City of

...
.. REPORT TO THE CITY COUNCIL
AGENDA ITEM NO.9: 80 0J'>1 J)
COUNCIL MEETING l.n/2..'il/';;O/"
APPROVEOBY
June 21, 2012
FROM:
BY:
SUBJECT:
JERRY P. DYER, Chief of Police
Police Department ---.J
KEITH L. FOSTER, Deputy Chief
Police Department - Investigative Services Division
TEXT AMENDMENT APPLICATION NO. TA-11-001 AND RELATED ENVIRONMENTAL
FINDING FOR ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT NO. EA-11-01 PROHIBITING THE
OUTDOOR CULTIVATION OF MARIJUANA
RECOMMENDATION
Recommend the Council approve Environmental Assessment for Text Amendment No. TA-11-001 finding
there is no possibility the amendment may have a significant effect on the environment pursuant to CEQA
Guidelines Section 15061(b)(3).
Recommend the Council adopt Text Amendment No. TA-11-001 which proposes to add Article 21 to Chapter
12 of the Fresno Municipal Code related to the outdoor cultivation of marijuana. Specifically, the text
amendment will prohibit the outdoor cultivation of marijuana.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Text Amendment No. TA-11-001 proposes to add Article 21 to Chapter 12 of the Fresno Municipal Code
related to the outdoor cultivation of marijuana. Specifically, the text amendment would prohibit the outdoor
cultivation of marijuana.
Currently, the City has no explicit rules or regulations governing the outdoor cultivation of medical marijuana.
Numerous medical marijuana cultivation sites have been established in the incorporated areas of the city. The
Public Works and Development and Resource Management Departments have received inquiries from
prospective marijuana growers about marijuana cultivation in incorporated areas. There have been violent
incidents associated with the cultivation of marijuana, including reports of five (5) shootings within the city of
Fresno, one (1) resulting in death. Additionally, the police department believes numerous thefts and physical
confrontations between marijuana growers and theft suspects are unreported. As a result, marijuana growers
are constantly vigilant with many possessing handguns andfor rifles to protect their fields.
The term "outdoor" cultivation is not specifically enumerated in Proposition 215 (The Compassionate Use Act
of 1996), Senate Bill 420 (Medical Marijuana Program Act), or Health and Safety Code Sections 11362.5 -
11362.83. Under the proposed ordinance, cultivation would be limited to a enclosed and secure structure
which has a complete roof enclosure supported by connecting walls extending from the ground to the roof,
secured against unauthorized entry, and accessible only through a lockable door(s).
Presented toCity Council
Date r.} 2.111?. .
Disposition_ -a/u.JJ6
j
, B -12._
... _L.AWC
I
-- ---11'------
Report to Council
Moratorium on Outdoor Cultivation of Medical Marijuana
June21,2012
Page 2
ENVIRONMENTAL FINDING
The State Guidelines for the implementation of the California Environmental Quality Act provide for the
exemption of projects which will clearly have no significant effects on the environment. More specifically,
Section 15061(b)(3) of the State CEQA Guidelines states:
"...CEQA applies only to projects which have the potential for causing a significant effect on the
environment. Where it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the activity in question
may have a significant effect on the environment, the activity is not subject to CEQA. "
It has been determined that there is no possibility of significant adverse effects as a result of this proposal. On
January 26, 2012, the City Council adopted an interim urgency ordinance placing a moratorium on the outdoor
cultivation of marijuana in the city of Fresno. The interim ordinance temporarily prohibits outdoor cultivation of
marijuana in all districts in the incorporated areas of the city of Fresno (until December 15, 2012). As the
outdoor harvest is completed, no new outdoor cultivation can occur during this time. The proposed text
amendment will maintain the status quo for the purposes of CEQA.
PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION
This text amendment was presented to the Fresno City Planning Commission on May 16, 2012. The
Commission found there is no substantial evidence in the record to indicate that the proposed text amendment
may have a significant effect on the environment and recommends the City Council approve the Finding of
Categorical Exemption under Section 15061 (b) (3) of the CEQA Guidelines.
The commission also recommends to the City Council that the proposed Text Amendment Application No. TA-
11-001, adding Article 21 to Chapter 12 of the Fresno Municipal Code (FMC) related to the prohibition of the
outdoor cultivation of marijuana, be approved.
AIRPORT LAND USE COMMISSION ACTION
This text amendment was presented to the Airport Land Use Commission on April 2, 2012. The commission
approved the City of Fresno ordinance prohibiting outdoor marijuana cultivation as being consistent with the
Compatibility Land Use Plans and Policies of the Fresno County Airport Land Use Commission.
COUNCIL DISTRICT COMMITTEES AND OTHER OUTREACH
The proposed ordinance was presented to all active Council District Plan Implementation Committees between
January and April of 2012. In addition, presentations were made to the Kiwanis Club, the Citizen's Police
Academy, and several Neighborhood Watch groups. In general, the input received was in support of the
proposed ordinance; however, at least one committee member was opposed.
PUBLIC NOTICE
In accordance with Fresno Municipal Code Section 12-402-B, a notice of hearing was published in the
Fresno Bee ten (10) days prior to the council meeting. No comments have been received by staff.
Report to Council
Moratorium onOutdoor Cultivation of Medical Marijuana
June 21, 2012
Page 3
BACKGROUND/ANALYSIS
The proposed ordinance complies with applicable state laws while imposing reasonable rules and regulations
protecting the public health, safety, and welfare of the residents and businesses within the incorporated areas
of the city of Fresno.
Unless adopted, marijuana cultivation can occur without any specific regulation and creates inconsistent and
incompatible land use. Marijuana is considered the dried mature processed flowers or buds of the female
cannabis plant.
Marijuana raises a number of difficult legal, social, safety, and medical issues for California cities. Marijuana
use among adolescent students is increasing after a decade of gradual decline. This increase is perhaps
attributable, in part, to conflicting messages imparted by the national debate over drug legalization and
criminalization. Federal law prohibits the cultivation and use of marijuana, regardless of the reason for such
use. However, California and fifteen other states (plus Washington DC) have legalized the medical use of
marijuana. Under current California law, non-medical users who possess not more than 28.5 grams (1 oz.) of
marijuana, other than concentrated cannabis, are guilty of an infraction punishable by a fine of not more than
one hundred dollars (Penal Code Section 11357(b.
In 1996, the voters of the State of California approved Proposition 215 (codified as Health and Safety Code
Section 11362.5 and entitled "The Compassionate Use Act of 1996"). The intent of Proposition 215 was to
enable persons, in need of marijuana for medical purposes, to obtain and use marijuana without fear of
criminal prosecution under limited and specified circumstances. It specifically exempted patients (or a patient's
primary caregiver) from being prosecuted under Health and Safety Code 11357 (possession of marijuana) and
11358 (cultivation of marijuana) for specified amounts.
On January 1, 2004, the California State Legislature enacted Senate Bill (SB) 420 (the Medical Marijuana
Program Act) to clarify the scope of The Compassionate Use Act of 1996 and to allow cities and other
governing bodies to adopt and enforce rules, regulations, and laws consistent with SB 420.
On October 7, 2011, four California US attorneys held a news conference, stating many people in California
had simply used the law as a cover for large-scale drug operations, with tens of millions of dollars' worth of
marijuana being sent across state lines from California. According to Melinda Haag, the U.S. Attorney in San
Francisco, the voter-approved Compassionate Use Act, "has been hijacked by profiteers....... using the cover to
make enormous amounts of money" as California cities burgeon with marijuana storefronts purporting to serve
suffering people. "This is not what the California voters intended or authorized," said Andre Birotte Jr., the U.S.
Attorney in Los Angeles. "It is illegal under California law."
Federal officials said they would also concentrate on properties used to grow marijuana, particularly in the
agriculturally rich central part of the state.
The safe distribution of marijuana, as contemplated by the Act, should include the safety of all the citizenry of
the city, not just the users of medical marijuana. The goal of the ordinance is to ensure the safety of both
medical marijuana users who cultivate marijuana and non-users who live in close proximity to the marijuana
cultivation areas.
Report to Council
Moratorium on Outdoor Cultivation of Medical Marijuana
June 21,2012
Page 4
Examples of the public threat to health, safety, or welfare are as follows:
1. There are numerous reports of violent incidents associated with the cultivation of marijuana, including
reports of five (5) shootings within the city of Fresno. One incident resulted in the death of a victim who
attempted to steal marijuana plants. The grower, who shot the victim, was convicted of voluntary
manslaughter and sentenced to 25 years in prison. This shooting occurred in the 900 block of West
Belmont Avenue, directly across from the Fresno Zoo Playland and the paddle boats on Lake
Washington inside the zoo.
2. Based on anecdotal evidence received from the narcotics and intelligence units, numerous marijuana-
related thefts and physical confrontations between marijuana growers and theft suspects are
unreported.
3. As a result, the growers are constantly vigilant with many growers possessing handguns and/or rifles.
The chance of an innocent victim, who lives near a marijuana field, being injured by stray gunfire is
high.
4. Depending upon the type of marijuana harvested and the willingness of a grower to wait for plants to
reach an optimum state of ripeness, most outdoor harvesting begins in August and (depending on the
weather) ends in late November. The peak harvest is in October. During this time, marijuana buds are
heavy with THe (delta-9-tetrahydrocannabinol) resin and produce a strong scent. There is sufficient
evidence that marijuana cultivation attracts a considerable amount of non-residents who, by following
the scent, drive or walk into these neighborhoods in search of marijuana cultivation fields, i.e., grows.
Marijuana-related threats and conflicts involVing the growers and their neighbors continue to escalate.
5. The unregulated cultivation of outdoor marijuana close to residences and schools poses a current and
immediate threat to public health, safety, and welfare. During the 2010 fall harvest, the Fresno Police
Department received 52 complaints from citizens calling on the Narcotics Hotline, specifically
complaining of the strong odor of marijuana and increased pedestrian/vehicular traffic. School
administrators have complained of students, after they have walked by marijuana fields, smelling
strongly of marijuana. During the current 2011 harvest, the department received 198 complaints from
citizens. During the recent annual harvest, the Southeast District administrative supervisor received
approximately three to five marijuana harvest-related complaints per week involving thirteen grows.
6. California's medical marijuana laws have unwittingly created a profitable cultivation industry fueled by
high profitability and high demand. Marijuana production requires little investment and produces large
profits. Marijuana costs approximately $75.00 per pound to produce and can be sold for up to $6,000
per pound at the wholesale level, depending on the quality of the processed marijuana. As a result,
there is significant interest in developing illegal (but highly-profitable) interstate marijuana distribution
rings from California to the other 34 non-medical use states. Many marijuana grows are nothing more
than profit making schemes.
PROPOSED ORDINANCE
There are several California cities that currently are working on or have moratoriums on medical marijuana
cultivation. They are: Anderson, Live Oak, Long Beach, Redding, South Lake Tahoe and Tracy. California
cities with permanent bans are San Bernardino, Moraga, and Lakespoint.
Report to Council
Moratorium on Outdoor Cultivation of Medical Marijuana
June 21, 2012
Page 5
In the city of Fresno, an interim ordinance is in effect until December 15, 2012, which prohibits outdoor
cultivation of marijuana in all districts in the incorporated areas of the city. The ordinance being reviewed
would act as a permanent prohibition through an amendment to the municipal code.
Below are excerpts of the proposed text amendment to be added to Chapter 12 (Land Use Planning and
Zoning) of the Fresno Municipal Code (see the attachment for complete version):
SECTION 12-2102
DEFINITIONS: As used in this Article, the following words and phrases shall have the meaning given them in
this Section, unless the context clearly requires otherwise:
(a) "City" shall mean the city of Fresno, California.
(b) "Cultivation" shall mean the planting, growing, harvesting, drying or processing of marijuana plants, or
any parts thereof.
(c) "Fully enclosed and secure structure" shall mean a space within a building, greenhouse or other
structure which has a complete roof enclosure supported by connecting walls extending from the
ground to the roof, which is secure against unauthorized entry, and which is accessible only through
one or more lockable doors.
(d) "Outdoor" shall mean any location that is not totally contained within a "fully enclosed and secure
bUilding" that is permitted and zoned for that location.
(e) "Person" shall mean any individual, group of two or more individuals, collective as defined in the
Compassionate Use Act, corporation, partnership or any other legal entity.
SECTION 12-2103. OUTDOOR CULTIVATIONOF MARIJUANAPROHIBITED.
No person owning, renting, leasing, occupying, or having charge or possession of any real property within the
City limits shall cause or allow such real property to be used for the outdoor cultivation of marijuana.
SECTION 12-2104. PENALTYAND ABATEMENT.
(a) A violation of this chapter shall be prosecuted by the City Attorney through the civil enforcement
process, including injunctive relief. Each day a person is in violation of this Article shall be considered a
separate violation.
(b) Any property upon which a violation of this Article is found shall be SUbject to immediate abatement by
the City.
(c) In addition to any administrative penalty assessed for a violation of this Article, any person found in
violation of this article will be charged abatement, actual, administrative and enforcement costs as
defined in Section 1-503, calculated to recover the total costs incurred by the City in enforcing this
Article.
Legal Requirements for Regulating the Outdoor Cultivation of Marijuana
California Health and Safety Code Section 11362.83 expressly allows cities and counties to adopt and enforce
ordinances that are consistent with Senate Bill 420. The City has no explicit rules or regulations governing the
outdoor cultivation of marijuana to prevent impacts on nearby residents and businesses. The proposed
ordinance complies with the applicable state law, as well as imposes reasonable rules and regulations
protecting public health, safety, and the welfare of the residents and businesses within the incorporated area of
the city of Fresno.
Nothing contained in the proposed ordinance conflicts with Federal law as enumerated in the Controlled
Substances Act, Title 21, U.S.C. Section 841, nor does it permit any activity that is prohibited under that Act.
Report to Council
Moratorium on Outdoor Cultivation of Medical Marijuana
June21, 2012
Page 6
Nothing in the proposed ordinance shall be construed to (1) allow persons to engage in conduct that
endangers others or causes a public nuisance, (2) allow the use of marijuana for non-medical purposes, or (3)
allow any activity relative to the cultivation, distribution, and/or consumption of marijuana that is otherwise
illegal.
Two recent decisions in state appellate courts ruled that local jurisdictions can ban dispensaries. In Riverside
v. Inland Patients (filed November 9, 2011); the court ruled that nothing in state law prevents cities or counties
from banning dispensaries. In a similar case in Long Beach, the court went further and ruled that only the
federal government can regulate marijuana and any attempt by a local jurisdiction is illegal and a violation of
the Controlled Substance Act.
California laws "do not provide individuals with inalienable rights to establish, operate or use" dispensaries, nor
do they say that dispensaries "shall be permitted within every city and county," wrote Justice Carol Codrington
for a unanimous court decision in City of Riverside v. Inland Empire Patients Health and Well ness Center. The
court ruled that California law expressly allows localities to regulate dispensaries and restrict their locations.
Codrington stated a total ban is "simply a means of regulation or restriction."
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the Council take the following actions:
1. Recommend approval of the Environmental Assessment No. EA-11-01 prepared for this project.
2. Recommend approval of Text Amendment No. TA-11-001 as proposed in the attached Draft
Ordinance.
FISCAL IMPACT
There is no fiscal impact to the general fund.
JPD:KF:lc
06/21/12
Attachments: Environmental Assessment No. EA-11-01, dated May16, 2012
Proposed Ordinance
CITY OF FRESNO
ENVIRONMENTAL FINDINGOF NO POSSIBILITY OF SIGNIFICANT EFFECT
ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT NO. EA-11-01
THE PROJECT DESCRIBEDHEREIN IS DETERMINEDTO HAVE NO
SIGNIFICANT EFFECT ON THE ENVIRONMENTPURSUANTTO ARTICLE 5 OF THE
STATE OF CALIFORNIAENVIRONMENTAL QUALITYACT (CEQA) GUIDELINES
APPLICANT: City of Fresno
Fresno Police Department
2323 Mariposa Mall
Fresno, California 93721
PROJECT LOCATION: The prohibition of the outdoor cultivation of medical marijuana is on a city-
wide basis.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: A permanent prohibition of the outdoor cultivation of marijuana through an
amendment to the municipal code. Under the proposed ordinance,
cultivation would be limited to a fUlly enclosed and secure structure, with a
foundation, solid walls and a roof. The purpose is to contain the odor of the
marijuana plant and remove the attractive nuisance, reducing the chance of
theft, physical confrontation, and violence.
This project is exempt under Section 15002(k)(1), Section 15378(a) and Section 15061(b)(3) of the
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines.
EXPLANATION: CEQA Section 15002(k)(1): The Lead Agency examines the project to determine
whether there is a project SUbject to CEQA. The City has determined that the activity
associated with the text amendment does not pose an impact on the environment
such that it constitutes a project under CEQA.
CEQA Section 15378(a): A "Project" means the whole of the action, which has the
potential for resulting in either a direct physical change in the environment, or a
reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment. The proposed
ordinance complies with applicable state law while imposing reasonable rules and
regulations protecting the public health, safety, and welfare of the residents and
businesses within the incorporated areas of the city of Fresno. The proposed
amendment does not pose a direct or indirect effect on the physical environment.
CEQA Section 15061(b)(3): The activity is covered by the general rule that CEQA
applies only to projects, which have the potential for causing a significant effect on
the environment. Where it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that
the activity in question may have a significant effect on the environment, the activity
is not subject to CEQA. Here, there is no possibility of significant adverse effects as
a result of this proposal. On December 15, 2011, the City Council adopted an interim
urgency ordinance placing a moratorium on the outdoor cultivation of marijuana in
the city of Fresno. The interim ordinance was then extended by the City Council on
January 26, 2012. The interim ordinance temporarily prohibits outdoor cultivation of
marijuana in all districts in the incorporated areas of the city of Fresno until
December 11, 2012. As the outdoor harvest is completed, no new outdoor cultivation
can occur during this time. The proposed text amendment will maintain the status
quo for the purposes of CEQA. No activity associated with the proposed amendment
No Possibility of Significant Effect
Environmental Assessment No. EA-11-01
May 16, 2012
Page 2
has been identified with any certainty as causing a potential or significant effect on
the physical environment.
Finally, there is no substantial evidence in the record that any of the exceptions set
forth in CEQA Guidelines, Section 15002(k)(1), Section 15378(a) and Section
15061(b)(3) apply to a prohibition on marijuana cultivation. Therefore, Staff has
determined that a "no possibility of significant effect" is appropriate for the proposed
project.
Date:
Prepared By:
Submitted By<=;' ~ ~ g ~ ~ = = ~ f . r
BILL NO. _
ORDINANCE NO. _
AN ORDINANCE OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
FRESNO, CALIFORNIA, ADDING ARTICLE 21 TO
CHAPTER 12 OF THE FRESNO MUNICIPAL CODE
RELATING TO PROHIBITING OUTDOOR CULTIVATION OF
MARIJUANA IN THE CITY OF FRESNO
WHEREAS, in 1996 the voters of the State of California approved Proposition 215 which
was codified as Health and Safety Code Section 11362.5, et seq., and entitled "The
Compassionate Use Act of 1996" ("the Act"); and
WHEREAS, the intent of the Act was to enable persons who are in need of marijuana for
medical purposes to obtain and use it under limited, specific circumstances; and
WHEREAS, on January 1,2004, Senate Bil1420 became effective to clarify the scope of
the Act and to allow cities and counties to adopt and enforce rules and regulations consistent
with SB 420 and the Act; and
WHEREAS, California Health and Safety Code Section 11362.83 expressly allows Cities
and Counties to adopt and enforce ordinances that are consistent with Senate Bil1420; and
WHEREAS, the City has no explicit rules or regulations governing the outdoor
cultivation of marijuana to prevent impacts on nearby residents and businesses; and
WHEREAS, the City of Fresno is the fifth largest City in California and has a substantial
percentage of non-owner occupied rental properties and vacant foreclosures. The numerous
rental properties and foreclosures have attracted unauthorized marijuana cultivation activities
resulting in damage to these properties.
Page 1 of6
Ordinance Re Prohibition on Outdoor Marijuana
Cultivation in the City of Fresno
WHEREAS, federal law prohibits use of marijuana, regardless of the reason for such use;
while state law decriminalizes under state law the use of medical marijuana on limited terms and
conditions; and
WHEREAS, this Ordinance complies with the applicable state law, as well as imposes
reasonable rules and regulations protecting public health, safety, and the welfare of the residents
and businesses within the incorporated area of the City of Fresno; and
WHEREAS, The City of Fresno Police Department, City residents and other public
entities have reported adverse impacts from the outdoor cultivation of marijuana within the City,
including offensive odors, increased risk of trespassing and burglary, and acts of violence in
connection with the commission of such crimes or the occupants' attempts to prevent such
crimes; and
WHEREAS, the strong odor of marijuana plants, which increases as the plants mature, is
offensive to many individuals and creates an attractive nuisance, alerting people to the location
ofvaluable marijuana plants and creating an increased risk of crime; and
WHEREAS; children are particularly vulnerable to the effects of marijuana use, and the
presence of marijuana plants has proven to be an attractive nuisance for children, creating an
unreasonable hazard in areas frequented by children such as schools, parks, and similar
locations; and
WHEREAS, to protect the public health, safety, and welfare, it is the desire of the City to
modify the City of Fresno Municipal Code by prohibiting the outdoor cultivation of marijuana
within the City; and
WHEREAS, it is the Council's intention that nothing in this Chapter shall be deemed to
conflict with federal law as contained in the Controlled Substances Act, 21 U.S.C. Section 841,
Page 2 of6
Ordinance Re Prohibition on Outdoor Marijuana
Cultivation in the City of Fresno
by permitting, or otherwise allowing, any activity which IS lawfully and constitutionally
prohibited under the Act.
WHEREAS, mindful of the fact that marijuana possession and use is prohibited under
federal law and partially decriminalized under state law, it is the Council's intention that nothing
in this Chapter shall be construed, in any way, to expand the rights of anyone to use or possess
marijuana under state law; engage in any public nuisance; violate federal law, or engage in any
activity in relation to the cultivation, distribution, or consumption of marijuana that is otherwise
illegal.
THEREFORE, THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FRESNO DOES ORDAIN AS
FOLLOWS:
SECTION 1. Article 21 is added to Chapter 12 of the Fresno Municipal Code to read as
follows:
ARTICLE 21
OUTDOOR CULTIVATION OF MARIJUANA
Section 12-2101.
12-2102.
12-2103.
12-2104.
Purpose.
Definitions.
Outdoor Cultivation of Marijuana Prohibited
Penalty and Abatement.
SECTION 12-2101. PURPOSE. The purpose of this section is to prohibit the
outdoor cultivation of marijuana in order to protect the public health, safety and welfare.
Without this prohibition, plantings of new crops of marijuana will occur without the
City's ability to control the negative effects to the health, safety and welfare of the
citizens of the City of Fresno. Those negative effects include, but are not limited to,
offensive odors, alerting people to the location of valuable marijuana plants and creating
Page 3 of6
Ordinance Re Prohibition on Outdoor Marijuana
Cultivation in the City of Fresno
an increased risk of crime such as trespassing and burglary, and acts of violence in
connection with the commission of such crimes or the occupants' attempts to prevent
such crimes.
The Council further finds and declares that this Ordinance is found to be
categorically exempt from environmental review pursuant to the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), Guidelines Section 15061(b)(3).
SECTION 12-2102. DEFINITIONS. As used in this Article, the following
words and phrases shall have the meaning given them in this Section, unless the context
clearly requires otherwise:
(a) "City" shall mean the City of Fresno, California.
(b) "Cultivation" shall mean the planting, growing, harvesting, drying
or processing of marijuana plants, or any parts thereof.
(c) "Fully enclosed and secure structure" shall mean a space within a
building, greenhouse or other structure which has a complete roof enclosure
supported by connecting walls extending from the ground to the roof, which is
secure against unauthorized entry, and which is accessible only through one or
more lockable doors.
(d) "Outdoor" shall mean any location that is not totally contained
within a "fully enclosed and secure building" that has been approved by special
permit, pursuant to section 12-405 of the Fresno Municipal Code, and has been
issued by the Development and Resource Management Department. All proposed
buildings and structures constructed on the property must comply with the
prevailing California Building Code Standards.
Page 4 of6
Ordinance Re Prohibition on Outdoor Marijuana
Cultivation in the City of Fresno
(e) "Person" shall mean any individual, group of two or more
individuals, collective as defined in the Compassionate Use Act, corporation,
partnership or any other legal entity.
SECTION 12-2103. OUTDOOR CULTIVATION OF MARIJUANA
PROHIBITED. No person owning, renting, leasing, occupying, or having charge or
possession of any real property within the City limits shall cause or allow such real
property to be used for the outdoor cultivation of marijuana.
SECTION 12-2104. PENALTY AND ABATEMENT.
(a) A violation of this chapter shall be prosecuted by the City Attorney
through the civil enforcement process, including injunctive relief. Each day a
person is in violation of this Article shall be considered a separate violation.
(b) Any property upon which a violation of this Article is found shall
be subject to immediate abatement by the City.
(c) In addition to any administrative penalty assessed for a violation of
this Article, any person found in violation of this article will be charged
abatement, actual, administrative and enforcement costs as defined in Section
1-503, calculated to recover the total costs incurred by the City in enforcing this
Article.
SECTION 2. SEVERABILITY. If any section, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase or word
of this Ordinance is for any reason held to be unconstitutional, unlawful or otherwise invalid by a
court of competent jurisdiction, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining
portions of this Ordinance. The Council hereby declares that is would have passed and adopted
Page 5 of6
Ordinance Re Prohibition on Outdoor Marijuana
Cultivation in the City of Fresno
this Ordinance and each and all provisions thereof irrespective of the fact that anyone of more of
said provisions be declared unconstitutional, unlawful or otherwise invalid.
SECTION 3. EFFECTIVENESS. This ordinance shall become effective and in full force and
effect at 12:01 a.m. on the thirty-first day after its fmal passage.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * *
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF FRESNO
CITY OF FRESNO
)
) ss.
)
I, YVONNE SPENCE, City Clerk of the City of Fresno, certify that the foregoing
ordinance was adopted by the Council of the City of Fresno, at a regular meeting held on
the day of ,2012.
AYES
NOES
ABSENT
ABSTAIN:
Mayor Approval: , 2012
Mayor Approva1/No Return: ,2012
Mayor Veto: , 2012
Council Override Vote: , 2012
YVONNE SPENCE, CMC
City Clerk
Deputy
BY:....,....... _
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE
MDF:ns[571 76nslORD]- 5/10/12
Ordinance Re Prohibition on Outdoor Marijuana
Cultivation in the City of Fresno
Page 6 of6
Michael D. Flores, Deputy
BY:----,:-:::-.,----=----=-_....,.......__
FRESNO CITY COUNCIL
Supplemental Information Packet
Agenda Related Items - Meeting of June 21, 2012
Supplemental Packet Date: June 19, 2012
Item(s}
General Administration Item 9:30 A.M. "t:"
Supplemental Information:
Any agenda related public documents received and distributed to a majority of the CityCouncil after the
Agenda Packet is printed are included in Supplemental Packets. Supplemental Packets are produced as
needed. The Supplemental Packet is available for public inspection in the CityClerk's Office, 2600
Fresno Street, during normal business hours (main location pursuant to the Brown Act, G.c. 54957.5(2).
In addition, Supplemental Packets are available for public review at the CityCouncil meeting in the City
Council Chambers, 2600 Fresno Street. Supplemental Packets are also available on-line on the City
Clerk's website.
Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA):
The meeting room is accessible to the physically disabled, and the services of a translator can be
made available. Requests for additional accommodations for the disabled, sign language interpreters,
assistive listening devices, or translators should be made one week prior to the meeting. Please call
CityClerk's Office at 621-7650. Please keep the doorways, aisles and wheelchair seating areas open
and accessible. If you need assistance with seating because of a disability, please see Security.
This page intentionally left blank.
June 18,2012
To: Fresno City Council
From: Michael S. Green
RECEIVED
2
nl
? II'" J' 9 p. u 2' ~ 4
.JI,.,..;,_ n.i.
CITY CLEfiit r R E S , ~ O CJ:.
Re: Text amendment application TA-Il-OOl and environmental finding for environmental assessment
EA-1I -00I, prohibiting the outdoor cultivation ofmedical cannabis
Honorable council members:
The Fresno Police Department has proposed a permanent ban on the outdoor cultivation ofmedical
cannabis anywhere in the city ofFresno. The proposed action follows the enactment of an interim
urgency ordinance by this Council, and subsequent extension, also at the urging ofFresno police. This
letter is to express my opposition to the outdoor cultivation ban as being unfair to qualified patients who
cannot afford the expense and difficulty of growing cannabis indoors. Banning the use ofnatural soil
and sunlight to grow plants outdoors is more than a novel legal concept In an agricultural community
like Fresno, it's a land-use precedent that impinges on property rights in an effort to fight crime.
The proposed ordinance impacts patients and primary caregivers who have been authorized to cultivate
their medical cannabis - both collectively and as individuals - since Senate Bill 420 took effect in 2004.
Well before that, California voters said patients and caregivers should not be punished for growing and
using medical cannabis in reasonable amounts. After more than 15 years, Proposition 215 is a broken
promise in Fresno, as evidenced first through the city's ban on all types of collectives and dispensaries,
and now through the city's proposed ban on outdoor cultivation. Under state law, six mature plants is the
minimum threshold for state-authorized cultivation by qualified patients.
The proposed CEQAfindings in EA-l 1-001 are also inadequate. Driving all cannabis cultivation
indoors in the state's fifth-largest city will impact the environment through a significant increase in
electrical consumption and related air emissions; increased risk of utility theft and structure fires;
potential discharge of plant nutrients and other chemicals to wastewater systems; potential hazards to
first responders including electrical shock and hazardous chemicals; increased blight in neighborhoods
with large numbers ofvacant or rental housing units that can conceal illicit grow sites in close proximity
to schools and other sensitive uses; and other equally significant impacts.
TA-Il-OOl is not a comprehensive medical cannabis cultivation law; it will exacerbate problems with
illicit indoor grow sites and directly contribute to their growth in numbers. The proposed ordinance
rests on the shaky legal foundation oftwo cases under review by the California Supreme Court, both of
which address only whether cities may ban dispensaries and other medical cannabis businesses. Having
banned all collectives and storefront dispensaries, Fresno now proposes to ban all outdoor personal
cultivation on private property, with the likelihood that indoor growing restrictions are soon to follow.
Under California law, challenges to the proposed zoning ordinance may be limited to only those issues
that are raised at or before the public hearing. The following issues were raised at the Fresno Planning
Commission meeting ofMay 16, 2012 in response to specific elements ofthe staffreport, draft
ordinance and draft environmental findings, collectively labeled as agenda item VIII-A:
PAGEl
"Currently, the city has no explieit rules or regulations governing the outdoor eultivation of
medical marijuana."
The city ofFresno has banned outdoor and indoor cultivation and distribution by medical cannabis
dispensaries and cooperatives since 2004, most recently with Ordinance 2007-42. Presumably, this
ordinance could be applied to people who operate large-scale outdoor marijuana gardens, although
published California case law holds that dispensary bans like Fresno's are unconstitutional.
Unlike the city ofFresno, the state Legislature has provided explicit rules governing the cultivation of
medical marijuana, and it chose to apply those rules equally to indoor and outdoor cultivation. Among
other provisions, the Medical Marijuana ProgramAct (SB 420) establishes a minimum threshold of six
mature cannabis plants as a reasonable and objective standard by which patients can demonstrate their
full compliance with state law to police officers and others. (Health and Safety Code Sec. 11362.77) The
Legislature also provided limited immunity against criminal sanctions - and civil nuisance actions - to
qualified patients and primary caregivers who grow and possess a reasonable number of plants on an
individual basis (H&S Sec.11362.765) or as part of a collective (H&S Sec. 11362. 775).
"There have been violent incidents associated with the cultivation of marijuana, including reports
of four shootings within the city ofFresno, one resulting in death."
The report does not specify a time range or indicate what percentage of those incidents occurred at
outdoor gardens. The 2010 fatality occurred near an outdoor garden across from Roeding Park. That
homicide was one ofthe 45 reported in 2010 statistics compiled by the Fresno Police Department. In
2011,35 homicides were reported, none apparently related to marijuana cultivation. Thousands of
robberies and aggravated assaults are reported to Fresno police each year (Exhibit A). While any act of
violence is unfortunate, the Police Department's own data does not support findings that outdoor
cannabis cultivation poses a greater risk to public safety than indoor cultivation.
" ... Marijuana growers are constantly vigilant with many possessing handguns and/or rifles to
protect their fields."
This overbroad and prejudicial statement unfairly labels all medical cannabis patients as gun-toting
criminals-in-waiting tending their overgrown "fields" ofillicit marijuana The police are using a handful
of large gardens as poster children to justify a citywide growing ban, even though those same gardens
were investigated and their owners found to be in compliance with state law.
The right to possess guns for self-defense is protected by the U.S. Constitution. The Fresno City Council
recently passed legislation allowing city residents to obtain concealed weapons permits more easily. The
right ofcitizens to possess guns to protect themselves on their own property is well-established under
federal and California law, but ifguns are perceived to be the problem, an ordinance banning them
instead of outdoor marijuana gardens would be more effective. The better approach would be to secure
outdoor-grown plants with reasonable requirements that include fencing and locked access, visual
screening, height limits, setbacks, and allowed cultivation areas that vary by parcel size and zoning.
PAGE 2
"It has been determined tbat there is no possibility of significant adverse (environmental) effects .
as a result oftbis proposal."
This statement is not supported by any objective data As mentioned above, forcing all medical cannabis
to be grown indoors will result in increased electrical consumption and greater potential risks to public
health posed by indoor gardens, whether they are operated legally or illegally.
A 2011 study of energy consumption related to cannabis cultivation was compiled by Evan Mills, an
energy analyst and staff scientist at the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory. "In California, the top-
producing state (ofmarijuana), indoor cultivation is responsible for about 3% of all electricity use or 8%
ofhousehold use .... This corresponds to the electricity use of I million average California homes,
greenhouse-gas emissions equal to those from 1 million average cars, and energy expenditures of $3
billion per year." (The full report is attached as Exhibit B.)
The city ofArcata in Humboldt County prohibits the outdoor cultivation of cannabis by patients and
collectives. Not surprisingly, local media in Arcata and Eureka carry frequent stories about house fires,
utility theft and excess energy usage at indoor grow sites. Arcata is now considering a November ballot
measure that would impose an energy taxon households that use more than 300 percent ofbaseline
usage. (AnArcata Eye article is attached as Exhibit C.)
On April 9, 2012, the U.S. Attorney's Office announced three residents ofthe Fresno-Clovis area
pleaded guilty to mortgage fraud and/or marijuana cultivation charges related to indoor grow sites.
"According to court documents, the defendants defrauded lenders in order to buy houses in Fresno and
Mendocino Counties. The houses were used to grow marijuana Three ofthe houses caught on fire due
to the unlawful diversion of electricity." As ofMay 16,2012, the full press release is at
http://www. justice. gov/usao/cae/news/docs/2012/04-09-12LiengGuiltyPlea.html.
Excess electrical consumption related to indoor marijuana cultivation is a matter of statewide concern.
Senate Bill 1207 (Fuller, R-Bakersfie1d) would require an electrical or gas corporation to require a
CARE program participant whose electricity or gas usage exceeds 600% ofbaseline usage to participate
in an energy savings assistance program that includes a residential energy audit and would make
participation in an energy savings assistance programmandatory if a CARE program participant's
electricity or gas usage exceeds 600% ofbaseline usage. The bill would authorize an electrical or gas
corporation to remove a CARE program participant from the program if, after the completion of a
residential energy audit, the program participant's monthly electricity or gas usage exceeds 600% of
baseline usage, as specified. CARE program participants receive discounted electrical rates based upon
income guidelines. As ofMay 14, 2012, SB 1207 was on suspense status in Appropriations.
As the fifth-largest city in California, Fresno already bears its proportionate share of cannabis-related
energy consumption, which can only increase when outdoor cultivation is banned entirely as the city
proposes. Fresno County and other counties in the San Joaquin Valley are routinely classified as
"extreme" non-attainment areas for air-quality standards set by the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency. High energy costs, equipment expenses and potential safety risks related to indoor cultivation
also present significant obstacles to providing patients with safe and affordable access to medical
marijuana. Outdoor cultivation remains the safest and most affordable means of cultivation available to
qualified patients and primary caregivers, as well as the one with the smallest carbon footprint.
The 2009 update ofthe California Police Chiefs Association's "White Paper on Marijuana Dispensaries"
contains data about the proliferation ofgrow houses in residential areas and some ofthe potential safety
hazards created by those houses, including several documented examples ofhouse fires, blown power-
pole transformers and home-invasion robberies. On page 12 it states, "From an environmental
standpoint, the carbon footprint from greenhouse gas emissions created by large indoor marijuana grow
operations should be a major concern for every community in terms ofcomplying with Air Board AB-
32 regulations, as well as other greenhouse gas reduction policies." (Excerpts from the report pertaining
to indoor grow sites are attached as Exhibit D.)
"The proposed text amendment will maintain the status quo for purposes of CEQA."
The claim here is that the city's moratorium on outdoor cultivation somehow represents the city's land-
use status quo. To the contrary, the city's interim urgency ordinances disrupted the status quo by barring
the previously lawful cultivation of medical cannabis by patients outdoors, as well as the continued use
oftheir personal and real property for successive outdoor harvests from year to year. In the city's view,
"no new cultivation can occur" outdoors while the moratorium is in place, therefore the "old" state-
authorized cultivation by patients either a) doesn't exist, or b) exists but is no longer the status quo.
Prior to Dec. 15,2011, patient cultivation-of medical cannabis was legal in Fresno, both indoors and
outdoors, and city zoning laws were silent on the subject, by the city's own admission. Interim urgency
ordinance 2011-41 was adopted purportedly pursuant to Government Code Sec. 65858, allowing the 45-
day ban to take effect without the normal public hearings before the Fresno Planning Commission and
Airport Land Use Commission. Ordinance 2012-3 extended the first urgency ordinance for 10 months,
15 days, also purportedly pursuant to Gov. Code Sec. 65858.
The design and intent of interim urgency ordinances is to preserve the land-use status quo pending the
development ofnew regulations. Here, the state zoning law was misapplied to deprive qualified patients
oftheir vested property rights as the run-up to a permanent outdoor growing ban. Police and city
officials have stated consistently since Dec. 15 that a permanent outdoor growing ban was the only
option under consideration. There was no need to study or develop comprehensive regulations, rather a
perceived need to pass the outdoor growing ban quickly to interrupt the property rights ofpatients.
Ordinance 2012-3 as invalid on its face, being based upon the misuse of Gov. Code Sec. 65858 to pass
an urgency zoning ordinance that does not pertain to building permits, housing subdivisions or other
development approvals as required by that statute. State-authorized patient cultivation in reasonable
amounts, both indoors and outdoors, is the legal status quo in Fresno, not the invalid cultivation ban.
PAGE 3
Re: anti-marijuana operations by the U.S. Attorneys' Offices and federal drug agents.
,
Although all marijuana cultivation remains illegal under federal law, the only issue before the Planning
Commission involves a text amendment to a city zoning ordinance that is purported to be compliant and
consistent with California's medical marijuana laws. The U.S. government may not use officers of the
Fresno Police Department or other agents ofthe city to enforce federal druglaws while ignoring state
laws, as state appellate courts have repeatedly held. What the U.S. government does or doesn't do
regarding medical marijuana cultivation is not relevant to TA-II-001.
Should the commission wish to address the concerns offederal law enforcement, it should do so with
the knowledge that federal law doesn't distinguish between outdoor or indoor cultivation, nor is
marijuana necessarily the greatest threat to public safety in any given locale. Methamphetamine
production and distribution by gangs and drug-trafficking organizations (DTOs) was considered the
biggest threat in the 2011 Central Valley High Intensity Drug Trafficking Area report prepared by the
National Drug Intelligence Center (NDIC). As for marijuana, the report includes these conclusions:
"NDIC assesses with medium confidence that DTOs and criminal groups of all ethnicities, as well as
local independents, will increase their use ofdwellings in residential areas and warehouses, barns, and
large buildings in rural areas to house sophisticated cultivation operations. Mexican DTOs will remain
the primary cultivators of cannabis at outdoor locations." The city's outdoor cultivation ban won't stop
indoor cultivation by criminals, and it arguably could endanger public safety by making illegal
residential grow operations in Fresno far more numerous.
PAGE 4
Re: "Examples of the public threat to health, safety or welfare..."
Most ofthese examples are not supported by any objective, reasonable or statistical data. We are told of
"numerous reports" of violence, reminded about five marijuana-related shootings (but not the thousands
ofassaults and robberies detailed in Exhibit A), and "anecdotal evidence." There is no objective or
reasonable evidence that, "The chance ofan innocent victim, who lives near a marijuana field, being
injured by stray gunfire is high," nor that it is any higher than the chance ofbeing injured by stray
gunfire in areas ofthe city where medical marijuana is not cultivated.
This is not meant to diminish the rightful concerns of law enforcement, but to give them added
dimension and some sense ofcontext. Large-scalecultivationand small-scalecultivation do not pose the
same potential risk to public safety, nor is the presence ofweapons limited to outdoor grow sites or even
to grow sites in general. Wherever one goes in Fresno, weapons are likely close by. TA-ll-OOI doesn't
fix that problem, as zoning ordinances in general are inappropriatevehicles to regulate gun possession.
Re: Complaints about nuisance odors
Many varieties ofcannabis plants can get smelly before harvest. Yet large-scale and small-scale
cultivationdo not pose the same potential for creating nuisance odors, nor are nuisance odors confined
to outdoor cultivation sites. Indoor growrooms can and do create similar odors outside when growers
choose not to install (or cannot afford to install) a systemofair ducts, fans and expensive filters. Beyond
the capital costs, indoor odor-control systems also generate significant operating expenses for electricity
and replacement filters.
Asmall-scale outdoor garden With adequate fencing, reasonable setbacks and visual screening is more
sustainableand energy-efficient than an indoor garden of the same size. Reasonable limits on the size of
permitted cultivation areas will reduce neighbor complaints and mitigate the city's rightful concerns
about nuisance odors generated by larger, unregulated outdoor gardens.
"Many marijuana grows are nothing more than profit making schemes."
Banning all outdoor growing by non-criminals, aka qualified patients and primary caregivers, will do
nothingto deter criminals from making illegal profits wherever and whenever they can. Takento its
logical conclusion, this statement says the only way to stop illicit sales ofmarijuana is to prohibit lawful
cultivation altogether, even when done by individual patients whose only "scheme" is to use medical
cannabis for health purposes. Do that, and the city will have effectivelyrepealed Prop. 215 and SB 420.
The statement also fails to observe that the Medical Marijuana ProgramAct authorizes patients and
caregivers to collectively and cooperativelycultivate their supplies ofmedical cannabis. (Health and
Safety Code Sec. 11362.775)Because law enforcement priorities remain in flux statewide, many
nonprofit collectives and dispensaries have been labeled as ''profit making schemes" that can result in
prosecution in many localities, including Fresno. Yet the attorney general's office and state appellate
courts have concludedthat nonprofit collectives may operate lawfully under the provisions of SB 420.
PAGES
Re: Cities with cultivation moratoria or bans
Some ofthe cities listed are facing legal challenges to their medical cannabis ordinances. Specifics from
some ofthe city ordinances cited are instructive:
Anderson: Prohibits all outdoor cultivation and also indoor cultivation in a residence or attached
building. Ordinance 765 includes findings that "The indoor cultivation of substantial amounts of
marijuana also frequently requires excessive use of electricity, which often creates an unreasonable risk
oftire fromthe electrical grow lighting systems used in indoor cultivation." The regulatory approach in
Anderson's more restrictive ordinance was favored by Fresno City Councilmember Westerlund, who has
expressedconcerns that an outdoor growing ban could increase the number of indoor grows and the
potential social harms associated with them, including cultivation in close proximity to children.
Live Oak: Per Ordinance 538, "Marijuana cultivation by any person, including primary caregivers and
qualified patients, collectives, cooperatives or dispensaries is prohibited in all zone districts within the
City of Live Oak." Both indoors and outdoors.
Redding: Previously permitted medical cannabis cultivation and operation of storefront dispensaries,
but repealed its ordinance following the Pack v. Long Beach appellate court ruling, which is now under
review by the state Supreme Court. A Shasta County judge cited another appellate case that held Lake
Forest's dispensary ban invalid before refusing the city's request to shut down a collective-dispensary
that remained open in violation ofthe city's new ban. The city is now amending its complaint in light of
the Lake Forest ruling, which is also under review by the California Supreme Court:
http://www.redding.com/news/2012/maY/07/judge-grants-reddings-reguest-amend-complaint-mari/
Moraga: The town's ordinance makes clear that only civil enforcement actions are authorized:
''Notwithstanding any provision ofthis code to the contrary, no violation ofthis chapter sha1l be deemed
a misdemeanor, infraction or crime of any kind. Any violation ofthis chapter shall be subject to all civil
enforcement remedies set forth in Title 1, at the discretion ofthe town."
Re: Section 12-2104(a)
The city's Public Nuisance Abatement Ordinance is found in Article 6 of Chapter 10 ofthe Fresno
Municipal Code. Among other provisions, the nuisance abatement ordinance provides designated city
"directors" with right ofentry to property for purposes ofinspection and/or abatement upon issuance of
an administrative warrant. Administrative and enforcement procedures are not specified in TA-1I-00l,
which does not amend the city's current Public Nuisance Abatement Ordinance.
The constitutional rights to avoid self-incrimination and to be protected against unreasonable search and
seizure are critical concerns for all people, but especially for medical cannabis patients who may be
accused of"profit-making," weapons violations, child endangerment or other alleged crimes during the
enforcement of a purported civil violation and/or summary abatement.
Because ofthese concerns, the administrative and enforcement procedures utilized by the city attorney
should either be expressly tied to the Public Nuisance Abatement Ordinance procedures (FMC 10-601 et
seq.), or the "civil enforcement process" in Section 12-2104(a) ofTA-1I-001 should be described in
detail and codified in a manner similar to the Public Nuisance Abatement Ordinance.
To ensure that qualified patients don't face criminal sanctions in violation of state law, the draft
ordinance should be amended to include language similar to Moraga's ordinance: ''Notwithstanding any
provision ofthis code to the contrary, no violation ofthis chapter shall be deemed a misdemeanor,
infraction or crime of any kind. Any violation ofthis chapter shall be subject to all civil enforcement
remedies set forth in (insert codified reference here), at the discretion ofthe city attorney."
Re: Section 12-2104(c)
Any person or property owner cited for a violation is subject to abatement, actual, administrative and
enforcement costs, which can create a substantial economic hardship for qualified patients and primary
caregivers. Enforcement costs can include investigative expenses and attorney's fees. Landlords and
commercial property owners who do business with or lease property to medical cannabis patients,
knowingly or unknowingly, are also subject to fine, civil injunction, summary abatement and recovery
of costs, pursuant to Section 12-2103. It is not known iflocal officials will apply pressure to landlords
and commercial property owners in similar fashion to enforcement tactics used by federal officials
against medical cannabis dispensaries, but Section 12-2104(c) gives the city full authority to do so.
Health and Safety Code Sec. 11362.83 allows cities to adopt laws consistent with SB 420.
Conversely, state law does not allow cities to adopt laws that are inconsistent with sa420. Fresno has
already banned all collectives and dispensaries, and nowproposes to eliminate the safest and most
affordable method known by which individual patients can grow their own cannabis. Telling patients in
essence to grow a few plants in a closet or in a bathtub - or go without their medicine - is inconsistent
with common sense, much less the provisions of Prop. 215 and the Medical Marijuana ProgramAct.
More specifically, Health and Safety Code Sees. 11362.83(a) and (b) only authorize cities to regulate
medical cannabis collectives and dispensaries in a manner consistent with SB 420. It's not a blank check
that authorizes cities to ban or severely restrict cultivation by individual qualified patients.
11362.83. Nothing in this article shall prevent a city or other local governing body from adopting
and enforcing any ofthe following:
(a) Adopting local ordinances that regulate the location, operation, or establishment ofa medical
marijuana cooperative or collective.
(b) The civil and criminal enforcement oflocal ordinances described in subdivision (a).
(c) Enacting other laws consistent with this article. (emphasis added)
The overriding goal and purpose of both Prop. 215 and SB 420 is to provide safe and affordable access
to medical cannabis patients through a combination ofpersonal and collective cultivation activities. The
express intent of the Medical Marijuana Program Act (SB 420) was to "(I) Clarify the scope ofthe
application ofthe [CVA] and facilitate the prompt identification ofqualified patients and their primary
caregivers in order to avoid unnecessary arrest and prosecution ofthese individuals and provide needed
guidance to law enforcement officers. (2) Promote uniform and consistent application ofthe act among
the counties within the state. (3) Enhance the access ofpatients and caregivers to medical marijuana
through collective, cooperative cultivation projects." (Stats. 2003, ch. 875, section 1, subd. (b)(1)-(3).)
To date, the city has not passed laws designed to enhance safe access, nor to promote uniform and
consistent application of SB 420 between nearby cities and Fresno County. Rather, it has diminished
safe access by banning all types of collectives and imposing unreasonable limits on personal cultivation.
Of special concern is parity with Fresno County's cultivation law, which was a concern expressed by
Fresno City Council members. TA-II-00l does not impose restrictions on indoor cultivation in similar
fashion to Fresno County's ordinance requiring business licenses for indoor cultivation, which is further
limited to manufacturing and industrial zones. Although enforcement ofthe county's ordinance is
problematic in light ofthe Pack ruling out ofLong Beach, the main point here is that the county's
outdoor growing ban has arguably contributed to an increase ofnuisance gardens in the city, just as the
county's dispensary ban has reportedly resulted in collectives establishing new locations in the city.
PAGE 6
Re: Riverside v. Inland Empire, Pack v. Long Beach, et al
For the moment, these cases provide no authority or legal basis to justify the city's proposed ordinance,
as they are under review by the California Supreme Court. Even if upheld, these cases address bans on
commercial collectives and dispensaries, not bans on state-authorized, small-scale patient cultivation.
The summation ofthe Pack decision is inaccurate; the court ruled that Long Beach's permitting system
for dispensaries violated federal law, not that all types ofcity or state marijuana regulations do. That
means Fresno County's system ofmedical marijuana business licenses is on hold, while TA-ll-OOI is
presumably lawful because it does not require licenses or permits to grow cannabis.
In the Riverside case, a total ban on dispensaries is "simply a means ofregulation or restriction." In a
more recent case, an ordinance declaring medical cannabis cultivation by collectives and dispensaries to
be a nuisance per se in the City of Lake Forest wasvoided on appeal. "Here, the City's per se ban on
medical marijuana dispensaries prohibits what the Legislature authorized in section 11362.775, namely
a place for the lawful distribution ofmedical marijuana and., more generally, using property to grow,
store, and distribute medical marijuana." (City ofLake Forest v. Evergreen Holistic Collective(2012)
203 Cal.App. 4th 1413, 1445-46) "The contradiction is direct, patent, obvious, and palpable."
In like fashion, Health and Safety Code Sec. 11362.765 provides that individual patients and caregivers
shall not be subject to criminal sanctions or nuisance actions for using property to growor store medical
cannabis. As the court ruled in Lake Forest, "...Sections 11362.765 and 11362.775 expressly negate
section 11570 as a nuisance remedy against the medical marijuana activities identified in those
sections." By imposing sanctions upon qualified patients on the sole basis oftheir cultivation ofmedical
cannabis, Fresno's proposed outdoor growing ban -like the urgency ordinances that preceded it --
directly conflicts with state law and is subject to legal challenge.
CITYEXHIBITA- ENVIRONMENTALASSESSMENT EA-ll-OOI
"Enactment and amendment ofzoning ordinances" is a "project" under the express terms ofthe
California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). (Calif. Code ofRegulations Sec. 15378(a)(I
Accordingly, the city's proposed outdoor cultivation ban, TA-II-001, is a project under CEQA.
CEQAexempts certain projects from environmental review provided they meet the appropriate criteria.
The city does not claimthat TA-II-00l is entitled to a categorical exemption from CEQA, but instead
that it qualifies for the so-called "common sense" exemption: "Where it can be seen with certainty that
there is no possibility that the activity in question may have a significant effect on the environment, the
activity is not subject to CEQA." (CCR Sec. 15061(bX3
EA-II-00l attempts to establish that there is no possibility ofenvironmental impact by claiming that
outdoor cultivation has ceased in the city of Fresno, making indoor-only cultivation the status quo. The
city has offered no evidence to establish with certainty that outdoor cultivation has ceased., or that the
interim urgency ordinances didn't create an environmental impact by banning outdoor cultivation.
Urgency ordinances are categorically exempt from CEQAreview; a permanent amendment is not.
Common sense suggests that an ordinance forcing all medical cannabis to be grown indoors will
significantly increase electrical consumption and create other potential environmental impacts when the
ordinance is applied to thousands ofpatients on a citywide basis. Ifthe proposed outdoor growing ban is
not exempt in another category, the "common-sense" exemption may not be applied as an easy fix.
Exhibits B, C and D ofthis letter should serve to dispel any claimof certainty that there is no possibility
that the proposed ordinance can create a significant environmental impact and/or increased threats to
public health and safety related to increased indoor cultivation. To comply with CEQA, the city must
conduct an initial study ofTA-ll-001 pursuant to CCR Sec. 15002(k)(2).
Respectfully s U b ~ t t ~
/ ) V ) ~ ~
Michael S. Green
Fresno, Calif.
EXHIBIT "A"
FRESNO POLICE DEPARTMENT

DECEMBER 2011
By CrimeView Bureau
Jerry Dyer, Chief of Police
Steven Casto, CrimeView Bureau Sergeant
23,:1. 27Q1
!!:I
...
FBI CRIMEINDEX
10YEARPROFILE
.....
":1-

PERJOO JAN-DEC JAN-DEC JAN-DEC JAN-DEC JAN-DEC JAN-DEC JAN-DEC JAN-DEC

NOTES
, ,
4,5,8,7.11 11.10..11.17 12,13,,17 1....15,17
" " "
IPERSONCRIIIESlOTAL
PI!RC:eNTCHANGE :
WILLFUL HOMICIDE 42 36 53 48 52 52 40 42 45 35
FORCiBlERAPE 158 164 181 149 133 99 80 88 70 51
ROBBERY 1479 1 215 1232 1.275 1282 1104 984 1085 1021 1020
AGGRAVATED ASSAULT 2,101 2,089 2,030 2425 2058 1788 1.878 1,720 1,898 1,809
PRO: BelY CRIIIESTOTAL 27 21774 117 21111
211.
-1% -111% 4%
BURGLARY 4476 3926 3994 4170 4388 3897 4173 4423 5282 5713
LARCENY 18476 17808 17119 18088 14097 13049 14106 13359 14845 14928
MOTORVEHICLE n1EFT 7175 5661 5245 5288 4944 4023 srtt 3248 4553 4780
ARSON 707 805 418 248 280 222 224 158 147 134
POUCE REPORTS 12O.D47 12OA781 120.978 121191 117.1i87 110.881 I 1DB749 1D3A12 114.111 81054
CALLS FOR SERVICE 385728 408-3881 41U16 430J5281 418660 432_1 433111 432320 408080
_648
PERCENT CHANGE 2% 3%1 3% 3% -3% 3%1 0% 0% -5% -1%
DEMOGRAPHICS
SQUAREMILES" 104 104 104 104 104 104 104 104 104 104
POPULATION" 442300 448 SOD 456 203 464 727 464 727 481035 481035 486116 495913 494 665
SVYORN PERSONNEL 682 698 730 778 802 818 849 849 824 767
NON-swoRN PERSONNEL 343 354 365 372 387 419 476 438 212 2DD
.. Square MII8lIand PopulBllon data: Cityof FresnoDevelopment Department & Chamberof Commerce
- PersonnelStsfl'lng lever. Source: FresnoPolleeDepartment Pen;onnel Bur9au
NOTES
I:QAIAIrT**Y repart_ rIIIeMed Illlhe PIOIn FebrI8y 2lXlZ. ThIB ItIpCIIt IllIIlIcled C21,5811 CFS lor 2001. Fuhr lIIW)'SII revMl!dthIB _ defflecl"'*V. Cl;IId11 IncU:lednul crMi pob
IIYWIla,tu.....__ "'!he
PI (lIlll men lhanactudy llCII;UIfed. IIlnJEIted c!eIdh lorn k1200310BhornlctIe The
2000I8poIt 8lIIDI'lIllDl:m:IIhI1lll pnlYkuIy nIPOIle:IlIorTKlcklB awl -.liIlDrclomled /ISIIabIe. ., neglIIIYlIlIu1llI aulI.
[41The popWibl_aettIDd10 Ided: IhlllVnB IlIJ thll City01 FI8IIlO Departr!'o!II'l CBIIomIa 6tlIte Departmer:t of Anm:1I.
[SJ Iw orJan 2004, ICIIWa1ls 0IaI k12003, InOI-. lIf8 ncl reporto:IlftIllllllll8Ol1lnvS1galDrliMlellgllllIlI thll repat and ., aciIIilIanan. FFOt'IIe1DopIed. PfOlIl'al'I\ NBUor8I Fn Irddett
.....
f8J ThelllllTDrol nIPOIle:IlrI:Uled _ men lhan IIduBIy ocamId In2004. ThedIl!nlxa_dUe10" lrI'llp(ItIJd de:IIIllromAp:t 2000UlBl_ h Feb:wry 2OO41U. BIeBUl:01 rorer..k:
.....
[1JFFD al8p:llllrQ AnIon ClltIlD1'clr Ap:t 2004 8l'lllaMlrthan normaL DSaIIicn!I rdec:l tIIB! W8y beslgrIIlbntIy higher dJe 10. ClmIIallYe

(V] I8PWlIIlIII BaBl'/.IlBllwl .... lcrrm-.
[111] Mll)'Aug -er'I rtMewIldtttthll
(t1] Hl:rTXiieaut piaroe- deBIh nded IlonWJdetl* yelW.
[12] Violent CrIrTlI!I & Properly Q1me lOClIII; 1'811" GlWIIa.
(13) FPCraorgarmtkn: eva..... enMBy1, 200SInDI..IeWlnintMilk Salazlw. CV8111 oornprIIedCII' 14 UCRCIerb lIIld6 AnaIpIB, IhlllvakmledNely to lIII:l (IeIYenIrlOIl orlhll F!IIItrn A
R_
[1.q FPCIllCIIpimIlon: CW_lIItIItIIIIhIld onJ.1U11"f 15,2001
1111] Jaol .lIn 2007 e-RepoIIa (\Ift:8III!IBJ want IIIDI!JllID..uy'Bocua.
(til] FPDdIlJicI!ll:u'dIfI8B__rav!IIed& on.lilrll8y 1, 2COO.
(11] [;\JI!I to 00l'MlIBI0n, ...-a0lKBIIB-.tID:Ied tothllirdec TcDI tIlIallr\;Ilhe nlmben 1'clr rearw2llO5. 2lIJ8. \Mll8 ma$llla OOITeI:l ..b-II*.
('18)FPOdlIlrid baIrd&rleB-.nrvlrIe:I& 1, 201,. golng Ihxn MdllJlrlc:elto lour.
EXHIBIT "B"
ENERGY UP IN SMOKE
THE CARBONFOOTPRINTOFINDOORCANNABIS PRODUCTION
Evan Mills, Ph.D.'
AprilS, 2011
* The research described in this report was conducted and published independently by the
author, a long-time energy analyst and Staff Scientist at the Lawrence Berkeley National
Laboratory, University ofCalifornia. Scott Zeramby provided valuable insights into
technology characteristics, eqnipment configurations, and market factors that influence
energy utilization.
The report can be downloaded from: http://evan-milIs.com/energy-associates/lndoor.html
On occasion, previously unrecognized spheres ofenergy use come to light Important
examples include the pervasive air leakage from ductwork in homes, the bourgeoning
energy intensity of computer datacenters, and the electricity "leaking" from millions of
small power supplies and other equipment. Intensive periods of investigation, technology
R&D, and policy development gradually ensue in the wake of these discoveries.
The emergent industry ofindoor Cannabis production appears to have joined the list. This
report presents a model of the modem-day production process-based on public sources
and equipment vendor data-and provides national scoping estimates of the energy use,
costs, and greenhouse-gas emissions associated with this activity in the United States.'
Large-scale industrialized and highly energy-intensive indoor cultivation of Cannabis is a
relatively new phenomenon, driven by criminalization, pursuit of security, and the desire
for greater process control and yields.
2
,3 The practice occurs in every state," and the
415,000 indoor plants eradicated in 2009
5
represent only the tip of the iceberg.
Aside from sporadic news repOrts,6.7 policymakers and consumers possess little
information on the energy implications of this practice," Substantially higher electricity
demand growth is observed in areas reputed to have extensive indoor Cannabis
cultivation. For example, following the legalization of cultivation for medical purposes in
California in 1996, Humboldt County experienced a 50% rise in per-capita residential
electricity use compared to other areas.? Cultivation is today legal in 17 states, albeit not
federally sanctioned. In California, 400,000 individuals are authorized to grow Cannabis
for personal medical use, or sale to 2,100 dispensaries." Official estimates oftotal U.S.
production varied from 10,000 to 24,000 metric tons per year in 2001: making it the
nation's largest crop by value." As of 2006, one third of national indoor production was
estimated to occur in California. 12Based on a rising number of consumers (6.6% of U.S.
population above the age of 12)/3 national production in 2011 is estimated for the
purposes of this study at 17,000 metric tons, one-third occurring indoors. 14
Driving the large energy requirements of indoor production facilities are lighting levels
matching those found in hospital operating rooms (500-times greater thanrecommended
for reading) and 30 hourly air changes (6-times the rate in high-tech laboratories, and 60-
times the rate in a modem home). Resulting electricity intensities are 200 watts per square
foot, which is on a par with modem datacenters. Indoor carbon dioxide (C02) levels are
often raised to four-times natura1levels in order to boost plant growth.
Specific energy uses include high-intensity lighting, dehumidification to remove water
vapor, space heating during non-illuminated periods and drying, irrigation water pre-
heating, generation of CO
2
by burning fossil fuel, and ventilation and air-conditioning to
remove waste heat. Substantial energy inefficiencies arise from air cleaning, noise and
odor suppression, and inefficient electric generators used to avoid conspicuous utility bills.
Based on these operational factors, the energy requirements to operate a standard
production module--a 4x4x8 foot chamber-are approximately 13,000 kWh/year of
electricity and 1.5 x 10
6
BTU/year of fossil fuel. A single grow house can contain 10 or
more such modules. Power use scales to about 20 TWhIyear nationally (including off-grid
production and power theft), equivalent to that of 2 million average U.S. homes. This
corresponds to 1% ofnational electricity consumption or 2% of that in households-or the
output of7large electric power plants. IS This energy, plus transportation fuel, is valued at
$5 billion annually, with associated emissions of 17 million metric tons ofCOr-
equivalent to that oBmillion average American cars. (See Figure I and Tables 1-5.)
1
Fuel is used for several purposes, in addition to electricity. Carbon dioxide, generated
industrially" or by burning propane or natural gas, contributes about 2% to the carbon
footprint. Vehicle use for production and distribution contributes about 15% oftotal
emissions, and represents a yearly expenditure of$1 billion. Off-grid diesel- and gasoline-
fueled electric generators have emissions burdens that are three- and four-times those of
average grid electricity in California. It requires 70 gallons of diesel fuel to produce one
indoor Cannabis plant, or 140 gallons with smaller,less-efficient gasoline generators.
In California, the top-producing state, indoor cultivation is responsible for about 3% of all
electricity use or 8% ofhousehold use, somewhat higher thanestimates previously made
for British Colnmbia," This corresponds to the electricity use of I million average
California homes, greenhouse-gas emissions equal to those from 1 million average cars,
and energy expenditures of $3 billion per year. Due to higher electricity prices and cleaner
fuels used to make electricity, California incurs 70% ofnatioual energy costs but
contributes only 20% of national CO, emissions from indoor Cannabis cultivation.
From the perspective of individual consumers, a single Cannabis cigarette represents 2
pounds of CO, emissions, an amount equal to running a 1OO-watt light bulb for 17 hours
assuming average u.s. electricity emissions (or 30 hours on California's cleaner grid).
The emissions associated with one kilogram of processed Cannabis are equivalent to those
of driving across country 5 times in a 44-mpg car. One single production module doubles
the electricity use of an average U.S. home and triples that of an average California home.
The added electricity use is equivalent to running about 30 refrigerators. Producing one
kilogram ofprocessed Cannabis results in 3,000 kilograms of CO, emissions.
The energy embodied in the production of inputs such as fertilizer, water, equipment, and
building materials is not estimated here and should be considered in future assessments.
Minimal information and consideration of energy use, coupled with adaptations for
security and privacy, lead to particularly inefficient configurations and correspondingly
elevated energy use and greenhouse-gas emissions. If improved practices applicable to
commercial agricultural greenhouses are any indication, such large amounts of energy are
not required for indoor Cannabis production. IS Cost-effective efficiency improvements of
75% are conceivable, which would yield energy savings ofabout $25,OOO/year for a
generic lO-module operation. Shifting cultivation outdoors virtually eliminates energy use
(aside from transport), although, when mismanaged, the practice imposes other
environmental impacts." Elevated moisture levels associated with indoor cultivation can
cause extensive damage to buildings." Electrical fires are an issue as well." For legally
sanctioned operations, the application of energy performance standards, efficiency
incentives and education, coupled with the enforcement of appropriate construction codes
could lay a foundation for public-private partnerships to reduce undesirable impacts."
Were compliant operations to receive some form of independent certification and product
labeling, environmental impacts could be made visible to otherwise unaware consumers.
***
Current indoor Cannabis production and distribution practices result in prodigious energy
use, costs, and greenhouse-gas pollution. The hidden growth of electricity demand in this
sector confounds energy forecasts and obscures savings from energy efficiency programs
and policies. More in-depth analysis and greater transparency in the energy impacts ofthis
practice could improve decision-making by policymakers and consumers alike.
2
l"iJ!ure 1. Carbon Footprint of Indoor Cannabis Production
Ballast
Ventilated
Light fixture
A
&c.

., .....""" .

"i'=:'< '(:1- ,
. - .'
(JIIP--.
....
<::
Motorized lamp
rails
In-line duct fan,
coupled to lights
Lighting
32%
....

Il.- \
" \
"'i
l
'.f
. /
. .
/
h .. ,...
Ventilation &

' "1'--' "

!

..1.
I
',--
Dehumidifier
High-intensity lamps

Il
l l
3000
kgCO,/kg
Indoor
Cannabis
Oscillating fan

j ! I .!
......"

3
1
. Water purifier
Air conditioning
18%
C02
generator
Heater
pump.
!F;: ,'-' _. .-...
. "'-W
f]:, .... '. -.
. " .tllii'M r--.

Water heater
Air-
conditioning
Vehicles
Electric
generator
Table 1. Configuration, Environmental Conditions, and Setpoints
--------- --
I
I.

,
S5%;
","'.'-- \
15%:
2089';vehkie_mifeslc.icle
.- _...
- 3-S2Cflvm/i:vCfe
,-- .. ,- ...
16 :1'$Quare feet (exd.
_' I walking area) ,
._ ,"iIi I, -:_--.__ - ---- ---
, ..
)8idays: --
__
- _ ,_. _., _._.' I ._ .. " .... ,
_. _,
f'IIetal_ h8l11de.l soc:llum
... -- .....
- ----1:1' - i
1S 12
----iSi ''60
." ...-. -- --- "-.-....'._,-.

Growing module
Numiier-ofmoiiuies'(n a-room-
_. Area-ofroom--"-- .- ,.... ------- --
_ _
.. __
til,iminatlon---
l:amptYl'"
. ._,, __ . _. _
aallast '_osses (mix of ma_g_netlc_ &.digital)
__ __ __ -. -- --- - --
HOlJrs/day
_ ..
Dayllghtlng
Vtll1tii.tion---
---Oucte(rJiimInaires--wltil--"seaieil"-Hght"lng' .. lsoTtFMlftfooW-of liiilit""
, _. __ ._.___ _ ... _
.. .. _. __._.. .__ .__ . _
__ _ , .__ '".. , .. .. _ _
_ J?_Elr_module, whlle '_Ights or! 11
- - - - -- - - - - -- \
water I
____ _.. _.__ . :__ -
- _
<:':
-_IlJ9h_t __ i E.. _
___ __ __
DehumidificatIon 1x24i hours
.. _.. .. _____
______ .. .__ . " __
___ __ ,. .__ ___.__.... _. __.. __
Fraction of lightIng system heat production 30%1
.. ._. J ._ ...
. __ ._ __ __
---- -----..-
Drylng
spacico-n.-i:lltionlng't -osdllaflng-fcj-ns
t
mplntalnlng -
__ ]j)_E19f __
Elocb1dtyollpjiry .
grid--
-.. g-riCi=/ndepende'nt -generat'lli'n-(mix-o"fctlesel;

vehicle"uMi-
. --:
--wh-olesale-cll5tr1butlon- -- -- -
-i-et8i1dlstrtbutlon--{t--bounCe;
4
4
0.7 ;kg/cycle
16,.9?4; metric tonnes/Y
':
33%
1,72,?,283
602,597

2%'share
91,033: BTU/gallon
__

85%:share
8%:share
5%.share
0.609 d,gC02/kWh
0.384kgCcii/kWh
- -
0.877 !kgC02/kWh
qjj :kgC02jkWh
6.989,kgC02/kWh .
- -O.-.r75 :kgCciiiki'ih


- $O:39q i per kWh(T1.er 5)
--

$0.390!per kWh
-$D.166;per kWh
.
$3.68 ! per gallon

$4,000: $!k9.
'4.stf:
173-i kgC02,t\'ear (US
aVl:!ragel.
'i:h!dridtYu.se0" a--ty:piCci-1 .US"home - (U ' 11,646 i .--
- . -ElectrTdty-use-Cifaty"leal'CalffOrnla-home - . '696' kW h! ----
2009 rkl ' r year
Piaii'tS pe-r'productloii-mod'ule
Net'productio"'per'pro-cIJctloii'-module-[h]
(ioil) [I]
CailfOmla-i'roduction-(20i1) [I]
Fractic;j,- produced lj,doONi (Ij" -
usIndoor produCtio'ri modi.i"les*",:
cailf In'door 'produ-ctlon-mocluie:s-*
- -
9l!m..
-:. __
Gasolinegenerators
..'EmfsSionsFactOrs-
.. __
GridelectricIty - CA [e]
--. [4
__
Propanegenerator**
____ ...."..,.
Blended on/off-grldgeneratIon - CA ...

Propanecombustion
-paces ....__ ..
__ grid, .[(1]
E.l.el:trldty price-.g.rld.(US, exd. c:A) ,[e]
__ .-. -.
Electricity price- blendedon/off CA"'
Electrldtyprice- blendedon/off - US"''''
__ - -
GasolinePrice- USaverage [f]
-, ,US
CE!nna_blsj"j-
ProductIon
_Fueis
Propane [b]
Dlesel[b]
Ga.so.ll.ne
- Genel'iltlon Mix'"
GMd

Propanegenerators

--?
12:hrs/day
60
5 :years _ .
10: standard as of 1/2006
10:hrs/day
-' I"' .--... - .... -

30%:

25%:27kW
15%:5.5kW
15%
_._
25imilesroundtrip
7sit7IPS/cvci'e; ASSume'200/0 live
.en site
11:trlpsievcle

2089:vehlclemiles/cycle
5 ;kg .pertrlp
750: vmlC)ide,
3'520 i IJ'rn/eyde
'4270:
- -2Z:mpg' .. -
__ ..._
0.416'kg C02/mlle
2.598 :"k9. 'C02 ,-
tf.ioa Ikg co'i/riiile -
--. .. -

4.7 lccntlnuous production
-i6 isquanaeet (exe'I;' walking area)
-----..... -. -.-
-
19:- ---- -. -. --
r
I
.I
i
i
'" I
us
.A"nUB'I car... _
Dally service (1 vehIcle)
inweekly service (2 vehIcles)
Haryes(CZ:-vehides} .- -
Total vehlde miles
!@nsD0rti!tlon' Dlsb1butlon
Amour1.t -trail.sPorted
- - --
RetaU (0.250z.x. 5 mUes I'()un.dtrlp)
-TOtal- - -- - - - -.-. .
- Fuel 'eConomy, -tYpical'ca-r .[ai'
tvPlca! (a]
Table 2. Assumptions & conversion factors'
Service Levels - - - -- - - - - -
Inumlnencee "2s-ioo,ooi:i:iux
Alrchange rates'" 30 (i:"tianges per hour
O[lera-tiiiOs
n
_ _ --- ------------
9'd.e
Cycles!vear'4''''
prodiict"lon module area-
Production module volume ....
Airtiow"'*
-Modu[es'pei-'.rtlom*
Y!llil!rJ9. . . . .
G!afl
rl
9 phese

DuratIon

Ughtlng en-time"
Duration*" -
I!!l1!li -- --
Hours/day
Duratfon*
Equlement
Averagealr.concUtici.n1og. age
Air ccndlttener efficiency (SEER)
Fraction o"'"ligh"ting'system' heat'productlon
removed by Jumlnalre ventilation
.
Propane genenltor efflclencv
Gasclliiie generator efficiency.
Fraction of teits.' prcd'n with generators'"
Water use [Indoor]"
!@nsportlltlon: ProductIon ph!!!se(10 modules)
i traae and product literature; IntervIews wIthequIpment vendors
. - ,- .--.-..--.- ..- -.-.--.- .. -.. -. - . -j
5
Table 3.: carbon footprint of indoor Cannabis Production
(Average US conditions) .
,
kWh/kg i !
-----.--- --.- i -
L1ghl:lng ... -- - 1,4791 . ... .... ..-
Ventilation & Dehumld. 1,197 i 797: 26.1%
_. -- ---------- - --.-_.. ' -------- .-.-.- _._- -_._"--- -."..- ..-_...
Air conditioning 827 i 551' 18.0%
Space heat 197,131.. ...
C6;llrocluctl0I1 ." 54r 491
Waterhiiidllng.- .. 2Bi i 9: Q.6%
Drying --- -73: ..
Vehides-j ..... 479: .. 15:7%
Total i 3,855! 3.059 i 100.0%
Note: "C02 production" represents.cornbustionfuel to make on-site C02. Assumes 15% of
electricity is produced in off-grid generators. As the fuels used for C02 contain moisture,
additional dehumidification is required (and ailocated here to the C02 energy row). Alr-
conditioning associated with C02 production (as w.ell as for lighting, ventilation, and other
incidentals) Is counted in the air-conditioning category.
6
Table 4. Equivalencies
Indoor cannabis production
consumes...
U.S. cannabis production & distribution
energy cost... .
3%
$5
of California's total
electricity, and
: BIllion, and results In the
" emlsslons of
8%
17
,
l<ifcallfornia's:
! household I
i __
million
tonnes per
year of
greenhouse ,
gas emissions!
(C02) :
1%
equa' to the
emissions of
oitotal US
electricity,
and
3
erus
2% i household
... '.elegnclty
mlmon
average
cars
million
average
cars
1
equal to the
emissions of
mUllon
tonnes per
year of
, greenhouse
:!gas emissions:
. (C02)
4
Billion, and results In the
emissions of
imillion average US homes : 2
$3
U.S. electricity use for Cannabis
production Is equivalent to that of...
California cannabis production and
distribution energy cost
million average Califo'mla .
homes
cailfomla eiectrldty usefor cannabis
JS
A production
module, accomoclatlng four plants ete
time, consumes asmuch electricity as...
Every 1 kilogram of cannabis produced
using national-average grfd power
results In the emissions of...
Every 1 kilogram of Cannabis produced
using a prorated mix of grid and off-
grid generatorsresults In the emissions
of...
Every 1 kilogram of Cannabis produced
using offgrld generators results In the
emissions of...
1
1
2.8
3.1
4.3
average U.S. homes, or
tonnes of C02
tonnes of C02
tonnes of C02
2
; equivalent to
equivalent to
: equivalent to :
average
California
homes
4.9
5.3
7.4
or
i cross-country trips ,
In a 44mpg car '
, cross-country trtps '
In a 44mpg car
, cross-country trips j
, In a 44mpg car
28
average
new
refrlgerat I
ors .
Transportation (wholesale+retall)
consumes.,
One Cannabis cigarette Is like driving...
Of the total wholesale price...
52
15
24%
: gallons of gasoline per kg :
miles In a 44mpg car
Is for energy (at average
U.S. prices)
or
emitting
about
$1
2
billion dollars
annually, and
pounds of C02,
which Is equivalent
to operating a 100- ,
for
479
17
ki"lograms ;
of C02 .
per
kilogram i
of flnal '

hours
.7
Table s. Indicators (Ave",ge us conOldonsj
EnefllY.Use...
. fonneete.cl
Power Density
Elect .

Transportation fuel
On-grid results
.. Energycost
Energy cost
Fraction of wholesale price
. C02 enilsslons
C02 emissions
Off-grl.dre.sults (diesel)
Energy cost
= .
Fraction of wholesale price
C02emlssl"". . .
i:Q2emlSSic:ins .
-- -- -- ----.-
Blendecl0n/off grid results
. En"rgycost
En"rgv.cst....... ...
Fraction of wholesale price
COzeriiiSslOns . . .
C02 emissions
- - - - - ---- --- ""-"
ofwhich; i';doo.. c021,riIductlon
OfwhIch;veiiic"liiiii
FueJuse
Olllin-g:I''''dlictlo.n. .

Cost
[)urlngProductlon..
Distribution
Emissions
DlIrI.ng Pniductlon.
Distribution
- i
_.i
1--
per cycle, per
.production
module
2,69.8 ..
0.3
- -- -,,- ....
37
592 ,
- - . !
1,988
1,196 . i
-----
3,012
-682
2,141
9
8
per year, per
production
module
3,039i y,' tts/riiodllle .
190, watts/ft2
. .-12,626ikwii/module
. ..1,S: i!'1BTU-
172igallons
.2;770
846 $/kg
.... !
21%i
!
9,3021I<g
2,840 i kg/kg
.. __ .. i
5,595;$/module
1;7081$/1<9
43%F

. .
-3,1941$/modul" ..
...
24%:
10;021: kg. ....
3;059 [kg<:02/kg
- -- - _. -_. -"",.'- -, -- ._. ------ -.-
..... 4:likgC02
...
..39! gallons/kg

..
124:"gc02/kg
.. 3S51I<Qcoi Jf(,
Table 6. Model

_L.8mps_(HPS>'
Bllltasts (losses)
-
Bllilast (losses)
Motorized rail motion
- to-ntrollers
VentHlItIon lindmoiStUrecontrol
-(sealed fro_Tn_ conditioned space)_
supply - --
- Main room fans - exhaust
.
DehumlcllflClltlon
:

- __
CIIrbon Dioxide
-:PDrasltlc-eleetrldl;y
AC (see bel()w)
In-line heater
-- (io%
Monlto.r/Ol;mtro_l__
witter
H_B_8ting-
P_umF't_ng - Imgat!C!n
DiVln_"
Dehumli:lfilciitlo.;---
CircUlatl_ng _ra:ns
-
EI_eCtTrdtY--iilibtOta(

I_oad_s
"Loads thafcan beremoted
Loads that can't be remOted
-heat_removal
ElectricItYTotal
Number orr
,
4X4x8-root: Input: : Hou,../day Haul'll/day! DllY./CYdei Da'fll/qde: ' kWh/year pel
Energytype:Penetntion Ratlng productionI energy per: Unitll : (lui' (flowert (leaf phue) i (Rower, kWh / cycle: procluctlon
modules! module, ph..I: ph_)! 'ph..) i modulel
"
elect ' foo%: - 1000
"
"
- iooo -lir 12! 60"- 720 -3-;_369
eiect 10C)%: 13% -I! 130 . w i_2i 60,"
94' 438
-elect-- --100%' 600,
-T'--
600' "w --18
ra
' ,
19'4'- - -910

100%"; - -i3% 1 , -is
W 1B "is, r 2S its
elect 5%: 5.5 1; 0.3 w 1B ii: 18! 60 0, 1
-50%: - io' 10
' i
W 24 24i 18! 60 2 9
,

100%; 454 10' 45 W 1B, 12, i81 60 47 222
-eie:ct--
100%1 24-2 -3Q iii- -lS
-il --181
60' 31 i45

iOO%, 242 8.1:
-"30 -
iN ie-, 12 18i 60: 31 1'45
--eiect -- 1"6(1%'-- -i30,-
r:
,.
TiD:
-,,{""
24'
- 241-
is! 60" -242


100%! 1,035 4: 2!i9 li/
--24'- -- 24'
18i
60-" -
484
eJec,(
-50%- ---1"t,:
!O_
----i,
vi.'
- 24i
_ 181 60 2' 9
"
,
. -- --
- -
-:
- lf 60 _13_8',.

50% 100, 10' 5_' Vi 18 Ii ia- 60
-5:---
241

100%-:

5%' 115 10! 0.61 W lB. 12 ; 18' 60' 1 3
erect
-50%;-
104.
- 0.4-"- - --26: w -is:- --iil-- '-is
50' 27 126

_ "__ ___!O: . f .-_w._
_____ i_t!' 60 S;

eied:---- .
. 100%' 300
. -io' -jo-:---w-- is . ---12";-
-18! 60
eleCt- -
55 -iQ ,w. ., .u..
- ). 'ui: 60 2
eJect- 75'''; i,-S5-0 "jO' 139 Vi 24' 7' 23' iti9
elect -"1"00%: "t'30' 5'
-261 W 24 7' .. -20
'
"10-'-- -:--If( -14 7'
,

'-r' -:i;fi9:
,
m
239:
.,""
100%' 1,180
-1Ij' -. --ils!
_ow
221'
elect - ioo%' 450, 10'-- - -45,
W 84' 394
16.7 W lB' 12 18: 60 35'
.....
,
3,039 i w 2,&118' 12,08
propane 45% 11,.1.76 16.7 671 i Bi1.i/h_o IB 12

o 011
5% 1
__ _" ___ :9_2/hr
IB 12
kgC02
kg CO2
MBTUor: MBTUorl
bW/cyclei .ls5lmYYAr
ON-SITE FUEL
ft.:8Ite-.z:_Productlon
Energy use -
C02 emlssl_ons
Externally produced Industrial CO2
on-51te"i-purChased
Weighted averag-e on-site ,-gui'chased
Un"
; RatIng
.Technology: (BTU/I
Mix hour)'
Number Of:
4x4d-toot:
productionI
mocIulel=
.N:"'_ed_;
Input
energy per
module
9
, Ho",,../d.yi Hours/d-V
(Iuf _ (newer
ph...)' phaM)
D-v-/c;yde:
(I,,'phae):
IB
1B
Dll.,./cycle
(flower:
ph...):
60
60
0.3
II
1
2-
1.5
Notes for Tables
[a]. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. "Emission Facts: Average Annual Emissions and
Fuel Consumption for Passenger Cars and Ligbt Trucks."
http://www.epa.gov/oms!consumer/fOOO13.htm [accessed February 5, 2011]
[b]. Energy Conversion Factors, U.S. Department of Energy,
http://www.eia.doe.gov/energyexplainedlindex.cfm?page=about_energy_units [Accessed
February 5, 2011]
[c]. U.S. Department of Energy, "Voluntary Reporting of Greenhouse Gases Program"
http://www.eia.doe.gov/oiaflI605/ee-factors.html[AccessedFebruary7.2011].CA:
Marnay, C., D. Fisher, S. Murtishaw, A. Phadke, L. Price, and J. Sathaye. 2002.
"Estimating Carbon Dioxide Emissions Factors for the California Electric Power Sector."
Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory Report No. 49945. http://industrial-
energy.lbl.gov/node/148
[d]. PG&E residential tariff as of 111111, Tier 5
http://www.pge.comltariffslResElecCurrent.x1s [Accessed February 5, 2011]. In practice
a wide mix oftariffs apply, but the relative shares are not known.
[e]. State-level residential prices, weigbted by Cannabis production from [Reference 4], with
actual tariffs and U.S. Energy Information Administration, "Average Retail Price of
Electricity to Ultimate Customers by End-Use Sector, by State,"
http://www.eia.doe.gov/electricity/epmltable5_6_a.html [Accessed February 7, 2011]
[f], U.S. Energy Information Administration, Gasoline and Diesel Fuel Update (as of
2114/2011) - see http://www.eia. gOYloog/infol gdulgasdiesel.asp Propane prices -
http://www.eia.gov/dnav/pettpet....Pri....Prop_a_EPLLPA]TA_dpgal_m.htm [Accessed
April 3, 2011]
[g]. Montgomery, M. 2010. "Plummeting Marijuana Prices Create A Panic in Calif."
http://www.npr.orgltemplateststory/story.php?storyld=126806429
[b]. Toonen, M., S. Ribot, and J. Thissen. 2006. "Yield ofIllicit Indoor Cannabis Cultivation
in the Netherlands." Journal ofForensic Science, 15(5):1050-4.
http://www.ncbLu1m.nih.gov/pubmedlI7018080
[i]. See Reference 14 for derivation.
[j). Total U.S. Electricity Sales: U.S. Energy Information Administration, "Retail Sales of
Electricity to Ultimate Customers: Total by End-Use Sector"
http://www.eia.gov/cneaflelectricity/epmltable5_l.html [Accessed March 5, 2011]
[k]. California Energy Commission. "Energy Almanac."
http://energyalmanac.ca.gov/electricity/us....Per_capita_electricity.html [Accessed
February 19,2011]. See also Total California Electricity Sales: California Energy
Commission. 2009. California Energy Demand: 2010-2020 - AdoptedForecast. Report
CEC-200-2009-012-CMF), December 2009 (includes self-generation).
10
References
1. This report presents a model of typical production methodologies and associated
transportation energy use. Data sources include equipment manufacturer data, trade media,
the open literature, and interviews with horticultural supply vendors. All assumptions used
in the analysis are presented in Table 2. The resultant normalized (per-kilogram) energy
intensity is driven by the target environmental conditions, production process, and
equipment efficiencies. While less energy-intensive processes are possible (either with
lower per-unit-area yields or more efficient equipment and controls), much more energy-
intensive scenarios are also possible (e.g., rooms using 100% recirculated air with reheat,
hydroponics, and loads not counted here such as well-water pumps and water purification
systems). The assumptions about vehicle energy use are likely conservative, given the
longer-range transportation associated with interstate distribution. Some localities (very
cold and very hot climates) will see much larger shares ofproduction indoors, and have
higher space-conditioning energy demands than the typical conditions assumed here. Some
authors [See Plecas, D. J. Diplock, L. Garis, B. Carlisle, P. Neal, and S. Landry. Journal of
Criminal Justice Research. Vol. I No 2., p. 1-12.] suggest that the assumption of o.75kg
yield per production module per cycle is an over-estimate. Were that the case, the energy
and emissions values in this report would be even higher, which is hard to conceive.
Additional key uncertainties are total production and the indoor fraction of total production
(see note 14), and the corresponding scaling up of relatively well-understood intensities of
energy use per unit of production to state or national levels by weight offina\ product.
Greenhouse-gas emissions estimates are in turn sensitive to the assumed mixof on- and
off-grid power production technologies and fuels, as off-grid production tends to have
substantially higher emissions per kilowatt-hour than grid power. Costs are a direct
function of the aforementioned factors, combined with electricity tariffs, which vary widely
across the country and among customer classes. More in-depth analyses could explore the
variations introduced by geography and climate, alternate technology configurations, and
production techniques.
2. U.S. Department of Justice. National Drug Threat Assessment: 2010
http://www.justice.gov/ndic/pubs38/38661/marijuana.htm#Marijuana
3. World Drug Report: 2009. United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime, p. 97.
http://www.unodc.orglunodc/enldata-and-analysisIWDR-2009.html For U.S. conditions,
indoor yields per unit area are estimated as up to 15-times greater than outdoor yields.
4. Hudson, R. 2003. "Marijuana Availability in The United States and its Associated
Territories." Federal Research Division, Library ofCongress. Washington, D.C.
(December). 129pp. See also Gettman, J. 2006. "Marijuana Production in the United
States," 29pp. http://www.drugscience.org/Archivelbcr2/app2.html
5. See http://www.justice.gov/dealprogramslmarijuana.htm
6. Anderson, G. 2010. "Grow Houses Gobble Energy." Press Democrat, July 25.See
http://www.pressdemocrat.comlarticle/20100725/ARTlCLES/100729664
7. Quinones, S. 2010. "Indoor Pot Makes Cash, but Isn't Green." SFGate,
http://www.sfgate.comlcgi-binlarticle.cgi?f-=/c/al2010/10/21IBAPOIFU9MS.DTL
8. A study by RAND appears to have severely underestimated the true energy costs. See J. P.
Caulkins. 2010. "Estimated Cost of Production for Legalized Cannabis." RAND Working
Paper, WR-764-RC. July, Although the study over-estimates the hours of lighting required,
11
it under-estimates the electrical demand and applies energy prices that fall far short of the
inclining marginal-cost tariff structures applicable in many states, particularly California.
9. Lehman, P. and P. Johnstone. 2010. "The Climate-Killers Inside." North Coast Journal,
March II.
10. Harvey, M. 2009. "California Dreaming of Full Marijuana Legalisation." The Sunday
Times, (September).
http://business.timesonline.co.ukItol/business/industry_sectors/bealthlarticle6851523.ece
II. See Gettman, op cit., at ref 4.
12. See Gettman, op cit., at ref4.
13. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, SAMHSA, 2009 National Survey on
Drug Use and Health (September 2010). https:llnsduhweb.rti.orgl
14. Total Production: The only official domestic estimate of U.S. Cannabis production was
10,000 to 24,000 tonnes for the year 2001. Gettman (op cit., at ref. 4) conservatively
retained the lower value for the year 2006. This 2006 base is adjusted to 2011 values
using 10.9%/year net increase in number of consumers between 2007 and 2009, per U.S.
Department of Health and Human Services (op cit., at ref. 12). The result is
approximately 17 million tonnes of total production annually (indoor and outdoor).
Indoor Share of Total Production: The three-fold changes in potency over the past two
decades, reported by federal sources, are attributed at least in part to the shift towards
indoor cultivation [See http://www.justice.gov/ndic/pubs37/37035/national.htm and
Hudson op cit., at ref 4]. A weighted-average potency of 10% THC (U.S. Office ofDrug
Control Policy. 2010. ''Marijuana: Know the Facts"), reconciled with assumed 7.5%
potency for outdoor production and 15% for indoor production implies 33.3%::67.7%
indoor::outdoor production shares. For reference, as of 2008, 6% of eradicated plants
were from indoor operations, which are more difficult to detect than outdoor operations.
A 33% indoor share, combined with per-plant yields from Table 2, would correspond to a
4% eradication success rate for the levels reported (415,000 indoor plants eradicated in
2009) by the DEA (op cit., at ref 5). Assuming 400,000 members ofmedical Cannabis
dispensaries in California (each of which is permitted to cultivate), and 50% of these
producing in the generic 10-module room assumed in this analysis, output would slightly
exceed this study's estimate of total statewide production. In practice, significant indoor
production is no doubt conducted outside of the medical marijuana system.
15. Koomey, J., et al. 2010. "Defining A Standard Metric for Electricity Savings."
Environmental Research Letters, 5, doi: I0.1088/1748-9326/5111014017.
16. Overcash, Y. Li, E. Griffing, and G. Rice. 2007. "A life cycle inventory of carbon dioxide
as a solvent and additive for industry and in products." Journal ofChemical Technology
and Biotechnology, 82:1023-1038.
17. Specifically, 2% of total Provincial electricity use or 6% of residential use, as reported by
BC Hydro in Garis, L. 2008. "Eliminating Residential Hazards Associated with
Marijuana Grow Operations and The Regulation ofHydroponics Eqnipment," British
Columbia's Public Safety Electrical Fire and Safety Initiative, Fire Chiefs Association of
British Columbia, 108pp. See also Bellett, G. 2010. "Pot Growers Stealing $100 million
in Electricity: B.C. Hydro studies found 500 Gigawatt hours stolen each year." Albemi
Valley Times. October 8. Analysis by B.C. Hydro in 2006 identified nearly 18,000
residential utility accounts in Vancouver with suspiciously high electricity use [see Garis
2008]. There were an estimated 10,000 indoor operations inB.C. in the year 2003,
generating $1.24B in wholesale revenue [See Plecas et al., op cit., at ref 1.].
12
18. See, e.g., this University ofMichigan resource:
http://www.hrt.msu.edulenergylDefault.hbn
19. "Environmental Impacts ofPot Growth." 2009. Ukiah Daily Journal. (posted at
http://www.cannabisnews.org/united-states-cannabis-newslenvironmental-impacts-of-
pot-growtbl)
20. For observations from the building inspectors community, see
http://www.nachi.org/marijuana-grow-operations.hbn
21. See Garis, L., op cit., at ref 17.
22. The City of Fort Bragg, CA, has implemented elements of this in TITLE 9-Public
Peace, Safety, & Morals, Chapter 9.34.
http://city.forthragg.comlpageslsearchResults.lasso?-
token.editChoice=9.0.0&SearchType=MCsuperSearch&CurrentAction=viewResult#9.32
.0
13
EXHIBIT "C"
Grow House Energy Tax Could Be On November Ballot - May 12, ...
History

Obil:J.!.ary
Aboul the Arcata Eye

Police Log Book Orders
IbiDgsJ'[IY.stuff
Submiss_tQ!LGJ,lJJtf;
Monday, May 142012
Grow House Energy Tax Could Be On
November Ballot - May 12, 2012
file://lC:/UsersfMicbael/Desktop/LawsuitlCEQA/Grow House Ener...
zer n
AMarch 14cannabishaul at a Lewis Avenuewhole-house growincluded232 poundsof
harvested, trimmed and processed poland about an ounceofhBshishwhichhad been BJ"O""
under 21 lights and ballasts. .Arcata Policesaidthe houseconsumed14,000kilowattsof
electricityper month- nearly30timesthe averageresidential householdusageThe resident
hadenrolledin theCaliforniaAlternateRates for Energy(CARE)Program,whichcut the
electricitybill in half All of thevoluminous contrabandand equipmentwasloadedinto
APD's cannabiscaboose, above,to bebookedintoevidence, Photosby KLHIEye
Kev:iD L Hoover
Eye Editor
ARCATA- Atax on excessive residential energy use couldwindup on the Novemberballot
As presently conceived. thetax would be leviedagainst homeswhich use morethan300
percentof the baselineusage.
The rate couldbe somewhere between five and IScents per kilowatthour over the baseline.
6/18/2012 10:27 AM
GrowHouseEnergyTaxCouldBe On NovemberBallot - May 12, ... file://IC:/Users/MichaelJDesktoplLawsuitlCEQAlGrow HouseEner...
30fll
Figuresfrom 2009 indicatethat some1.,200 aftho morethan 7,000Arcataresidencesexceed
the baselinerate. Hada taxbeenin placethat year. the City couldhave generated $2 million
in revenue.
The City's Energy Committeewill considerthe matter in depth in a public meetingMonday,
May 21. The committeehas beendiscussingthe matter for years out of concernthat
extraordinary electricity consumption. largely by illegal growhouses.is offsetting energy
conservationgalns and negating An:ala's greenhousegasreductionefforts.
Between 200 and 2006, electricity usage in Arcataincreased 30 percentor more thannine
millionkilowatthours, a per capita increase of24 percent.ThiswhileCOI'lSefV\\tioo efforts
elsewhereinCaliforniahave kept electricityusagefairly constanl over the last 30years.
Along with much-needed tax revenue for strained City coffers, statedgoals of the proposed
tax are reductionin energy use and "developmentoffimding stnrtegyto implementprojects
whichcould offset the environmental effects:from the increase inresidential energyusage."
Implementing the tax would incur costs. PG&E estimatesa $500,000 to $800.000 cost for
implementingbillingbasedon usageinsteadof residential.commercialor industrial
classificationand to chargea differentrate to a subset of customers. Placingthe measureon
the ballot wouldcost between 510,000BOd 512,000.
The City is concernedshout unintendedconsequencesof the tax.. Somehomemedical
equipment,for example,can consumeextraordinary amountsof electricity.
Another questionis whetheror not the tax would includeparticipantsin PG&E's CARE
programfor low-incomecustomers. The program is exploitedby industrial cannabisgrowers.
whose illegal income is not reported, and amountsto a subsidy for the illegal manufacturing
activity.
ExcludingCAREcustomers,many ofwbom usethe programlegitimately> wouldcut revenue
roughlyin half
The revenueprojectionswere based on 2009data, whichcouldbe out of date. Updated
figures were expectedfromPG&Ethis week.
The figure of 1.200 housesexceedingbaseline energyuse(500 ofwbiclt areon the CARE
program) is similar to estimates made by lawenforeement in 2007. At tha1time, 700 to 1,000
Arcataresidenceswereconsideredto harbor illegal grows - a figure hotly contestedby some
cannabis advocates.
The council voteto pursue thematterwas4-0, with CouncilmemberSusanOrnelasabsent
The Citywill m01D1t a vigorouspubliceducationprogramto help ensure participationin
whateverdecisionis made. "Wereally'WBDt public input at this stage inthe process,"said
DeputyEnvironmental Services DirectorKarenDiemer.
The EnergyCommitteeiswill considerthematterat its Monday, May 21 publicmeeting.
Recommendations developedat that meting couldshape thecouncil's final decision.Below,
the Eoergy Committee agenda,
ENERGYCOMMITIEEAGENDA
COUNCILCHAMBERMONDAY MAY21, 2012
736F STREIIT, ARCATA 5:30 P.M
Special accommodations forthe disabledwho attendCity meetingscan be made in
advanceby contactingthe CityClerk at 822-5953. Assistivelisteningdevicesare
available.
1. ROLLCALL- RuthanneCecil, MelanieFaust, MikeKowalski,Nate McKeever,
GwelenPaliaga, JamesRobinson.JimZoellick
II. Approvalof Minutes - March 19,2012 BOd April 23, 2012
m. ORALCOMMUNICATIONS
This itemis providedfor people to addresstheCommitteeon matters not on the
agenda At theconclusionof all oral communications, theCommitteewill
6/18/201210:27AM
EXHIBIT "D"
WHITE PAPER ON MARIJUANA DISPENSARIES
by
CALIFORNIAPOllCE CHIEFS ASSOCIATION'S
TASKFORCE ON MARIJUANA DISPENSARIES
2009California PoliceChiefsAssn. All Rights Reserved
requested administrative agencyreconsideration or petitionfor court review, the decisionwasto
becomeeffectiveApril 24, 2009.
B. PROLIFERATIONOF GROW HOUSES INRESIDENTIAL AREAS
In recent years the proliferation ofgrowhouses in residential neighborhoods has exploded. This
phenomenon is countrywide, and ranges fromthe purchasefor purposeof marijuanagrowoperations
ofsmall dwellings to "high pricedMcMansions ... .'
073
Mushrooming residential marijuanagrow
operationshave beendetectedin California, Connecticut, Florida, Georgia, NewHampshire, North
Carolina, Ohio, SouthCarolina, andTexas." In 2007alone, suchillegaloperationswere detectedand
shut downby federal and state lawenforcement officials in 41 houses in California, 50 homes in
Florida, and II homes inNewHampshire." Sincethen, the numberof residences discovered to be so
impacted has increasedexponentially. Part ofthis recent influxof illicit residential growoperations is
becausethe "THC-rich'B.C. bud' strain" of marijuanaoriginally producedin BritishColumbia"can
be grownonly in controlled indoorenvironments," and the Canadianmarket is nowreportedly
Saturated withthe product of Canadiangangs," oftenAsian in composition or outlaw
motorcycle gangs like the Hells Angels. 6 Typically, a gutted housecan hold about 1,000plantsthat
will each yieldalmost half a poundofsmokable marijuana; this collectivelynets about 500poundsof
usable marijuana per harvest, with an averageofthreeto four harvestsper year," Witha street value
of $3,000to $5,000per pound" for high-potency marijuana, and such harvests, "a successful
growhousecan bring in between$4.5 millionand $10 milliona year ... ." 8 The highpotencyof
hydroponically grownmarijuanacan command a priceas muchas six times higherthan commercial
grade marijuana.
79
C. LIFE SAFETY HAZARDS CREATED BY GROW HOUSES
In HumboldtCounty, California, structurefires causedby unsafe indoormarijuanagrowoperations
have become commonplace. The cityofArcata, which sports four marijuanadispensaries, was the site
ofa house fire inwhicha fanhad fallenover and igniteda fire; it had beenturned intoa growhouse
by its tenant. Per ArcataPoliceChief RandyMendosa, alteredand makeshift"no code" electrical
serviceconnections and overloaded wires usedto operatehigh-powered growlightsand fans are
commoncauses ofthe fires. Large indoor marijuana growingoperationscan createsuchexcessive
draws ofelectricity that PG&Epower poletransformers are commonly blown. An average 1,500-
square-foot tract houseused for growingmarijuanacan generatemonthlyelectrical bills from $1,000
to $3,000per month. Froman environmental standpoint, the carbonfootprint fromgreenhouse gas
emissions createdby large indoor marijuanagrowoperations shouldbe a majorconcernfor every
community in terms ofcomplying with Air BoardAB-32regulations, as well as other greenhouse gas
reductionpolicies. Typically, air vents are cut into roofs, water seeps into carpeting, windows are
blackedout, holes are cut in floors, wiringisjury-rigged, and electricalcircuits are overloaded to
operategrowlightsand other apparatus. Whenfires start, they spreadquickly.
The May31, 2008 editionof the Los Angeles Times reported, "Lawenforcement officialsestimatethat
as manyas 1,000 ofthe 7,500homes in this HumboldtCountycommunity are beingusedto cultivate
marijuana, slashingintothe housingstock, spreading building-safety problems and sowing
neighborhood discord." Not surprisingly, in this bastionof liberal pot possession rules that authorized
the cultivation of up to 99 plants for medicinal purpose, most structural fires inthe community of
Arcatahave beenofIate associated withmarijuanacultlvanon." Chief ofPolice Mendosaclarified
that the actual numberofmarijuanagrowhouses in Arcatahas beenan ongoingsubject of public
debate. Mendosaadded, "We knowthere are numerous growhousesin almost everyneighborhood in
and aroundthe city, which has beenthe sourceofconstant citizencomplaints." House fires causedby
2009 California Police Chiefs Assn. 12 All Rights Reserved
grower-installed makeshift electrical wiring or tipped electrical fans are nowendemicto Humboldt
County."
ChiefMendosaalso observedthat since marijuanahas an illicit street value of up to $3,000per pound,
marijuanagrowhouses have been susceptibleto violent armed home invasionrobberies. Large-scale
marijuana growhouses have removed significant numbers ofaffordable houses fromthe residential
rental market. When propertyowners discover their rentals are being used as growhouses, the
residencesare often left with major structural damage, which includesair vents cut into roofs and
floors, water damageto floors and walls, and mold. The June 9, 2008 edition of the NewYorkTimes
shows an unidentifiedArcata man tending his indoor grow; the man claimedhe can make $25,000
everythree months by selling marijuanagrown in the bedroomofhis rented house.
82
Claims of
ostensiblemedical marijuanagrowingpursuant to California'smedical marijuana laws are being
advancedas a mostlyfalse shield in an attempt to justify such illicit operations.
Neither is fire an uncommonoccurrenceat growhouses elsewhereacross the nation. Another
occurrednot longago in Holiday, Florida.
83
To compoundmatters further, escape routes for
firefighters are often obstructedby blockedwindows in growhouses, electricwiring is tamperedwith
to steal electricity, and some residencesare even booby-trappedto discourageand repel unwanted
intruders."
D. INCREASED ORGANIZED GANG ACTIVITIES
Along with marijuanadispensariesand the growoperationsto support themcome members of
organizedcriminal gangs to operate and profit fromthem. Membersofan ethnic Chinese drug gang
were discoveredto have operated50 indoor growoperations in the San FranciscoBay area, while
Cuban-American crime organizations have been found to be operating growhouses in Florida and
elsewherein the South. A Vietnamesedrug ring was caught operating 19growhouses in Seattleand
Puget Sound, Washington.
85
In July of2oo8, over 55 Asian gang members were indictedfor narcotics
traffickingin marijuanaand ecstasy, includingmembers ofthe Hop Sing Gang that had been actively
operatingmarijuanagrowoperations in Elk Grove and elsewherein the vicinityof Sacramento,
California.86
E. EXPOSURE OF MINORS TO MARIJUANA
Minors who are exposedto marijuana at dispensaries or residenceswhere marijuanaplants are grown
may be subtly influencedto regard it as a generallylegal drug, and inclinedto sample it. In grow
houses, childrenare exposedto dangerous fire and healthconditionsthat are inherent in indoor grow
operations." Dispensariesalso sell marijuana to minors."
F. IMPAIRED PUBLIC HEALTH
Indoor marijuanagrowoperationsemit a skunk-likeodor," and foster generallyunhealthyconditions
like allowingchemicalsand fertilizers to be placed in the open, an increasedcarbon dioxide level
within the growhouse, and the accumulationof mold, 90 all of whichare dangerousto any childrenor
adults who may be living in the residence," although many growhouses are uninhabited.
2009 California Police Chiefs Assn. 13 All Rights Reserved
This page intentionally left blank.
June 20, 2012
UFCWLocal5
240 S. Market St.
San Jose, CA 95113
Dear Fresno CityCouncil Members,
I am writing today to voice my strong disapproval of the ban on outdoor cultivation
of medical cannabis. I am a Special Projects Union Representative for UFCW Local 5,
the United Food and Commercial Workers. We represent hardworking people from
many fields, including commercial food production, pharmacies, retail stores,
textiles, and agriculture. Local 5 has agricultural jurisdiction throughout the State of
California, and we have recently started to organize unaffiliated cannabis workers
through our Associate Membership Program.
These medical cannabis cultivators are not only patients who struggle with physical
illness, they are also good members of the community. They strive for a dignified
way of life in these trying economic times, just like any other worker. They are
concerned with putting food on their table, taking care of their children, and making
their mortgage payments, just like anyone else. Our Associate Members not only
have access to our credit union, exclusive union discounts, and legal assistance, but
we are also working to provide a group healthcare option, and will soon begin
implementing a retirement savings plan for them as well.
Sun-grown cannabis has a significantly lower carbon footprint than indoor grown
cannabis. We do not need to burn more coal and oil to produce an effective
medicine that can be grown using the Sun's own energy. Sun-grown medicine is
also significantly less expensive to grow than using artificial, indoor lighting, which
is extremely important to low-income patients. The cost of a pound of Sun-grown
cannabis is approximately $250-500 to produce, while an indoor pound would cost
the cultivator in excess of $1000, on average. Additionally, the full power of the sun
creates medical benefits through the development of the cannabis plant'S naturally
occurringturpenes and flavonoids that simply cannot be replicated with artificial
lighting.
We are currently working with the State legislature to create a robust regulatory
system for medical cannabis cultivation and distribution with the passage of A.B.
2312. We urge the Fresno CityCouncil to not ban outdoor cultivation, and to wait
until the passage of A.a. 2312 in order to receive guidance from the legislature on
this important issue.
Sincerely,
Matthew Witemyre
UFCWLocal5
Special Projects Union Representative
This page intentionally left blank.