Certainly the web site owner has an agenda.  Still, the video excerpts are disturbing.  Is the 4th Amendment under assault by law enforcement?  Did the San Luis Obispo County Sheriff’s deputies who responded to this particular call go too far and abuse their discretion, violating the 4th Amendment rights of Matt Hart?  My collegue Louis Koory, Esq. a well seasoned civl and criminal trial lawyer is interviewed in this “documentary” as is a former San Luis Obispo Police officer.  They raise some troubling questions about this particular raid.  Questions I would like to hear the two Sheriff’s candidates answer.

How do our current Sheriff Candidates Joe Cortez and Ian Parkinson feel about this raid?  How do they feel about the 4th Amendment?  I am going to post links to this video and article to their Facebook pages and invite them to comment.  I would like to hear their responses.  How about you?  Joe.  Ian.  Any comments?

If you have an opinion about whether Nipomo should have a Marijuana dispensary operating under the guise of “medical marijuana” contact all of the board of supervisors, not just our own supervisor, Katcho.  You can find all the supervisor’s email addresses here.

The applicant’s appeal is here: appeal form- applicant_20100618162319

More to come . . .

Date:  Saturday April 10, 2010

Time:  9:00 a.m. to 11:00 a.m.

Place:  Blacklake Golf Resort Banquet Room, 1490 Golf Course Lane, Nipomo, CA

Come and hear the the candidates’ positions on what law enforcement issues face the south county, and Nipomo in particular.

On a rainy Saturday morning on February 6, 2010 176 South County residents filled the Avila Room at the Trilogy Golf Resort to hear the three candidates for the San Luis Obispo County’s 4th District seat.  The candidates in alphabetical order:  Jim Guthrie, Paul Teixeira, and Mike Zimmerman answered questions from the audience for two hours at the moderated Candidate’s Forum.  Dave Congalton of Home Town Radio, KVEC 920 A.M. moderated the forum before the largest political candidate forum ever held in Nipomo.  There were 63 questions submitted, but we only had time for candidates to answer 22.

Below are my rough notes of the forum including the opening statements, questions, answers and closing by each of the candidates.  They are not meant to be verbatim, but rather my best recollection of the content of their comments.

Paul Teixeira

Jim Guthrie

Mike Zimmerman

Jim Guthrie Opening

Thanks all for attending.  Many challenges over coming years.  Requires thoughtful leadership.  Has been dealing with issues last 9 years on Arroyo Grande City Council.  Provided development where makes sense and does no harm.  Has endorsement of many local politicians, including two sitting supervisors, and two sitting NCSD members.  Hopes to be Supervisor.  Facing difficult fiscal choices in San Luis Obispo County.  Has experience with fiscal matters. Manager of spyglass Inn.  Hard choices coming for SLO county and is ready to meet them.  Believes can bring good solutions to 4th District and Nipomo.

Mike Zimmerman Opening

Appreciates attendance.  Thanks to NICE.  Introduces family.  Background grew up in Modesto and Arroyo Grande CA.  Public schools, Modesto Jr. College, then Cal Poly.  Took farm management, graduated with a Masters of Science.  Met wife Joan, married during Cal Poly education.  Joan’s dad an attorney.  He suggested Mike go to law school.  Accepted Western State University Law School.  Moved to Fullerton while in law school.  Practiced with father in law, for 31 years in trusts estates, real estate.  Has good background in law.  Believes well suited for 4th District supervisor.  Local bar association board director.  4H experience, dealing with pork.

Paul Teixeira Opening

Thanks NICE.  Lived Nipomo last 40 years.  Introduced family.  Running because loves area and wants it to stay same.  School Board and park commissioners.  Involved in Jack’s Helping Hand  Dana Adobe, Rotary, FFA and 4H as well.  Return county to sense of community.  Improve quality of health care in SLO county.  Improve mobility of county, improving roads.  additional recreation.  provide resources to properly address growing drug problem.  Improve public trust in county government.  Eliminate waste in county government.  Need to look at all ideas to improve county.  Thanks for attendance.

Medical Marijuana–What is your position on marijuana dispensaries in the unincorporated areas of San Luis Obispo County?

Jim Guthrie

Too much conflict between state and federal law.  Too ambiguous state law.  Same position as his position on the Arroyo Grande  City Council.  Too limited police resources.  Not in favor of dispensaries in any unincorporated areas.  Spoke against it at SCAC meeting in Nipomo.

Paul Teixeira

On school board deals with drug issues on regular basis.  Marijuana problem in area getting worse.  Also spoke against here dispensary in Nipomo at SCAC meting.  Needs to be dealt with by medical professionals, i,e, trained pharmacists.  Doesn’t  believe in half baked ideas as this plan is currently.

Mike Zimmerman

All agree on this issue.  Federal law its illegal.  Morro Bay distributor convicted.  Not enough law enforcement in Nipomo.  Also at SCAC meeting the other night and spoke against it.  Hundreds of dispensaries shut down in Los Angeles. The only reason to come is to buy marijuana.  Problems can occur after the purchase.  Applicant hasn’t dealt with this issue.  The current board of supervisors should impose moratorium.

Energy and Off Shore Oil Drilling

Paul Teixeira

Need to explore solar farms.  Feds asking us to be more energy efficient.  County prefect location for solar.  Wildlife concerns addressed.  personally supports off shore oil drilling.  Energy Department created to wean us off foreign oil, hasn’t happened.  Need to develop alternate energy sources.  We need wind and solar power and for now oil drilling.

Mike Zimmerman

Need increased solar projects.  It will help with unemployment.  Environmental concerns   can be addressed.  We have better off shore oil technology.  We  should go after those resources now and use existing platforms.  Will create new jobs and tax revenue.

Jim Guthrie

No to off shore oil drilling.  Recent plan to use current platforms.  Supports renewable energy.  Believes EIR will show mitigations available on solar energy.  Have to keep open mind as public official.

SMART Growth and Nipomo

Mike Zimmerman

Is a term of art, doesn’t mean it is actually smart.  May actually be dumb growth.  County already on this track, but born out of extreme environmentalism.  This extremism has shut off water top valley farmers.  When you cut off jobs over extreme environmental position something is wrong. Idea sounds good.  Want all building to occur within certain boundary.  Have higher density in those boundaries.  Example in Templeton.  Neighbors there didn’t want it though.  Take to logical extension, very dense home building, grid lock.  In Nipomo doesn’t see it working well.  Embrace what works.

Jim Guthrie

Look at big picture.  Generally higher density requires fewer resources including water.  Potential to reduce drive times and green house gases.  execution of smart growth, have to take what you can get, based on his experience in Arroyo Grande.  Templeton example good.  Supervisors should have denied.  Look at what community and market will support.  Leaders should exercise judgment.

Paul Teixeira

Good and bad points to it.  In SLO have some high density that makes sense.  In Nipomo we want rural community–why we came here.  We don’t want high density especially on the mesa.  People need to decide what they want.  If we don’t want high density need to speak up.  Perhaps room else where but not in Nipomo.

What will help Old Towne complete their improvements

Jim Guthrie

Built infrastructure in advance a problem.  Also on wrong side of freeway, another problem.  This why it lacks development.  When Vons came to west side hurt Old Towne.  Once first building is built, then development will take off.

Paul Teixeira

40 years ago it was just Nipomo not old town. Likes east side charm.  Rexall, barber shop, Jockos.  Whatever we can do to help we need to do.  Major mistake was post office move.  Many on east side have p.o. boxes.  They used to walk to get mail now don’t. Putting the post office back would help greatly.  All kinds of things down there now.

Mike Zimmerman

East side is a special place in Nipomo.  Envisions old town developing into something like the Arroyo Grande Village. Tefft street mess over freeway is deterrent on west side.  Get more off ramps and on ramps will help relieve congestion.  This in turn will help open opportunities for east side development.  Need more tax dollars to come to Nipomo to help incorporation.

Water and Nipomo

Mike Zimmerman

Water most important issue in growth.  Many have attended water meetings.  Aquifer experts saying all out of same pool.  Concern re: salt water intrusion.  Make certain we don’t over draft.  Not al lot of choices.  Cut back on use, or find new sources.  NCSD getting water from Santa Maria.  Supposed state water and court mandated.  About $23 million.  Possible assessment district.  Should look at desalination for water as well.  If we don’t start looking for other sources ocean is what’s left.

Jim Guthrie

Water is important issue all over county  Oceano and Pismo probably only ones with sufficient for their build out.  Currently connection to Santa Maria best solution for now, Not sure if court mandated.  Need other sources. Desalation is very far off.  Northern cities have been working on that, but is difficult to achieve.  Recycled water also an option.  Need a regional solution.  Use surface water, recycled, desalination in combination.

Paul Teixeira

East side mostly affected by water shortage, more so than mesa.  Many wells on mesa.  We need water, doesn’t know if pipe line right answer.  Desalination good idea.  If we started 10 years ago be further ahead. Ten years ago should have purchased state water.  Doesn’t think spending $24 million is good idea for pipeline.  May need to use reclaimed water on some projects.  Santa Maria water table higher than 10 years ago Better agriculture techniques now.

Development How To Spur

Paul Teixeira

Nipomo needs some growth in east side.  Also need affordable housing for normal working person.  Don’t have it here in Nipomo.  Have some self help projects, good idea, sweat equity good way to get housing starts.  Need place for people who work locally to live.

Mike Zimmerman

Low cost housing needed all areas.  School fees and permitting about $70K before breaking ground.  Hard to have affordable housing with these costs.  Need to find areas to build affordable housing.  Need to cut costs to help.  Spur development most people want controlled development.  Don’t want run away building.  Once economy improves will see more development, but affordable housing important.

Jim Guthrie

Affordable housing an important need.  Take a look at fees, but are necessary.  Tefft interchange shows fees important to improve road and water systems to handle additional growth.  Past fees not high enough which happened here in Nipomo.  Arroyo Grande successful because collecting fees for some time.  County now behind and collecting higher fees.  Fees not alone impediment to development.  When economy and market comes back so will development.  But work force housing absolutely key.  Need more affordable housing on small lots.

Why do you want to be supervisor

Jim Guthrie

Key time and challenging.  Significant changes in county to prepare us for future.  In Arroyo Grande they went a.g. went through contentious time.  If we plan ahead improve how county operates, can thrive in future.  Much has to take place on county level and he has experience to implement and prepare change for future.  Cares about county and its future.

Paul Teixeira

Lived in Nipomo over 40 years, loves area.  Wants to serve community he loves, which is what he has done.  Can’t see passing current seat to someone not involved in our community.  We know what we want, and what we have.  Won’t turn back on friends.  Have serious work to do with economic downturn.  Need to get back to work, take care of kids.  Keep drugs out of school.

Mike Zimmerman

Doesn’t need a job.  Direction of county, doesn’t like it.  More regulations farmers ranchers.  Changing grading requirements for farmers.  Business owner comes with different perspective to county government on what it takes to make business run and create jobs.  More regulations may seem like good ideas but businesses can’t take it.  Katcho excellent voice for business owners.  Wants to continue for business people and property owners.  Keep government intrusion out of our lives as much as possible.

Tefft Street Traffic

Mike Zimmerman

Doesn’t make sense one off ramp for Nipomo. Plays golf on mesa all the time.  Idea waiting through all the signals ridiculous.  Not too expensive to have on ramp off ramp other side of freeway and a good idea.  Having additional on off ramps alleviate much of Tefft street corridor.  Would look into this w/ Cal Trans.  Perhaps moving Tefft street off ramps down on frontage.  Traffic planners can study .

Jim Guthrie

Willow is funded.  First improvement.  Don’t know if it will go to Thompson.  Key to make certain Willow Road is built and also Frontage Road too.  Many go to great lengths not to go on Tefft Street.  Other interchanges dependent on studies to be done.  Cal Trans doesn’t want to be bothered with this, leave Tefft as a monster interchange.  Additional interchange is essential, Southland is good location.  Will be a long process.

Paul Teixeira

Tefft is a mess.  Cal Trans wants to make it bigger and better.  But also want to put local businesses out of business.  Need to get Willow Road done.  Southland is good project if Cal Trans will allow.  We need help from Cal Trans.  This is not rocket science.  Cal Trans has ignored us for many years.  Willow Road important.  We need this as a whole.  Needs to be done for good of community.  Take truck traffic off mesa.  166 hooked to Division directly then to 101 take trucks out of community.

Housing–Fair Share South County

Paul Teixeira

High density a problem in Nipomo.  Have low cost property attractive to developers over the years.  County and state has allowed this in Nipomo.  Other communities and cities need to share.  Not fair for Nipomo to take brunt of this housing without other communities sharing along with Nipomo.

Mike Zimmerman

Attended number of meetings in Nipomo.  People unhappy with county.  Feeling here is county dumps undesirable projects here marijuana dispensary example.  Stick to your guns.

Jim Guthrie

Most housing development here driven by land prices.  Doesn’t think county has dumped low cost housing here.  Need to solve problems in Nipomo before moving forward with additional housing.  Need infrastructure first before more development.

Conversion of Agricultural Land To Urban Use

Jim Guthrie

In Arroyo Grande has dealt with this.  Haven’t converted any in Arroyo Grande.  Only support if it was totally infill.  Not in favor of conversions generally.  Can find other locations for residential.  If location makes sense for overall development and not on class 1 or 2 lands may support.

Paul Teixeira

Support private property rights.  People should be able to do what they want with their property.  Should be able to do what they want within reason.  People with property may want a granny unit, or don’t want to farm anymore, and aren’t allowed to do this.  County requirements are burdensome.  People who own agricultural land and if project makes sense, then he supports converting.  Woodlands development once agricultural land.  Turned worthless sand dune into beautiful community.  Same with Black Lake.  Prime agricultural land take real hard look.  Property owner should be able to do what wants.

Mike Zimmerman

Agrees with Paul, property owner should have rights to do what they want that is reasonable.  Nice to be able to have a family home on the farm/ranch even if agricultural.  Class 1 or 2 depends on location.  Dalidio property didn’t want to farm any more.  Was island in middle of city.  Would be in favor of these types of developments,  property rights win out in right circumstance

Vehicles on Beach/Dunes

Mike Zimmerman

Dunes for tourism and ATV’s essential to tourism of economy of area.  Not in favor of closing dunes to vehicles.  Look carefully at studies that suggest negative effects.  Need good science before shutting down dunes to vehicles.

Jim Guthrie

Favors keeping vehicles on dunes.  County should look at whether sell or lease land.  Air pollution study, need to take a closer look.  There are questions need better look and see what actual impacts are on Nipomo.  Mesa residents see clouds every day and particulate matter on cars.  Vehicle part of dunes may be over stated as essential, but is a key piece and a source of recreation many people like to do.

Paul Teixeira

Agrees with others on beach access.  Believes should increase area for vehicles.  Is important to local economies, including surrounding incorporated cities.  Doesn’t support selling property, but might support expanding.  Taking trees out took out greatest filter.  Take harder look at studies.

Nipomo Community Park-Community Center?

Paul Teixeira

Original design of community center by medical center near Dana School.  But ended up next to little Jockos.  Unfortunate went by way side.  Met with Katcho and parks re: community center in park.  Need one somewhere and needs to be high traffic area.

Mike Zimmerman

Need community center Nipomo.  At Dana Adobe meeting where park considered, and also possible site for community center.  Miller Park potential area, but doesn’t know if community would agree.  If room for community center there would be in favor if enough parking and infrastructure.  Edwards barn used for events.  Would like special zoning for Edwards Barn for more benefits for them and community.

Jim Guthrie

Lots of potential uses in park, and community center would generate a greater amount of traffic.  Not sure park best location.  Perhaps best located near freeway.  If looking at just a meeting location, look to private property, i.e., Trilogoy or other locations.  Need to verify demand for community center not just desire.  Just because there was one given change over the years doesn’t mean we need one today.

Nipomo Incorporation

Jim Guthrie

No problem supporting incorporation if affordable.  Looking forward suggests an area plan lays out what potential development would be to see if it’s possible.  Incorporation concerns could be accomplished through a vigorous area plan instead of incorporating.  Or go through general plan process.  But is in favor if it is affordable.

Paul Teixeira

Incorporation will come in time; but, the time is not now.  Gridlock on Tefft.  For incorporation to work need to stand alone, can’t do that right now.  Possbily in the next 5 to 7 years.  Something needs to be addressed.  Doesn’t know if it will happen.  Is a community decision.  Behind it if community is.

Mike Zimmerman

Not opposed.  Need to have boundaries.  Then it goes to LAFCO.  Series of things that have to happen.  Hasn’t been new city in CA since 2003.  County has to be revenue neutral.  Need sufficient sales tax to provide services.  Many don’t want to see big development that is where sales tax comes from.  Wal Mart in Arroyo Grande has been important to their tax base.

Huasna Valley Oil Drilling Project

Mike Zimmerman

Against drilling is Huasna Valley.  Prior wells not properly cleaned up.  12 more wells proposed.  County needs to make certain they clean up the mess.  Doubts there is sufficient oil there to support the project and make it worth the expense.  Traffic impact on Huasna Road also a concern.

Jim Guthrie

Opposed to drilling in this area.  Oil a messy business, with history of a mess in the past when tried before.  Need to look at impacts and cumulative effects.  In future much larger operation to make economically feasible.  Not a positive thing.

Paul Teixeira

Water is critical component.  Water scarce out there.  Many are dry farmers.  Believes water would be needed.  Traffic impacts would be negative.  Air quality would impacted as well.  Track record not good.  In past left a mess.  How much oil really can they get out of the area?

Suey Ranch County Line Move

Paul Teixeira

Personally thinks county line fine the way it is.  River makes a good definition between the two counties.  If motive is development then that is important factor.  Might benefit property owner, but not a good match.  Leave as they are.

Mike Zimmerman

Hasn’t looked into project.  Not current issue, but need to be benefit for San Luis County and benefit for Nipomo to agree. Without such a benefit would not favor this change.  Water, if great benefit for Nipomo, possibly, but would have to see the benefits.  No one could buy vote.

Jim Guthrie

Has come up a couple of times.  River an artificial division between counties.  Would not support.  Most supervisors against currently.  Applicant contributor to Mike’s campaign.

Differences between candidates

Jim Guthrie

Significantly more experience dealing with issues facing Nipomo, land use, because of his city council experience.  Key difference is impact to entire area not just immediate area or developer.  Only candidate with real business experience 25 years running hotels and experience with budgets.

Paul Teixeira

History living more than 40 years in Nipomo.  Can walk the walk talk the talk.  Familiar with planning and public works.  Has to deal with relationships.  Would culminate his career as volunteer in community.  Need to work with people.  Managed business last 15 years.  Good family and friends in area.  Can and will do good for county.

Mike Zimmerman

Supervisors cross section of issues they confront.  Several lawsuits.  Ordinances must be passed.  Only one with legal experience.  Difference between managing business with someone else’s money vs. owning own business.  Has dealt with payroll issues.  Different mindset when you own the business when buck stops with you.  Can bring with common sense to board of supervisors.

Poor Nipomo Roads

Mike Zimmerman

Roads are expense item.  Economy down, county currently out of money.  Need priority in needs, fix sewer or pot holes.  Look at problems and prioritize what first and what next, and on and on.  As economy improves then more revenues.  For now not a lot of money available for road improvement.  Priorities are key.

Jim Guthrie

Arroyo Grande residents allowed tax increase.  They made list of priorities from citizens.  Currently you see road improvements even in tough times.  Essential to have consensus in community to trust officials with doing what they say.  Government follow through on promises required.

Paul Teixeira

Look at taxes already collected for road improvements.  Hasn’t see gas taxes used down here in a long time. Look at best use of money for projects.  Example of eucalyptus trees taken down and then to dump rather than cut up.  Use money and tax dollars wisely.

How would you fit in the current Board of Supervisors

Paul Teixeira

Doesn’t see problem working with other supervisors.  Knows all the others from prior experiences.  Need to collaborate to get things done.  Paul does that and works well with others and with county.  Tries hard to do best for south county.

Mike Zimmerman

Gets along with most everyone.  No benefit being mean or calling people names.  Need to work through issues even though differences of opinions.  He is proponent of business and private property rights.  Will bring skills of mediation and argument to the board of supervisors.  This is a servant’s job.  Board members supposed to help residents.  Let’s see how we can get things done.  Look at all sides of the issues, have an open mind and not have pre conceived ideas.

Jim Guthrie

History on Arroyo Grande City Council, very collaborative while he’s involved.  Endorsements of two current sitting supervisors.  Has history of working with council in Arroyo Grande.   Can also work with current supervisors.  Los Osos sewer moved forward once supervisors took over and a consensus and collaboration achieved.  Willow road another example.  County staff jumped on opportunity and consensus on board to get the job done.

Closing

Jim Guthrie

Seen clear differences some issues and similarities too.  Key is 9 years experience and voting record on Arroyo Grande City Council.  Considers both impact and development issues.  Look at business history is a fiscal conservative.  Will bring support of many leaders in community too.  Consensus essential to solving county’s problems.  Has met many in Nipomo.

Mike Zimmerman

Appreciates being here.  Lots of support of campaign in community, including former supervisor Brackett and many others here and not today.  Support in all areas of the district.  We listen to all concerns get to work and try to solve.  Has done this for 30 years solving problems for clients.  Thinks outside box.  Visited two thousand homes in Nipomo.  Appreciates all in attendance.

Paul Teixeira

Hopes everyone appreciates what you do.  Has done many projects and volunteering in community.  Is fiscally responsible.  Need to look at whole picture.  Look at compassion and wherewithal of person to do the job.  We are grass roots campaign.  Appreciates vote and support.  Not lots of sponsors, but comes from the ground.  fFnd a better candidate vote for him.

Selected Photos

To see all photos of the forum, they are posted at this link.

UPDATE 6 p.m.: Raymond Pinon Gutierrez, 52, of Nipomo was booked into County Jail Sunday on suspicion of animal cruelty after he was caught following the breakup of a cockfight he is suspected of organizing on the Nipomo Mesa, according to the San Luis Obispo County Sheriff’s Department.

The event was described as a four-bird derby, which means that participants would each enter four roosters into the competition, according to an updated report by the Sheriff’s Department.

Authorities said they banded more than 100 birds at the cockfight site, with 50 fighting cocks seized.

The county Sheriff’s Department reports that it busted a cockfighting operation on the Nipomo Mesa midmorning Sunday.

Department spokesman Rob Bryn said that deputies and officers from other agencies found 300 people at a cockfight off of Heidi Place, between Zenon Road and Aloma Way — about a half-mile south of Los Berros Road.

Working off a tip the department received Saturday night, deputies from the department’s South County station, its Rural Crime Unit, police dogs from Guadalupe, State Parks rangers, Arroyo Grande police and CHP officers and a helicopter arrived shortly after the scheduled 10 a.m. cockfight began, Bryn said.

Everyone fled the fight, some tossing away money they had in their pockets, but 50 were caught and arrested, Bryn said.

Authorities seized several thousand dollars of cash, he added. Those arrested face a variety of charges, including cruelty to animals, Bryn said.

It’s hard to believe such people exist, let alone in your own community.  A throwback to Nipomo stereotypes of yesteryear . . .

L.A. prosecutors believe it is the first legal ruling to conclude that state law does not allow collectives to sell pot. If upheld, it would have a dramatic impact on how the drug is distributed.

My hope is that the ruling is appealed and upheld on appeal because that is when the law becomes binding statewide, and all lower courts are required to follow it. This current ruling is only a trial court ruling impacting the lawsuit in Eagle Rock only; however, it’s impact could be felt statewide if more and more prosecutors go after these so called clinics, which in reality appear to be nothing more than a front for recreational drug users.

A Los Angeles County Superior Court judge Friday ordered an Eagle Rock dispensary to stop selling medical marijuana in a decision city prosecutors believe is the first to conclude that state law does not allow collectives to sell the drug.

Judge James C. Chalfant’s preliminary injunction applies only to Hemp Factory V, a small outlet on Colorado Boulevard near the Glendale border, but would have a dramatic impact on how medical marijuana is distributed if a higher court upholds it. The decision came in the pretrial phase of the city’s lawsuit against the dispensary.

Hundreds of collectives in Los Angeles and throughout California sell marijuana, as Hemp Factory V does, to anyone who shows up with a doctor’s recommendation and signs a form to become a member. The state’s courts have ruled on many medical marijuana issues, but have not directly addressed whether this widespread practice is legal.

Chalfant concluded that collectives can only grow marijuana and receive reimbursement for reasonable costs.

“A retail store that sells marijuana to its members simply does not satisfy the requirement of a collective to cultivate marijuana,” he wrote in his 16-page decision.

You can read Attorney General Brown’s analysis and guidelines for the sale of medical marijuana here. It’s pretty clear from these guidelines that folks who get together and call themselves and dispensary, and start selling marijuana–a schedule I drug under federal law–clearly do not meet these guidelines. The proposed medical marijuana dispensary proposed for Nipomo, likewise does not meet these guidelines.

Anthony P. Malecki, an attorney for Hemp Factory V and its operator, Gevork Berberyan, did not challenge Chalfant’s conclusions in the courtroom. He said he would consult with Berberyan before deciding whether to appeal.

The city’s attorney, Asha Greenberg, noted that the decision was only a trial court ruling, but said that it should be a warning to collectives.

“They should pay attention to it,” she said. “A lot of cases have not been as clear-cut. This judge’s analysis was right on. I think it’s valuable for that reason.”

In his decision, Chalfant endorsed the interpretation of state law and recent court decisions advocated by Los Angeles City Atty. Carmen Trutanich, who has become one of the most outspoken opponents of medical marijuana sales in the state.

Trutanich sued Hemp Factory V in October in his first attempt to use the courts to close a dispensary in Los Angeles, which has seen hundreds open while city officials failed to enforce a moratorium.

The state law adopted in 2003 to expand on California’s 1996 medical marijuana initiative allows patients and their caregivers to form collectives to cultivate marijuana. It does not explicitly allow marijuana to be sold, although the practice is commonplace. Prosecutors and law enforcement officials have increasingly argued that the law allows patients to work cooperatively to cultivate marijuana, but not to sell it over the counter.

Dispensary operators, including Berberyan, say they do not sell marijuana, but ask for voluntary donations to cover the costs of growing marijuana. Many, including Berberyan, also say they give the drug free to patients who cannot afford the price, which at Hemp Factory is typically around $60 for an eighth of an ounce.

Berberyan, a 33-year-old former truck driver, said in a deposition earlier this month that he and six other patients grow marijuana for about 500 to 600 members. He said he started to raise pot at the dispensary’s location in December. In a declaration filed after his deposition, he said Hemp Factory V had just 171 members. His attorney declined to comment on the discrepancy.

Herein lies the truth. Many, if not all of these so called dispensaries are merely fronts for recreational drug users to obtain an illegal federal schedule I drug. Mr. Berberyan, a 33 year old truck driver has gone into the marijuana business. Why is that I wonder. The article is silent, but I would love to read his deposition. Is he a cancer victim? Does he suffer from aids? What exactly is the reason a 33 year old male is toking medical marijuana? More interesting is his sworn deposition testimony, where he admits to growing pot for some 500 to 600 members–only later to admit, under oath in another document, that there are actually only 171 members.

Regardless of which number is actually the truth, are we to believe they are all 83 year old grandma’s or grandpa’s suffering from stage four cancer? I’m thinking probably not.

Chalfant said those numbers demonstrate that the dispensary’s principal function is retail sales, not cultivation. “Hemp Factory’s evidence does not show that members are collectively raising marijuana as a crop,” he wrote.

The debate over whether marijuana can be sold, rooted in the law’s murky language, was one of the main reasons Los Angeles labored many months to draft an ordinance. City Council members struggled with whether to outlaw sales, as Trutanich and Los Angeles County Dist. Atty. Steve Cooley insisted they should. In the end, the council skirted the issue, adopting language allowing cash contributions, but also requiring dispensaries to comply with state law.

“We did win this issue with City Council, it’s unfortunate that this judge is going in a different direction,” said Joe Elford, the chief counsel for Americans for Safe Access, a medical marijuana advocacy group. He said Chalfant and the prosecutors have misinterpreted key court decisions.

Chalfant’s injunction underscores just how much remains unclear about the state’s medical marijuana laws, even as voters in California are likely to decide in November whether to legalize marijuana sales for personal use.

The decision could embolden Trutanich and other prosecutors who have threatened to pursue dispensaries for selling marijuana. Officials with the city attorney’s office declined to discuss whether they plan to bring additional cases, but the district attorney’s office has continued to prosecute dispensary operators.

In addition to maintaining that sales are illegal, Trutanich also has pressed the novel argument that the state’s food and drug safety law, known as the Sherman Law, applies to sales of medical marijuana.

He reached the conclusion after he had asked a federal lab to test samples of marijuana that undercover police officers bought at dispensaries, including Hemp Factory V, and found pesticides, including some banned ones.

Chalfant agreed with Trutanich that selling medical marijuana would trigger the Sherman Law’s requirements, which include labeling drugs properly and ensuring that they do not contain poisonous substances. In his order, Chalfant also barred Hemp Factory V from selling marijuana that contains pesticides.

This is an interesting legal wrinkle I had not heard before. Can you imagine the impact it would have on these state wide dispensaries if they were required to start labeling their product? I say, bravo to the Eagle Rock City Attorney’s office, and wish them the best in their quest against these store fronts for recreational drug abusers.

A medical marijuana dispensary proposed for Nipomo got a unanimous thumbs down Monday from the South County Advisory Council, which advises the Board of Supervisors on land use issues.

After a more than three-hour hearing interrupted by audience applause and loud comments, the council recommended supervisors deny a minor use permit for the facility proposed on Lindon Lane by Robert Brody of Los Angeles and Tom Meredith of Long Beach.

The council then went a step further and unanimously recommended supervisors revise the county’s medical marijuana ordinance to bring it in line with a 2008 state attorney general’s opinion that dispensaries are illegal.

That would ban medical marijuana dispensaries operated as store-front businesses but would allow cooperatives or collectives that only buy from and distribute to members.

The SCAC considered recommending supervisors ban dispensaries outright, but members couldn’t agree on whether to recommend a countywide ban or one affecting only the South County.

In a joint effort, SCAC members Stephanie Franks, Rick Dean, Mike Winn and Richard Wright crafted the motion recommending denial of the dispensary for a number of reasons.

Those included the impact on law enforcement resources, the safety of the community and surrounding businesses, a potential for greatly increased traffic, the violation of federal law, the state attorney general’s opinion and the potential violation of the county ordinance requiring dispensaries to be more than 1,000 feet from a school, recreational facility or youth center.

Alicia Pasko, who operates Paradise Gymnastics across Lindon Lane from the proposed site, said the dispensary would be too close to a facility that serves children from 6 months to 17 years old.

“It’s scary enough when I’m there by myself at night and the lights go out,” she said, adding the dispensary would kill her business, which relies on word-of-mouth advertising.

Franks was vehemently opposed to the dispensary from the outset, citing reports that allege the “average age” of dispensary users is “18 to 35.”

“That’s not medical marijuana,” she said, echoing many other speakers’ sentiments that most people who obtain medical marijuana cards “do not have cancer, do not have insomnia (and) do not have back pain” but are using the drug recreationally.

Rebecca Prewett said she found it would be easy to obtain a medical marijuana card by simply spending $65 to $100.

“You can get one for PMS — I’m not kidding,” she told the council. “That’s how easy it is.”

Guy Murray agreed: “There’s a reason no city in San Luis Obispo County has a medical marijuana dispensary. … The reason is they are rife with the potential for abuse.”

More than 100 residents packed the Nipomo Community Services District board room and stood outside the doors for the SCAC meeting.

A total of 33 people addressed council members; only five of those were in favor of the dispensary.

“I do not use medical marijuana … but I am here for those people who do but cannot come forward,” said Deborah Sykes. “Count me for 25 people who would be here if they could.”

She said many citizens couldn’t speak in favor of the dispensary because it would affect their jobs or standing in the community or because they were too ill to attend the meeting.

“I’m here to talk about health choices, personal freedom and keeping the government out of our lives,” said supporter Amber Rogers, noting that forcing sick people to buy marijuana on the street is “demeaning.”

Warren J. Sarbis III said he has to travel all the way to Santa Barbara to buy medical marijuana for his ill 75-year-old father.

“We need a medical marijuana dispensary in our community,” he said.

While most opponents said they support the use of medical marijuana by people who really need it, they objected to the crime they believe a dispensary would bring to the community.

They said it would lead to increased burglaries, robberies and drug abuse as dispensaries have in other areas.

“My concern here is, anytime you mix drugs and money, you have a problem,” said Morgan Holland.

Many said the increased crime would strain the County Sheriff’s Department’s limited resources in the South County.

“In my opinion, an operation of this type would not only be detrimental to the community, but it would also be a drain on resources,” agreed Cmdr. Brian Hascall of the Sheriff’s South County Station in Oceano.

The idea that these dispensaries are actually illegal may be the community’s best weapon against this proposed blight.

A medical-marijuana dispensary proposed for Nipomo has received a unanimous thumbs down from the South County Advisory Council, which advises the Board of Supervisors on land use issues.

After a more than three-hour hearing interrupted by audience applause and loud comments, the council Monday night recommended that the supervisors deny a minor use permit for the facility proposed on Lindon Lane by Robert Brody of Los Angeles and Tom Meredith of Long Beach.

The council then went a step further, and unanimously recommended that the supervisors revise the county’s medical-marijuana ordinance to bring it in line with a 2008 state attorney general’s opinion that dispensaries are illegal.

That would ban medical-marijuana dispensaries operated as store-front businesses, but would allow cooperatives or collectives that only buy from and distribute to members.

The SCAC considered recommending that the supervisors ban dispensaries outright, but members couldn’t agree on whether to support a countywide ban or one affecting only the South County.

In a joint effort, SCAC members Stephanie Franks, Rick Dean, Mike Winn and Richard Wright crafted the motion recommending denial of the dispensary for a number of reasons.

Those included the impact on law enforcement resources, the safety of the community and surrounding businesses, a potential for greatly increased traffic, the violation of federal law, the state attorney general’s opinion and the potential violation of the county ordinance requiring dispensaries to be more than 1,000 feet from a school, recreational facility or youth center.

Alicia Pasko, who operates Paradise Gymnastics across Lindon Lane from the proposed site, said the dispensary would be too close to a facility that serves children from

6 months to 17 years old.

“It’s scary enough when I’m there by myself at night and the lights go out,” she said, adding that the dispensary would kill her business, which relies on word-of-mouth advertising.

Franks was vehemently opposed to the dispensary from the outset, citing reports that allege the “average age” of dispensary users is “18 to 35.”

“That’s not medical marijuana,” she said, echoing many other speakers’ sentiments that most people who obtain medical marijuana cards “do not have cancer, do not have insomnia (and) do not have back pain” but are using the drug recreationally.

Rebecca Prewett said she found it would be easy to obtain a medical marijuana card by simply spending $65 to $100.

“You can get one for PMS — I’m not kidding,” she told the council. “That’s how easy it is.”

Guy Murray agreed: “There’s a reason no city in San Luis Obispo County has a medical-marijuana dispensary. … The reason is they are rife with the potential for abuse.”

More than 100 residents packed the Nipomo Community Services District board room and stood outside the doors for the SCAC meeting.

A total of 33 people addressed council members; only five of those were in favor of the dispensary.

“I do not use medical marijuana … but I am here for those people who do but cannot come forward,” said Deborah Sykes. “Count me for 25 people who would be here if they could.”

She said many citizens couldn’t speak in favor of the dispensary because it would affect their jobs or standing in the community, or because they were too ill to attend the meeting.

“I’m here to talk about health choices, personal freedom and keeping the government out of our lives,” said supporter Amber Rogers, noting that forcing sick people to buy marijuana on the street is “demeaning.”

Warren J. Sarbis III said he has to travel all the way to Santa Barbara to buy medical marijuana for his ill

75-year-old father.

“We need a medical marijuana dispensary in our community,” he said.

While most opponents said they support the use of medical marijuana by people who really need it, they objected to the crime they believe a dispensary would bring to the community.

They said it would lead to increased burglaries, robberies and drug abuse as dispensaries have in other areas.

“My concern here is, anytime you mix drugs and money, you have a problem,” said Morgan Holland.

Many said the increased crime would strain the Sheriff’s Department’s limited resources in the South County.

“In my opinion, an operation of this type would not only be detrimental to the community, but it would also be a drain on resources,” agreed Cmdr. Brian Hascall of the sheriff’s South County Station in Oceano.

In addition to the Santa Maria Times, KSBY and KCOY sent their news divisions to cover the event live.  They also ran good segments on the local news.  As time permits I have other information from one of the South County Advisory Board members who has shared additional thoughts on why he voted now, which I will post separately.

The editorial follows in its entirety with my response interspersed:

Opines the Tribune:

Medical marijuana dispensaries have a checkered history in California, and we can understand why local communities would be reluctant to allow them. Yet a blanket “just say no” attitude does a disservice to sick and disabled residents of our area who are denied local access to the drug. In San Luis Obispo County, all seven cities have banned dispensaries, either through permanent or temporary moratoriums. While the businesses are theoretically allowed in the unincorporated areas, well, good luck with that happening.

The very first sentence, in the Tribune editorial admits what is a matter of historical fact in California–that marijuana dispensaries have a checkered history in California.  Yet the editorial title urges us to keep an open mind about injecting into our community next to our homes, schools and places of business, a proposed land use that at best has a questionable and checkered past.  It’s not like the historical record reflects that the vast majority of marijuana dispensaries bring positive influences to the community.  Quite the opposite.  Yet, we, opines the Tribune, should keep an open mind.

The Tribune further assumes without any factual basis or supporting data that a blanket “no” somehow does a disservice to sick and disabled residents who are denied access to the drug.  What disservice is that?  What evidence is there anyone’s health or welfare will be seriously impacted by not allowing a marijuana dispensary where none has ever existed, in Nipomo?  What evidence or data has the Tribune produced that there are not alternate, legitimate, safe, and FDA approved medications for these sick and disabled residents?  How do we know that these sick and disabled residents are not already benefiting from alternate medically approved and prescribed drugs, such as Marinol, (more on Marinol here and here) or others, depending on the condition.

Continues the Tribune:

Latest case in point: Nipomo.

An application for a dispensary is in the very early stage — it goes to the local advisory council Monday night — and already, a group of Nipomo residents is actively opposing it.

And this is somehow inappropriate–local residents deciding what is best in a local community?  There is absolutely nothing wrong with citizens banding together for the betterment of their community, particularly when those residents, i.e., those of us here in Nipomo live in an unincorporated area of San Luis Obispo County and have no direct say over land use in our own community.  In fact, early banding together and taking a stand about land use issues is something we in Nipomo have learned from bitter experience is necessary, with county planning.  It is not only prudent and appropriate but, required.

Continues the Tribune:

Among other objections, they worry a dispensary will bring in an unsavory element from surrounding communities as far north as San Simeon and as far south as Lompoc.

This is a fact.  There are no legally operating dispensaries in all of San Luis Obispo County and none in northern Santa Barbara County.  That means a Nipomo marijuana dispensary would by definition attract potential customers from the surrounding communities as far north as San Simeon and as far south as Lompoc–perhaps even further.

It is a fact that these dispensaries do draw unsavory elements in the form of recreational drug users. It is also a fact that marijuana remains a schedule one drug and is illegal under federal law, notwithstanding the California statutory provisions for limited medial usages.  I have posted a rather lengthy article making the case against a marijuana dispensary in Nipomo, which sets forth a host of reasons why Nipomo doesn’t need to inject the negative influences a marijuana dispensary brings to the community.

Continues the Tribune:

We aren’t going to weigh in on whether this particular application in Nipomo should be approved or rejected. At this early stage, we don’t know enough about the proposal — or the applicant — to make an informed decision one way or the other.

We would, however, like to see decision-makers keep an open mind and judge every application based on whether it meets conditions already set forth in a county ordinance.

Well, one reason the Tribune editorial writers don’t know enough is that they didn’t bother to send a reporter to the first land use sub committee meeting held last Monday, 01/18/10.  The Santa Maria Times sent a reporter--yet somehow for all their pontificating on this issue, the Tribune News Desk was just too busy with other more important stories countywide to be bothered to send a reporter down to unimportant Nipomo to cover our land use meetings. Yet, despite their admitted ignorance they are still educated enough on the issue to lecture us simple Nipomo bumpkins to keep an open mind about letting a pot dispensary come to town.

Continues the Tribune:

Among those requirements:

• Dispensaries cannot be located in a downtown business area or within 1,000 feet of a school, library, playground, park or youth recreation facility.

• Applicants must apply for a special business license.

• All employees of the dispensary must be at least 21.

• No cultivation of marijuana is allowed on site.

Actually, the ordinance, which you can read in its entirety here: requires the dispensary to be a minimum of 1000 feet away from a school.  That’s a bit different than being within 1000 feet.  The language clearly suggests that the 1000 foot requirement is only a minimum requirement, and arguably the planners could require it to be a greater distance.  Depending on whether the property line is for Nipomo High School, this proposed dispensary may be less than 1000 feet, or just at 1000 feet away.  The county ordinance language allows for discretion in the proximity of the pot clinic to a local high school, such as the case here.

Continues the Tribune:

If an application doesn’t meet the criteria, then it should be denied.

But don’t base a decision on the experiences of other jurisdictions — such as Los Angeles — that have little in common with our communities.

While it is true that urban communities have seen a troubling proliferation of dispensaries, we don’t believe that would be the case here; there simply isn’t the population base to support a dispensary on every block.

Why not base a decision base on the experiences of other jurisdictions?  And, I’m not specifically talking about Los Angeles; however, even Los Angeles can teach us something.  After all, Los Angeles knows a little something about pot dispensaries.  They have more pot dispensaries than they do public schools.

According to this Los Angeles Times article, the L.A. District Attorney is quoted:

“About 100 percent of dispensaries in Los Angeles County and the city are operating illegally,” said Steve Cooley, the Los Angeles County district attorney, who is up for re-election in 2012. “The time is right to deal with this problem.”

100 percent of dispensaries in Los Angeles County are operating illegally.  That isn’t a fact we ought to consider before injecting a pot dispensary into our community?  I think absolutely it is.  What makes us think this proposed pot dispensary will be any different from any of the hundreds of them operating illegally in Los Angeles County?  San Luis Obispo County is somehow immune from illegal pot dispensaries?

What about other local jurisdictions both within and without our county boundaries?  Well, we know that no city or unincorporated area in all of San Luis Obispo County has an operating pot dispensary.  If you read my post above about making the case against a dispensary in Nipomo, there are several articles outlining the local communities which have rejected these pot dispensaries.  In short, every city in San Luis Obispo County.  Nor are there any pot dispensaries anywhere in the unincorporated areas of San Luis Obispo County.  In 2008 the Board of Supervisors rejected a proposed pot dispensary in Templeton:

County supervisors Tuesday barred a medical marijuana dispensary planned for Templeton, saying it was too close to a playground and did not fit with the character of the community.  The Board of Supervisors’ 5-0 vote upheld two appeals that were filed after the county Planning Commission voted in January to allow the North County Resource Center to open. ”The biggest part of this whole thing is that the community is not accepting it,” said Supervisor Harry Ovitt, whose district includes Templeton. He added that the lack of oversight of marijuana dispensaries contributed to his vote against the one proposed for Templeton.

Significantly the Board overruled the County Planning department which was divided 3-2, while the Board was unanimous in rejecting the dispensary 5 to 0.  The primary rationale?  The community’s refusal to accept the dispensary.  It is very clear that Nipomo as a community is quite united against any such pot dispensary here in Nipomo.  Are we in Nipomo less deserving of the same criteria upon which to base our decision, than was Templeton?  I think not.

What about the experience of the only locally run pot dispensary, Morro Bay?  Regardless of how one feels about the outcome, that social experience was a disaster with the owner being convicted on several federal felonies, including selling marijuana to minors, which under federal law is older than California law; but, the question remains, why on earth are minors needing medical marijuana?  The short answer is that they don’t.  The abuse of the system is rampant.  And, with federal and state law at loggerheads, why are we in Nipomo any less deserving a NO vote from the Board of Supervisors than was Templeton.  We don’t want to be the next test community for future legal raids and wars between the federal and state governments.

What about the experience of Los Olivos, an unincorporated area of Santa Barbara County? (see my post referenced above for the source material).  Los Olivos’ residents were also united in opposition to a pot dispensary.  Their watchdog group, POLO compiled some startling research:

“The purpose of meeting is to get community input about medical marijuana dispensaries and present the research we have found. What we have come up with is there are 22 dispensaries in Santa Barbara, which is twice the number of Starbucks within their city limits,” Shoen said.

Through POLO’s research, more than 50 percent of people who frequent the dispensaries reportedly are under 30 years old, and he said it seemed it was for more recreational use than pain management.

Santa Barbara has more pot dispensaries than Starbucks coffee shops, and more than 50 percent of the “patients” are under 30 years old?  The experience of other communities points to rampant abuse, mostly by wanna be recreational drug abusers coming to town to get their daily fix.  Currently Santa Barbara County is considering a moratorium and possibly an outright ban.  Why?  Because everywhere these pot clinics spring up there are invariably violations of the law, many times ending with arrests for blatantly illegal activity.  Yet, implores the Tribune—we in Nipomo should keep an open mind.

Continues the Tribune:

And yes, some doctors are too ready to write prescriptions based on cursory examinations of patients, leading to abuse of the system.

However, that ignores the fact that there are legitimately ill people in our own county whose symptoms are alleviated by the drug. Denying them access because some people abuse the system is grossly unfair.

We believe they deserve access to a local dispensary, operating under strictly controlled conditions. We want to try to avoid a repeat of what occurred in Morro Bay, where a dispensary was raided and the owner prosecuted.

Yes, there are indeed doctors here in our county who abuse the system.  Read about Doctor Rees, and her Friday marijuana days.  She wrote these recommendations to kids as young as 15, and mostly young males 20 to 22.  Can all of them be qualified candidates for medicinal marijuana?  Hard to believe.

If the Tribune feels so strongly that there should be a local pot dispensary, perhaps they could house one onsite with the editorial staff.

Continues the Tribune:

We urge applicants who are looking to open a dispensary here to do their homework; make sure you meet the criteria of our county ordinance before you apply. Also, be prepared to undergo intense scrutiny of your personal character; if you don’t think you’ll pass muster, don’t count on one iota of local support.

Well, again, if the Tribune had bothered to send a reporter to the first land use meeting they would have seen first hand that these applicants did not do their homework.  The landowner, and the applicants are all out of town, Carmel and Los Angeles respectively.  They have absolutely no business plan, no studies, no idea what they are doing.  Neither of them have ever had any prior experience in running any of these dispensaries.

Why come to Nipomo?  Because there are no other pot dispensaries for at least 80 miles.  And, they thought Nipomo would be just enough under the radar that they could just slip in and no one would notice.  Wrong!  We noticed; we heard their presentation; we’ve researched the issues.  And, we don’t want their pot dispensary in our community.

Continues the Tribune:

Again, we aren’t sure if Nipomo is the right spot for a dispensary. We’d like to see a county staff analysis, which is not yet available, before we draw any conclusions.

In the meantime, we urge residents of Nipomo — along with county officials — to consider that a majority of Californians made it clear that they want medical marijuana available to those who are suffering debilitating illnesses. Keep them in mind as you weigh the pros and cons of the application.

Well, we who live, work, and breathe here in Nipomo are sure that Nipomo is not the right spot for pot.  We don’t need or even want a county staff analysis.  We already know this is not the type of establishment we want in our community.  We don’t need or want to consider what the majority of Californians think about pot dispensaries–better yet, what they thought over 10 years ago.  The majority of Californians do not make land use decisions for Nipomo, nor do they know what is best for our community.

This project is ill conceived, poorly planned, poorly presented, and not the right fit for our community, just as it was not the right fit for Templeton, San Luis Obispo, Atascadero, Arroyo Grande, Pismo Beach, Grover Beach, Santa Maria, and every other city in Santa Barbara County, excepting Santa Barbara itself.  We are no less deserving the right to determine whether to welcome or reject such a pot dispensary.  That does not make us uncaring or unfeeling about those individuals who may benefit medically from the drug.

But, unless and until the state and the federal government come to some consensus over this issue, it will remain rife with abuse, as we have seen from the myriad of news sources available and referenced in this and other posts.  To suggest that we inject these problems willingly into our community makes no sense whatsoever.  Neither does the Tribune’s editorial stance.  Thanks, but no Thanks–Tribune . . .

Show up Monday 01/25/10 6:30 p.m. at the NCSD Building 148 W. Wilson, Nipomo, CA to make your voices heard.

22.30.225  General retail.

This section applies only to medical marijuana dispensaries when proposed in the commercial retail or commercial service land use categories and outside of the Central Business District (CBD). Other general retail uses are subject to the land use permit required by Section 22.06.030 (Table 2-2). A medical marijuana dispensary is defined as a facility where marijuana is made available for medical purposes in accordance with Health and Safety Code Section 11362.5 (Proposition 215).

A.   Purpose. The voters of the state of California affirmed the medical use of marijuana by voting for Proposition 215 (codified as Health and Safety Code Section 11362.5). The intent of this proposition was to give persons who are in need of medical of marijuana the ability to obtain and use it without fear of criminal prosecution. The specific purpose of this section is to set standards for this use consistent with neighborhood concerns.

B.   Permit Requirements. Minor use permit approval is required in order to establish a medical marijuana dispensary.

C.   Design and Operational Standards.

1.   Location. Medical marijuana dispensaries shall be located outside of the CBD, a minimum of one thousand feet from any pre-school, elementary school, high school, library, park, playground, recreation or youth center. Distance shall be measured from the building which contains the medical marijuana dispensary to the property line of the enumerated use using a direct straight line measurement.

2.   Limitation on Use.

a.   Hours of operation are limited to eleven a.m. to six p.m., seven days per week.

b.   No person under the age of eighteen shall be permitted in the dispensary at any time except in the presence of his/her parent or guardian.

c.   No retail sales of paraphernalia as defined in Health and Safety Code Section 11364.5 are permitted at the dispensary.

d.   No cultivation of medical marijuana is permitted at the dispensary or on dispensary property.

3.   Employees. All staff/employees employed by the medical marijuana dispensary must be twenty-one years of age or older.

4.   Security Plan. A security plan shall be submitted with the minor use permit application that includes lighting, security video cameras, alarm systems and secure area for medical marijuana storage. The security plan shall include a requirement that there be at least thirty business days of surveillance video that captures both inside and outside images on an on-going basis. The video system for the security cameras must be located in a locked, tamper-proof compartment.

5.   Displayed Notice. Each dispensary, inside of the dispensary itself, shall display in a manner legible and visible to its clientele:

a.   Notice that persons under the age of eighteen are not allowed in the dispensary except in the presence of his/her parent or guardian;

b.   Notice that there is no consumption of medical marijuana in the vicinity of the dispensary.

6.   Sheriff Notification. A condition to establishment of a medical marijuana dispensary shall be notification to the sheriff’s department informing it of the name, location and contact information for the owner/operator of the dispensary.

(Ord. 3114 § 2, 2007)