly connecting impervious areas, education of property owners, activity restrictions in certain areas of the property, and regular street sweeping. Therefore, the proposed project would result in aless-than-significant impact to water quality standards and waste discharge requirements during construction of the project. The existing site consists of approximately 40% pervious surface runoff from the project area, which includes two landscaped areas located along the western boundary of the site and the unpaved areas located along the eastern and southern boundaries (MDS Consulting 2007:6). The proposed project would reduce the pervious area by half, to approximately 20% of the site (MDS Consulting 2007:6). The proposed project is classified as a Priority Project Category 1 per the Countywide Orange County Storm Water Program (MDS Consulting 2007:1). Therefore, after development of the proposed project, treatment control BMPs are required to remove pollutants typically associated with urban runoff (MDS Consulting 2007:5). Pollutants typically associated with urban runoff include nutrients, pesticides, sediment, trash and debris, bacteria and viruses, and oil and grease. ~~ BMPs included in the Water Quality Management Plan, already prepared for the proposed project, would limit impacts from project site runoff. These BMPs identified in the WQMP include, but are not limited to: • Onsite structural BMP treatments such as private storm filters and catch basins and the minimization of directly connecting impervious areas. • Nonstructural BMPs such as HOA management of BMPs operation through appropriate Codes, Conditions, and Restrictions (CC&Rs), education of property owners, activity restrictions in certain areas of the property, and regular street sweeping. Impacts are therefore considered less than significant with Mitigation Measure WQ-1, identified below, incorporated. Alton Court Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 3-27 August 2007 J&S 00635.07 ~ 75B-91 Environmental Checklist For CEQA Compliance Mitigation Measures WQ-1 During final design of the proposed project, the applicant will incorporate and adhere to all structural and nonstructural treatment and control BMPs identified to control water quality and waste water runoff identified in the Water Quality Management Plan (Appendix D) (MDS Consulting 2007). B. No Impact. The proposed project site is currently developed and is not considered a source for groundwater recharge. The proposed project would decrease the pervious area on site from 40% to 20%. Therefore, less than significant impacts would occur. C. Less Than Significant Impact. The existing site is generally impermeable to stormwater due to the impermeable surfaces on site. Currently, stormwater runoff, as sheet flows, is conveyed southerly to MacArthur Boulevard and then easterly to a 10-foot by 14-foot trapezoidal section of the earthen Greenville-Banning Channel (OCFCD Facility Number D03) (MDS Consulting 2007:7). It is finally discharged into Reach 1 of the Santa Ana River near the river mouth at the Pacific Ocean (MDS Consulting 2007: 7). Site drainage after development would be altered. stormwater runoff would be conveyed as sheet flows northerly to Alton Avenue. However, the City has determined and approved that discharge of the proposed project's stormwater into the existing 72-inch storm drain in Alton Avenue is acceptable (MDS Consulting 2007; Chin pers. comm.). The City determined that the change in drainage would be acceptable and can be easily accommodated by the 72-inch storm drain located in Alton Avenue. The stormwater would be treated prior to discharge to the Alton Avenue storm drain through incorporation of onsite BMPs. Additionally, no streams or rivers pass through the proposed project site. Less-than-significant impacts would occur. D. Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed project would not increase flooding potential or result in any substantial change in the drainage patterns on or adjacent to the project site. Because of the urban character of the area and the use of the project site as a warehouse, substantial amounts of stormwater are not readily absorbed into the soil. The proposed project would alter the existing drainage pattern of the project site; however, the City has determined the 72-inch storm drain located in Alton Avenue can accommodate the runoff generated by the project and has approved the discharge of runoff into the Alton Avenue storm drain (MDS Consulting 2007; Chin pers. comm.). Therefore, storm runoff generated by the proposed project would be conveyed as sheet flow to the project's proposed area drains and catch basins (MDS Consulting 2007). It would then be conveyed north to the Alton Avenue storm drain, and then west to the Greenville-Banning Channel (MDS Consulting 2007). The channel would convey it to the Pacific Ocean as in existing conditions. A less- than-significant impact would occur (MDS Consulting 2007). The 72-inch storm drain in Alton Avenue has the capacity to accept the storm runoff from the site. Additionally, the stormwater would meet water quality standards through the incorporation of onsite BMPs prior to discharge to the Alton Avenue storm drain. E. Less Than Significant Impact. The project site is located within the 100-year floodplain associated with the Prado Dam inundation zone (City of Santa Ana 1998: A-41). Prado Dam is a flood control and water conservation project constructed and operated by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Los Angeles District. The Los Angeles District has begun construction to increase the capacity of the reservoir behind Prado Dam. Modifications to the dam are divided into three phases: Alton Court August 2007 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 3-28 J&S 00635.07 75B-92 i~ i~ Environmental Checklist For CEQA Compliance 1. Raise the height of the dam by 30 feet, build a new intake tower, and construct improvements to the dam's outlet works (Mar 2003 -Sept 2003); 2. Construct dikes in the basin to protect property (Sept 2004 -Sept 2007); and 3. Raise the height of the adjacent spillway by 20 feet (Jul 2006 -Jan 2008) (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 2004). The proposed project includes the construction of 38 single-family residential units on 6 acres. Therefore, the proposed project would place housing within a 100-year floodplain. However, in the event of a dam failure, based on the distance to Prado Dam, the projected depth of potential floodwaters (less than 1 foot), and the emergency warnings that would be issued in the event of dam failure, the project would not expose people or structures to a significant risk. Impacts would be less than significant. F. Less Than Significant Impact. The project would involve the construction of 38 single- family residential units on 6 acres. As stated above, although the proposed project is located within the 100-year floodplain, improvements to Prado Dam would limit impacts to the project site. Therefore, existing structures on the project site would not impede or redirect flood flows. Impacts would be less than significant. G. Less Than Significant Impact. As stated previously under Section VIII-E, the proposed project is within the 100-year floodplain; however, improvements to Prado Dam would limit impacts to the project site. Impacts would be less than significant. IX. Land Use and Planning A. No Impact. The proposed project involves the construction of 38 single-family residential units and redesignation of the project site to comply with zoning, land use, and the new Specific Development Design standards. The amended zoning and land use designations for the project site would generally be compatible with the adjacent residential and commercial uses. The construction of 38 single-family residential units and the revised zoning and land use designations associated with the proposed project would not divide the existing community. No impacts would occur. u B. Less Than Significant Impact. The project site is zoned as Arterial Commercial (C5). Residential units are incompatible with this zoning; therefore, the City is proposing a zone amendment to a Specific Development No. 81 designation, which will allow the proposed project. After the zone amendment and Specific Development Plan, the zoning would be compatible with the proposed project for residential units, and less-than-significant impacts would occur. C. No Impact. The proposed project is located in an urbanized setting, and no locally designated species or natural communities are known to exist in the project area. The site is not part of any habitat conservation plan or natural community preservation plan. Therefore, no impacts would occur. X. Mineral Resources Alton Court Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 3-29 August 2007 J&S OD635.07 ~ 75B-93 Environmental Checklist For CEQA Compliance A. No Impact. There are no areas designated in the Surface Mining and Reclamation Act of 1975 (SMARA) or existent oil fields within the City of Santa Ana (City of Santa Ana 1998:A- 44); therefore, no impacts would occur. XI. Noise Mestre Greve Associates (2007) prepared an acoustics analysis for the proposed project (Appendix E). The analysis contained within this section incorporates the results of the noise study and relies primarily upon the study by Mestre Greve Associates, unless otherwise noted. Sound is technically described in terms of the loudness (amplitude) of the sound and frequency (pitch) of the sound. The standard unit of measurement of the loudness of sound is the decibel (dB). Decibels are based on the logarithmic scale. Therefore, in terms of human response to noise, a sound of 10 dB higher than any other is judged to be twice as loud; and 20 dB higher four times as loud. Every day sounds normally range from 30 dB (very quiet) to 100 d6 (very loud). Since the human ear is not equally sensitive to sound at all frequencies, a special frequency- dependant rating scale is devised to relate noise to human sensitivity. The A-weighted decibel scale (dBA) discriminates against frequencies in a manner approximating the sensitivity of the human ear. Community noise levels are measured in terms of dBA. For example, 40 dBA is very quiet, such as bird calls, and 100 dBA is very loud, such as a jet fly over at 1,000 feet. There are a number of noise scales that have been developed to measure community noise, which account for the parameters of noise that have been shown to contribute to the effects of noise on people, the variety of noises found in the environment, the variations of noise levels that a person experiences moving through the environment, and the variations of noise associated with the time of day. Two of the predominant noise scales are the Equivalent Noise Level (LEQ) and the Community Noise Equivalent Level (CNEL). LEQ is the energy average noise level during the time period of the sample. It is typically measured for one hour and is the energy sum of all the events and background noise that occurred within that one hour. CNEL represents atime-weighted 24-hour average noise level based on the dBA. Time weighted means that noise that occurs during certain sensitive time periods are penalized for occurring at these times. The evening time period (7 p.m. to 10 p.m.) and the nighttime period (10 p.m. to 7 a.m.) are penalized should noise making activities occur at these times. This is because they seem louder during these quieter times of the day because there are few other competing noises. Many communities use the CNEL as their standard in California. Ldn is similar to CNEL, except that evening noises are not penalized, while nighttime noises are penalized. It is a measure of overall noise experienced during an entire day. L(%) is the method of describing noise that accounts for the variance in noise levels through a given measurement period. L(%) is a way of expressing the noise level exceeded for a percentage of time in a given measurement period. For example, since 5 minutes is 25% of 20 minutes, Alton Court August 2007 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 3-30 J&S 00635.07 75B-94 i~ i~ Environmental Checklist i~ i~ i~ u i~ i~ i~ i~ i~ 7 ""'~ For CEQA Compliance L(25) is the noise level that is equal to or exceeded for 5 minutes in a 20 minute period. The L(°/o) is used for many city noise ordinance standards. A. Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated. The City Noise Element uses outdoor and indoor noise limits for residential land uses impacted by transportation noise sources based on CNEL (Mestre Greve Associates 2007:4). The City Noise Element states that for residential land use, the exterior noise exposure level will not exceed 65 CNEL, and the interior noise exposure level will not exceed 45 CNEL (Mestre Greve Associates 2007:4). Additionally, the City Noise Ordinance is designed to control unnecessary, excessive, and annoying sounds from stationary (nontransportation) noise sources (Mestre Greve Associates 2007:4). Section 18-311 of the City's noise ordinance states that the entire city is designated as "Noise Zone 1." The noise ordinance criteria in Table 3-2 is used to determine impacts and appropriate mitigation. Table 3-2. City of Santa Ana Exterior Noise Ordinance Criteria Noise Level Not To Be Exceeded Maximum Time of Daytime 7 a.m. Nighttime 10 p.m. Exposure Noise Metric to 10 p.m. to 7 a.m. 30 Minutes/Hour L50 55 dBA 50 dBA 15 Minutes/Hour L25 60 dBA 55 dBA 5 Minutes/Hour L8.3 65 dBA 60 dBA 1 Minute/Hour L1.7 70 dBA 65 dBA Any Period of Time Lmax 75 dBA 70 dBA Two aspects of the project would be subject to the noise ordinance; (1) construction and (2) the proposed residential use adjacent to the commercial center to the south. Potential noise impacts are commonly divided into two categories; short-term and long term. Short-term impacts are usually associated with noise generated by onsite construction activities, which affect offsite surrounding land uses. Long-term impacts are further divided into noise generated by the proposed project, which impact offsite surrounding land uses (i.e.: car alarms or cars driving around the residential area), and noise generated by offsite land uses, which impact onsite land uses (i.e. traffic on South Fairview Street or Alton Avenue). Short-Term Noise Construction noise represents ashort-term impact on ambient noise levels. Noise generated by construction equipment, including trucks, • graders, bulldozers, concrete mixers, and portable generators, can reach high levels. The nearest homes to the proposed project site are located directly east. Heavy equipment could be operating as close as 20 feet to these residential areas for prolonged periods of time. The exact fleet and number of equipment pieces to be used on the construction site is not known; therefore, average noise levels for construction based on worst-case peak levels are the best estimates to use for assessing Alton Court Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 3-31 August 2007 J&S 00635.07 ~ 75B-95 Environmental Checklist For CEQA Compliance short term impacts (Mestre Greve Associates 2007:11). The worse-case unmitigated peak construction noise levels are estimated to be between 65.7 to 90.7 dBA, with the average noise levels typically 5 to 15 dB lower than these peak levels (Mestre Greve Associates 2007:11). Even with the lowered average noise levels, the short-term construction noise impacts would be significantly loud and would represent a significant impact. The most effective method of controlling construction noise is through limiting construction hours and using appropriate construction equipment. Therefore, with the incorporation of mitigation measures N-1 to N-10 identified below, the short-term noise impacts would be reduced to less than significant. Mitigation Measures N-1. Noise generating construction activities near residential land uses will not take place between 8 p.m. and 7 a.m. on weekdays, including Saturday, or anytime on Sunday or a Federal holiday. N-2. All noise-producing project equipment and vehicles using internal combustion engines will be equipped with mufflers and air-inlet silencers, where appropriate, in good operating condition that meet or exceed original factory specification. Temporary, higher-grade exhaust silencers are recommended where available. N-3. Mobile or fixed "package" equipment (e.g., arc-welders, air compressors) will be equipped with shrouds and noise control features that are readily available for that type of equipment. Factory-supplied sound enclosures will be specified and utilized where available for stationary equipment such as generators, engines etc. N-4. All equipment will be operated in the quietest manner practicable. Pneumatically-powered tools will be fitted with noise-suppressors. N-5. To the extent feasible, the noisiest operations will be scheduled to occur together in the construction program to avoid prolonged periods of annoyance. N-6. Material stockpiles and mobile equipment staging, parking, and maintenance areas will be located as far as practicable from noise-sensitive receptors. N-7. Any public address system operated on the project site during construction will be designed and adjusted for minimum sound levels and minimum "spillover" of sound onto adjacent properties. N-8. No music or electronically reinforced speech will be audible at anoise-sensitive property. N-9. The use of noise-producing signals, including horns, whistles, alarms, and bells will be for safety warning purposes only. All mandated audible warning devices will be set to produce the lowest legally permissible sound level (i.e., audible above the surrounding noise level within the obstructed work area). N-10. The onsite construction supervisor will have the responsibility and authority to receive and resolve noise complaints. A clear appeal process to the project owner will be established prior to construction commencement that will allow for Alton Court August 2007 Initial StudylMitigated Negative Declaration 3-32 J&S 00635.D7 75B-96 1 ~ ~ Environmental Checklist ' For CEQA Compliance resolution of noise problems that cannot be immediately solved by the site supervisor. Long-Term Noise Potential long-term offsite noise would primarily be generated by onsite traffic from future residents living in the proposed project or from visitors to the proposed project. The Trip Generation Manual defines the existing warehouse as a Light Industrial use. Light industrial uses usually employ fewer than 500 persons, with an emphasis on activities other than manufacturing, and they typically have minimal office space (Institute of Transportation Engineers 2003:89). The existing warehouse currently generates 370 daily trips to the site, including 49 AM peak hour and 52 PM peak hour trips. The proposed project would generate 364 daily trips to the site, including 29 AM peak hour and 39 PM peak hour trips. This would result in a net decrease of 6 daily trips, 20 AM peak hour, and 13 PM peak hour trips to the site. Since the proposed project is not anticipated to generate a significant amount of traffic, and in fact decreases the amount of traffic, the project would not generate significant noise impacts on surrounding land uses (Mestre Greve Associates 2007:11). Potential long-term onsite impacts related to traffic noise from Alton Avenue and South Fairview Street were analyzed using traffic volumes and the FHWA Highway Traffic Noise Model. The modeling results are shown in Table 3-3, and the results do not take into account any barriers or topography that may reduce noise levels. Table 3-3. Existing Roadway Traffic Noise Levels Distance (Feet) to CNEL Contour from Centerline of Roadway Roadway Link 70 CNEL 65 CNEL 60 CNEL Fairview Street 85 183 394 West of Alton Avenue Alton Avenue North 33 71 152 of Fairview Street The worst-case onsite noise levels, which are due to traffic noise from South Fairview Street and Alton Avenue, were calculated to be 70.8 CNEL at the property line along South Fairview Street and 65.0 CNEL at the property line along Alton Avenue. These levels equal or exceed 65 CNEL required by the City's noise element and noise ordinance; therefore, the long-term, onsite noise levels generated by the two streets are considered a significant impact to the first floor of the residential units. However, the proposed project includes the construction of a wall around the property at a height of more than 7 feet to reduce street level noise. Additionally, Mitigation Measure N-11 below would ensure the noise barrier is constructed out of the proper acoustical-resistance material. Therefore, the significant impact at the street level of the residential units due to traffic noise on Alton Avenue and South Fairview Street is reduced to less than significant. Furthermore, units along both South Fairview Street and Alton Avenue may not meet the outdoor to indoor noise standards of the City based on the noise measurements of Alton Alton Court August 2007 Initial StudylMitigated Negative Declaration 3-33 J&S 00635.07 ~ 75B-97 Environmental Checklist For CEQA Compliance Avenue and South Fairview Street. Units along South Fairview Street could be exposed to worst-case traffic noise levels of approximately 70.8 CNEL, and as a result, these units would require maximum outdoor to indoor noise reduction requirements of 25.8 dBA to comply with the 45 CNEL requirement (Mestre Greve Associates 2007:15). Units along Alton Avenue could be exposed to worst case traffic noise levels of approximately 65.0 CNEL (Mestre Greve Associates 2007:15). As a result, these units along Alton Avenue would require maximum outdoor to indoor noise reduction requirements of 20.0 dBA to comply with the 45 CNEL noise standard (Mestre Greve Associates 2007:15). Impacts are potentially significant but can be mitigated with the incorporation of the mitigation measures below. Other potential long-term, onsite noise can be generated by the commercial center to the south of the proposed project site. This commercial center includes a Ralph's grocery store with loading docks along the rear, adjacent to the project site. The primary source of noise associated with the Ralph's loading docks is truck deliveries and loading dock operations (Mestre Greve Associates 2007:7,8). The City has established a delivery curfew for the loading dock; deliveries must occur between 7:00 a.m. and 10:00 p.m. Monday through Friday (Mestre Greve Associates 2007:13). Therefore, deliveries would not occur on the weekends or in the late evening. Noise measurements at the loading docks were conducted during the day in June 2007 at the project site (Mestre Greve Associates 2007:7,8). The noise measurements were taken 35 feet from the property line (Mestre Greve Associates 2007:7,8). The maximum noise level was 74.8 dBA (Mestre Greve Associates 2007:7,8). This maximum noise level does not exceed the daytime noise ordinance levels (shown in Table 3-2). Therefore, the loading dock would not significantly affect the proposed project site. Other potential long-term, onsite noise can be generated by the Southern Pacific Railroad freight train track to the north of the project site, across from Alton Avenue. The noise generated by a train is the result of two components: the engine or locomotive, and the railroad cars. Noise levels generated by the freight trains were modeled using field data. Data was gathered in June 2007 from two local freight trains passing (Mestre Greve Associates 2007: 8,9). The worst-case proposed exterior living area would be approximately 130 feet from the railroad tracks. At this location, if shielding is not present, the worst-case noise level associated with train operations is projected to be 54.0 CNEL (Mestre Greve Associates 2007:9). The noise levels due to trains would be well below the City's 65 CNEL standard; therefore, railroad noise is not a significant long-term onsite impact (Mestre Greve Associates 2007:13). The long-term, onsite significant impact caused by traffic on South Fairview Street and Alton Avenue to the street level and second story of the residential units can be reduced to less than significant for the proposed residential units with the implementation of Mitigation Measures N-11 through N-16. Mitigation Measures N-11. The noise barriers along Alton Avenue and Fairview Avenue must have a surface density of at least 3.5 pounds per square foot and have no openings or gaps. The wall may be constructed of stud and stucco, 3/8-inch plate glass, 5/8-inch plexiglass, any masonry material, or a combination of these materials. N-12. The noise barriers along Alton Avenue will be no less than 5 feet tall. Alton Court August 2007 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 3-34 J8S 00635.07 75B-98 i~ i~ i~ J r r i n n L Environmental Checklist For CEQA Compliance N-13. The noise barriers at the intersection of Alton Avenue and South Fairview Avenue will be no less than 6.8 feet tall. N-14. The noise barriers along South Fairview Street will be no less than 6.8 feet tall. N-15. Prior to final plan check approval of the residential structures, detailed engineering calculations will be completed for building attenuation requirements greater than 20 dBA. In order to meet the 45 CNEL interior standard, building upgrades will be required for units along Fairview Street and Alton Avenue. After draft final building plans have been prepared but prior to final building plan approval, an acoustical analysis of the proposed residences will be prepared by a qualified acoustical analyst to ensure that the building assemblies would provide the required exterior-to-interior noise attenuation (i.e., a minimum of 26 dBA for rooms facing Fairview Street and 20 dBA for rooms facing Alton Avenue). Final architectural plans will demonstrate that the structural integrity will reduce interior noise levels 45 CNEL at these future residences. These reductions will be verified during plan check as part of the Building Department review of the project plans. N-16. All units along South Fairview Street and Alton Avenue will be provided with adequate mechanical ventilation to allow windows to remain closed so that homes will not experience greater indoor noise. B. Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed project includes the construction of 38 single- family residential units. Construction would not involve any pile driving or specific activities designed to generate groundborne vibrations. General construction may produce some groundborne vibration; however, Mitigation Measures N-1 through N-10 (identified above) are recommended to minimize noise generated during the construction phase of the project. C. Less Than Significant Impact. Potential long-term offsite noise would primarily be generated by onsite traffic. Since the proposed project is not anticipated to generate a significant amount of traffic, the project would not generate significant noise impacts on surrounding land uses (Mestre Greve Associates 2007:11). D. Less Than Significant Impact. Short-term noise impacts are impacts typically associated with site preparation, excavation, grading, and construction of structures. Local sensitive land uses include the residential units that are located on the east side of the proposed project. The municipal code recognizes that some forms of noise are required for urban development and maintenance that are difficult to control. Section 18-314(c) exempts noise sources associated with construction, repair, remodeling, or grading of any real property, provided said activities do not take place between the hours of 8:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. on weekdays, including Saturday, or any time on Sunday or a federal holiday. Compliance with the code is requisite and as such, is not considered as mitigation under CEQA. Furthermore, Mitigation Measures N-1 through N-10 would reduce the short-term, temporary construction impacts to less-than-significant levels. E. Less Than Significant Impact. The project site is located approximately 3 miles northwest of John Wayne International Airport. The project is located to the west of the established flight path and is beyond the airport's 60 dBA CNEL noise contour (Airport Land Use Alton Court Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 3-35 August 2007 J&S 00635.07 ~ 75B-99 Environmental Checklist For CEQA Compliance Commission 2002). Implementation of the proposed project would not expose the site occupants to excessive aircraft noise levels and no mitigation measures would be necessary. There would be a less than significant impact. XII. Population and Housing A. Less Than Significant Impacts. The proposed project includes the construction of 38 single-family residential units, a zoning amendment to accommodate the zone change for the residential land use, a tract map to allow the sale of the units and a widening of Alton Avenue to the final planned design. The proposed project increases the total housing units available (73,002) in the City of Santa Ana by less than 1.0% (approximately 0.05%) (U.S. Census Bureau 2000: Matrices H3, H4, H5, H6, H7, and H16). A 1% increase in housing is negligible to the overall growth of the City; it would not be considered substantially growth inducing. The widening of Alton Avenue is included in the General Plan as planned design for this roadway. The restripping and increased shoulder width of the road would be considered growth accommodating, because it is planned for in the General Plan, rather than growth inducing. Therefore, impacts would be less than significant. B. Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed project includes the construction of 38 single- family residential units, a zoning amendment to accommodate the zone change for the residential land use, a tract map to allow the sale of the units and a widening of Alton Avenue to the final planned width. The proposed project would be adding to the existing housing stock in the City and not displacing housing necessitating the construction of replacement housing elsewhere. Therefore, there would be a less than significant impact. C. Less Than Significant Impact. As stated in Section XII-B above, the proposed project would not displace housing and therefore substantial numbers of people, but rather would provide housing. Therefore, the impact would be less than significant. XIII. Public Services Fire Protection: Less Than Significant Impact. Implementation of the project could potentially contribute additional demand for fire protection and emergency medical services, including possible additional wear on fire equipment and increased use of medical supplies. However, the existing warehouse operations located on the project site currently contribute to fire and emergency demands, and the proposed project is not likely to result in many more additional demands than the existing use on fire and emergency services. The City of Santa Ana Fire Department would provide fire protective services to the propose project site. The project site would be served by the nearest fire station, Station 7, which is located at 2317 South Greenville Street at the intersection of Greenville and Warner, approximately 1 mile to the north of the project site (Dix pers. comm.). Under the City's Mutual Aid Agreement for fire protection services, the neighboring cities of Fountain Valley, Garden Grove, Tustin, Irvine, and Costa Mesa would provide backup service as needed (Orange County Fire Authority 2007). Emergency vehicle access for the project would be provided to the project site via the Alton Avenue driveway. Prior to final site plan approval, the applicant would submit plans to the department for review of compliance with applicable water pressure and fire equipment regulations. Impacts would be less than significant. Alton Court August 2007 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 3-36 J&S 00635.07 75B-100 i~ i~ i~ r i~ i~ i~ n i~ i~ u i~ i~ i~ Environmental Checklist For CEQA Compliance Police Protection Less Than Significant Impact. The Santa Ana Police Department would provide police protection services for the proposed project. The West End Sub-Station, located at 3750 W. McFadden Avenue, (City of Santa Ana Police Department 2007) is the closest police station to the project site. Although the proposed project may increase the population at the project site by increasing the permanency of housing provided on site, it is not expected to place a significant added burden on the Santa Ana Police Department. Additionally, the department is currently patrolling the project site and surrounding areas. Emergency vehicle access for the project would be provided to the project site via Alton Avenue. Prior to final site plan approval, the applicant would submit plans to the department for review of compliance with applicable safety regulations. The project would not require new or additional police facilities. Impacts would be less than significant. Schools Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated. School services in the City are provided by the Santa Ana Unified School District. The demand for new schools is generally associated with population increases or impacts on existing schools. The proposed project would increase the number of children housed at the project site, and therefore would increase the number of students attending schools. Based on the average family size in the City of Santa Ana-two parents and 2.72 children-the project is anticipated to generate 103 total children. Census 2000 data indicates there are 127,603 children under the age of 19 living in Santa Ana (U.S. Census Bureau 2000: Matrix P14). Using this information, 86,671 children are considered school age (between the ages of 6 and 19) (U.S. Census Bureau 2000: Matrix P14); this is approximately 68% of the population of children in Santa Ana (U.S. Census Bureau 2000: Matrix P14). Of the 103 total children assumed to live at the proposed project site, approximately 70 would attend either elementary, middle, or high school (U.S. Census Bureau 2000: Matrix P14). The project applicant would be required to pay development school impact fees to offset the increase in school population that would result from the proposed project. Impacts would be less than significant after payment of school impact fees. PS-1. Prior to issuance of building permits, the applicant will pay school mitigation fees based on project student generation rates in compliance with SB 50 and Section 17071.10 of the Education Code. Compliance with the provisions of SB 50 is deemed to be full and complete mitigation of impacts of a development project on school facilities. Parks Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated. The demand for parks is generally associated with the increase of housing or population in an area. The proposed project would increase the population that uses parks, which may increase demand on existing parks. The project applicant would be required to meet park requirements through the payment of a parkland acquisition and development fee. The impacts would be less than significant after payment of park impact. PS-2. Prior to issuance of building permits, the applicant will pay a parkland acquisition and development fee or participation in off-tract park construction to minimize impacts on existing parks. Alton Court August 2007 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 3-37 J&S 00635.07 75B-101 Environmental Checklist For CEQA Compliance Other Public Facilities No Impact. The project would not require any other new or altered service facilities. No impacts would occur. XIV. Recreation A. Less Than Significant with Mitigation Incorporated. An increase in the use of parks is generally associated with the increase of housing or population in an area. The increase in housing provided by the proposed project would increase the population that uses parks, which may increase demand on existing parks. The increase in population caused by the proposed project would accelerate the deterioration of existing recreational facilities. Although onsite recreation facilities would reduce impacts to existing City recreational facilities, the project applicant would be subject to an acquisition and development fee paid to the City Parks and Recreation Department. The impacts would be less than significant after payment of park impact fees or construction of an off tract park (see Mitigation Measure PS- 2). B. Less Than Significant Impact. The proposed project would replace the existing tilt-up concrete warehouse with 38 single-family residential units. Associated land use improvements with those units include landscaping and open recreational areas. It is not anticipated that the installation of the onsite landscaping and recreational areas would result in an adverse physical effect on the environment. Impacts associated with these improvements have been addressed in the respective sections of this Initial Study. Impacts would be less than significant. XV. Transportation/Traffic A. Less Than Significant Impact. The project would result in a change in traffic on the local roadway network in the vicinity of the project site. The Trip Generation Manual defines the existing warehouse as a "Light Industrial" use. Light industrial uses usually employ fewer than 500 persons, with an emphasis on activities other than manufacturing, and typically have minimal office space (Institute of Transportation Engineers 2003:89). The existing warehouse currently generates 370 daily trips to the site, including 49 AM peak hour and 52 PM peak hour trips. The proposed project would generate 364 daily trips to the site, including 29 AM peak hour and 39 PM peak hour trips. This would result in a net decrease of 6 daily trips, 20 AM peak hour, and 13 PM peak hour trips to the site. Therefore, implementation of the proposed project would not significantly impact local intersections or roadway segments. B. No Impact. The Orange County Congestion Management Plan (CMP) states that "a traffic impact analysis (TIA) will be required for CMP purpose for all proposed developments generating 2,400 or more daily trips" and that "for developments which will directly access a CMP Highway System link, the threshold for requiring a TIA should be reduced to 1,600 or more trips per day" (OCTA 2005:61). The proposed project would access Alton Avenue, which is not a CMP facility. Furthermore, the proposed project would not produce more than 2,400 daily trips. Therefore, no threshold would be violated and no impact would occur. Alton Court August 2007 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 3-38 J&S 00635.07 75B-102 i~ ~ -~- - - Environmental Checklist ' For CEQA Compliance ' C. No Impact. The proposed project would not affect air traffic patterns. The project is not located in the vicinity of an airport or private airstrip, nor would it include any structures that would extend into the air and affect aircraft circulation. No impacts would occur. ' D. Less Than Significant Impact. As stated in Section XV-A, a significant adverse impact would not occur at local intersections or roadway segments as a result of the proposed project. Impacts are considered less than significant. ' E. Less Than Significant Impact. The project would not result in inadequate emergency access. Additionally, the project would not affect existing emergency access routes. All appropriate fire and emergency access conditions would be incorporated into the design of ' the project. Prior to final site plan approval, the applicant would submit plans to the department for review of compliance with applicable fire equipment regulations. Impacts would be less than significant. ' F. No Impact. For this type of single-family detached residential land use, the City requires 152 parking spaces (MDS Consulting 2007). A single driveway would provide access to the site via Alton Avenue through a gated entrance. The proposed project would include 76 covered parking spaces as garages and 54 covered parking spaces as driveways, for a total of 130 ' off-street parking spaces (MDS Consulting 2007). Additionally, 23 on-street, uncovered parking spaces would be designated along the private drive as part of the proposed project (MDS Consulting 2007). Therefore the proposed project would have a total of 153 parking ' spaces (MDS Consulting 2007). This exceeds the amount of parking required by the City by one parking space. There would be no impact as a result of inadequate parking capacity. G. Less Than Significant Impact. The project would not conflict with adopted policies, plans, or ' programs supporting alternative transportation. There is a Class I Bike Lane along Alton Avenue and no designated bike lane along South Fairview Street per City of Santa Ana Bikeway Master Plan (City of Santa Ana 2003). The project site is served by the Orange County Transit Authority (OCTA) bus route #47 and #145 along South Fairview Street (OCTA ' 2006). There are bus stops at the southeast corner and northwest corner of the Alton Avenue and South Fairview Street intersection (OCTA 2002). Additionally, the project is within walking distance of a number of retail needs. No significant impacts would occur. ' XVI. Utilities and Service Systems A. Less Than Significant Impact. The project site is located within the service area of the ' Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB). The project would not exceed the wastewater treatment requirements of the RWQCB for storm runoff because it would be required to comply with the RWQCB's objectives, water quality standards, and best management practice requirements established in the Santa Ana River Basin Plan and ' Orange County Drainage Area Management Plan. The City of Santa Ana Storm Water Management Program Ordinance (Municipal Code Ch. 18) governs all projects within the City to comply with the Orange County DAMP and the Santa Ana Regional Water Quality Control Board MS4 permit, which is the NPDES permit that governs stormwater discharges into the public storm system (MDS Consulting 2007:1). In addition, the Orange County Sanitation District (OCSD) regulates wastewater treatment for ' the City of Santa Ana. The proposed project would not cause any violation of those standards set forth by the OCSD. The existing land use currently generates wastewater from the daily use of the SAUSD facility and has existing sewer ties into Fairview Street. The proposed ' Alton Court August 2007 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 3-39 J&S 00635.07 75B-103 Environmental Checklist ~~~~~~~ For CEQA Compliance project would also tie into Fairview Street and would not substantially increase wastewater compared to the existing warehouse use. Therefore, wastewater treatment requirements would not be exceeded, and impacts would be less than significant. B. No Impact. No new or expanded water or wastewater treatment facilities would be required to accommodate the proposed project. The proposed project would connect to the existing sewer system at Fairview Street. OCSD, which manages and oversees all wastewater in Orange County, is expected to be able to accommodate the waste water generated by the proposed project. No impacts would occur. C. Less Than Significant Impact. The existing site is mostly impermeable to stormwater due to the impermeable surfaces on site. Currently, stormwater runoff, as sheet flows, is conveyed southerly to MacArthur Boulevard and then easterly to a 10-foot by 14-foot trapezoidal section of the earthen Greenville-Banning Channel (OCFCD Facility Number D03) (MDS Consulting 2007:7). It is finally discharged into Reach 1 of the Santa Ana River near the river mouth at the Pacific Ocean (MDS Consulting, 2007:7). Site drainage after development would be altered. stormwater runoff would be conveyed as sheet flows northerly to Alton Avenue. However, the City has determined and approved that discharge of the proposed project's stormwater into the existing 72-inch storm drain in Alton Avenue is acceptable (MDS Consulting, 2007) and (Chin pers. comm.). Less than significant impacts would occur. D. Less Than Significant Impact. Existing water supplies serving the site are sufficient to meet the needs of the proposed project. The City of Santa Ana is required to evaluate the appropriate level of water reliability sufficient to meet the needs of its various categories of customers (e.g., residential, industrial, etc.) within during normal, dry, and continuously dry years. The California Water Management Planning Act of 1983 requires the City to evaluate the water supply and demand within its service area in the Urban Water Management Plan every five years in the years ending in zero and five (City of Santa Ana 2005:1-1 ). The City receives 36% of its water through water imported by the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California and 64% of its water from groundwater managed by the Orange County Water District (City of Santa Ana 2005:2-2). The Urban Water Management Plan uses historical normal year, wet year, dry year, and then multiple dry and wet years, as well as water usage over time in the service area, to establish a baseline (City of Santa Ana 2005:4-15). It then evaluates present and future conditions of water reliability in the City (City of Santa Ana 2005:4-15). The City used 44,920 acre feet of water in 2005 (City of Santa Ana 2005:4-19). This use includes all types of categories of customers, including large industrial users, municipal uses such as irrigating parks, offices, and residential consumers using water for drinking and landscaping purposes. Using the 2005 projected City population of 350,625, this is approximately 0.13 acre feet per resident in 2005, or approximately 42,360 gallons per resident in 2005 (City of Santa Ana 2005:1-4). The Urban Water Management Plan identifies that the City's demands for water can be met in average, single dry, and multiple dry years through the year 2030 based on current and project water supplies and the demands forecast for normal, a single dry year, and multiple dry year scenarios (City of Santa Ana 2005:4-19). Based on this information and the City's evaluation and planning for reliability of water supplies, no new or expanded entitlements would be required to serve the project site. Therefore, less than significant impacts would occur. E. Less Than Significant Impact. See XVI-B. Alton Court August 2007 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 3-40 JB.S 00635.07 75B-104 i~ u i~ Environmental Checklist For CEQA Compliance F. Less Than Significant Impact. The project would generate solid waste as a result of the proposed residences. A preliminary review of landfills currently serving the project area shows significant remaining capacity. Santa Ana disposed of a total of 419,794 tons in the year 2004, at a rate of 2 pounds/resident/day and 12.1 pounds/employee/day (CIWMB 1995). A study of the area landfills and their remaining capacity is presented in the following table. Table 3-4. Remaining Capacity of Existing Landfills Serving the Project Area Remaining Municipal Waste Closure Capacity (million Contributed by Santa Ana Landfill Year cubic yards) in Year 2000 (tons) Arvin 2008 2.2 23.0 Bradley West and West 2007 4.7 4.0 Expansion Colton 2006 0.6 3.0 Frank R. Bowerman 2022 63 290,175 Olinda Alpha 2013 38 74,965 Prima Deshecha 2067 87.4 2,158 Puente Hills #6 2013 62.3 2.0 Simi Valley Landfill and 2034 9.5 33.0 Recycling Center Remaining Capacity in System 267.7 Residential municipal solid waste would be generated by the proposed project; however, the existing land use is already generating municipal solid waste, which must be disposed of in a landfill. The existing land use supports 70 employees and therefore generates, on average, 847 pounds of solid municipal waste a day (Lopez pers. comm.). The average household size in. Santa Ana is 4.55 (Census 2000). Assuming each person in a residential unit ' produces 2 pounds of municipal solid waste a day, one single family residential unit within the proposed project would produce 9.1 pounds of solid municipal waste per day; the proposed project as a whole would produce, on average, 345.8 pounds of solid municipal waste per day. Therefore, the proposed project is likely to create less municipal solid waste than the existing land use. Construction waste generated by the proposed project would result in a temporary increase in the total construction and demolition waste. As part of demolition of the existing warehouse, some of the concrete materials would be crushed and reused on site ' for the proposed project. Sufficient capacity remains to accommodate waste generated by the project. Less than significant impacts would occur. G. No Impact. The solid waste created by the demolition of the structures would be removed per local, state, and federal guidelines. No significant impact is anticipated. ' Alton Court August 2007 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 3-41 J&S 00635.07 75B-105 Environmental Checklist ~•"'•~ For CEQA Compliance XVII. Mandatory Findings of Significance A. Less Than Significant Impact. The project area is highly urban in character and does not contain biological resources that would be affected by the implementation of the project. Additionally, no cultural resources, either historical or prehistorical, are expected to be affected by the construction or operation of the project. No significant impacts would occur. B. Less Than Significant Impact. The project would not result in impacts that are cumulatively considerable. The City of Santa Ana identified eight individual projects within the general vicinity of the proposed project. The projects are listed below: Hutton Center/MacArthur Place South, which includes three projects: Skyline at Macarthur Place, located at 9 and 15 East Hutton Center Drive; the Montage at Macarthur Place, located at 1 East Hutton Center and 101 East Sandpointe; and, Skyline Phase II, located at 10 East Hutton Center Drive Avenue. Skyline at Macarthur Place involves the construction of two 25-story residential towers containing 350 condominium units atop amulti-level parking deck. The units will range in size from 1,000 to 2,400 square feet. Construction is anticipated to take between 18 and 24 months. Montage at Macarthur Place includes the construction of 276 for-sale condominiums on this site, located at the southeast corner of Main Street and MacArthur Boulevard. Finally, Skyline Phase II includes the construction of a 25-story, 150-unit high-rise condominium project on this parcel. ^ St. Gertrude Retail, located at 1400 West St. Gertrude Avenue at the southwest corner of Bristol Street and St. Gertrude Avenue. This development includes a new two story 8,000 square foot multi-tenant retail building proposed for the vacant site. ^ Riverview West Marketplace Expansion, located at 3770 West McFadden Avenue, which includes two new buildings at an existing commercial center: a 4,000 square-foot bank building along McFadden Avenue, and a 1,750 square- footdrive-through Starbucks on Harbor Boulevard. The Starbucks building has been completed and the bank is currently under construction. ^ Edinger Avenue Retail, located at 2627 West Edinger Avenue, which includes a 9,000 square foot retail center on a site. ^ Werdin Commercial Center, located at 3200 South Bristol Street. This project consists of a new 7,100 square foot retail commercial shopping center. ^ John Laing Townhomes, located at 2823 West Edinger Avenue. This project includes the development of 44 townhomes along 2800-3000 West Edinger Avenue. • Implementation of the proposed project has the potential to temporarily increase dust levels in the project area. The proposed project, in conjunction with those listed above, would have the potential to contribute to a cumulative impact to air quality in the project area. The mitigation measure identified in Section III-B would reduce the air quality impacts associated with the proposed project to a level of less than significant. Air Alton Court August 2007 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 3-42 J&S 00635.07 75B-106 i~ i~ L r i~ i~ i~ i~ Environmental Checklist For CEQA Compliance quality thresholds account for other activity occurring within the region, and the regional thresholds are used to determine whether individual projects would result in significant impacts when combined with other activities assumed to occur within the region. Thus, when individual project impacts fall below regional air quality thresholds, they are assumed to also be less than cumulatively considerable. Implementation of the proposed project has the potential to result in the disturbance of undiscovered cultural resources. In conjunction with the projects listed above, the proposed project would have the potential to contribute to a cumulative impact to cultural resources. The mitigation measures identified in Section V-B, and V-D would reduce the significance of impacts to cultural resources associated with disturbance of an undiscovered cultural resource. Other projects in the vicinity of the proposed project would be required to implement similar measures. As such, cumulative impacts associated with the proposed project would not be cumulatively considerable. Implementation of the proposed project may result in the disposal of asbestos-containing building materials, lead based paint, and PCB-containing lighting ballasts. In conjunction with the projects listed above, the proposed project would have the potential to contribute to a cumulative impact to hazards and hazardous materials. The mitigation measure identified in Section VII-A would reduce the significance of impacts associated with disposal of hazardous materials to aless-than-significant level. Hazardous waste that may be found at other project sites would be disposed of according to local, state, and federal requirements. Implementation of the mitigation measure provided as part of the proposed project and implementation of other safety measures in the cumulative scenario would reduce cumulative impacts associated with the proposed project to less than cumulatively considerable levels. Implementation of the proposed project has the potential to generate stormwater runoff. In conjunction with the projects listed above, the proposed project has the potential to contribute to a cumulative impact to hydrology and water quality. The mitigation measure identified in Section VIII-A would reduce the significance of impacts to hydrology and water quality to a less than significant level. Other projects in the vicinity of the proposed project would be required to institute WQMPs and implement BMPs. Implementation of WQMPs and BMPs in a cumulative scenario would reduce cumulative impacts associated with the proposed project to less than cumulatively considerable levels. • Implementation of the proposed project has the potential to expose people to excessive noise. Implementation of mitigation measures identified in Section XI-A and XI-B would reduce impacts from noise exposure to aless-than-significant level. Projects in the vicinity of the proposed project would be required to institute similar measures if they were found to expose people to excessive noise. Implementation of mitigation measures ' would reduce cumulative impacts associated with the proposed project to a less than cumulatively considerable levels. Although the proposed project would result in less-than-significant environmental impacts, the impacts from the cumulative developments would not be significant when combined with other cumulative projects. Thus, because there are no significant cumulative impacts, impacts associated with the proposed project would not be cumulatively considerable. Alton Court Initial StudylMitigated Negative Declaration 3-43 August 2007 J8S 00635.07 75B-107 Environmental Checklist For CEQA Compliance C. Less Than Significant Impact. Implementation of the proposed project is not expected to have environmental impacts that may cause substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly. There would be no significant impact. Alton Court August 2007 Initial StudylMitigated Negative Declaration 3-44 J8S 00635.07 75B-108 Chapter 4 Mitigation Monitoring Plan and Report Introduction The California Public Resources Code, Section 21081..6, requires that a lead or responsible agency adopt a mitigation monitoring plan (MMP) when approving or carrying out a project when a Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) identifies measures to reduce potential adverse environmental impacts to less- than-significant levels. As lead agency for the proposed project, the City is responsible for adoption and implementation. of the MMP. An IS/MND has been prepared for the project that addresses the potential environmental impacts, and, where appropriate, recommends measures to mitigate these impacts. As such, an. MMP is required to ensure that adopted mitigation measures are successfully implemented. This document plan lists each mitigation measure, describes the methods for implementation and verification, and identifies the responsible party or parties. Project Overview The project proponent proposes to develop 38 single-family detached residential units and related improvements on the project site. The project inchides the construction of private drives, common landscaped areas. a common recreational area with a pool. and spa, and other residential development improvements. The proposed physical improvements related to the project include: ^ Development of 38 single-family detached residential units (4.3 acres) ^ Realignment and/or closure of existing driveways and new on-site parking. ^ Landscaping improvements and open space (0.2 acres). ^ Common. recreational. area (0.1.4 acres). ^ lmprovements to Alton Avenue and South Fairview Street (1.39 acres) Additional details regarding the project description are contained in Chapter 2, "Project Description." i~ i~ Alton Court August 2007 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 4-1 J&S 00635.07 75B-109 City of Santa Ana Chapter 4. Mitigation Monitoring Plan Monitoring and Reporting Procedures The l~tMP for the proposed project will be in place through all phases of the project, including design, construction, and operation. The City will be responsible for administering the MMP and ensuring that all parties comply with its provisions. The City may delegate monitoring activities to staff, consultants, or contractors. The City will also ensure that monitoring is documented tlu•ough periodic reports and that deficiencies are promptly corrected. The designated. environmental monitor will track and document compliance with mitigation measures, note any problems that may result, and take appropriate action to rectify problems. Mitigation Monitoring Plan Implementation Table 4-1 lists, by resource area, each mitigation measure inchtded in the draft IS,'MND. Certain inspections and reports may require preparation by qualified individuals and these are specified as needed. The timing and method of verification for each measure is also specified. Alton Court Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 4_2 August 2007 J85 00635.07 75B-110 H ~W w rl O ~I Q O ~I ~~ V ICI L + r~ ~ V O ~ ' ~ Q~ U c_c C ~ ~=., ~ 4N '> U: ~ ~ O ~ a ~'~ ~ ~ '~ ~ ~ `-' .~ C .C ~ p LL ~ C ~ w ~ ~ U ~ ~ ~- N +`-~ o -o ~ c~~ O O ~ O ~ C U C ~_+ ~ C C n O 'O Q ... O C N N O ~ ~ ~ ~ Q y- L N '" ~ C ` c oY ~ ~ ~ ° O o w O .«. U N tf~ ~ y C OU ~ C ~ > Q io c . ~ a n- C .U O N ~ O ~ aQ ~ C C O ~ ~ rnU C Q (0 •~ ~ O ~- O C/) L.L.. .C ~ O O .,- O ~, " ~ Q ~ ~ ~. ~ o I~ N 0 N rf " U 'p O ~ c .~ t~ ~ O ~n Ql - (0 w' ~ ~ N O d N w C N _ ~ ' d0' ' ~ ~ " 07 N O y~ O N O .~ ~ 3 E C ~ (n O ~ O - C4 ~ ~ 7 U ~ ~ ~ ' U C6 'O .C C O •C U O ~ C +-~ "O L f0 N O s ~ O O tLp O O O ~- o O °-'c O ~ t N N ~ O ~ O M -o p ca ~ Y c~ o a ~ o m ~ ~ c O ~ O Q-~ ~ ~ > a U O O O U cn .. .. m O ~ °- w ~~ ~ ~ ~ v ~ O Z O Z Q- O N ~ m W W ~ L v :D o `a" ~~ n. G ~ Z QO z O ~ ca o ~ -O . o ca = ~ _ p~v~ 0.. C N ~ C CO. O Nd V~ ~ .A Z O h Y p' J ~W O J W C ~Z D ~ ~ ~ a- s ~ = '~ ¢o r a_ a, .-, ~ z ~ z t= ~s~ ~;_, ~ UO cn ~ CO ~ ~ U ~ ~ .,r ~~° ~~ ~ ~ z~ ~ za a ~ ~ o F.: UU~~ U~~ ~ C7V QU W W O a. W N 0 a Q V Q ~~ ~ a~ -- ~'co ~ w0 ao aa.5 a-v~(~ JC3 Qc~ C co n. C `o C O t0 7 ~' d H d V ftS ::i d U ~, O L O ~ U a A ~ ~ ~ "" U U ^. ~ i O ~ Cv ~ cs ~ ~ c s Q ~, r'. ~ O Q~ C/I ^A w ~.. f J V~ aA GA ". ~ 4-~ C .' ~ am ~ Ua,f~ ~ ~ Uwq i. C ~ C ~ ~ O ~ ~ ~Lr ~ p •O = :JJ C O ~ O ~ C ~ , , ~ `° ~ ~ ` ° C ~ ~ ~ n CA ~ ~ :.A G ~+ O . „ 6~ 4: ~ ~ v O ~~ s0. O , ~ ~ ti ~ w ~ O p ~ Q. c~ O ~ ~ O ~ CUfi > cY3 , ~ U ~ ~ c~ ,~~' y ~ o ~ ° . ~. ~ 3,Y ~ ' cat v :n > cc ~ ~ ~ ~ N aT :.~ ~ U ~ ~ y cn cS C O N ~ ~ ~ ~ '~ ;J J3 ~ ~ O ~ v: ~ ~ y p .'O, '~ ~ ~ E..y ~ ~ U i.. ~ ~ ~ ~ U ~' ^ 1C ~ ~ s.a ..C p '-' W ~ O v ~ p 0 y ,~ ~ b0 N ' ~ ' O ~ ~ ~ ~ •, p ,+ ¢~ a ,^~ CC3 U Q~~°~~~~ , ~ ~ ~° ~' d ~ ~ ~ d d U U 75B-111 ~ o J ~p 0 5 ~J7 n w M v c 0 .~ m N 0 m z d m a c 0 .~ 0 0 .~ _~ v n L v c Q C 0 T U v C is ::' O U rn x O s . o cv ~ v y ~" t~ • ~ ~ Q .~ r~ ~ ~' .., d ~ •~ o ~ '~"' y ~ ~ ~ ~ d O ~ .. tli . ' O Q c3 ~ G ~' a ~, ~ :~ Y U a fr s. ~ 0 c a ' ~ ~,~ own ~ o ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ •~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ -d F~ ~ Q ~ ~. ~, ~ 0 o Y b ~ a~ ~, a~ ~, • ~ • ~, . ~ „ o .~ a~ o 0 0 ~ ~ a .~ Y ~ 4~ ~ ~ ~ o ~ ~ ~' ~ ~ 3 0 ~ ~ • `U' ~~ 3 ~ , o 'C ~ . cs Y ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ , ' a~ ~ .~ O ~.... rn Q~ ~ ~. ~, O ~ cn v o v ~- Q, cn ~ O v ,~ O v, y ~ ~ ccs Y C ~' d TS ~ ~ ~.~ O co z. ~ ~ ~ ' ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ' ~ ~ ' j U ~ O ~ v V Q j "C) S'..' rf,a ~ C, c3 ~ ~ ~ G ~ M p `~ .~-~ O ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~-o~ o ~ ~ O (~ ~ O v ~ G .r p , ' Y ~',~ 3 c~., ~ ,~ ~ ~-' ~ o'er O y ~ o ~ ~' ~ ~ ~ ~ oz ~, ~ ~ ~ 'C O ~ +~ ~' ' ti ~ ~ ~ ~ O 'C ~ O O = 0 cA c 3 O ~ >, sU• ~ ~ U ~ ~ ,t. 'C3 O N ~ '~ ~ ~ ~ a i ~ ~ ~ y , ~, YC f ' N ~ ~'" O ' . . ~ U N O ~ c3 N U . O N ~ c • ~ ~ N + ' y ~ cC .'" ~ ~." v ' ~ ~ ~ ~ .~ d ;~ ~ 3 ~ W ~ O C a~ ~ ~ a ~ ~ v ~ ~ U ~ > ~ a~ ~ o ~ ~ q ~ O ~ ~ o U ~ ~ , ~s , ~ ~ . ~ ~s . ~ ~ ~ a~ . . ~~ O ti o o N io o° m ~ ~ m ro Q v c 0 U a~ m d Z w _m .C T 7 ~ U~ c ~ o ;., Q C 75B-112 N a O7 C O .C O C O .m _m v n ca t U u C so r y 4~.f, O L O '`+ y u ~" t,:. L y G> ~.+ ~/ ^ CC .,..i r.+ .~ d ~ ~ ~ ~L ~ O C G. C ~ O w `~ ~ a>~•~ ~ ~ $ a~ G~ ~ o H ~ ~ O CC W O •%+ bA Ui ~ O ~ c~C ~ v~ 3 ~ ~ an bn w~~ ~~. va¢ vat 0 0 .~ o, o ~; ~ ~ bq ~ ~ > o an . ~ ' ~ a o , Q -o n, ~ ~., -°'u- ~ ~ .~ ,? ~ .~ ~ •~ ~ ~ ~ ~ bra bn y ~ -v ~ ° ~ ~ :n ~ c ~ -o ~ y ~ 'd O ~= O Fes, ..,°~., X > ~ ,~ ,~ 'd ' ~ .~ '' ~ ~ .~ v `~ ' ~ • ~ . ~ ~ ~ 'b O j ~' s`i', O ~ c~3 ~ Q: ~ N as O ~ bG ~ b1) „3 u cC by ~'' O O 4-~ U ° U U ° Z ~ ° ~ Z '~.' -~ ~ H cc ~ Q ~ °~' ~ °~' ~ ~° °~' cis o ~ d ~, ~ :~ c~ c~ "C .~ .° O ~ ' m . m c m ~ O ' `o Z y U 1 75B-113 r' o O ~ o ~, N co 0 7 N ~ ~ 7 Q v 0 ca aUi D o~ z _o, C ~' ~~ o w U~ c ~ o ,, Q ~ m 0 .~ 0 c 0 m v n U Q C (0 O T U V G e~ '~ O U o ~ O CS ~ C~ a u tp .~ ~.+ :es A '~ '~ ~~ ~..a a~ ~ ;a .~ Vi ~+ U ' y ~ C . ~ ~ O Q O C ~ ~ .~ ~ r ~ ~ O (~ ~ ~ ~. o c ~ ~ ~ 3 o ~ ~' ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~, ~ 0 3 U 3 ' Q y ~ ~ ~, ~ ¢- v ~ .~ •~ .~ ~ ~ o •~. _ u x ° ~ o " d ~ own ~ O '? "~ ~ ~ N :'U ~ T ~. ~ ~ ~ `n N v cd N > b ~ cS U U ~ b!J ~ U N O •~' oo ~ ~ va •~ ~ r ~ 3 ~ ~v x ~ ~ • s o ° ~ ~ ~ U ~ ~ Y '/] ~i W U i-. ~ ~y O N ~~+ Sri CI~ ~ ~ ~ U ~ ~ ~ w 'N ?-1'/J ~ ~ O ~ O ~ ° r~+ Z ' C/~ U ^C3 ~ ~ y.y 3 ° ~ Q v, ~ a1 ~ Lia ~ ~ ~ U Tl ° 4-~ 'Cy Ll ~ 0 ~ V O ~ 3 Z 'b ~ tom. N ~, ~ c3 Q f3 • ~ 4-a s O 6 ..i v rn y , 4-. t .--~ . ~ . . +- . c 0 .~ m z r cm G T f0 75B-114 a m `o .~ 0 0 a~ v n t U a c6 0 U v C ens :: O U o i O ~ a ~ i 6> y ~+ A ee ..„ ~. .~ c a~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ;n ... [ c ~ ~ ~b ~' ~ a ~ d ~ . Vl O Q ~ ~ ~ : ti a ~ ~~ r-1 O° •~i 1 /l ti ~ • rMM~ ^^ F+~4 W O ~I +~ O ~ ~~ ~ ~-F-I O v ~ J ~ -, _ ~ ° CG ~~ ~ a .~ N ~ .D ca P"' .b~A .._. 'C ~ U ^~ :~ ~ O ,O /y^~ ~j e~ e~ 'C7 4-' O c~ ~ ° o ~ ~3 d '~ o -~ ~° o .~ a~ ,fl a ~3 ~ ~' ~ .o ~° ~ o . a~ R, .:G 'C3 5 ~ ^' °J bA ~ ^° Ri 'C~ ~ c~-S ~ ~ ^, "G ~ • ~ O -O ~ ~ v: ro 'C3 ~ as o C ~ ..n y ~ ..d U ~ ~ o ,~ ~ U cs o o ~ ~ o ..~ ~ CU .ti ~ ~ O ' .y ~ O U O ~ ~ n O a +"' v, Or w U . ~ ~ ,n ~ U _ U ' : ~ • O ~ sue K O ' ~-. ai ~ =' ' ~ U ~ v cn ' y ~, ~ ~ ,~~ ~ ~ p cS cG N y~j : :> ._ '- CD U ^ O O N ~ I~ 0 (°_ 0 ~~ ~ im m ~IQ 0 .~ U N 0 m m a~ Z m ~ T ~ ~ J ~ c ~ o w, QS 75B-115 m a m c 0 .~ 0 c 0 .~ _~ g v a~ n U a m m 0 a U v teS :: O U o ue s . o :C E u C" Cam, • ~ ~ A ~ . eas 'w: ' ~ .~ C ~ ..~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ,~ ~ ~ ca Q ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ d ~ ~ an ~ d y c : CL C O v~ ~ v~ ~w ao v~ on on ~ v~ =~ an a o.~ ~ ~ ~b ~~~~ ~~ ~ Ua,Q Ua,cs~ Uam Uac1~ i, p o 0 0 0 c `'" ~ ~ ~ ee s, o • ~ ~ ~ 0 ~ O •~, 0 ' ~ 0 ' ~. ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ b r ~ dl . ~ ~ ~ U O C bfJ ~ s"' v O, ~ Q U O ~ ~ ~ U O GU ~ H F~ ~ Q b L: ~ Q . ~ c03 c~ Q 'd C1 , cC Q 'J O . , . ~ 3 ~ c. a cn ° ° ° a o - ~, ~ ~ ~, ~, - ~ c , ~ ~ d ~ o ~ Y ~ • ~ ~ ~ ~ _ y ~ . ~ ,~ , y ~ O 'O ~ ~ ~ .....1 r~ ~ ~ U ~ ~-1 ~ ' . ' 1 U O ri. ~ ,,. ~ O O ~ v~ ~ ~~ ~ ,,, a , ~ 5 , ~' .p ~ ^ N ~ ~ 1 ~ .~ a~ ~, ~ ~ . ~ a ~ o ~ ~. 3 o a~ ~ ~ ~ 3 :n ~ b 3 ~ ~ ~ ~ n Z ~ d ~ 3 ' ~ o o ~ ~, ~ ~ ~ ~ ~..'' G 3 ~ ~ . .. 0 O ~ ^o i o' ~ ~ N M z j~' p ~-, z r`~ 0 .~ aUi 0 Z w ~, 75B-116 a m c 0 c 0 c 0 m m V n U m Q m c m 0 T U U C CAS O U ~ :., ~' O O ~ CC G C,:. • ~ ~ :C Q CC ~C ~ bA ~ T C T ~ ~ ~ ~ C ~ T C ,~ [ d ~ ~ ~ d ~ d ~ ¢ ~ d ~ d ~ i, U . Y b CA ~ b N CA cs Z3 ~ CA c3 ^O 'v bA +•~ y ^G O ~ b y Cf1 ~' 'L3 +~ + O. O O ^ cv ~ ca Q G ~ cct Q ^ ~ cC ~ G ~ cC Q G ~ cC Q ~ ai ¢ ~ ~ c3 Cr C V] dA bA V: CA Gq V] GA r,A C/: bA bA :/~ bA ~ C/~ bA "A ~ " Uaq Uaq Uaq Ua.q Ua;g Ua.q U~ t, ~ ~ .., cw d o bn ~ O bn a an ~ o ~ d o cp ~ o ~ c .y ~ ~.I i, Y ~i 0 • ~ O " • NI ~ ~i C ~ G ~ ~i ~ •~--~ • ~ Q • Y M ~ ~ O ~ ~ ~ ce ~ ce ~ ~ L ~ ~ L ~ ~ ~ am ~ ~ CS ~ i + i + i -. i . 5 . . 5 . t -i L . I . S . G 6~ %A ~ O ~~ ~ O ~~ ~ O ~~ y O ~ ~ ' J ~ ice-, O ..A ~ ~~ G G G G G H Q v, «S RS Q Q v; cC Q /? CCS ~ U CC Q v? cs Q ;n G ~ .~ ~ ~ 3 ~ ~ o ~ o ~ ~ ~ ~ •U ~o ~ '~ ° o ~ °' ~ o ~ ~ ° ~ ~. ~ ~ ~ 3 ~ c r ~ v ~ ~ ~ ~ G v ~ ~ ~ • T~ ~ ~ j GJ G. 'C7 ~ ~ G G ~ RS ~ ~' U • ~ i C •`+ bA ~ ~ ~ ~ C': •`~. A ~•' ~ ' CC U ~ ~ O ._, G O G ~ b co O G c3 U O ~ O ,., ,_, '^.~ ~ yy ~ .y ? •in c3 G r " 4. N i. y ~ tr, ~ ~ v ~ ~ ~ ~ G ~ .~, rn s.. ~ bA cs f1, " ~ ai G~ O L:. ~ s., CJ ' ~ ~ ~ 'L7 v s.., a~ G y c3 ^c3 y O ~ `~ ~ o ~ o • m ~ ~ ~ ~ c~ ~ . • o -c ,.~ ~ *~ ~ ~ a~ . ~ o ~ o ~ ~ ~. ~; ~ ~ v r o bA o .~ ~ .fl ~ ~ ~ o ~ ~ ~ ~ •O ~ ~ ~ ~ U • ~ ~ ~ ~ • ~ N ` ~ N CS Y ~ ~". v vim C V .: ~ ., e~ ,•" ''~ c'3 :'U ' F. y . ~ O U y bA .~ ~ ~ .~ , . r+ ~ .~~~., y cGi, ~ i O ~ ~ .--. G O G O O,, CA .,~ ~ Y N ~ G ~ N > G O '^ .G `> ''" ~ N ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~n ~o r~ x o~ O ~, z z z z z z z z 0 ~ m o~ w Q rn v c 0 .~ m U N 0 d Z co o~ ~ T ~ ~ U~ ~~ O. ;.., a`s 75B-117 m ~o .~ 0 C O m V N a L U a` m c (n 0 V C!J 0 U ~ O C!3 ++ Rt u w ~: A ... ..., ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ T ~ T ~ T o ~ a~ d ~ ~ Q ~ ~ Q ~ ~ d ~ ~ d ~ ~ Q GZr C'. ~ O Q C1J V] ~ bq C ~ 4 V] Gq bA c ~ C C/~ bA Cp L." G w " C/~ Cq bA C ~ V] bq "D ~ C ~ a , ,.., , . , 4-. 4.. t~ Ua,W Un.q Uaq Uwe Ua W s. ~' 0 0 0 0 0 0 c ~ + ~ O O + ~ _ O G O O ~~~ J ~ fl, ~ ~. ~ G. ~ !1 ~ a. ~ ~ ~ ~ U ~ ~ V ~ ~ U ~f'. Q ~ C ~ r'~ ' ; a2 ; cG c3 ^. C' V ~ cG ~ ~ ~ ca y ~ a> o cu ~ 'c ~ ~ ~ ~ E M~1. cC ~•-~ b f., ai ~ 'LS ~. c3 .Q b Cl. aS Q 'L3 ~. Ri Q 'tJ A. ~ ~' ~ bn bA O ~ -C .~ ~ N s.. 3 C ' ~ ~ ~ 'G ~ ~ A " l O ~ . ~ ~ cs ~ GD .-a ~ 3 ~' Y O . ~ 0 ~ ~ ~ y p ~ ~ ~ ~ y a ~. N ~ ~ ~ ~ a~ U r-. U .~''-~ ~ _ ~ ~ ~ v~ _ Q Q .. ~ N Y ~-I _ • `~ ~ ~O o O ~ r-+ ~ b4 v~ I O N 'n v c3 a+ ~ ~Oy ~, ~ S~, C> ^.y~ ~' ~ y Q, ~ 4-. :~ ~ ~? y o ~n ~ cis ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ °~ ~ ~ ~ `" -°'o o a, ~ ~ o ~ ~ 3 ; o ~ ~ ~ ~ 'o ~, ~ ~, '' a ~'a o' '.J' ~, ~ s~; ~ o ~ ~ - ,. ~ 4, c~ p ~ ~ ~ a ~ ~ h ~ ~ F~ ,~ H Q ~3 ~ ~ F w ~ ~ ~ GO - c s ~ w v ~.. •., , w o ,~ v .o cn a. ~, ~ as o p N ~ M ~t ~ vi z z z z z C O rn z m >. 75B-118 ca 4. m _O C O C O o~ n s U 1 1 ~, m Q m c 0 _~ 1 ~ U u C ea 0 U ~ ~ O L O CIY u ~ ~" C~ • ~ R A . [ '~ ~ [ V Q ~. V Q G ~ C ~ ~ ' ccf 'J ^„UA ~ ' ~ ~ CA O .i ~ . "' ~ c~ Q ., ~ ccs ~ C Q 4, G ~ ~.., ~ Y ~.~ J MM J QI W MM U Q W w ~ .-. ~ a~ ~.. _ ~ ~ .a a~ ~ ~ ~ ;~ o. ~ O ~ ~ ~ Gz., ~. a~ ~ "' ~ cs :,,n > p 'L7 vi ~ ..O Q v" c. ~ a o p, .ty ~ ~ n, o -a N O Q~~~ ~ u b ,-: ~ ~ ~ ~ a~ +~ O N~~~ U ~" .^ ~ y ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ O O O .~ O _ ~ _ u ~ ~ ~ Q o ~ 3 ~ o ~ o ~ ~ c ~ ~~ o n ~ o ~ ~ r n ~ ~ v .~ .r ~ ~n o . } ~ y ~ ~ . . L' -' a~ ' ~ • ~ a~ ~ ~ c . g o ~ ~ ~ 3 ~ c o O •„ ~, ~ ~ ~ ~ _ ti o ~ x • ~ 3 • tit ~ .~ y y °~ '~ .~ ° ' ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ `~ . ~ ~ ~ 3 4:..i ~ -b ~ co ~ w .~ ~= ~ z ~ y ~> .~ o '~:. -o v W "' > ~ on ~ °~' c, ~ ~ ~. ° ~ °o ~ ~ ~ H on ~ ~' 3 ~ ~ ~ 3 s i, ~ ~ ~ N O •~ Ri o O ~. y y ~-• 4--~ ~ G vs -d Q S ~ ~ ~ >< ~ ~ O U O .~ ~ O ~ ~ .d ~ ~. w. ~ O ~ U bfJ a rn J O ~ U ~, ~ U O ~ rn 4. ~ .~ .~ c~ t~. N Ll, q 'O N Li, .'~-. . ~ ~ > Q~ ~ Q~ Q cC '3 ~ ~ ^,. ~ 4y s~-~ v b , i t v ~ O ~ :~ _ ~ ;~ ~ a n ~ o o N c`yo °o N 7 N O~ ~ Q i 0 .~ a D) Z v m m _~ ~~ ~~ o v cn ~~ o ;-, Q C ~ 75B-119 a c 0 .~ 0 c a .~ v N a m r U m m C 0 T U 61 U G CC O U ~ O "k s .~ O CC u ~'' •~ :et A s .., . ~ ~ nn ~ ~ ~ ¢ U Q ^ y ~ Q~ O y O ~ ~ ~ ti ~~!-i ~ a ^b ~ y ~ ~~ ~a~ o° ~ ~ ~ U '+"' C ~ Rs ~ Cr3 y . . L bA . zl ~ O ~ n~ o -d Y • O ~ ~ ~ O ~ ;~ O v '~ ~s v ~ O ~ ~ .~ ~ a. ~ ~ y LI Y ~ ~~•i .~ ~ u, o ~ ~ y ~ y O -d ~ 4y ~ GA as ~ ~.~ v~ J ~ 1 ~ N O Y . ~ 3-. ~ ~ ~ " ^ J] U ~ ~ ~ O "" y C ' ~~ . ~ ~ ~ o ~ -cs ' k -- o o ~ ,~ v ~ o ~ H N ~ ~ G. i 0 i m 0 .~ m U d m z m _~ T (0 75B-120 Chapter 5 References Printed References Airport Land Use Commission. 2002. Airport Environs Land Use Plan for John Wayne Airport. John Wayne Airport Impact Zones: Appendix D. Associated Soils Engineering. 2006. Report of Geotechnical Exploration Report Proposed Residential Development Southeast Corner of Fairview Street and Alton Avenue, Santa Ana, California. January 31, 2006. California Department of Conservation, California Geologic Survey. 2006. Alquist-Priolo Earthquake Fault Zones. Last updated: January 29, 2007. Available: <http://www.consrv.ca.gov/CGS/rghm/ap/index.htm>. Accessed: June 28, 2007. California Department of Conservation, Division of Land Resource Protection, Farmland Mapping and Monitoring Program. 2006. Important Farmland in California, 2004. California Department of Conservation, Division of Land Resource Protection, Williamson Act Program. 2006. Agricultural Preserves 2004. Last updated: December 21, 2006. Available: <http://www.consrv.ca.gov/DLRP/lca/index.htm>. Accessed: June 27, 2007. City of Santa Ana Police Department. 2007. SAPD Locations and Business Hours. Available: <http://www.ci.Santa-ana.ca.us/pd/generalinfo.asp>. Accessed: July 2, 2007. City of Santa Ana. 1998. General Plan. Land Use Element. Adopted February 2, 1998. City of Santa Ana. 2003. Bikeways Master Plan. City of Santa Ana. 2005a. Urban Water Management Plan. November 7, 2005. City of Santa Ana. 2005b. Zoning District Map. CIWMB. 1995. Jurisdiction Profile Overview -Waste Stream Profile. Jurisdiction Profile for the City of Santa Ana. Last updated: 2007. Available: <http://www.ciwmb.ca.gov>. Accessed: March 23, 2007 Alton Court August 2007 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 5-1 75B-121 J&S 00635.07 City of Santa Ana Chapter 5. References Institute of Transportation Engineers. 2003. Trip Generation Manual. 7`t' Edition, Vol 2 of 3. MDS Consulting. 2007. Parking Plan. Apri124, 2007. MDS, Consulting. 2007. Tract No. 17071 Alton Avenue Storm Drain Hydrology & Hydraulics Study. January 11, 2007. MDS, Consulting. 2007. Tract No. 17071 Water Quality Management Plan. April 18, 2007. Mestre Greve Associates. 2007. Noise Assessment for Alton Court City of Santa Ana. June 19, 2007. OCTA. 2002. City of Santa Ana Bus Stops. September 2002. OCTA. 2005. Orange County Congestion Management Plan. OCTA. 2006. Bus System Map. Orange County Fire Authority. 2007. Orange County, CA Fire Stations. Available: <http://ocfa.know-where.com/ocfa/>. Accessed: July 2, 2007. SCAQMD (South Coast Air Quality Management District). 1985. Rule 1108 Cutback Asphalt. Adopted May 4, 1979. Amended February 1, 1985. SCAQMD. 1993. CEQA Air Quality Handbook. SCAQMD. 2003. Air Quality Management Plan. August 1, 2003. SCAQMD. 2005. Rule 403 Fugitive Dust. Adopted May 7, 1976. Amended June 3, 2005. SCAQMD. 2006. Rule 1113 Architectural Coatings. Adopted September 2, 1977. Amended June 9, 2006. TRC. 2006. Phase I and II Environmental Site Assessment Report for the Property at 3321 South Fairview Street Santa Ana, California. January 4, 2006. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Los Angeles District. 2004. U.S. Census Bureau. 2000. Census 2000 Summary File 1, Matrices H3, H4, H5, H6, H7, and H 16. U.S. Census Bureau. 2000. Census 2000 Summary File 1, Matrix P14. U.S. Census Bureau. 2000. Census 2000 Summary File 1, Matrix QT-P10: Households and Families 100 Percent Data. Alton Court August 2007 Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 5.2 JRS 00635.07 75B-122 City of Santa Ana Chapter 5. References Waste Management of Orange County. 2007. Keeping Orange County Clean. Available: <http:/1www.wmorangecounty.com/glossary.asp>. Accessed: July 12, 2007. Personal Communication Chin, Harry. City of Santa Ana Planning and Building Agency. January 16, 2007~mai1 to Nguyen, Dylan. MDS Consulting. Dix, Susan. Dispatcher 383. City of Santa Ana Fire Department. July 13, 2007- phone conversation. Lopez, Maria. Facilities Planner. Santa Ana Unified School District. July 16 and 18, 2007-phone conversation and voicemail. Alton Court August 2007 Initial StudylMitigated Negative Declaration 5-3 J&S 00635.07 75B-123 75B-124 Chapter 6 List of Preparers City of Santa Ana Senior Planner Jones & Stokes Project Director Project Coordinator Air Quality Graphics Editing and Production Vince Fregoso Chad Beckstrom, AICP Nicole Breznock Victor Ortiz Soraya Mustain Mindy Higginson Alton Court Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration 6-1 August 2007 J&S 00635.07 75B-125 75B-126 ORDINANCE NO. NS-~CXX AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA ANA ADOPTING SPECIFIC DEVELOPMENT NO. 81 (SD-81) AND REZONING THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 3321 SOUTH FAIRVIEW STREET FROM ARTERIAL COMMERCIAL (C5) TO SPECIFIC DEVELOPMENT NO. 81 (SD-80) (AA NO.2007-02) THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA ANA DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. The City Council of the City of Santa Ana does hereby find, determine and declare as follows: A. Applicant is requesting approval of the Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring Program, Environmental Review No. 2007-37; Amendment Application No. 2007-02 rezoning the property from Arterial Commercial (C5) to Specific Development No. 81; Tentative Tract Map No. 2007-04 (County Map No. 17071) as conditioned to subdivide a lot into 9 parcels (six buildable lots and three open space parcels); and adopt a resolution approving Site Plan Review No. 2007-02 as conditioned for the property located at 3321 South Fairview Street. B. On September 10, 2007, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing and voted 5:0 (Gartner and Leo absent) to recommend that the City Council: 1. Approve and adopt the Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring Program, Environmental Review No. 2007-37. 2. Adopt an ordinance approving Amendment Application No. 2007-02 and Specific Development No. 81. 3. Adopt a resolution approving Tentative Tract Map No. 2007-04 (County Map No. 17071) as conditioned. 4. Adopt a resolution approving Site Plan Review No. 2007-02 as conditioned. C. The Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring Program, Environmental Review No. 2007-37; Amendment Application No. 2007-02 and Specific Development No. 81; Tentative Tract Map No. 2007-04 (County Map No. 17071); and Site Plan Review No. 2007-02 came before 75B-127 the City Council of the City of Santa Ana for a public hearing October 1, 2007, and at that time considered all testimony, written and oral. D. Amendment Application No. 2007-02 has been filed with the City of Santa Ana to adopt Specific Development No. 81 (SD-81) and to rezone the property located at 3321 South Fairview Street from Arterial Commercial (C5) to Specific Development No. 81 (SD-81 ). (AA No. 2007-02) E. SD-81 would allow no more than nine (9) one-family dwellings, having four or fewer bedrooms per one-family dwelling; a temporary real estate office; accessory building and structures (over fifteen feet in height requires a Conditional Use Permit); child care facilities providing care to not more than fourteen children; and garages for four or more vehicles (with a Conditional Use Permit). F. Amendment Application No. 2007-02 is consistent with the General Plan, including but not limited to its goals and policies: To promote a balance of land uses to address basic community needs. Goal 3.0 of the Land Use Element of the General Plan. 2. To promote land uses which enhance the City's economic and fiscal viability. Goal 2.0 of the Land Use Element of the General Plan. G. The City Council has weighed and balanced the general plan's policies and has determined that based upon this balancing that the project at 3321 South Fairview Street is consistent with the purpose of the general plan. H. The City Council also adopts as findings all facts presented in the Requests for Council Action dated October 1, 2007 accompanying this matter. For these reasons, and each of them, Amendment Application No. 2007-02 is hereby found and determined to be consistent with the General Plan of the City of Santa Ana and otherwise justified by the public necessity, convenience, and general welfare. The resolution approving and adopting the amended Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring Program for Environmental Review No. 2007-37 which came before the City Council on October 1, 2007. This ordinance incorporates by reference, as though fully set forth herein, that resolution and mitigated negative declaration and mitigation monitoring program. Section 2. The real property located at 3321 South Fairview Street is hereby reclassified from Arterial Commercial (C5) to Specific Development No. 81 (SD-81). (AA No. 2007-02) Amended Sectional District Map number 27-5-10 showing the above described change in use district designation, is hereby approved and attached hereto as Exhibit "A" and incorporated by this reference as though fully set forth herein. 75B-128 Section 3. Specific Development No. 81 (SD-81) as set forth in Exhibit "B", attached hereto and incorporated as though fully set forth herein, is approved and adopted in its entirety. Section 4. If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase or portion of this ordinance 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 ordinance. The City Council of the City of Santa Ana hereby declares that it would have adopted this ordinance and each section, subsection, sentence, clause, phrase or portion thereof irrespective of the fact that any one or more sections, subsections, sentences, clauses, phrases, or portions be declared invalid or unconstitutional. ADOPTED this day of , 2007. Miguel A. Pulido Mayor APPROVED AS TO FORM: Joseph W. Fletcher City Attorney By: Kylee O. Otto Assistant City Attorney AYES: Councilmembers NOES: Councilmembers ABSTAIN: Councilmembers NOT PRESENT: Councilmembers 75B-129 CERTIFICATE OF ATTESTATION AND ORIGINALITY I, PATRICIA E. HEALY, Clerk of the Council, do hereby attest to and certify the attached Ordinance No. NS- to be the original ordinance adopted by the City Council of the City of Santa Ana on ,and that said ordinance was published in accordance with the Charter of the City of Santa Ana. Date: Clerk of the Council City of Santa Ana 75B-130 Lily of NLINE LOT.VTR 9561 Fo un la in Valley 22-510 22-5-10 ~'0 l ~~ VEND DNA. M1 Mi /NINE LOT]t TN. 1561 I Mi I ~ ~Z S 10i ~ z~5-1° t E I o M1 M1 M1 26-s-16 M1 - ~ M1 N _ C4 ,_____ ~ ,_ 1,61 ~ M1 13 R2-PRD WARNER Av. M1 1 I`_ ~ ,` I -~ _ _ ~ ' '~ uc-,.--sw~ AY. M1 ~ ~ Mi RAl AV. R1 0 ~ G M1 R4 R J M1 M1 ADAM sr R1 1./~ W MAN V AV R1 M1 mz` ~' I ~i NI SEGERSTROM AV. y I ~ i-_ ~~ ' W o i ~ i~ .-~1~ I M1 it I LI R4 u M1 LI „2b M1 M1 M1 ~ Al w W D ~ e p ¢ J ~ ~° .~ _ a " m M1 eo6r P Z MO RE NI p W = 9a6-~ R2-PR c ~ ~ ~ so M1 C Mi '~" ~ , ~ ii~ii C'3 Mi ~ ~Iw~~ R2-PRD 265-10 P N ,~ 7 F\N\j.\ C u SD-81 I I il I~ ouRl AVI 6 Mi \`` ~ ` II R2-PRD 26-5-10 33-5-10 34-610 VO ~ 3 ~3]e. I NORTH tINE LOr SECTION 31-SID ~«3)3'5e 35-5-10 I 1 34-5-10 II /~ /~ SCAL1= IN FEET SECTIONAL DISTRICT MAP 27-5-10 ~ ~ , ADOPTED BY THE SANTA ANA CITY COUNCIL, AUGUST 17, 1959 BY ORDINANCE NS-394 ° 1000 60- MINIMUM FRONTAGE -ROOD MINIMUM LOT AREA Al GENERAL AGRICULTURAL C-SM SOUTH MAIN STREET COMM ERCIAL DISTRICT PD PLANNED DEVELOPMENT -B PARKING MODIFICATION -F FLOOR AREA RATIO PRD PLANNED RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT THIS MAP IS THE OFFICIrLL SecnoNAL C7 COMMUNITY COMMERCIAL GC GOVERNMENT CENTER Ri SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENCE DISTRICT MAP OFTHE CfTV OF SANTAANA. C1-MD COMMUNITV COMMERCIAL-MUSEUM DISTRICT M7 LIGHT INDUSTRIAL R2 TWO-FAMILY RESIDENCE As AUTHORIZED ev crrv coueclL RESOLVTION N0. )4163, DATED 11-18-)6, I C2 GENERAL COMMERCIAL M2 HEAVY INDUSTRIAL R3 MULTIPLE-FAMILY RESIDENCE HEREBY ATTEST THAT THIS MAP ISATRVE C3 CENTRAL BUSINESS MO MILITARY OPERATIONS R4 SUBURBAN APARTMENT COPY OF THE ORIGINAL SECTIONAL DISTRICT MAP N0.21310. C3-A CENTRAL BUSINESS-ARTISTS' VILLAGE O OPEN SPACE RE RESIDENTIAL ESTATE sign C4 PLANNED SHOPPING CENTER -OZ OVERLAY ZONE SD SPECIFIC DEVELOPMENT JAYTREVINO CS ARTERIAL COMMERCIAL P PROFESSIONAL SP SPECIFIC PLAN EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR PwININC6BUIIDND ADENCv CR COMMERCIAL RESIDENTIAL PCD PLANNED COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT cenrtKale Date RES. / A A. / AN%. NO. ORD. /RES. N0. ADOPTED DATE PES. /A.A / ANX. NO. ORD. /RES. N0. ADOPTED DATE RES./A.A./ANX. NO. 5233 5459 5692 ....... 5942 5913 6006 6008 AA]02 A.A. ]48 A.A. ]56 A.A. ]59 A.A. )60 AA. )64 A.A. 1066 AA. 993 A.A. O]-2 ORD.I RES. NO. NSJ29 NS]13 NS512 NS619 NS-105] NS1056 NS1138 NS-1140 NS-1315 NS1339 NS-1349 NS1361 NS-1362 NS-1366 NS2216 NS-2306 Pentling ADOPTED DATE 2-160 10.360 4331 9-1631 1130.10 1130-]0 93]2 95-]2 &16-]6 12-20-]fi &)-P 5~4T/ 624-]) 524-'!] 2-2-91 fi-]-99 . • , ~ ~ , • PREPARED BY THE PLANNING DIVISION - CITY OF SANTA ANA, CALIFORNIA J J 75B-131 SPECIFIC DEVELOPMENT PLAN NO. 81 Alton Court SECTION 1 -Applicability of Ordinance The specific development zoning district No. 81 (SD-81), as authorized by Chapter 41, Division 26, Section 41-593 et seq., of the Santa Ana Municipal Code, is subject to the standards and regulations contained in this plan for the express purpose of establishing land use regulations and standards. All other applicable chapters, articles, and sections of the Santa Ana Municipal Code shall apply unless expressly waived or superseded by this ordinance. SECTION 2 -Purpose The Specific Development Plan No. 81 for Alton Court consists of standards and regulations established for the purpose of protecting the health, safety, and general welfare of the people of the City of Santa Ana by promoting and enhancing the value of property and encouraging the orderly development of the property. SECTION 3 -Uses Permitted in Specific Development No. 81 The following uses are permitted in the SD-81 district: (a) No more than nine (9) one-family dwellings, having four (4) or fewer bedrooms per one-family dwelling. (b) One (1) temporary real estate office devoted to the sale of real estate in the tract in which it is located, which use shall be for a period of time not to exceed one (1) year. (c) Accessory building and structures, except as otherwise provided in Section 4(b). (d) Child care facilities providing care to not more than fourteen (14) children, provided that if the number of children exceeds eight (8), a land use certificate must be first obtained pursuant to Division 4 of Article V of Chapter 41. SECTION 4 -Uses Subiect to a Conditional Use Permit in Specific Development No. 81 (a) Garages for four (4) or more vehicles. (b) Accessory structures more than fifteen (15) feet in height or more than one story. Exhibit B 75B-132 SECTION 5 -Minimum Lot Area in Specific Development No. 81 Lots shall have an area of at least 17,999 square feet. SECTION 6 -Minimum Street Frontage in Specific Development No. 81 Lots shall have street frontage of at least 100 feet. SECTION 7 -Building Height in Specific Development No. 81 No primary structure shall exceed twenty-eight (28) feet nor two (2) stories in height, as measured from the lowest adjacent grade of the structure to the top of the structure. SECTION 8 -Lot Coverage in Specific Development No. 81 No more than forty (40) percent of the lot shall be covered by structures. SECTION 9 -Front Yards in Specific Development No. 81 There shall be a front yard of not less than ten (10) feet from the street. Porches may encroach into the front yard a maximum of six (6) feet. SECTION 10 -Side Yards in Specific Development No. 81 Each side yard shall be not less than five (5) feet for each one-family dwelling structure. Cornices, eaves, chimneys, and similar architectural features may extend into the required side yard a distance not to exceed eighteen (18) inches. SECTION 11 -Rear Yards in Specific Development No. 81 There shall be a rear yard of not less than thirteen (13) feet for each one-family dwelling structure. Such rear yard may be reduced to not less than five (5) feet for open patio covers. SECTION 12 -Development Standards in Specific Development No. 81 Lots in the SD No. 81 district shall comply with the following standards: (a) Front and street oriented side yards shall be landscaped with the exception of approved driveways and sidewalks. (b) Accessory structures shall not exceed thirty-five (35) percent of the required rear yard area and shall not exceed fifty (50) percent of the main structure square footage. 75B-133 (c) The building separation between one-family dwelling structures shall be at least 10 feet. Cornices, eaves, chimneys, and similar architectural features may extend into the required side yard a distance not to exceed eighteen (18) inches. (d) The building separation between primary and accessory structures shall be at least five feet. SECTION 13 -Parking Requirements in Specific Development No. 81 (a) The minimum parking requirements for one (1) one-family dwelling is four (4) parking spaces. At least two of these spaces shall be in an enclosed garage. (b) Each parking stall in a two-car garage shall not be less than ten (10) feet wide and twenty (20) feet long. (c) All other uses shall be parked pursuant to Santa Ana Municipal Code Chapter 41, Article XV. SECTION 14 -Open Space Standard for Specific Development No. 81 A private open space shall be provided for any project. The lot shall be a minimum of 7,100 square feet in size and contain the following amenities: (a) Decorative shade structure (b) Two gas barbeques (c) A minimum of six benches (d) Two picnic tables (e) Pedestrian access gate on the west perimeter wall SECTION 15 -Landscape Standards for Specific Development No. 81 In the SD No. 81 district, all yards shall be landscaped. All landscaping shall be installed pursuant to a landscaping plan approved by the Planning Manager. Each residential unit shall meet the following minimum requirements: (a) Front Yard: (1) Three (3) twenty four inch (24) box canopy trees per one-family dwelling which is immediately adjacent to the front yard. 75B-134 (2) All trees shall be double-staked. (3) Six five-gallon size shrubs and ten (10) one-gallon size herbaceous perennials/shrubs as a foundation planting. (4) Turf or acceptable dry climate ground cover: Turf shall be drought tolerant variety and planted as sod or hydroseed. ii. Ground cover shall be well-rooted cuttings from flats and planted at appropriate spacing for that particular plant material. (b) Side Yard: (1) Corner lots shall require three (3) thirty-six (36) inch box trees. plus six five-gallon size shrubs and groundcover as a foundation planting. Root barriers shall be required on all trees planted along the street oriented yards. (c) Motor court Landscaping: (1) One (1) twenty-four inch (24) box canopy tree for each one-family dwelling fronting a motor court, (d) Project Entry Landscaping: (1) A minimum of twenty-two (22) thirty-six inch (36) box Queen Palm trees shall be planted within the project entry. Shrubs, vines and groundcover shall also be planted pursuant to the City's Residential Landscape Standards. (2) Interlocking pavers shall be installed as the paving surface for the entry. (e) Project Perimeter Walls: (1) Flowering vines shall be provided and secured to a decorative masonry wall. In addition, all exterior walls shall be covered in vines to deter graffiti (Modified by the Planning Commission on September 10, 2007). (2) The vines shall be five-gallon size and be planted at a maximum 20- foot interval. They shall be secured to the walls with eye hooks and wire. 75B-135 (f) Irrigation Systems: (1) A pop-up sprinkler type irrigation system shall be provided for all yards for each residential unit. (2) The use of "xeriphytic" or dry climate type plant materials is encouraged. Irrigation systems may require special fittings to properly water dry climate plantings. (g) Screening: (1) All meters shall be appropriately screened from public view with trellis work and vines or a hedge type shrub or they shall be incorporated into the residential structure. (2) Any enclosed structure for utilities must not encroach into any required setback. (h) Maintenance: (1) All plant material shall be maintained per Section 41-609 of the Santa Ana Municipal Code. SECTION 16 -Definitions for Specific Development No. 81 Motor court - An open area, unobstructed from the ground which is bounded on three sides by exterior walls of one or more buildings and is used for driveway and parking purposes. 75B-136 KO-9/26/07 RESOLUTION NO. 2007- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA ANA APPROVING AND ADOPTING THE MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND MITIGATION MONITORING PROGRAM (ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW NO. 2007-37); APPROVING TENTATIVE TRACT MAP NO. 2007- 04 AS CONDITIONED (COUNTY MAP NO. 2007-04), AND SITE PLAN REVIEW NO. 2007-02 AS CONDITIONED FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 3321 SOUTH FAIRVIEW STREET BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA ANA AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. The City Council of the City of Santa Ana hereby finds, determines and declares as follows: A. Applicant is requesting approval of the Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring Program, Environmental Review No. 2007-37; Amendment Application No. 2007-02 rezoning the property from Arterial Commercial (C5) to Specific Development No. 81; Tentative Tract Map No. 2007-04 (County Map No. 17071) as conditioned to subdivide a lot into 9 parcels (six buildable lots and three open space parcels); and adopt a resolution approving Site Plan Review No. 2007-02 as conditioned for the property located at 3321 South Fairview Street. B. On September 10, 2007, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing and voted 5:0 (Gartner and Leo absent) to recommend that the City Council: 1. Approve and adopt the Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring Program, Environmental Review No. 2007-37. 2. Adopt an ordinance approving Amendment Application No. 2007-02 and Specific Development No. 81. 3. Adopt a resolution approving Tentative Tract Map No. 2007-04 (County Map No. 17071) as conditioned. 4. Adopt a resolution approving Site Plan Review No. 2007-02 as conditioned. Resolution No. 2007- Page 1 of 8 75B-137 C. The Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring Program, Environmental Review No. 2007-37; Amendment Application No. 2007-02 and Specific Development No. 81; Tentative Tract Map No. 2007-04 (County Map No. 17071); and Site Plan Review No. 2007-02 came before the City Council of the City of Santa Ana for a public hearing October 1, 2007, and at that time considered all testimony, written and oral. D. Tentative Tract Map No. 2007-04 (County Map No. 17071) to subdivide the existing lot into six buildable parcels and three open space parcels to allow a total of 38 condominium lots. The City Council of the City of Santa Ana determines that the following findings have been established: 1. The proposed project, as conditioned, and its design and improvements are consistent with the Medium Density Residential designation on the General Plan and are otherwise consistent with all other elements of the General Plan. Tentative Tract Map No. 2007-04 (County Map No. 17071) is consistent with the land use designation and density prescribed in the General Plan and will have no adverse affect on the surrounding land uses in the area. 2. The proposed project, as conditioned, conforms to all applicable requirements of the zoning and subdivision codes as well as other applicable City ordinances. Tentative Tract Map No. 2007-04 (County Map No. 17071) is in keeping with the provisions of the site plan review (DP No. 06-77) and Chapters 34 and 41 of the Santa Ana Municipal Code, all of which pertain to the subdivision of land and development standards for the site. 3. The project site is physically suitable for the type and density of the proposed project. Tentative Tract Map No. 2007-04 (County Map No. 17071) is proposed for asix-acre parcel of land within an area that is proposed to be rezoned to Specific Development No. 81 (SD-81). The site has been determined to be capable of supporting the type and density of the proposed project. 4. The design and improvements of the proposed project will not cause substantial environmental damage or substantially and avoidably injure fish or wildlife or their habitat. No fish or wildlife will be affected by the approval of this map or by the design and improvements of the project. Resolution No. 2007- Page 2 of 8 75B-138 Environmental Review No. 2007-37 has been prepared for this project and has identified mitigation measures aimed at reducing any environmental impact associated with this project. 5. The design or improvements of the proposed project will not cause serious public health problems. The design and improvements associated with this project have been prepared to comply with minimum City standards. The street system, although to be private and maintained by a homeowners association, has been designed to public street standards and will accommodate emergency vehicles. All other improvements have been designed to mitigate any serious problem resulting from this project. 6. The design or improvements of the proposed project will not conflict with the easements acquired by the public at large for access through or use of property within the proposed project. Approval of Tentative Tract Map No. 2007-04 (County Map No. 17071) will not create conflicts with any easements necessary for public access through the subject property, as no such easements currently exist. Public access will be allowed to the site through the entrance and with homeowner authorization. E. Section 41-593.5(c) of the Santa Ana Municipal Code requires a review by the Planning Commission of all plans within a specific development plan area to ensure the project is in conformity with the Specific Plan. 1. Site Plan Review No. 2007-02 came before the City Council of the City of Santa Ana on October 1, 2007. 2. After reviewing the plans for the proposed project, the City Council determines the project is in compliance with all applicable development standards outlined within the Specific Development Plan (SD-81 ). Section 2. The City Council has reviewed and considered the information contained in the initial study and the mitigated negative declaration and mitigation monitoring program prepared with respect to this Project. The City Council has, as a result of its consideration and the evidence presented at the hearings on this matter, determined that, as required pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act ("CEQA") and the State CEQA Guidelines, a mitigation negative declaration and mitigation monitoring program adequately addresses the expected environmental impacts of this Project. On the basis of this review, the City Council finds that there is Resolution No. 2007- Page 3 of 8 75B-139 no evidence from which it can be fairly argued that the Project will have a significant adverse effect on the environment. The City Council hereby certifies and approves the mitigated negative declaration and mitigation monitoring program and directs that the Notice of Determination be prepared and filed with the County Clerk of the County of Orange in the manner required by law. Section 3. The City Council after conducting the public hearing hereby approves: A. Tentative Tract Map No. 2007-04 as conditioned in Exhibit "A" attached hereto and incorporated herein. B. Site Plan Review No. 2007-02 as conditioned in Exhibit "B" attached hereto and incorporated herein. These decisions are based upon the evidence submitted at the above said hearing, which includes but is not limited to: the Request for Council Action dated October 1, 2007 and exhibits attached thereto; and the public testimony written and oral, all of which are incorporated herein by this reference. Section 4. This decision rendered by the City Council of the City of Santa Ana is final and is subject to judicial review pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure section 1094.6. The Clerk of the Council shall give direct notice to the applicant of the Council's decision and these findings. ADOPTED this day of , 2007 Miguel A. Pulido Mayor APPROVED AS TO FORM: Joseph W. Fletcher, City Attorney By: Kylee O. Otto Assistant City Attorney Resolution No. 2007- Page 4 of 8 75B-140 AYES: Councilmembers NOES: Councilmembers ABSTAIN: Councilmembers NOT PRESENT: Councilmembers CERTIFICATE OF ATTESTATION AND ORIGINALITY I, PATRICIA E. HEALY, Clerk of the Council, do hereby attest to and certify the attached Resolution No. 2007-XXX to be the original resolution adopted by the City Council of the City of Santa Ana on Date: Clerk of the Council City of Santa Ana Resolution No. 2007- Page 5 of 8 75B-141 Conditions for Approval for Tentative Tract Map No. 2007-04 Tentative Tract Map No. 2007-04 (County Map No. 17071) is approved subject to compliance, to the reasonable satisfaction of the Planning Manager, with all applicable sections of the Santa Ana Municipal Code, the California Administrative Code, the Uniform Fire Code, the Uniform Building Code and all other applicable regulations. The applicant must comply in full with each and every condition listed below rid or to exercising the rights conferred by this tentative tract map. The applicant must remain in compliance with all conditions listed below throughout the life of the tentative tract map. Failure to comply with each and every condition may result in the revocation of the tentative tract map. A. Planning Division The Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions (CC&R's) for this project must be reviewed and approved prior to approval of the final tract map. 2. The CC&R's must include language that requires all required landscaping must be installed within a specified time period. In addition, the CC&R's shall include a provision banning front yard and side yard fences and front porch railings except as shown in the plans or elevations submitted by the applicant in conjunction with the approval of the tentative tract map . 3. A fencing plan showing the location of all project fencing and the materials to be used must be submitted to the Planning Division prior to submittal into building plan check. 4. The perimeter fencing for the project cannot exceed eight feet in height, as measured from the height of the street sidewalk. 5. All real estate signage must be removed from the site within one year from the date of installation. An extension of time may be granted as determined by the Planning Manager. 6. The final map must be approved and recorded prior to issuance of building permits. 7. Development within the area of the map is subject to development and permit fees in effect at the time of permit issuance. 8. Development within the area of the map is subject to design and development standards in effect at the time of permit issuance. Resolution No. 2007- Exhlblt A Page 6 of 8 75B-142 9. The project must be in compliance with the provisions of Site Plan Review (DP No. 06-77). 10. Two copies of the recorded final map and CC&R's shall be submitted each to the Planning Division, Fire Department, Building Division, and Public Works Agency within 10 days of recordation. 11. The final map and all improvements required to be made or installed by the subdivider must be in accordance with the design standards and specifications of the Santa Ana Municipal Code and the requirements of the State Subdivision Map Act. Resolution No. 2007- Page 7 of 8 75B-143 Conditions for Approval for Site Plan Review No. 2007-02 Site Plan Review No. 2007-02 is approved subject to compliance, to the reasonable satisfaction of the Planning Manager, with all applicable sections of the Santa Ana Municipal Code, the California Administrative Code, the Uniform Fire Code, the Uniform Building Code and all other applicable regulations. The applicant must comply in full with each and every condition listed below rip or to exercising the rights conferred by this site plan approval. The applicant must remain in compliance with all conditions listed below throughout the life of the site plan approval. Failure to comply with each and every condition may result in a building permit not being issued. A. Planning_ Division 1. All proposed site improvements must conform with the Site Plan Review approval of DP No. 06-77. 2. Any amendment to this site plan must be submitted to the Planning Division and Police Department for review. At that time, staff will determine if administrative relief is available or the Planning Commission must amend the site plan approval. Exhibit B Resolution No. 2007- Page 8 of 8 75B-144 REQUEST FOR COUNCIL ACTION CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE: OCTOBER 1, 2007 TITLE: PUBLIC HEARING - 2007/08 SUPPLEMENTAL LAW ENFORCEMENT SERVICES FUND GRANT CITI'' MANAGER RECOMMENDED ACTION CLERK OF COUNCIL USE ONLY: APPROVED ^ As Recommended ^ As Amended ^ Ordinance on 15f Reading ^ Ordinance on 2"d Reading ^ Implementing Resolution ^ Set Public Hearing For_ CONTINUED TO FILE NUMBER Adopt a resolution to approve the proposed expenditure plan for the FY 2007/08 Supplemental Law Enforcement Services Fund. DISCUSSION The State of 'California provides grant funding to State law enforcement agencies through the Supplemental Law Enforcement Services Fund (SLESF). This grant requires that funding be allocated to counties and cities in accordance with specific requirements for front-line law enforcement services. Front-line law enforcement typically includes community oriented policing projects and special law enforcement activities that require use of additional police officers in specially targeted saturation areas. Total funding allocation is based on annual estimated population figures for respective counties and cities. In FY 2006/07, the Police Department received an award of $684,861. The potential funding amount for FY 2007/08 has yet to be authorized through the State budget. In compliance with the requirements of this legislation, the Orange County Supplemental Law Enforcement Oversight Committee has requested that all cities obtain City Council approval of their Description of Planned Expenditures for FY 2007/08 (Exhibit 1). The Police Department plans to utilize these funds for equipment and overtime for front-line crime reduction efforts such as gang suppression, cruiser enforcement, and career criminal apprehension. FISCAL IMPACT There is no fiscal impact associated with this action. ~ ' \,~ J:.: Paul M. Walters Chief of Police Police Department 7 5C ~1 Exhibit 1 `` °~9 SUPPLEMENTAL LAW ° ~L,~¢~ ENFORCEMENT OVERSIGHT CGMMITTEE ~'rx General Description of Planned Expenditures FY 2007/08 This General Description of Planned Expenditures form is to be completed and returned along with a City Council Agenda Report denoring planned SLESF appropriations for FY 07/OS to the Orange County Supplemental Law Enforcement Oversight Committee to ensure compliance with Government Code Sections 30061-30065. Except as otherwise allowed by law, Supplemental Law Enforcement Funds must be expended exclusively for personnel, equipment, or programs that support front line Iaw enforcement services, and may not be used to supplant any other existing funding. City Agency: Santa Ana Police Department Contact Name and Phone # ~ ral Anthony Bertagna (714) 245-8029 Description: mhe ~~ Ana Police Department proposes to utilize SLESF__funds for the followina• (1) overtime for front line crime reduction efforts and ~~rovement of p lic safety throughout the eommuriity, for proarams such as n T sk Force C7uiser Enforcement and Career Criminal An~rt~hr~nsion (2) equipment to enhance the Patrol Rifle Program for front line ~~, (3 f ernai,rrYr~t tt to expand vehicle tracki.nQ capability for criminal ~~,~ '' ~,sion p~'~seC - (4) equipment to enhance the_ _ Strike Force beam' s ~,bility.to respond and handle extremely high-risk incidents throughout the ~u,~ (51~~i ~Pnt to imnrovP t-hP C~ ~,L~ ,- F'or nsi cs Uni is abi 1 i ty~ analyze and preserve digital evidence for criminal investigations; (6) eaui~xnent to d the Mobile Field Force contingency's ability to respond to civil unrest by adding one additional horse trailer for the Mounted Unit. S:IKimDianelGrent AppficationslSLESFISLFSF 07.OS'~p5 Planned Ezpenditma Form fY07-US.doc 75C-2 Iss:09/11 /07 RESOLUTION NO. 2007- A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA ANA TO APPROVE THE PROPOSED EXPENDITURE PLAN FOR THE 2007-2008 SUPPLEMENTAL LAW ENFORCEMENT SERVICES FUND BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SANTA ANA AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. The City Council of the City of Santa Ana hereby finds, determines and declares as follows: A. The California Legislature has established and annually funds the Supplemental Law Enforcement Services Fund (SLESF). B. Said fund requires that moneys be allocated to counties and cities in accordance with specified requirements for front line law enforcement services. C. The total funding allocation is based on annual estimated population figures for respective counties and cities. In 2006-07 the City of Santa Ana, received an award of $684,861. D. The potential funding amount for 2007-08 has yet to be authorized through the State budget. The State requires cities and counties to adopt and submit an expenditure plan to the Supplemental Law Enforcement Oversight Committee prior to funding. E. The Police Department has established a SLESF expenditure account for the grant funds, and is committed to spend the funds on front-line law enforcement, including personnel and equipment for community policing. In addition to personnel expenses for Gang Suppression Task Force, Cruiser Enforcement and Career Criminal Apprehension Programs; the expenditure account will include purchases of equipment to enhance the Patrol Rifle Program, expand vehicle tracking capabilities, enhance the ability to respond to high-risk incident's, analyze and preserve digital evidence and a horse trailer for the Mounted Unit. F. A duly noticed public hearing was held to consider this item at the Council's regular meeting of October 1, 2007. The City Council 75C-3 considered all testimony, written and oral, before rendering this decision. Section 2. The City Council of the City of Santa Ana hereby approves and authorizes and empowers the Chief of Police to take all actions necessary to submit the proposed SLESF expenditure plan to the Supplemental Law Enforcement Oversight Committee. Section 3. This Resolution shall take effect immediately upon its adoption by the City Council, and the Clerk of the Council shall attest to and certify the vote adopting this Resolution. ADOPTED this day of , 2007. Miguel A. Pulido Mayor APPROVED AS TO FORM: Joseph W. Fletcher, City Attorney By: Laura Sheedy Assistant City Attorney AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: NOT PRESENT Councilmembers: Councilmembers: Councilmembers: Councilmembers: CERTIFICATION OF ATTESTATION AND ORIGINALITY I, PATRICIA E. HEALY, Clerk of Council, do hereby attest to and certify the attached Resolution No. to be the original resolution adopted by the City Council of the City of Santa Ana on Date: Clerk of Council City of Santa Ana 75C-4