Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutTC Agenda Packet 2017-05-03 • TOWN OF TIBURON Tiburon Town Council Tiburon Town Hall May 3,2017 1505 Tiburon Boulevard Special Meeting • Tiburon, CA 94920 6:45 P.M. TIBURON TOWN COUNCIL SPECIAL MEETING AGENDA 6:45 p.m CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL Councilmember Doyle,Councilmember Fredericks,Councilmember Tollini,Vice Mayor O'Donnell,Mayor Fraser SPECIAL CLOSED SESSION MEETING-6:45 p.m. 1) Conference with Legal Counsel-Anticipated Litigation Significant exposure to litigation pursuant to paragraph (2) of subdivision (d) of Government Code Section 54956.9: (2 potential cases) ANNOUNCEMENT OF ACTION TAKEN IN CLOSED SESSION IF ANY ADJOURNMENT- to regular meeting TOWN OF TIBURON Tiburon Town Council Tiburon Town Hall May 3,2017 1505 Tiburon Boulevard Regular Meeting Tiburon, CA 94920 7:30 P.M. TIBURON TOWN COUNCIL AGENDA CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL Councilmember Doyle,Councilmember Fredericks,Councilmember Tollini,Vice Mayor O'Donnell,Mayor Fraser ANNOUNCEMENT OF ACTION TAKEN IN CLOSED SESSION IF ANY ORAL COMMUNICATIONS Persons wishing to address the Town Council on subjects not on the agenda may do so at this time. Please note however, that the Town Council is not able to undertake extended discussion or action on items not on the agenda. Matters requiring action will be referred to the appropriate Commission, Board, Committee or staff for consideration or placed on a future Town Council meeting agenda. Please limit your comments to three (3)minutes. INTRODUCTION OF NEW TOWN EMPLOYEE • Angela Delnevo,Police Services Aide CONSENT CALENDAR All items on the Consent Calendar may be approved by one motion of the Town Council unless a request is made by a member of the Town Council,public or staff to remove an item for separate discussion and consideration. If you wish to speak on a Consent Calendar item, please seek recognition by the Mayor and do so at this time. CC-1. Town Council Minutes —Adopt minutes of April 19, 2017 special and regular meetings (Town Clerk Stefani) ACTION ITEMS AI-1. Consideration of a Resolution of the Town Declaring its Intention to Take Proceedings to Underground all Existing Overhead Utility Facilities Within the Boundaries of the Proposed District (Virginia Drive) PUBLIC HEARINGS PH-1. 8 Rolling Hills Road - Consider appeal of Planning Commission approval of a request for Amending Parcel Map to remove certain development limitations from a vacant lot (Continued from March IS, 2017 Owners/Applicant: Michele Hughes Appellant(s): Rita Burgess,David Readerman,et.al. Address: 8 Rolling Hills Road Assessor Parcel No.: 058-111-24 PH-2. Zoning Text Amendments - Consider various zoning text amendments relating to regulation of marijuana, including marijuana-related commercial activity and marijuana cultivation and delivery; Title IV, Chapter 16 of the Tiburon Municipal Code - Introductioil and firstreadingof ordinance PH-3. Municipal Code Amendments-Consider various amendments relating to smoking and tobacco regulation;Title VI, Chapter 28 of the Tiburon Municipal Code-Introduction and first reading of ordinance PH-4. Municipal Code Amendments - Consider various amendments to regulations regarding view and sunlight obstruction from trees; Title IV, Chapter 15 of the Tiburon Municipal Code-hitroduction and first reading of ordinance TOWN COUNCIL REPORTS TOWN MANAGER REPORT WEEKLY DIGESTS • Town Council Weekly Digests-April 21&28, 2017 ADJOURNMENT GENERAL PUBLIC INFORMATION ASSISTANCE FOR PEOPLE WITH DISABILITIES In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, if you need special assistance to participate in this meeting,please contact the Town Clerk at (415) 435- 7377. Notification 48 hours prior to the meeting will enable the Town to make reasonable arrangements to ensure accessibility to this meeting. AVAILABILITY OF INFORMATION Copies of all agenda reports and supporting data are available for viewing and inspection at Town Hall and at the Belvedere-Tiburon Library located adjacent to Town Hall. Agendas and minutes are posted on the Town's website, www.townoftiburon.org. Upon request, the Town will provide written agenda materials in appropriate alternative formats, or disability-related modification or accommodation, including auxiliary aids or services, to enable individuals with disabilities to participate in public meetings. Please send a written request, including your name, mailing address, phone number and brief description of the requested materials and preferred alternative format or auxiliary aid or service at least 5 days before the meeting. Requests should be sent to the Office of the Town Clerk at the above address. PUBLIC HEARINGS Public Hearings provide the general public and interested parties an opportunity to provide testimony on these items. If you challenge any proposed action(s) in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the Public Hearing(s) described later in this agenda, or in written correspondence delivered to the Town Council at,or prior to,the Public Hearing(s). TIMING OF ITEMS ON AGENDA While the Town Council attempts to hear all items in order as stated on the agenda, it reserves the right to take items out of order. No set times are assigned to items appearing on the Town Council agenda. TOWN COUNCIL SPECIAL AND REGULAR MEETING DRAFT MINUTES SPECIAL MEETING—7:00 P.M. �n April 19, 2017, the council held a special meeting as follows: CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL Councilmember Doyle, Councilmember Fredericks, Councilmember Tollini, Vice Mayor O'Donnell, Mayor Fraser INTERVIEW FOR VACANCIES ON TOWN BOARDS & COMMISSIONS (Marin Commission on Aging—One Vacancy for Tiburon appointee) • Leonor Noguez, 346 Karen Way INTERVIEW FOR VACANCIES ON TOWN BOARDS & COMMISSIONS (Town Representative to Hilarita Board—One Vacancy for Tiburon appointee) • Carolyn Grey, 2 Mt. Tiburon Road ADJOURNMENT—to regular meetin,- REGULAR MEETING—7:30 P.M. CALL TO ORDER Mayor Fraser called the regular meeting of the Tiburon Town Council to order at 7:30 p.m. on Wednesday, April 19, 2017, in Town Council Chambers, 1505 Tiburon Boulevard, Tiburon, California. ROLL CALL PRESENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: Doyle, Fraser, Fredericks, O'Donnell, Tollini PRESENT: EX OFFICIO: Town Manager Chanis, Town Attorney Stock, Director of Public Works/Town Engineer Barnes, Director of Community Development Anderson, Town Clerk Stefani ORAL COMMUNICATIONS Rhoda Schwartz said the local public tennis courts have become difficult for residents to use due to an arrangement between the Ranch and an independent tennis coach. She said the arrangement gives preference to the coach's private lessons,and gives the coach the authority to remove other players from a tennis court, even residents who have paid for a key. She believed there should be only one designated tennis court for private lessons, not two. She urged the Council to intervene. Town Council Minutes#08-2017 DRAFT April 19, 2017 Page 1 Laurie Horn, another active tennis player, said she believes the Ranch is not prioritizing residents. She questioned the Ranch's mission,transparency and fiscal responsibility as a result of the Ranch's tennis operations, and particularly believed the Ranch should be collecting fees directly. CONSENT CALENDAR CC-1. Town Council Minutes — Adopt minutes of March 15, 2017 regular meeting (Town Clerk Stefani) CC-2. Town Council Minutes—Adopt minutes of April 5, 2017 regular and special meeting (Town Clerk Stefani) CC-3. Vacancies on Town Boards and Commissions—Announce special vacancy on Marin- Sonoma Mosquito &Vector Control District Board of Trustees (Town Clerk Stefani) CC-4. Consolidate Municipal Elections with Statewide Elections—Adopt ordinance making amendments to Title 1, Chapter 2 of the Tiburon Municipal Code changing date of general municipal elections from November of odd-numbered years to November of even-numbered years (Town Clerk Stefani) CC-5. Mayor's Proclamation — Authorize Mayor's Proclamation in celebration of the Belvedere-Tiburon Library's 20th Anniversary Weekend(Office of the Town Manager) CC-6. Recycling Grants — Authorize submittal of applications for CalRecycle Grants (Department of Public Works) Vice Mayor O'Donnell requested the Council remove Item Nos. CC-3 and CC-4 for discussion. Motion: To adopt Consent Calendar Items 1-2 & 5-6, as written. Moved: Tollini, seconded by O'Donnell Vote: AYES: Unanimous CC-3. Vacancies on Town Boards and Commissions—Announce special vacancy on Marin- Sonoma Mosquito &Vector Control District Board of Trustees (Town Clerk Stefani) Vice Mayor O'Donnell wondered if a Town staff-member could be appointed to this position, if a resident did not step forward.Town Manager Chanis said the staff would need to review the bylaws. Motion: Adopt with amended recommendation. Moved: O'Donnell, seconded by Doyle VOTE: AYES: Unanimous CC-4. Consolidate Municipal Elections with Statewide Elections—Adopt ordinance making amendments to Title 1, Chapter 2 of the Tiburon Municipal Code changing date of Town Council Minutes#08-2017 DRAFT April 19, 2017 Page 2 general municipal elections from November of odd-numbered years to November of even-numbered years (Town Clerk Stefani) Mayor Fraser called for a roll call vote. VOTE: AYES: Doyle, Fraser, Fredericks, Tollini NAYS: O'Donnell ACTION ITEMS AI-1. Vacancies on Town Boards and Commissions—Consider making appointments to the Marin Commission on Aging and the Town representative to the Hilarita Board(Town Clerk Stefani) Town Clerk Stefani said the Council had interviewed two applicants for a single vacancy on the Marin Commission on Aging,and one applicant for a single vacancy for the Town representative to the Hilarita Board. She said the Council may choose to make one or both appointments tonight, or may choose to direct the staff to continue accepting applications. Mayor Fraser opened the floor for public comment on the Marin Commission on Aging appointment. There was none. Councilmember Doyle made a motion to appoint Leonor Noguez to the Marin Commission on Aging. There was no second. Motion: To appoint Kathleen "Sue" Kwentus to the Marin Commission on Aging. Moved: Fredericks, seconded by O'Donnell VOTE: AYES: Fraser, Fredericks, O'Donnell, Tollini NAYS: Doyle Mayor Fraser opened the floor for public comment on the Hilarita Board appointment. There was none. Motion: To appoint Carolyn Grey as the Town representative to the Hilarita Board. Moved: Fredericks, seconded by O'Donnell VOTE: AYES: Unanimous AI-2. Library Expansion Project Time Extensions — Consider authorization of time extension requests for: a) Design Approval of Library Expansion Project, and b) Agreement with Belvedere-Tiburon Library to Convey Real Property to Library Agency(Community Development Department) Director of Community Development Anderson said the Belvedere-Tiburon Library's first time extension request was for the Site Plan and Architectural Review drawing approval. He said the Town Council Minutes 408-2017 DRAFT April 19, 2017 Page 3 original approval was for five years, and will expire in August of this year. He said the library continues to actively pursue the implementation of the project,and is not seeking any modifications to the original approval. Director Anderson said the second time extension request was for the extension of a land conveyance agreement between the Town of Tiburon and the Belvedere-Tiburon Library Agency to transfer 16,000 sq.feet of land from the Town to the library.He said both time extensions would expire after 5 years, in August 2022. Mayor Fraser invited Tom Gram,Chairman of the Library Agency Board,to make his presentation. Mr. Gram said there was an overwhelming need for additional space in the library,and the need has been more apparent in recent years. He commented on the Belvedere-Tiburon Library Foundation's current"quiet period" of fundraising as they strategize how to raise the funds for the project. Vice Mayor O'Donnell said he was in favor of the library expansion,but wondered why there did not appear to be any fundraising incentives in local schools or awareness in the community. Mr. Gram said he had become active in Foundation meetings, and the Foundation shares similar concerns. Mayor Fraser opened the floor for public comment. There was none. Motion: Adopt resolution approving the request for a five (5) year time extension of the approved design drawings, to expire on August 1, 2022. Moved: Fredericks, seconded by O'Donnell VOTE: AYES: Unanimous Mayor Fraser opened the floor for public comment. There was none. Motion: Approve the Second Amendment to Agreement and authorize the Town Manager to execute it on behalf of the Town. Moved: Tollini, seconded by Doyle VOTE: AYES: Unanimous AI-3. Trestle Trail—Design presentation by project proponents and request for authorization to bid project(Department of Public Works) Director of Public Works Barnes gave the staff report.He said the Council had previously considered a proposal put forth by the Tiburon Peninsula Foundation to improve the trestle berm at Blackie's Pasture with a concrete walkway to increase accessibility and appreciation for Tiburon's railroad history. He said the Council requested that the project be brought back before the"build phase" so the Council can review the costs and design prior to putting the project out for bid. He said the project proponents were in attendance to give an overview of the design,costs,and current funding. Jim Wood said the project is moving along well. He said they have raised approximately$220,000, Town Council Minutes#08-2017 DRAFT April 19, 2017 Page 4 and are continuing to identify potential funding sources. He also gave a brief overview of construction costs before introducing the architect for the project, David Holscher, to speak. Mr.Holscher said the intent of the design of Trestle Trail was to have a buildable,simple project that would last a long time and would be a great asset to the Town of Tiburon. He commented that the final product will look like a railroad. Councilmember Doyle thought this was a great project for Blackie's Pasture and the railroad grade, and commented on the upcoming Walk Your History event,which will allow participants to see the progress that has been made. Mayor Fraser opened the floor for public comment. There was none. Motion: Authorize staff to put Trestle Trail project out to bid after the plans and specifications are complete and approved by staff. Moved: Tollini, seconded by Fredericks Vote: AYES: Unanimous AI-4. McKegney Green—Update from ad-hoc sub-committee and final review of proposed design(Department of Public Works) Town Manager Chanis reviewed a history of the project and the costs associated with a new field at McKegney Green. He said the Council directed staff to proceed with a design for an athletic sand- based field. However, as the costs increased during the design phase, the Council requested staff return with an alternative estimate for a soil-based green field. Chanis added that the Council should also be aware of the ongoing maintenance costs associated with the different projects. Chanis said the Council subcommittee reviewed both estimates and is recommending that the Town contribute approximately$1.4 million to a sand-based field,and seek funding from outside sources for the remaining$400,000. The subcommittee indicated that the Town should seek funding from the soccer and lacrosse clubs,based on past and anticipated play time on the field,specifically 75%from the soccer club and 25%from the lacrosse club. Of the proposed construction timeline,he said that even if this project were put out to bid soon,the field would likely not be available for play this fall. Councilmember Tollini asked about the difference in ongoing maintenance costs between the sand- based field and the green field. Town Manager Chanis said the green field will likely have lower ongoing maintenance costs because the sand-based field requires more maintenance and more specialized equipment(at a cost of approx. $75,000).Director of Public Works Barnes added that the cost or replacing the turf sod in ten years would be approximately $100,000. Councilmember Fredericks asked if the fees the Town collects from field users would be enough to cover the short-term field maintenance costs. Director Barnes said it would depend how much the field was used, but the fees collected would still not cover the maintenance costs. He added that Town Council Minutes#08-2017 DRAFT April 19, 2017 Page 5 while the maintenance costs of the soil-based field will be lower, the hours played on that field would also likely be lower. Mayor Fraser wondered if the soccer and lacrosse communities have expressed a willingness to fundraise for the project. Chanis said the soccer community has already indicated support. Fraser also asked if the project would be put out to bid before fundraising from the clubs is complete. Chanis said he would not recommend it; he said the Town did not want to be in a position of awarding a contract without having the funds. He recommended putting a deadline on the fundraising efforts to allow the Town to put the project out to bid when the funds are available. Fraser referred to the proposed construction timeline,and Chanis confirmed that this scenario would likely not allow for construction this season. Vice Mayor O'Donnell said the subcommittee had met with Marin Municipal Water District, and MMWD indicated a willingness to work together with the Town and strategize short and long-term solutions to lessen the Town's expenses to MMWD, or to pay over a long period of time. Councilmember Doyle agreed, and said MMWD had a lot of creative ideas to lessen expenses,and believed that MMWD understands that this project is for the benefit of the Town and for local kids. Councilmember Fredericks wondered if these creative strategies, such as conserving water, would apply to the sand or soil-based projects. Chanis confirmed that the cost-saving concepts could apply to either project. Doyle commented that a sand-based field might promote better grass growth.He believed that if the project was done"the right way",the field would have better longevity and would sustain less wear and tear. He questioned heavy maintenance on a sand-based field used primarily by children. Director Barnes agreed that an advantage of a sand-based field is that it is designed for sports, whereas clay and grass fields do sustain damage. Fredericks asked for confirmation that the alternative project would be soil and sod based,rather than the clay that is currently there. Director Barnes confirmed,but said it would not be a soccer field. It would be a grass field that soccer could be played on. Town Manager Chanis added that while new material would be brought in to build the green field,the underlying material is still clay,whereas a large amount of clay would be removed for the sand-based field. Fredericks also inquired if the sand-based field will require more water than the soil-based field. Director Barnes confirmed that the sand-based field would require more frequent watering,but not necessarily more water. Mayor Fraser opened the floor for public comment. Mark Minturn,President of the Tiburon Peninsula Soccer Club,said the soccer club is excited to see the opportunity to bring "new life" to McKegney Green which will serve soccer-players, lacrosse- Town Council Minutes#08-2017 DRAFT April 19, 2017 Page 6 players and the community for years to come. He said the club is committed to fundraising efforts, and is hopeful and confident that they will be able to raise $300,000 by the year-end deadline. Jon Porter, President of the Southern Marin Lacrosse Club, said the size of the club has increased dramatically, and he often hears negative feedback about having to play outside of Tiburon from local families. He said the lacrosse club is committed to fundraising efforts. He further confirmed that the lacrosse club was committed to fundraising for the $100,000 requested by the Town, but added that perhaps the soccer and lacrosse clubs should work together to raise the funds because many families are part of both clubs. Mayor Fraser closed the floor for public comment. Councilmember Tollini said she was in favor of this renovation,but still questioned spending more than 10% of the operating budget on a single capital project. Councilmember Fredericks agreed. She thought the large cost of this project takes away from other projects and capital needs, but agreed that local children should have access to a play field. Nonetheless, she did not feel that the options before them were fiscally responsible, nor did they strike a positive balance between all the community needs. She also expressed concerns about both the upfront costs and the short and long term maintenance costs. Vice Mayor O'Donnell said he was in favor,and believed the sand-based field was the right option. He said he would like to see it done for less, but no longer thought that to be possible. He said the field was decades old, is in poor condition, and now requires a major maintenance overhaul. He thought the sand-based field would offer the most playability and incoming revenue to the Town, will last longer,look better,and will be what the users want. He called McKegney Green a landmark property of Tiburon,and believed it was important for the Council to look forward to future families and the growth of sports teams. He thought this project was a worthwhile use of tax dollars. Councilmember Doyle agreed with O'Donnell. He said McKegney Green is a gathering spot for children, families, and the community. He agreed that the cost was high, but thought that creating something that would benefit local children and the community is a good enough reason to spend that amount of money. He further commented that having a nice field at McKegney Green even has the potential to stimulate the rest of Tiburon. Mayor Fraser asked the Tiburon Peninsula Soccer Club representatives in the audience what percentage of children in the club were Tiburon residents.They replied that approximately 95%were local Tiburon children. Mayor Fraser believed that anything that can be done in the community to help the youth is a good thing, and sports are an excellent way to bring "the leaders of tomorrow"together. He also agreed that the cost was very high, but trusted that if there was a cheaper way to do it, it would have been found. He said he is in support of the recommendation to move forward with the sand-based field, and added that he believes it to be the right choice for the community. However,he said his support Town Council Minutes#08-2017 DRAFT April 19, 2017 Page 7 is contingent upon the soccer and lacrosse groups successfully fundraising the $400,000, before putting the project out to bid. Fredericks asked if the Town will absorb any new costs that arise over the course of constructing the new sand-based field. Town Manager Chanis said the Council should take that point into consideration, but the cost estimate is fairly accurate at this stage. O'Donnell did not believe it would be a good idea to later ask the private organizations to contribute more money after the fundraising is complete.He thought it was incumbent on the Council to signify that the Town is ready to proceed, so the fundraising can begin. Mayor Fraser agreed. From the audience, the representatives from the Tiburon Peninsula Soccer Club said they were hopeful and optimistic that they could raise the required amount of money, but expressed concern that the entire project is contingent upon their success. Tollini suggested that if the fundraising is not successful by the year-end,perhaps the project should return to the soil-based field. The Council agreed. The TPSC wondered if the Council would consider a fundraising extension if the clubs cannot raise the money by the year-end deadline. Chanis said the project will not be put out to bid until the fundraising is complete, and to delay putting the project out to bid would be to again delay construction, which might jeopardize play for another year. Mayor Fraser agreed, and said the Council would have to decide at that time if an extension would be granted, or if the project would default to the grass field. O'Donnell believed that a fundraising campaign could be put together in time. He said he would rather get the project done sooner, because the field condition is only going to worsen. Tollini commented that perhaps fundraising will even be easier with a deadline imposed. MOTION: To move forward with a sand-based field, and to put the project to bid in January, 2018,contingent upon a donation to the Town of Tiburon in the amount of$400,000; if the donation does not come in, to then move forward with the grass field. Moved: Fredericks, seconded by O'Donnell Vote: AYES:Unanimous TOWN COUNCIL REPORTS Councilmember Fredericks reported on a Metropolitan Transportation Commission proposal to change carpool lane hours on the 101 freeway. Councilmember Tollini reported on the news that Sausalito was planning to pull out of Richardson's Bay Regional Agency. Vice Mayor O'Donnell thought the Council should have a discussion about Town Council Minutes #08-2017 DRAFT April 19, 2017 Page 8 Tiburon's future role in the RBRA in light of this information. He requested the item be agendized for a future meeting. TOWN MANAGER REPORT Town Manager Chanis reported on the Town Council's previous direction to appoint two interim councilmembers to fill Councilmembers Doyle and Tollini's seats until the special election in November. He said interviews are tentatively scheduled to begin on May 17. WEEKLY DIGESTS Received. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business before the Town Council of the Town of Tiburon, Mayor Fraser adjourned the meeting at 9:30 p.m. JIM FRASER, MAYOR ATTEST: LEA STEFANI, TOWN CLERK Town Council Minutes#08-2017 DRAFT April 19, 2017 Page 9 TOWN OF TIBURON Town Council Meeting 1505 Tiburon Boulevard May 3, 2017 Tiburon, CA 94920 Agenda Item:Al-. , r 1 STAFF REPORT To: Mayor and Members of Town Council From: Town Manager Town Attorney Subject: Proposed Undergrounding District-Virginia Avenue Reviewed By: BACKGROUND Property owners on a portion of Virginia Avenue have filed petitions to form a utility undergrounding district (hereinafter referred to as the "Proposed Undergrounding District"). Attached hereto as Exhibit 1 is the proposed boundary map for the Proposed Undergrounding District. Pursuant to the attached certificate from the Town Clerk, more than five property owners owning lands constituting more than one-half of the area of all assessable lands within the Proposed Undergrounding District have signed petitions as required by State law. In addition, the Town Engineer has determined that property owners of more than the 60% of the parcels to be included in the Proposed Undergrounding District, as required by the Town's policy, have signed petitions requesting that the Proposed Undergrounding District be formed. The Town Clerk's certificate is attached as Exhibit 2. In addition, attached hereto as Exhibit 3 is the Town's policy for forming underground assessment districts. The Proposed Undergrounding District involves the designation of a contiguous area within which includes all parcels that will specially benefit from the construction of specific public improvements. The request for the Council's initiation of special assessment proceedings is made in accordance with the Municipal Improvement Act of 1913, and further requests that bonds be sold to finance the improvements in accordance with the Improvement Bond Act of 1915. The bonds would be secured by assessments levied on the parcels within the Proposed Undergrounding District, which would be paid by the parcel owners as part of their property tax bills over a period not to exceed 30 years. As part of proceeding with the Proposed Undergrounding District, it is necessary for the Town to appoint a District Engineer and Bond Counsel. The District Engineer will have responsibility to prepare a report regarding the Proposed Undergrounding District which will include the plans and specifications for the improvements and the portion of the costs, if any, that represent a general benefit and the portion of the costs that represent a direct and special benefit to each of the parcels within the Proposed Undergrounding District. On January 4, 2017, Town Council approved a Resolution of Intent associated with a proposed utility assessment district in the Hawthorne Avenue area of Tiburon. In that case, Council _r,._._ _ �__ __ _� _M_ ___ __.___.LL_.____ __. ____ _�d___. __. .__..___� ___ _ t�\V'\ �l Trbt i.���; 1 A 21 OAK#4844-8871-4556 v1 appointed Harris Engineering as the District Engineer for that project, and staff recommends appointing the same firm as District Engineer for the Proposed Undergrounding District as well. The Town obtained a proposal from Harris, totaling $63,950, to provide the services outlined in the Town's policy. The Town has received subscription deposits from some of the petitioners in the amount of$114,000, and Harris's work will be paid by these deposits. In regards to appointing Bond Counsel, the Town's policy describes several responsibilities for the Bond Counsel. First, Bond Counsel must direct all legal proceedings to establish the Proposed Undergrounding District. Second, Bond Counsel must provide advisory services to all interested property owners within the Proposed Undergrounding District about the assessment process and their rights and responsibilities. In the case of the Hawthorne Project, in order avoid the potential conflict of interest regarding these dual roles, the Town was able to obtain the services of Sam Sperry who agreed to provide the limited services stated in the Town's policy to advise the property owners about their rights and responsibilities. In addition, the Town retained Bob Whalen with Stradling, Yocca, Carlson& Rauth to provide Bond Counsel services to the Town to direct all legal proceedings to establish the Proposed Undergrounding District. Both Mr. Sperry and Mr. Whelan have indicated their availability and willingness to provide similar services to the Town for the Proposed Undergrounding District being considered tonight. In order to move forward, the Council must adopt the attached resolution that 1) Approves the preliminary boundary map, 2) Designates Harris &Associates as Assessment Engineer, 3) Directs the preparation of the Engineer's Report, and 4) Appoints Sam Sperry and Stradling, Yocca, Carlson& Rauth as Bond Counsel. When the Engineer's Report is completed, the Council will establish the date for a public meeting at which Council will be asked to preliminarily approve the Engineer's Report and set a date for a public hearing on the proposed assessments and for the delivery of ballots by property owners. It should be noted that all of the actions scheduled at this meeting are preliminary and do not commit the Council to the formation of the Proposed Undergrounding District. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Town Council adopt the attached Resolution(Exhibit 4). EXHIBITS 1. Proposed Boundary Map for Proposed Undergrounding District 2. Town Clerk's Certificate 3. Town of Tiburon Undergrounding Policy 4. Resolution Prepared By: OAK#4844-8871-4556 v1 CERTIFICATE OF TOWN CLERK AS TO THE SUFFICIENCY OF PETITIONS FOR TOWN OF TIBURON ASSESSMENT DISTRICT NO. 2017-2 (VIRGINIA DRIVE ASSESSMENT DISTRICT) I, Lea Stefani, Town Clerk of the Town of Tiburon, do hereby certify that I have examined the petitions submitted by the owners of certain parcels of land within the proposed Town of Tiburon Assessment District No. 2017-2 (Virginia Drive Assessment District) (the "District"). In accordance with Streets & Highways Code Section 5896.7 I have checked the petitions submitted to me and determined that petitions have been submitted by more than five owners of assessable land within the proposed District, as shown on the last equalized assessment roll, who own lands constituting more than one-half of the area of all assessable lands within the proposed District. Dated this 25th day of April, 2017. Lea Stefani Town Clerk of the Town of Tiburon EXHIBITNO C-1 TOWN OF TIBURON POLICY & PROCEDURES FOR THE FORMATION OF UTILITY UNDERGROUNDING ASSESSMENT DISTRICTS Town Policy The Town of Tiburon strongly supports the undergrounding of overhead utility wires and poles(see Town Council Resolution No. 2996, adopted February 2, 1994). Undergrounding of overhead utilities improves public safety under fire, earthquake and high wind conditions; reduces utility company maintenance costs for tree trimming to maintain overhead lines and equipment;and results in improved visual characteristics. General Overview These policies describe the basic considerations and actions required to relocate and to finance such relocation of overhead utility lines underground. The policies are provided to guide property owners in achieving undergrounding of utilities in their neighborhoods and to help the Town Council,Town Staff and Town consultants in assisting in such efforts.Specific figures regarding estimated costs for undertaking this effort and ultimately implementing a specific project are not presented herein since they vary depending on the size, location of the proposed district and economic factors.A separate Frequently Asked Questions brochure(available at Town Hall or at www.tiburoii.org)may provide a range of answers to those types of specific non-policy questions. The procedures, events and steps described below are governed by California State law and guidelines of California Public Utilities Commission(regulating the Pacific Gas&Electric Company (PG&E)and other utilities)about the physical and financial requirements for utility undergrounding projects.The Town must comply with these laws and regulations while taking appropriate actions to coordinate the project from its inception to its completion. To provide for financing and to enforce connections to the underground system,the undergrounding districts will be special assessment districts established by the Town under State law. Unless contributions are available from other sources,property owners should know that 100%ofthe cost of the underground project will be borne by the property owners in the district.If available,funds from PG&E and other utilities will be applied to help reduce the costs,but there is no assurance of such availability. The proponents of a proposed district must submit a written petition to the Town showing the support by owners of at least 60% of all of the parcels in the prospective district. The Town will supply examples of petitions and instructions on its signing. Along with the petition,the required EXHIBIT NO.3 , ` subscription deposit for district formation costs (see discussion below)and an informal boundary map showing the parcels proposed to be included must be provided. Upon receipt of a satisfactory petition, deposit and informal map,the Town will begin the process of district formation. The Town will retain the District Engineer for the assessment district,along with Bond Counsel and the bond Underwriter. The District Engineer (with the assistance of Town staff and bond Underwriter) will prepare an estimate of all of the costs of the project. Those costs will include construction cost estimates(based on information from the utilities)and an allowance for the Town's administrative costs calculated to reimburse the Town for the work of Town staff on the project and bond issuance costs and deduct any possible contributions. An Advisory Services fund is also established to allow project proponents and opponents to obtain legal advice and information from the Bond Counsel regarding the assessment process and their rights and responsibilities. That net cost will be apportioned or"assessed"to each of the parcels in the district based on how each parcel is specially benefited from the undergrounding work.Under Proposition 218,the District Engineer is responsible for defining the special benefit each parcel receives and may take into account a variety of factors in defining that benefit. The method of allocating special benefit may vary from district to district depending on the conditions of and the improvements needed for each such district. Under State law,the Town Council must hold a public hearing and conduct an assessment ballot to seek approval of the assessment part of the district. This approval requires an affirmative majority approval (based on dollars assessed)by property owners returning ballots. If approved,the Town may proceed with the assessment and the district. The assessment may then be paid in cash or allowed to"go to bond"or be financed at tax-exempt municipal bond rates for 20-25 years.Bonded assessments are collected on the County tax bill.The assessment is not a personal obligation of the property owner and it passes with the title to the property assessed, like regular taxes. The Bond Counsel and Underwriter prepare documents needed for the bonds. The costs of individual service connections to the underground facilities are borne by each property owner and are typically not included in the assessment. If possible,a small amount of bond funds may be available on a per-financing basis,at the request of property owners(first come-first served) to help finance connections.The actual amount available will depend on the size of the project and the estimated amount of bond financing available and will vary with each project. The entire process may take at least 12 to 24 months (assuming no legal actions/challenges). The duration of the process may also be affected by utility company financial conditions and staffing priorities. Policy&Procedures for the Formation of Utility Undergrounding Assessment Districts Page 2 of 9 Procedural Events & Steps for District Formation This section outlines the process of forming a special assessment district for utility undergrounding in Tiburon. 1. Preliminary Meetings Interested Property Owners meet with Town Staff to discuss the process and procedures,and to have questions answered and concerns addressed.This would typically include representatives of the Department of Public Works and the Town Manager.The project proponents would also be encouraged to hold a neighborhood meeting to discuss the proposed project, solicit input, answer questions,etc.and schedule an informal presentation before the Town Council to solicit informal support for the proposed project. These are some of the most important steps in successfully creating a district. This document, along with the FAQ brochure should be distributed to all property owners whose participation is to be solicited.Proponents should also arrange a site walk with the prospective District Engineer to develop ballpark estimates of preliminary costs associated with creating the District.This will help refine the estimate of the total amount of subscription deposit funds that will be submitted to the Town along with petitions of interest as described below. 2. Petition of Interest Proponents of the proposed district circulate Petitions of Interest among all Property Owners of the prospective district. 3. Informal Boundary Map As part of the Petition process,the Property Owner proponents prepare an informal boundary map showing the area proposed to be the district based upon the results of the circulated petition. The Town and District Engineer will review this map and may suggest changes, as required to satisfy utility companies' requirements and requests of other, adjacent Property Owners. Property Owner Proponents may wish to distribute the informal boundary map. Property Owner Proponents may also request a `boundary walk' with the affected utility companies to better refine the project boundary. It should be noted that the utility companies (particularly PG&E)may require a deposit before they will attend a boundary walk. 4. Subscription Deposits When obtaining Petitions,Property Owner Proponents should also raise subscription deposit funds for preliminary design engineering and construction cost estimates and legal advisory services. Funding must be sufficient to secure engineering cost estimates from electric, telephone, and the cable franchise provider and to pay the advance costs required to retain the District Engineer. Policy&Procedures for the Formation of Utility Undergrounding Assessment Districts Page 3 of 9 The District Engineer will prepare complete technical plans and drawings for review by the utilities, and establish final cost estimates for the construction bidding process. Plans must contain detailed information on trench size and location,and the location of equipment within the trenches. Such drawings are usually ordered and directed by the District Engineer. Such costs may range from$900 to$1,700 per Property Owner Proponent and will depend on the size of the district, complexity of the project, the costs for the preliminary services required to establish the district.. Recently, PG&E and SBC (formerly Pacific Bell) have required full deposits up front before they will proceed with engineering support for a proposed district.The utility companies develop engineering drawings and technical specifications for design of their particular underground facilities,which are then incorporated into composite drawings by the District Engineer. It is the composite drawings which are ultimately used for construction bidding purposes. If the district is formed and issues bonds,it will refund or credit these funds to the Property Owner Proponents in proportion to their contributions. As further described in the following section,the Property Owner Proponents are also required to raise funds for Legal Advisory services. In accordance with a recently adopted Settlement Agreement, this amount is to be $100 per Property Owner Proponent, up to a maximum of $10,000 for the entire district. Accordingly,the total subscription deposit necessary to form an assessment district may range between$1,000 and$1,800 per Property Owner Proponent.If for any reason,the district is not formed, and/or fails to issue the bonds,the Property Owner Proponents will receive only the amount of their contributions that have not been spent. 5. Filing the Petition of Interest, Subscription Deposit and Boundary Mqp The Petitions may be submitted to the Town when Property Owners representing at least 60% of the total number of parcels to in the proposed district have signed and the Subscription Deposits(see above)and the informal boundary map are ready. Staff will check the Petition to be sure that there the necessary signatures from the required percentage of properties and that the Subscription Deposit and boundary map are in order. 6. First Council Meeting-Resolution of Intention At the first Council meeting, the Council adopts the Resolution of Intention to Make Acquisitions and Improvements which formally begins the assessment process. 7. Consultants With the Resolution of Intention,the Town will appoint:Bond Counsel,the District Engineer, and the Underwriter. The District Engineer prepares the estimates of costs, the proposed assessment of the costs to each parcel in the district, the formal maps of the district and the plans and specifications for the construction work.The plans may be preliminary at this stage. In accordance with State law, the assessment of costs to each parcel in the district will be Policy&Procedures for the Formation of Utility Undergrounding Assessment Districts Page 4 of 9 developed by an analysis of the special benefit that each property owner receives from the improvements funded by the assessment. All of the above information is summarized in the "Engineer's Report" for the district. The Underwriter is responsible for helping to estimate the costs of the bonds and in pricing, selling and delivering the bonds to the bond market. The Underwriter is paid only from the bond issue and only if bonds are issued. Bond Counsel directs all legal proceedings to establish the district including Council resolutions,notices,forms of documents and instructions,including the levy ofthe assessments and issuance of bonds. Except for the Advisory Services to Property Owners below, Bond Counsel is paid only if the bonds are actually issued. Bond Counsel also provides advice and information(the"Advisory Services")to all interested Property Owners within the proposed district(whether they support or oppose the project)about the assessment process and their rights and responsibilities. ■ All Property Owners shall be provided with notice of their right to meet with Bond Counsel, and this notice shall include written materials that describe the assessment process and their rights and opportunities to be heard during the process. ■ Bond Counsel shall hold at least 2 meetings for the purpose of advising the Property Owners: The Is' meeting as soon as practicable following Town appointment of Bond Counsel and the 2nd second meeting shall be held before Town Council votes to preliminarily adopt the Engineer's Report for the district. ■ To the extent that Advisory Funds are available, Bond Counsel shall be available to provide brief follow-up telephone consultation to affected Property Owners. ■ In the event the Advisory Fund is insufficient to provide all of the Advisory Services described in this section, Bond Counsel shall provide Advisory Services in the following order of priority: (1)written materials describing the process; (2) meeting with Property Owners prior to adoption of the draft Engineer's Report; (3)meeting following retention of Bond Counsel; and(4) telephone consultation. ■ The Town Attorney has sole discretion to supervise Bond Counsel's provision of Advisory Services to ensure,so far as practicable,that such services are fairly allocated between all affected Property Owners. Policy&Procedures for the Formation of Utility Undergrounding Assessment Districts Page 5 of 9 8. Second Council Meeting-Preliminary Approval The District Engineer prepares and files the following items with the Town Clerk: ■ The Engineer's Report containing estimates of total assessment district costs,including costs for District Engineer, utility company engineering, Bond Counsel, Underwriter Advisory Fund, construction contract and Town administration. Construction cost estimates will include a breakdown of each property owner's individual service connection cost. ■ Map of Proposed Boundaries and Assessment Diagram for the district ■ Plans& Specifications for Project, The Town Council adopts: ■ Resolution Preliminarily Approving District Formation/Boundary Map, Engineer's Report, and Directing Actions with Respect Thereto;and ■ Resolution Approving Plans and Specifications and Calling for Bids for Construction (If the plans and specifications are still preliminary,this step may be deferred until after the Assessment District is officially formed and the final plans are prepared by the District Engineer). 9. After Second Council Meeting Immediately following the Second Council Meeting,the Town Clerk,in coordination with the District Engineer and Bond Counsel, takes the following actions: ■ Mails Notices of Proposed Assessments and Ballots to Property Owners at least 45 days prior to the Public Hearing; ■ Records Map of Proposed Boundaries of the District; and ■ Coordinates publication of call for construction bids(if appropriate). 10. Informational Workshop In the 45-day period after Item 9, Town Staff and the consultants hold a Workshop about the project and the proposed financing. 11. Construction Bids Under the State Public Contract Code and the Chapter 3A of the Tiburon Municipal Code, Town solicits contractor bids for construction. Typically,the bid period is 30 days, with bids received about two weeks before the public hearing and ballot. After the bid opening, the District Engineer and Town Staff determine the lowest responsible bid and adjust the proposed assessments if warranted.This step may be deferred until after Item 17 if preliminary plans and specifications are used for district formation. Policy&Procedures for the Formation of Utility Undergrounding Assessment Districts Page 6 of 9 12. Third Council Meeting-Public Hearing and Ballot At a Council meeting held at least 45 days following mailing of the Notice of Proposed Assessments,the Town Council will: ■ Hold a public hearing to solicit any comments for or against the assessment ■ Close the public hearing and call for the tabulation of ballots The Town Clerk opens and counts ballots. Ballots are weighted on dollars assessed (for example,if all assessments are the same,each property owner has one vote). Only valid ballots actually received by the end of the hearing are counted. Unsigned, unreadable or unmarked ballots are not valid. If more than 50 percent of the ballots cast are against, the proceedings must be abandoned. If a majority approving vote is received, and the Council concurs,Council then adopts: Resolution Adopting Engineer's Report,Confirming Assessments and Directing Actions with Respect Thereto This resolution levies the assessment and directs recordings and filings forthe assessment lien and directs the cash payment period. This resolution also has provisions establishing completion time requirements for individual service connections. 13. Immediately After 12 above: The Town Clerk, District Engineer and Bond Counsel,takes the following actions: ■ Files and Records Assessments,Notices of Assessment and Assessment Diagram; ■ Publishes Notice to Pay Assessments; and ■ Mails Notices to Pay Assessment to each Property Owners(include the deadline date for completing individual service connections). 14. Cash Pgyment Period Property Owners have a minimum 30-day period to pay cash for their assessments or any portion. At the end of the 30-day period,the exact amount of bonds to be issued is determined based on the remaining,unpaid assessments. After the cash payment period: ■ The Administrative Services Director completes the List of Unpaid Assessments; and ■ The Bond Purchase Agreement and Preliminary Official Statement are filed with the Town Clerk. Policy&Procedures for the Formation of Utility Undergrounding Assessment Districts Page 7 of 9 Property Owners must also decide whether to contract with the Contractor performing the District work or hire their own contractor to perform individual service connection work on their property. 15. Fourth Council Meeting-Bonds At a Town Council Meeting after Item No. 14 above, Town Council adopts: ■ Resolution Authorizing Issuance of Bonds; and ■ Resolution Authorizing Execution of the Construction Contract. This step may be deferred until after Item 17 if preliminary plans and specifications need to be finalized by the District Engineer. 16. After Item 15 The Administrative Services Director and Underwriter price the bond issue, and the Town executes the following: ■ Bond Purchase Agreement(sells bonds); and ■ Preliminary Official Statement(describes bonds for market) 17. Bond Closing Approximately 2 weeks after Item 16,the bonds are delivered to Underwriter in exchange for the purchase price under the Bond Purchase Agreement. This,along with the cash payments, provides the funds for to pay for the underground project and its related costs. 18. Execution of Construction Contract The Town executes the Construction Contract with the selected bidder. Construction work would typically commence within a few weeks of contract execution. Town staff makes progress payments to the Contractor as with any public works contract.Construction duration will depend on the size and complexity of the project, but typically lasts 60 to 90 days. 19. Utility Coordination Upon completion of construction, the Town coordinates with the utilities to connect all properties to the new underground system. This process may take several weeks or more depending on the scheduling requirements of each utility company. Each property owner is responsible for connecting his or her property to the newly undergrounded facilities. The Town's contractor is usually required to offer service connection work at established costs. However,each owner may chose his or her own contractor or other provider for the individual service connection work. Policy&Procedures for the Formation of Utility Undergrounding Assessment Districts Page 8 of 9 20. Work Completed After all connections are completed,the utilities will remove the overhead system. Town pays final bills and costs, including any remaining legal and administrative costs incurred by the Town for the project. If there is any surplus remaining,the Council may take action to provide any further improvements needed to complete the project and/or distribute any surplus as provided by law. Policy&Procedures for the Formation of Utility Undergrounding Assessment Districts Page 9 of 9 RESOLUTION NO. xx-2017 A RESOLUTION OF THE TOWN COUNCIL OF THE TOWN OF TIBURON, CALIFORNIA, DECLARING ITS INTENTION TO TAKE PROCEEDINGS PURSUANT TO THE MUNICIPAL IMPROVEMENT ACT OF 1913 AND TO ISSUE BONDS PURSUANT TO THE IMPROVEMENT BOND ACT OF 1915 TO UNDERGROUND ALL EXISTING OVERHEAD UTILITY FACILITIES WITHIN THE BOUNDARIES OF THE PROPOSED TOWN OF TIBURON ASSESSMENT DISTRICT NO. 2017-2 (VIRGINIA DRIVE ASSESSMENT DISTRICT) AND MAKING CERTAIN FINDINGS AND DETERMINATIONS IN CONNECTION THEREWITH WHEREAS, the Town Council of the Town of Tiburon (the "Town") has previously adopted Town Council Resolution No. 2996 supporting the undergrounding of overhead utility wires and poles and has adopted Policy and Procedures for the Formation of Utility Undergrounding Assessment Districts (the "Policies"); and WHEREAS, in accordance with the Policies, the owners of certain parcels of land have submitted petitions (the "Petitions")to the Town requesting the formation of an assessment district in order to underground all of the overhead utility wires, poles and other facilities providing utility service to the area within the proposed assessment district; and WHEREAS, the Town Clerk has reviewed the Petitions and in accordance with Streets and Highways Code Section 5896.7 has presented to the Town Council a certificate as to the sufficiency of the Petitions to the effect that petitions have been submitted by more than five owners of assessable land within the proposed assessment district, as shown on the last equalized assessment roll, who own lands constituting more than one-half of the area of all assessable lands within the proposed assessment district; and WHEREAS, the Town Engineer and Director of Public Works (the "Town Engineer") has reviewed the Petitions and determined that the Petitions show support for the proposed assessment district by the owners of at least sixty percent (60%) of the parcels within the proposed assessment district; and WHEREAS, the Town Council desires to adopt this resolution in accordance with the Policies and the provisions of Streets and Highways Code Section 10200, which is a part of the Municipal Improvement Act of 1913 (the "1913 Act"), declaring its intention to make acquisitions and improvements to underground all electric, telephone and cable facilities, remove poles, overhead wires, guys and anchors and complete appurtenant work thereto as further described in Section 3 hereof(the "Improvements") and to order the formation of an assessment district to pay the costs thereof under and pursuant to the provisions of the 1913 Act; and WHEREAS, the proposed assessment district, if it is formed, is to be known and designated as the Town of Tiburon Assessment District No. 2017-2 (Virginia Drive Assessment District) (the "Assessment District"); and Town Council Resolution No.xx-2017 DRAFT 05/03/2017 EXHIBIT N(yge4 6 WHEREAS, the proposed boundaries of the Assessment District are shown on a map which indicates by a boundary line the extent of the territory proposed to be included in the Assessment District, which map has been prepared by Harris & Associates (the "Assessment Engineer") and designated "Town of Tiburon Virginia Drive Assessment District Proposed Boundary Map" (the "Map"), which Map is on file in the office of the Town Clerk; and WHEREAS, the Town Engineer, with the assistance of the Assessment Engineer, is competent to make and file with the Town Clerk the report with regard to the Improvements, which report is required by the 1913 Act to be made and filed; and WHEREAS, the conversion of overhead electric utility distribution system facilities to underground, including connection to existing overhead electric utility distribution lines where the surface is restored to the condition existing prior to undergrounding, is categorically exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (Public Resources Code Section 21000 et seq.) ("CEQA") and its implementing guidelines (14 California Code of Regulations Section 15000 et seq.) (the "Guidelines")pursuant to Section 15302(d) of the Guidelines; and WHEREAS, in order to finance the cost of the Improvements the Town Council intends to consider issuing bonds secured by the assessments to be levied on property in the Assessment District pursuant to the Improvement Bond Act of 1915, being Division 10 (commencing with Section 8500) of the Streets and Highways Code (the "1915 Act"); and WHEREAS, before issuing bonds, the Town Council is required, under the 1915 Act, to adopt a resolution declaring its intention to do so; NOW, THEREFORE, The Town Council of the Town of Tiburon does hereby find, order and resolve as follows: SECTION 1. The above recitals, and each of them, are true and correct. SECTION 2. In accordance with the Policies, the Town Council hereby appoints Harris & Associates as the Assessment Engineer and the firm of Stradling Yocca Carlson & Rauth, a Professional Corporation and Meyers Nave as bond counsel for the Assessment District. SECTION 3. The Improvements generally include the undergrounding of existing electric, telephone and cable facilities, including the removal of poles, overhead wires, guys and anchors and the installation of new underground service connections and new streetlights and appurtenant work therewith within the area shown on the Map. The Map is hereby approved as the preliminary boundary Map for the Assessment District. The Improvements will be designed and constructed to the standards required by the Pacific Gas and Electric Company ("PG&E") and other utility providers. The Town will inspect the work to ensure conformance to Town standards and specifications where applicable. Once completed, the underground facilities will become the property and responsibility of PG&E and such other utility providers. Each owner of property located within the Assessment District will be responsible for arranging for and paying for work on his property necessary to connect facilities constructed by the public utilities in the public streets to the points of connection on the private property. Conversion of individual service connections on private property is not included in the work to be done by the Assessment District. Failure to convert individual service connections on private property may result in a recommendation to the Town Page 2 of 6 Town Council Resolution No.xx-2017 DRAFT 05/03/2017 Council that the public utilities be directed to discontinue service to that property or that other actions be taken in accordance with applicable laws to convert such individual service connections. Overhead facilities cannot be removed until all overhead service has been discontinued. SECTION 4. The Town Council hereby finds and declares that the public interest and necessity require the acquisition and construction of the Improvements, and any portion of the costs of the Improvements to be assessed against parcels within the Assessment District will be of direct and special benefit to such parcels. The Town Council hereby declares its intention to order the conversion of the existing overhead electric and communication facilities to underground locations, and the acquisition of the Improvements, to make the expenses thereof chargeable upon the area included within the Assessment District, and to form the Assessment District. SECTION 5. The Town Council further declares its intention to levy a special assessment upon the land within the Assessment District in accordance with the respective special and direct benefit to be received by each parcel of land from the Improvements. SECTION 6. The Town Council finds and determines that before ordering the acquisition of the Improvements it shall take proceedings pursuant to the 1913 Act and pursuant to Part 7.5 of the Special Assessment Investigation, Limitation and Majority Protest Act of 1931, Streets and Highways Code Section 2960 et seq. (the "1931 Act"). SECTION 7. The Assessment Engineer is hereby authorized and directed to make and file with the Town Clerk a written report with regard to the 1913 Act (the "Report"), which Report shall comply with the requirements of Section 10204 and Section 2961 of the Streets and Highways Code and Article XIIID of the California Constitution and shall contain the following: (a) Plans and specifications for the Improvements; (b) A general description of works or appliances already installed and any other property necessary or convenient for the operation of the Improvements, if the works, appliances or property are to be acquired as part of the Improvements; (c) An estimate of the cost of the Improvements, and the cost of land, rights of ways, easements, and incidental expenses in connection with the Improvements, including the cost of registering bonds, and a determination of the portion of the costs that represent a general benefit and the portion of the costs that represent a direct and special benefit to each of the parcels within the Assessment District; (d) A diagram showing the exterior boundaries of the Assessment District, the boundaries of any zones within the Assessment District and the lines and dimensions of each parcel of land within the Assessment District as they existed at the time of passage of this resolution (each subdivision to be given a separate number on the diagram); and (e) A proposed assessment of the total amount of the cost and expenses of the proposed Improvements that confer a direct and special benefit upon the several subdivisions of land in the Assessment District in proportion to the estimated special benefits to be received by such subdivision, respectively, from the Improvements (the assessment shall refer to the subdivisions by their respective numbers assigned as provided in (d) above). Page 3 of 6 Town Council Resolution No.xx-2017 DRAFT 05/03/2017 (f) A proposed maximum annual assessment upon each of the several subdivisions of land in the Assessment District to pay costs incurred by the Town and not otherwise reimbursed which result from the administration and collection of assessments or from the administration or registration of any associated bonds and reserve or other related funds. In addition, the Report shall contain the information required by the 1931 Act as set forth in Streets and Highways Code Section 2961(b), including: (a) The total amount, as near as may be determined, of the total principal sum of all unpaid special assessments and special assessments required or proposed to be levied under any completed or pending assessment proceedings, other than the proposed assessments to be levied with respect to the Assessment District, which would require an investigation and report under the 1931 Act against the total area proposed to be assessed; and (b) The total true value, as near as may be determined, of the parcels of land and improvements within the Assessment District which are proposed to be assessed. Total true value may be estimated as the full cash value of the parcels as shown upon the last equalized assessment roll of the county. Alternatively, total true value may be determined by other reasonable means, including, but not limited to, by adjusting the value shown on the last equalized assessment roll to correct for deviations from market value due to Article XIIIA of the California Constitution. SECTION 8. Notice is hereby given that serial or term bonds to represent unpaid assessments and to bear interest at a rate not to exceed 12 percent per annum will be issued in the manner provided in the 1915 Act to represent the unpaid assessments and the last installment of such bonds shall mature a maximum of 30 years from the second day of September next succeeding 12 months from their date. The principal amount of such bonds maturing or becoming subject to mandatory prior redemption each year shall not be an amount equal to an even annual proportion of the aggregate principal amount of the bonds, but rather (except as specifically otherwise provided by the Town Council in connection with the sale of such bonds), shall be an amount which, when added to the amount of interest payable in each year, will be a sum which is substantially equal in each year, except for the moneys falling due on the first maturity or mandatory prior redemption date of the bonds which shall be adjusted to reflect the amount of interest earned from the date when the bonds bear interest to the date when the first interest is payable on the bonds. Such bonds shall be serviced and collected by the Town Treasurer or by such registrar and/or paying agent(s) as this Town Council may from time to time designate. SECTION 9. Following the acquisition of the Improvements and the payment of all incidental expenses in connection with the formation of the Assessment District and the issuance of bonds pursuant to the 1915 Act, any surplus remaining in the improvement fund established for the Assessment District shall be used as determined by the Town Council as provided in Section 10427 of the Streets and Highways Code. SECTION 10. The provisions of Part 11.1 of the 1915 Act, providing an alternative procedure for the advance payment of assessments and the calling of bonds, shall apply. Page 4 of 6 Town Council Resolution No.xx-2017 DRAFT 05/03/2017 SECTION 11. Except as specifically otherwise provided for herein, the Improvements shall be made and ordered pursuant to the provisions of the 1913 Act. SECTION 12. The Town Council hereby determines that the Town will not obligate itself to advance available funds from its treasury to cure any deficiency which may occur in the bond redemption fund established for the Assessment District. SECTION 13. The public interest will not be served by allowing the property owners to take any contract to be let for the construction of the Improvements, and no notice of award of contract shall be published. SECTION 14. It is hereby determined that the bonds proposed to be issued in these proceedings may be refunded. Any adjustment to assessments resulting from such refunding shall be done on a pro rata basis as required pursuant to Section 8571.5 of the Streets and Highways Code. Any such refunding shall be pursuant to the provisions of Division 11.5 (commencing with Section 9500) of the Streets and Highways Code, except that, if, following the filing of the report specified in Section 9523 and any subsequent modifications of the report, the Town Council finds that all of the conditions specified in Section 9525 are satisfied and that the adjustments to assessments are on a pro rata basis, the Town Council may approve and confirm the report and any, without further proceedings, authorize, issue, and sell the refunding bonds pursuant to Chapter 3 (commencing with Section 9600) of Division 11.5 of the Streets and Highways Code. Any such refunding bonds shall bear interest at the rate of not to exceed twelve percent (12%) per annum, or such higher rate of interest as may be authorized by applicable law at the time of sale of such bonds; and the last installment of such bonds shall mature on such date as will be determined by the Town Council in the proceedings for such refunding. SECTION 15. It is in the public interest and more economical to do certain work on private property to eliminate any disparity in level or size between the Improvements and private property and to add the actual cost of such work to the assessment of the property to which such work was done; provided that no work of this nature shall be performed until and unless the written consent of the owner of property is first obtained. SECTION 16. Pursuant to Streets and Highways Code Section 10110, the Town intends to enter into agreements with PG&E and the other utility providers, and any agreement between the Town and PG&E, or any other public utility, for the ownership, management, or control of the underground electric, telephone and cable facilities to be installed in connection with the Improvements, would benefit any current or future residents of the Assessment District. SECTION 17. Pursuant to Section 15302(d) of the Guidelines, the undergrounding of the Improvements will have no significant effect on the environment and is categorically exempt from CEQA. The Town Clerk is directed to cause a notice of exemption to be posted as required by law. SECTION 18. The Town Council hereby waives the requirement in the Policies for the appointment at this time of an underwriter for the Assessment District (the "Underwriter") and determines that delaying the appointment of the Underwriter to a later date in the proceedings will not adversely affect the proceedings as the Town will be engaging a municipal advisor to assist it in estimating the costs of issuing the bonds for the Assessment District. Page 5 of 6 Town Council Resolution No.xx-2017 DRAFT 05/03/2017 SECTION 19. All inquiries for any and all information relating to these proceedings, including information relating to protest procedures, should be directed to: Greg Chanis Town Manager 1505 Tiburon Boulevard Tiburon, California 94920 (415) 435-7373 SECTION 20. This Resolution shall take effect immediately upon its passage. SECTION 21. The Town Clerk shall certify to the passage and adoption of this resolution and enter it into the book of original resolutions. PASSED, APPROVED, and ADOPTED on May 3, 2017. JIM FRASER, Mayor ATTEST: LEA STEFANI, Town Clerk Page 6 of 6 Town Council Resolution No.xx-2017 DRAFT 05/03/2017 o D sr �., a ` el e awH '� r @ € s €@ � �4� a . � � a .. H a .mow a •' ,t �, � �,.. � a b;"' 'x ,�s „� 'aH �• t,,, �ss ash �s<"� '^,� b h s' '°�#. � e`"t �s"%s sx ®sE "I Wk E t e"tom ��E < ,`1,`s3..z a ,�.a 8a £••�� {"% -H-sraPs s'=',p `t x dss §± �. a , �� �°`v � H`a aa' � � `sa i�a?� a'" sc •``r" ..a �„r' r�.., ";`ate x �,„;,,„,� H��%e�,• ;•,,.. �..,� ���gs s � � •s{ 4.'7 > 'r ;�s�" �'`y� g� t�. � '.,. �k RQ°° Sys }�y� ': is �@€ se � „. '�.a ea <�ya ""t •a :vA H°s �., y}y} ;: e^� � � ,;.y A,�" ft sr <x =a g§g a t e{s{e a " `s, t°,# s°', ,aa"€.a a.. F ��e,•m x � e ¢ meg@ :t{a� # �,% %�a k-,° �:�� s" � f� ws".,,5$ � �� � "c "; :�� 4 ,,..,m.,,,,,,,m. Ca@. €s' �PF �•w"s, 5 `' t.4.,.,.,. "{€ ^a,,�, € 4 :. @ @ � : � @� ��""""„�.,�,,@ 4 E f`"}f"'"'�� k .H B.=,.•�" app %T'L' '! /'6 qa x 5 bPdq •s 9%£fi cc °w �R e" s°`4 H�lacki� 4°a a° "t"�' Y=a �e" `£ 'S,, F 2 �'• w.o-€ @€a t`s4ix 5 5ipapppa Hee{ e���gp WA 'p % 567 56 8��yp @ 5 u$� 562 566 R yb r^; .d^^ S m X Rf .� .r..rz�wx $ e•°'+t pp4•° 575 570 �� xPAJR Vyyy� k{` n 0i YAH •a.=. ed` a5 E 574` ' atr a 583 °.- � � �� # ! �D >`{ ,?f, a 4k, W a �`+3��.,y a�. ..� m g@E 4 /1,582 sj ✓"� r55 ,€ `590 �gtt; 594 HF ." Z ii av A a � Proposed Boundaries of @{� {° Assessment District No. 2017-2@E ° { kj 131 (Virginia Drive Assessment District) ,a".. € �e 's Hm 1 : 3,881 ° _" 4 TOWN OF TIBURON Town Council Meeting k€ f� 1505 Tiburon Boulevard May 3,2017 Tiburon, CA 94920 Agenda Item: DIJ REPORTF Tl ell- To: Mayor and Members of the Town Council From: Community Development Department Subject: 8 Rolling Hills Road: Appeal of Planning Commission's Approval of an Amending Parcel Map Removing a Building Envelope and a Height Restriction from a Lot in the RO-2 Zone; Michele Hughes, Owner and Applicant; Rita Burgess and David Readerman, et al, Appellants; File No. OTHER2016-001; Assessor Parcel No. 058-111-24 (Continued from March717 - Reviewed by: BACKGROUND On March 15, 2017, the Town Council heard an appeal of the Planning Commission's decision on this application. After extensive public comment,the Council continued the item and directed the applicant to return with more detailed renderings of a design on the hillside, and with story poles representing the conceptual house design and location, such that the Council could better assess potential impacts on surrounding properties. Minutes of the March 15, 2017 Town Council meeting are attached as Exhibit 1. A vicinity map, aerial photo, and a copy of the parcel map are attached as Exhibits 2,3 and 4. ADDITIONAL INFORMATION SUBMITTED On April 24, 2017, the prospective property buyer submitted additional materials attached as Exhibit 5. These include concept site plan, elevations, section drawings, visual renderings from various viewpoints, and photographs of and from neighboring properties depicting potential view impacts or lack thereof. The additional materials submitted describe an approximately 4,900 square foot, 4-level residence with a 3-car garage. If its floor area remains unchanged,the residence would be larger than is typically found in the immediate vicinity but by no means the largest(see Exhibit 6). Newer residences in Tiburon also tend to be larger than older homes, and remodel/addition projects are commonplace with older homes. The conceptual residence would step down the hillside and extend beyond the current building envelope limit approximately 39 feet. As with the adjacent residence at 6 Rolling Hills Road, a front setback variance would be required for the garage as a result of the steep drop-off from Rolling Hills Road and a 30 front setback standard in the RO-2 zone. Story poles representing the conceptual house design were erected on April 22"d. Staff viewed the story poles on April 25th and has requested clarification on certain aspects of the poles with respect to the height restriction TOWN OF TIBURON PAGE 1 OF 3 Town Council Mecting May 3,2017 of the story poles. Also provided was a revised depiction (Exhibit 8) of potential view impacts from the patio of 4 Rolling Hills Road (p. 21 of the prospective buyer's submittal), with the benefit of the certified story poles that were not in place when the original p. 21 depiction was created. The revised depiction more accurately reflects potential view blockage impacts. ANALYSIS A review of the materials appears to indicate that a residence could successfully be designed and constructed in compliance with the height limit restriction currently imposed on the parcel map. This would require maintaining all portions of the residence no more than 10 feet above the elevation of Monument A nearby, as described on the parcel map. The height limit imposed by this restriction would preserve public views from Rolling Hills Road and private views from homes across the street. The story poles erected to represent the conceptual house design appear to indicate that views from the residence at 4 Rolling Hills Road would be somewhat affected by the 4th floor"entry level" adjacent to the garage, which would intrude into views of Sausalito and Richardson Bay from the family room and adjacent patio at 4 Rolling Hills Road, although no water views would appear to be affected. Staff believes that the conceptual plan for the entry level could be modified through the design review process to substantially lessen these potential view blockage impacts. The three main levels of the house (including exterior decks) would be situated at lower elevations and would not appear to extend into the views or create privacy issues for this nearby home. The proposed house would not appear to affect views in any substantive way from other homes in the vicinity (with the exception of the lot owner's own residence at 6 Rolling Hills Road), and would be primarily visible from the roadway of Rolling Hills Road and the driveway access to 88 Rolling Hills Road. The project would present only the one-story profile of the proposed garage and entry level when viewed from the street directly in front of the lot, which would be substantially smaller than the visible building volumes of other homes along Rolling Hills Road from street-level view. The residence would be visible from homes across the valley and far above the site, but only at longer distances, and view blockage impacts do not appear to exist from these homes. View blockage impacts from the applicant's residence at 6 Rolling Hills Road appear unavoidable given the design and location of the existing home and its proximity to the logical building site on 8 Rolling Hills Road. In staff's opinion, the 1971 building envelope depth of 56 feet(46 feet without a front setback variance) is insufficient to enable a typically-sized modern Tiburon residence to substantially comply with principles set forth in the Town's Hillside Design Guidelines, which were adopted several years after the building envelope was imposed. If confined to the existing building envelope, a residence of comparable size to recently-constructed homes in the vicinity would likely have a tall, blocky appearance as seen from the side and rear profiles, and unless considerably smaller in size would likely be unable to comply with principles that encourage following hillside contours with horizontal elements, breaking up of expansive surfaces, and providing adequate articulation, among others. TOWN OF TIBURON PAGE 2 OF 3 Town Council Mceting May 3,2017 Upon the submittal of an actual home design, the Design Review Board would have, and routinely exercises, discretion over site plan and design elements of likely concern, such as: • Gross floor area, apparent mass and bulk, and height of the home. • Neighborhood compatibility of the proposed project. • How far a future residence is allowed to extend down the hill slope, especially given the presence of mature oak trees below. • The extent of visual intrusion into important views from nearby residences, especially 4 Rolling Hills Road. • The amount, orientation and location of window areas permitted. • The location and size of decks and balconies with respect to privacy and visibility. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Town Council: 1. Re-open the public hearing and accept comments regarding the new information received since the March 15th meeting. 2. Deliberate and, if prepared to do so, indicate its intention regarding the appeal. 3. Provide direction to staff regarding the disposition of the appeal. Town Council comments on the conceptual design could provide important direction to the Design Review Board. A draft resolution is attached as Exhibit 9 should the Town Council decide to partially uphold the appeal by eliminating the building envelope but keeping the height restriction of 10 feet above Monument A in place across the entire lot. 4. Should the Council decide to grant the appeal in full and deny the application, staff should be directed to return with a resolution to that effect for consideration of adoption at the next regular meeting. EXHIBITS 1. Town Council minutes of March 15, 2017. 2. Vicinity map. 3. Aerial photo of area. 4. Parcel map entitled "Lands of Noah and Wheary", recorded April 1971. 5. Additional Applicant-Submitted Materials received April 25, 2017 (25 pages). 6. Table of home square footage and lot areas in immediate vicinity. 7. Revised Page 21 of Additional Materials received April 27, 2017. 8. Story Pole Certification letter received April 27, 2017. 9. Draft Resolution. .Y, Prepared By: Scott Anderson,Director of Community Development``; Dan Watrous,Planning Manager TOWN OF TIBURON PAGE 3 OF 3 Vote: AYES: Doyle, Fraser, Fredericks, Tollini ABSENT: O'Donnell Mayor Fraser read "An Ordinance of the Town Council of the Town of Tiburon, California, Amending Title 1, Chapter 2, Section 2-3.3 of the Town of Tiburon Municipal Code to Change the Date of General Municipal Elections from November of Odd-Numbered Years to November of Even-Numbered Years". ROLL CALL VOTE: AYES: Doyle, Fraser, Fredericks, Tollini ABSENT: O'Donnell PH-2. 8 Rolling Hills Road—Consider appeal of Planning Commission approval of a request for an Amending Parcel Map to remove certain development limitations from a vacant lot (Community Development Department) Owners/Applicant: Michele Hughes Appellant: Rita Burgess, David Readerman et.al. Address: 8 Rolling Hills Road Accessor Parcel No.: 058-111-24 Staff Report Director of Community Development Anderson gave the staff report. He said the Planning Commission approved an application to amend a parcel map by removing the building envelope and a height restriction.The owners of eleven nearby properties filed a timely appeal,on the grounds that the absence of the building envelope and height restriction might allow the lot to be developed with a residence that could block views,damage neighborhood character,harm privacy and be incompatible with the surrounding pattern of development. Director Anderson said the applicant seeks removal of restrictions that were imposed by a previous Planning Director in 1971. He said the removal of these restrictions would leave the lot subject to regular RO-2 zoning requirements, including site plan and architectural review requirements that apply to all lots in Tiburon. Anderson said the Planning Commission heard extensive public testimony in opposition to removing the restrictions and carefully considered the unique history and unusual restrictions. He said the Commission found the building envelope and height restrictions to be obsolete, considering the Town's many guiding processes in place today that did not exist in 1971. The Commission expressed confidence in these zoning processes, and said the Town now "has a better toolkit" to address neighborhood concerns. He said the Staff agrees with the conclusion of the Commission. Councilmember Fredericks inquired about the lack of clarity in regard to the height restriction. Director Anderson said the height restriction was quite clear but that any confusion was more likely attributable to the building envelope. The building envelope restrictions are unclear as to what(if anything) may be permitted outside the envelope. He added that the current envelope also extends Town Council Minutes#06-2017 March 15, 2017 Page 6 EXHIBIT__�__ p. 1 ofl into the minimum front setback that would be imposed under today's zoning standards. Fredericks asked if Variances or Floor Area Exceptions would be granted in the existing envelope. Anderson said that building envelopes now only exist in planned developments,but this lot is not in a planned development zone.Further,there are no other building envelopes on lots in the RO-2 zone in Tiburon, and there are no provisions in the zoning ordinance for dealing with this situation. Fredericks asked if the envelope could be amended.Anderson said it might be possible to amend the envelope on the parcel map as it is an existing feature on the map. Councilmember Tollini commented that many of the comments in the appeal suggested that the neighbors purchased their homes based on the existing restrictions. Town Attorney Stock said the Town does maintain the authority to change any conditions to a previous approval of a project. Fredericks asked if there was any exposure to liability due to the lack of specificity in the document, particularly related to accessory buildings in the envelope. Town Attorney Stock said the Town would not be exposed to liability. Mayor Fraser asked if the Council could direct the Planning Commission to add specificity to allowable construction of primary or accessory buildings within the existing building envelope. Director Anderson said that if the Council were to leave the building envelope in place,staff would need direction from Council as to what restrictions are imposed by the building envelope, as the parcel map is entirely silent on the matter. Appellant Presentation David Readerman and Rita Burgess, 55 Rolling Hills Road, said they represent the appellants. Mr. Readerman said he is grateful that the Council allows for commentary by those who live in the affected area,and did not agree with the staff report. He yielded the floor to his neighbors,the other appellants.He said it was important to note that the property at 8 Rolling Hills Road was created out of a lot split. James To, 88 Rolling Hills Road, said he had recently gone through the Design Review process to build a home next door within the building envelope.Mr.To implored the Council to read the letter from previous Planning Director Wayne Moody,in which he outlines the situation and reasoning for the restrictions.He also noted that the current lot is non-conforming,and likely would not have been a legal lot-split today. Mr.To did not believe it to be logical for the Planning Commission to revisit and remove restrictions made by past Commissioners.He said it was unfair for the staff to assert that"undue pressure"in the neighborhood caused the restrictions. He also did not agree with the conclusion that the building envelope was an antiquated tool, citing dozens of others in Town, and said the decision to remove one would be unprecedented. Removing the building envelope would create a significantly larger allowable building area. He said a fair path to proceed with for this property would be the same restrictions he was subject to when building within his own building envelope, albeit in a precise plan,in which any ambiguities in the plan are subject to current code.He argued that the purpose of Town Council Minutes#06-2017 March I5, 2017 Page 7 EXHIBIT I p. � of (� the sale of the property,and the application to remove the envelope,is not for leeway in development and design, but for more space. Linda Berg, 1 Rolling Hills Road, said the original construction [of 6 Rolling Hills Road] was not built according to plan, and the home was taller than was originally promised.This was questioned by the neighbors,and the building envelope was put into place [on 8 Rolling Hills Road]to avoid the same instance happening again. She said that while the neighbors were upset at the time,she did not recall anyone being"threatening". Alan Rappaport, 5 &25 Rolling Hills Road,believed there was an abuse of discretion exercised by the Planning Commission.He said the agreement should be upheld.He said the agreement provided a site for a home to be built that would have preserved the beauty of the neighborhood. He said any Variance issues should be handled by the Design Review Board, but there should not be an allowance by the Planning Commission to remove the envelope to make the building area larger. Scott Peters, 45 Rolling Hills Road, said he respects the right to build, as long as the development does not affect neighbors.He said he believed the staff s characterization of the neighbors on Rolling Hills Road to be unfair,and thought that all property owners' rights on the street should be protected. He said he hoped the Council will vote with conscience, and to vote as if they also lived in the neighborhood. David Readerman spoke to a lack of trust in the Town, and cited an instance in which he and his neighbors were left to deal with a water mitigation issue due to a nearby development independently because Rolling Hills Road is a private road. James To said residents expect the government will enforce consistent application of the code, and removal of any uncertainties.He said removal of the envelope creates uncertainty and more potential for development. Councilmember Fredericks asked if the building envelope was a consequence of a dispute resolution. Mr. To replied that it was,but Director Anderson said Staff had not found any evidence that it was nor had Staff seen any correspondence from neighbors regarding a building envelope. Applicant Presentation Joseph Lepera, applicant, said his family's intended development of the property at 8 Rolling Hills Road would not be a "fix-and-flip"; it would be his family home. He said he had attended the Planning Commission meeting and had heard the neighborhood concerns, and then invited all the appellants to a neighborhood meeting to discuss concerns and show concept drawings to alleviate those concerns, but no one came. He said the Planning Commission did not make their decision without careful consideration and he reviewed several highlights from the Planning Commission meeting,including Director Anderson's observation that this envelope might be illegal today,and that this property is the only lot in the RO- 2 zone with this type of restriction. Mr. Lepera restated the Planning Commission's consensus that Town Council Minutes #06-2017 March 15, 2017 Page 8 EXHIBIT P. 3 of the Design Review Board should be the body that decides what home gets built, not the Planning Commission. He said the restrictions do not comply with the Tiburon Municipal Code,and argued that the appeal should be denied because the proposal and the Planning Commission's decision are consistent with the Municipal Code and are supported by evidence of the record. Mr. Lepera reviewed several points taken from the Hillside Design Guidelines.He said they wished to remove the envelope so as to allow for terracing down the hillside, complying with the hillside design guidelines, and to reduce visual bulk and protect neighbors' views. Upon hearing the neighbors' concerns,he wished to present a design that would minimally impact the neighbors and will be in compliance with the height restriction previously imposed.He showed a basic schematic of the proposed home, and said it would not affect the appellants. He concluded his presentation by reiterating that the Planning Commission's decision was correct. Mayor Fraser asked for clarification as to where the building envelope exists currently based on one of the aerial photos Mr. Lepera presented. Mr. Lepera clarified the location. Michele Hughes, original owner of 8 Rolling Hills Road, said she purchased the property without knowing about the building envelope. She said she had felt isolated in the neighborhood as a result of these proceedings, and was simply asking for fairness. She did not think it was fair to be held to antiquated guidelines and be prevented from developing, and asked the Council to reaffirm the Planning Commission's decision. Councilmember Fredericks asked if there were any other issues with building within the existing envelope, other than the inability to build downhill. Mr. Lepera said that was the only issue. Councilmember Doyle asked if Mr. Lepera was prepared to commit to this design. Mr. Lepera said that while not"ready to go",this design is the one that will be proposed.He said he was prepared to commit to the design that would not negatively impact the neighbors. Appellant Rebuttal Mayor Fraser opened the floor for public comment. Rita Burgess commented that the architect representing one of the appellants confirmed that the existing building envelope was adequate to build a home of a similar square footage. She said there were also spacing concerns as the proposed home at 8 Rolling Hills and the existing home at 6 Rolling Hills would not have the required 30 feet of side setback between them,because 6 Rolling Hills does not conform to the setback requirements. Mr. To echoed Ms. Burgess's comment, and said that Staff also agreed in the Staff report that the existing envelope is adequate for construction of a home. Town Council Minutes#06-2017 March 15, 2017 Page 9 EXHIBIT P. f of Councilmember Doyle commented that Mr. To's home next-door appears to be stepped down the hill,just as Mr. Lepera hoped to do with the removal of the envelope. Mr. To said the previous owner had their building envelope moved and expanded. Applicant Rebuttal Mr.Lepera said the neighbors will not be impacted by the proposed design to step down the hillside. He said the home will be stepped down the hill with the specific purpose of protecting neighbors' views. Council Discussion and Direction Councilmember Doyle asked neighbor George Lee if his view would be impacted by the proposed home. Mr. Lee said it would be hard to comment without more detail, but it was helpful to see the proposed plans in the applicant's presentation. Councilmember Fredericks asked if any proposed project within the envelope would have to be approved by the Design Review Board. Director Anderson confirmed that to be true. Mayor Fraser asked if the Design Review Board has the authority to approve a Variance on a building envelope. Director Anderson said it may not as this property is not within a planned development,and there is no such defined process for interpreting a building envelope on a property that is not a part of a planned development. Councilmember Fredericks said it was unclear as to what could be done within the existing envelope because there is no clear process as to how to work with a building envelope in this zone. Director Anderson confirmed, and said there is no precedent for having an envelope in the RO-2 zone, as opposed to the traditional defined setbacks. Councilmember Tollini said she sees the value of the legal precedent set for the neighbors,but also the unique set of circumstances, perhaps even the only circumstance in Tiburon. She said the Planning Commission made a reasoned conclusion, and if the applicant is willing to concede to the height restrictions, she hoped that would satisfy the neighbors. Doyle believed it would be difficult to build a home of a similar size with a height restriction. He thought the neighbors would be more satisfied with the home stepped down the hill. He said he would trust in the Design Review Board to help protect the views of any impacted neighbors. Fredericks commented on the need to balance the neighbor's reliance on precedence to alleviate negative impacts with sending the proposed design through the Design Review Board with some restrictions that respect the protections originally imposed by the building envelope. She suggested keeping the envelope in place, and sending the project to the Design Review Board to satisfy the need to develop the property in a satisfactory way to both the owners and the neighbors. Mayor Fraser said this was a challenging application. He did not think the Council had enough information to make a decision,as they were not reviewing a more refined home design.He thought Town Council Minutes#06-2017 March 1 S, 2017 Page 10 EXHIBIT _�_ p. of 6 it would be easier to make a decision if the Council could be more assured that the proposed home would not impact the neighbors. He suggested continuing the appeal until the applicant presents more detailed information and drawings of a proposed home that he is willing to commit to, so the Council can give clear direction to Staff and the Design Review Board. The other members of the Council agreed to this approach. MOTION: To continue the item until further information from the applicant is provided, including renderings of a design on the hillside and story poles representing proposed design. Moved: Tollini, seconded by Fredericks VOTE: AYES: Doyle, Fraser, Fredericks, Tollini ABSENT: O'Donnell TOWN COUNCIL REPORTS There were none. TOWN MANAGER REPORT Town Manager Chanis reminded the Council that he would be out of the office the following week. WEEKLY DIGESTS Received. ADJOURNMENT There being no further business before the Town Council of the Town of Tiburon, Mayor Fraser adjourned the meeting at 10:10 p.m. JIM FRASER, MAYOR ATTEST: LEA STEFANI, TOWN CLERK Town Council Minutes#06-2017 March 15, 2017 Page 11 EXHIBIT—L P. 6 of_{�_ Marin Map,, VICINITY MAP 1 I; A e6it:1�$ k -��' Prtifl��iltey,Ti�trran t95'ttlto `- Legend -` Condominium Common Area t" Mobile Home Pad m t Tc,I City t Ali'Rd! Community ?; L_J Marin County Legal Boundary - k O Area Cou y Other Bay A nt •, " : � Address l f Parcel re Par I Secu d .t 1. - Stream-Perennial(NHD) Tibut`its ant e r t S n Belvedere ,: 1 3,476 U1, Notes y. 579.3 0 289.65 579.3 Feet This map is a user generated static output from an Internet mapping site and is for reference only.Data layers that appear on this map may or may not be EXHMIT NAD_1983_HARN_StatePlane_California_III_FIPS_0403_Feet accurate,current,or otherwise reliable. ©Latitude Geographics Group Ltd. THIS MAP IS NOT TO BE USED FOR NAVIGATION Mann Maps AERIAL, VIEW MONISM w_ Novato v r 111-�1 =� -!-"1 Mill�atl� Tifs�tr<r[t 4 -- _r s a-i k1-28 ati is— 11 26 Q, Legend �a �J a Condominium Common Area o Mobile Home Pad > City Community County Boundary Y Le al 9 Other Bay Area County �I(il lu, fr 4 Address Parcel Secured Stream-Perennial(NHD) 111 rk� �l 2014 Marin 6 inch Red: Band-1 Green:Band_2 3 " a ' .7 Blue: Band-3 r ? 3L„r1° ay � y t=P 121 2'' + � 141-21 - , ''z• r� t r_i6 i t i ;; , ' q 1: 1,738 e Notes �•1 __ ( 7" �`' tr'*,./�' .4jFY lc_V 1,}2_3. ti'11��. "' 289.7 0 144.83 289.7 Feet This map is a user generated static output from an Internet mapping site and is for reference only.Data layers that appear on this map may or may not beAR � NAD_1983_HARN_StatePlane_California_III_FIPS_0403_Feet accurate,current,or otherwise reliable. ©Latitude Geographics Group Ltd. THIS MAP IS NOT TO BE USED FOR NAVIGATION ✓N/T/A NAYAEFOY LV•F PoRTiOR/0/-�✓NT ryB✓?ON UN/T/ roq 90N32�04� M.A4.W.0, C 2 I ',4/TY ``�� N!Z'/3•W 208.7/ 90.8/ 6s,irB H" IV Z'/31;� SPR/N6 LANEX\ � .9O s s/rca c/ 9 PARCEL C kZ gS .rroEEB/IPo•zB'I N Z.99 AG. It �. U L4NOJ OP NQEN \" /]T!m 3r. I R I PLANNING DIRECTOR'S CERTIFICATE w I I I CERTIFY THIS MINOR SUBDIVISION COMPLIES WITH 01 THE APPLICABLE PROVISIONS OF CHAPTER 14 OF 0"1 I vl THE TI .R.. CITY C D.C. N � SIONED�/JLNie. l( AS-A&147/ M h LENOr OF 4 I PLANNING DIR CTOR DATE � � BEA rTY I 3 2I o U pi\ wo N36�S2 SO'/.y .336.03 I Q1 '44•W 204.78 rT0• i —LEGEND— STANDARD STREET MONUMENT l0 �'k AA,,, q " SET IRON PIPE AND PIN WITN TAG R.E.SSEI m sc-EN,c ANo4d` PARLYEL B Ba/�e SAV ER,[,E. I G nl D SET!'E!'REDWOOD mug � _ I 'V40'54 WRjD 3/032 /0ar"Ac 'N43'04•W ,204..78' ii<�"1 oN B OPEN sP.nce`q^ Z . ,\So. O BASIS OF BEARING wAsemEN> 1•�D �'E J•sAN/r.Har �� 31 ROLLING HILLS SEARINQ OFUi•Sa•W.ETWC EN O �rNd OE rh 1 1 .• w E,CSE. �\\�I n m FOUNO aTREEi YONUY[NTo Aa / PAR�EL A TO`a�,:<eaven \\-. "\I UNIT TWO ....N oN.R[eoRoeo NAI of r' 1 P. /o AG BUICOIN6 \•m M.6 It-16 ROLLIMf MILL]UNIT TNO /IO' 246 1 BNVELOnE `s \\ ,)) /{ 15MAC.00K II IAS[I. � 1 d0\ NMON. 4P'/3�W 492.89 CAL C.) A � LANOJ OF WiNNELMAN 30• NOTE,PARCEL A �` THE dU/LO/NC ENVELOP£NE/6,v JNALL NOT EXCEED/0.0 CFrr ABOvE THE STREET ELEVAT/QV AT MONUMENT A PARCEL MAP LANDS OF NOAH AND WHEARY 1JRVEYOR'S CERTIFICATE CITY ENGINEERS CERTIFICATE RECORDERS CERTIFICATE SOOK 226608 PAGE 640 B 641 AND PTN.BOOK 1022 OR PAGE SO$ AS PREPARED OF NE OR UNDER MT wf[cnox w� AND WAS COMPILED THIS NAP HAS SEEN e[AYINEo THIS OF Awlz- loll FILED Teg DAr of Q�Q/ ADJACENT TO ROLLING HILLS UNIT TWO ROM RECORD DATA(ANO IS RAS[.UP.A FIELD SURVEY)IN CONFORMANCE FOR CONFORMANCE WITH TH�. EQUIREYEMTN OF']ECTION 116TH Ol THE I• A}, IM a00k_„mor BOOK H OF YAPS 4T PAGE Ii e iH}HF.RLQUI^EYFNTS OF TN[softs il0 YAP ACT AT THE REQUEST Ol ]UBDIVISION YAC ACT. ////.����,�11 ----TTTT---- AT PASO �/1 TIBURON,MARIN COUNTY,CALIFORNIA �.G A(Lt1A/ IY N •loll I He...I CERTIFY NI.NED Y,�f Q /9� ]TRIAL HO FE[ L PROV6WN5 OC APPLICABLE STATE LAWS AMD LOCAL ORDINANCES CITY E�I((OwCER Ar TxE ReaacaT of N J.WARREN MUTE-REGISTERED CIVIL ENGINEER PIT_NEEM COMPLIED WITx. ON 1SIGMS.AND]EAL[D) iN'B.as.e..V1.�1 .,..ED NTC-.•/AIC aNLy YARCM 1971 SOAI c• I•�NRT R.G.E. NO. -s - COURT R[CORDER er Dc Y RccoRx LEPERA + ASSOCIATES , PG - - - - - -- -- SAN FRANCISCO • OAKLAND WALNUT CREEK A T T 0 R N E Y S April 24, 2017 Town of Tiburon Town Council APR 2 5 2011 1505 Tiburon Boulevard PLANNING DiUISIC>6V Tiburon, CA 94920 Re: Opposition to Appeal of Planning Commission Approval Amended Parcel Map Application File No. OTHER2016001 Dear Members of the Town Council: This follows the Town Council appeal held on March 15, 2017 re the above. The appeal was continued until May 3, 2017. I. BACKGROUND On January 25, 2017, the Planning Commission approved Michele Hughes's request to remove certain residential development restrictions(building envelope and height limit)on 8 Rolling Hills Road at the Planning Commission meeting. On March 15, 2017, the Town Council heard the appeal of the Planning Commission's decision and considered the evidence submitted by the respective parties. At the conclusion of the meeting, Mayor Fraser requested more information and asked if Joseph Lepera ("Applicant")was willing to come back to the Council, not with a full set of plans, but with a sketch with details that Applicant is willing to "sign up for" so the Council could give clear direction to the Design Review Board? Applicant readily agreed. Councilmember Tollini made a motion to continue the appeal until Applicant provided more information including renderings of the design on the hillside and story poles representing the proposed design. Joseph A. L..epera, Esq. 601 Montgomery Street - Suite 665 San Francisco, California 94111 Office 415.362.2529 Mobile 415.215.1001 Facsimile 415.362.9022 joseph@leperalaw.co EXHIBIT J LEPERA+ASSOCIATES , PC .... A T T O R N E Y S April 24, 2017 Town of Tiburon Re: Opposition to Appeal of Planning Commission Approval Page 2 II. STUDY OF POTENTIAL IMPACTS ON NEIGHBORS OF 8 ROLLING HILLS ROAD In addition to working with Town Staff,Applicant submits the following information for the Town Council to fully analyze the potential impacts of Applicant's proposed home on the neighbors of 8 Rolling Hills Road: A. Area Summary Based on Current Tiburon Municipal Code B. New Story Pole Plan (13 poles) C. Concept Site Plans D. Concept Elevations E. Concept 3-D Views of Proposed Home F. Surveyor's Elevations of Potentially Affected Neighbors G. Photographs Showing Neighbors'Views H. Physical Model of Proposed Home (available at the May 3rd Meeting) I. Communications with Potentially Affected Neighbors A. Area Summary Based on Current Tiburon Municipal Code: Table 2-2—Residential Zones Development Standards Table 5-2—Floor Area Ratio Guidelines Maximum Minimum Lot Lot Required Lot Gross Floor Maximum Zone Lot Area Coverage Coverage Width Area FAR 1 Allowable RO-2 20,000 ft2 6,551 ft2 15% 50 ft 6,367 ft2 6,367 ft2 Proposed RC-2 43,672 ft2 3,250 ft2 7.4% 89 ft 4,900 ft2 4,900 ft2 1 10%of the property area plus 2,000 sq.ft. plus an additional 600 sq.ft. of garage Applicant's proposed home design meets the requirements of the current Tiburon Municipal Code. Applicant's lot is 43,672 ft2 which is 218% larger than the minimum lot area required to build in the RO-2 zone. Applicant's lot coverage of 3,250 ft2 is only 7.4% of the Maximum Lot Coverage and less than 50% of the maximum allowable lot coverage of 6,551 ft2 or 15%. Also, Applicant's proposed home is 4,900 ft2 which is only 77% of the permitted Floor Area Ratio of 6,367 ft2. Accordingly,Applicant's proposed home is well within the Tiburon Municipal Codes for building. 'r LEPERA+ASSOCIATES , PC ___..........._---------- ---------.__---------------------------------- A -----n T T 0 R N E Y S April 24, 2017 Town of Tiburon Re: Opposition to Appeal of Planning Commission Approval Page 3 B. New Story Pole Plan A new story pole plan was reviewed and approved by Planning Manager Dan Watrous. On April 21, 2017, California Story Poles placed 13 poles (12 days prior to the meeting) at the outermost corner of each level as requested by the Planning Department. LC•GENU TO. TOPOF LOCAT(OU OV SYORY POLES +2285 TO LEVEL I ROOF C4 Z6}+:40 5'io LEYEL 2 FOOD .6ii7J .]555'TO LEVEL 3 ROOF �Qj(t�/fi' -NT5'TO.LCWL4— (1 .264V TO GAA EROOF ADJACENT PROPERTY L,—, ^ 6 ROLLING HILLS ROAD 1 'PROPERTY � CNVE.OPE 0) GARAGE LEVEL 4 m ! ( I I EVELa I ' , r L•VEL L.,J" Lf.VELOR YEL+ f •zzas l 1 1 I LSRopu. � .'�'— ©Pt I if J i c7 cF 'tit'"'-�• I _ t { i 1_ Z > x I RooF eRaxa t �y I _...�. ruFST Ll U ?� O i C, - - -- i PROPERTY UNE.TVP LEPER/ +ASSOCIATES , PC A r T O R N E Y S April 24, 2017 Town of Tiburon Re: Opposition to Appeal of Planning Commission Approval Page 4 C. Concept Site Plan of 8 Rolling Hills Road Applicant's proposed home uses only a fraction of the available lot. 8 Rolling Hills Road is over one (1) acre in size (43,672 ft2) and is 493 feet long by 89 feet wide. Applicant's proposed home, including the garage is 95.6 feet long which uses only 19% of the entire length of the property and only 38% of the property after considering the Open Space easement. After including the proposed home and setback, there will be nearly 370 feet remaining to the property line and over 120 feet separating Applicant's proposed home and the Open Space easement. ArJJACENTroOusE Cao C£S,RtAN ADJACCNT PR?FfRTY ME CASEMENT t yK 021, 8 ROLLING HIL;L8 ROAD .......,_ OVENieANG t EACH SPAtf gC EASEMENT _.'-..-.—. ...__ ` • ry �'<' t t f K l --- — --- ---- =------'-- ----- --� ---- 1 -r— — ---- Asz S PAOPE(i7Y UNE- ;JUST O BtRICatAs% IrIM e .,,,y f� x d yi i 1 f i— iA J E t...:.......... ,i t O IY � T, a r i .. 3,....,.,._,. T aROMAg Hills "'�v t � } I N INi al ;{ LEPER/ +ASSOCIATES , PC ---------------- A T T O R N E Y S April 24, 2017 Town of Tiburon Re: Opposition to Appeal of Planning Commission Approval Page 5 D. Concept Elevations 1. East(Front) Elevation from Rolling Hills Road M1 I 2. North Elevation _ . - � . . - -- ��. I I I I II I e. ----------- _�_�____. zzo- .......................... -I- -- �i . _— �a LEPERA+ASSOCIATES , PC --- A T T . R N E Y S April 24, 2017 Town of Tiburon Re: Opposition to Appeal of Planning Commission Approval Page 6 3. South Elevation CKSMODMADW .`, wa+eoxsacv9x9 -- _—_—w..—__..__ - � aau a f AWA � ti i250 E ti I F, 349 D zo - *� . z _ a9 = u9 xttvni M 20 4. West (Rear) Elevation looking towards Rolling Hills Road I 1 ,v_ et mrtevct 1 r�� c 1 � 2YJ 226 4 1 .' _.�.....,� 220 Li 216 .-...�....e____..e�..._ I V 219 1 i�Yl I � 27tl L.EPERA+ASSOC IATEs , PC A T T O R N E Y 5 April 24, 2017 Town of Tiburon Re: Opposition to Appeal of Planning Commission Approval Page 7 5. Longitudinal Section Looking North .- C emr i LJ�.* � t a00 LEPERA+ASSOCIATES , PC 1.--.----"-'--- __ ._-_ ..__. ---- --_.. A T T O R N E Y S April 24, 2017 Town of Tiburon Re: Opposition to Appeal of Planning Commission Approval Page 8 E. Concept 3-D Views of Proposed Home 1. View Facing Southeast(Front View) I r a i E LEPER/ +ASSOCIATES , PC 11 1 ----- -... -- - - - --- A T T O R N E Y S April 24, 2017 Town of Tiburon Re: Opposition to Appeal of Planning Commission Approval Page 9 2. View Facing Southeast t z. T Z rr s _ S 2 LEPER/\+ASSOCIATES , PC -----........... ---____-- A T T . R N C Y S April 24, 2017 Town of Tiburon Re: Opposition to Appeal of Planning Commission Approval Page 10 3. View Facing South LEPERA+ASSOCIATES , PC A T T O R N E Y S April 24, 2017 Town of Tiburon Re: Opposition to Appeal of Planning Commission Approval Page 11 4. View Facing Southwest � sr a LEPERA+ASSOCIATES , PC A T 'r Q R N E Y 5 April 24, 2017 Town of Tiburon Re: Opposition to Appeal of Planning Commission Approval Page 12 5. View Facing West i } l v l 1 { z E t LEPERA+ASSOCIATES , PC A T T O R N E Y S April 24, 2017 Town of Tiburon Re: Opposition to Appeal of Planning Commission Approval Page 13 6. View Facing West I Y X Z l has tl S., £ W 6 LEPERA+ASSOCIATES , PC A T T 0 R N E Y 5 April 24, 2017 Town of Tiburon Re: Opposition to Appeal of Planning Commission Approval Page 14 7. View Facing Northwest q r � F j LEPER_ A+ASSOCIATES , PC A T T O R N E Y 5 April 24, 2017 Town of Tiburon Re: Opposition to Appeal of Planning Commission Approval Page 15 8. View Facing North 2. k � R 5'} 4��Pi LEPERA-FASSOC IATE S , PC A T T O R N E Y S April 24, 2017 Town of Tiburon Re: Opposition to Appeal of Planning Commission Approval Page 16 F. Surveyor Elevations of Potentially Affected Neighbors Applicant understands that views are of the utmost importance to the neighbors and felt it was crucial to include surveyor elevations of potentially affected neighbors. To that end, Applicant hired surveyor Michael Ford Land Surveying, Inc. to confirm the elevations of the neighbor's homes—4 Rolling Hills Road; 5 Rolling Hills Road; and 25 Rolling Hills Road. The Entry Level of Applicant's proposed home is at elevation 255.5 feet. The Entry Level roof is at elevation 267.5 feet and the Garage roof is at elevation 264 feet. 1. 4 Rolling Hills Road—Elevation at Patio 258.3' 4 Rolling Hills' view elevation from the patio is 258.3 feet. This view elevation is 2.8 feet higher than Applicant's Entry Level elevation of 255.5 feet. As such, Applicant's proposed home on 8 Rolling Hills will have no impact 4 Rolling Hills' views. �t-v � 3'- 5d3�� IN #: �,�k 4 ROI..LING HILLS s .. LEPE_RA+_ASSO_ CIATES_, PC A T T O R N E Y 5 -- April 24, 2017 Town of Tiburon Re: Opposition to Appeal of Planning Commission Approval Page 17 2. 5 Rolling Hills Road—Elevation at Deck 283.4' 5 Rolling Hills' view elevation at the deck is 283.4 feet. This elevation is 15.9 feet higher than Applicant's highest roof line of 267.5 feet. As such, Applicant's proposed home on 8 Rolling Hills will have no impact 5 Rolling Hills' views. 5 ROLLING HILLS Toaiar,a6 LEPER/ +ASSOCIATES , PC A T T Q R N E Y 5 April 24, 2017 Town of Tiburon Re: Opposition to Appeal of Planning Commission Approval Page 18 3. 25 Rolling Hills Road— Elevation at Patio (271.9') 25 Rolling Hills' view elevation at the patio is 271.9 feet. This elevation is 4.4 feet higher than Applicant's highest roof line of 267.5 feet. As such, Applicant's proposed home on 8 Rolling Hills will have no impact 25 Rolling Hills' views. Vii„ i• �� � I `25 ROLLING HILLS _ Y 2 x . � � LEPERA+ASSOCIATES , PC A T T Q R N E Y S April 24, 2017 Town of Tiburon Re: Opposition to Appeal of Planning Commission Approval Page 19 G. Photographs Showing Neighbors'Views 1. Aerial View Showing Proposed Home in Relation to Adjacent Properties NORTH a. WEST<— RICHARDSON BAY Eli, LEPERA+ASSOCIATES , PC A T T O R N E Y S April 24, 2017 Town of Tiburon Re: Opposition to Appeal of Planning Commission Approval Page 20 These photographs confirm the view points of the potentially affected neighbor's homes— 1 Rolling Hills Road; 4 Rolling Hills Road; 5 Rolling Hills Road and 25 Rolling Hills Road. 2. View from 1 Rolling Hills Road (Patio) u Corner of 6 F2oliing Huls'(Michele Wughes)garage ;° s # I� This shows 1 Rolling Hills' view of Richardson Bay. As a reference point, you can barely see the corner of 6 Rolling Hills' (Michele Hughes) garage roof which has an elevation of 280 feet. Applicant's proposed garage roof elevation at 8 Rolling Hills is only 264 feet. Thus, Applicant's proposed home is 16 feet below 6 Rolling Hills' garage roof. As such, it will be impossible for 1 Rolling Hills to see any development at 8 Rolling Hills. Therefore, Applicant's proposed home design will not negatively impact 1 Rolling Hills. LEPERA+ASSOCIATES , PC __... _. ...._.. _ _. A T T O R N E Y S April 24, 2017 Town of Tiburon Re: Opposition to Appeal of Planning Commission Approval Page 21 3. View from 4 Rolling Hills Road (Patio) zs 777 try ti ,su This shows Applicant's proposed home roof lines of 8 Rolling Hills Road from the patio of 4 Rolling Hills Road. The dashed lines show the home terracing down the hill out of view from 4 Rolling Hills. As such, Applicant's proposed home will not block any views of 4 Rolling Hills Road. LEPERA+ASSOCIATES ,_ PC A T T O R N E Y 5 April 24, 2017 Town of Tiburon Re: Opposition to Appeal of Planning Commission Approval Page 22 4. View from 5 Rolling Hills Road (Deck) PlA U Rolline�Hifls t2aad y \ a a� L This was taken after the story poles were placed at 8 Rolling Hills Road. The story pole flag rope (in bright orange) showing Applicant's proposed home height and boundaries is barely visible. This confirms that Applicant's proposed home at 8 Rolling Hills will not block any views at 5 Rolling Hills. LEPER/\+ASSOCIATES , Pc A T T O R N E Y S April 24, 2017 Town of Tiburon Re: Opposition to Appeal of Planning Commission Approval Page 23 5. View from 25 Rolling Hills Road (Office Deck) Proposed Horne at 8 Rolling Huls Road a >t 4 Mlk 1 � Applicant's proposed home will not block any views of 25 Rolling Hills Road. Richardson Bay is not shown in this picture is located 60 degrees to the left. LEPERA+ASSOC IATES , PC A T T O R N E Y s April 24, 2017 Town of Tiburon Re: Opposition to Appeal of Planning Commission Approval Page 24 6. View from 25 Rolling Hills Road (Master Bedroom Deck) .y This shows 25 Rolling Hills'view from the Master Bedroom deck looking directly at 8 Rolling Hills Road. Even if there were not any mature trees or vegetation,Applicant's proposed home design on 8 Rolling Hills will not block of views for 25 Rolling Hills Road. Richardson Bay is visible on the left. LEPERA+ASSOCIATES , PC - A T T� 0 _R__N E Y 5 April 24, 2017 Town of Tiburon Re: Opposition to Appeal of Planning Commission Approval Page 25 III. CONCLUSION Applicant respectfully requests the Town Council deny Appellant's appeal and allow his proposed home to proceed through the Tiburon Design Review process. Applicant's proposed home design incorporates the concerns expressed by the neighbors of 8 Rolling Hills Road. Most notably, the proposed home is designed under the 10 feet height limit at Rolling Hills Road to minimize the potential impact to the neighbors. This is the same 10 feet height restriction that was originally placed on the property in 1971. Applicant requests removal of the building envelope so the home can be built down the hill away from the neighbors and in order to comply with the Tiburon Hillside Guidelines which requires the home to terrace down the hill. Moreover, Applicant's proposed home uses only a fraction of the available lot. 8 Rolling Hills Road is 493 feet long and is 246 feet to the Open Space easement. Applicant's proposed home, including the garage is only 95.6 feet long, and there is nearly 370 feet remaining to the property line and over 120 feet separating Applicant's proposed home and the Open Space easement. Therefore, by allowing Applicant to build the home down the hill, it will not affect any neighbors, nor will it affect the Open Space easement either. Further, Story Poles, Surveyor Elevations, and View Photographs also confirm that Applicant's proposed home design will not negatively impact any of the neighbors of 8 Rolling Hills Road. trust this provides the Town Council with the requisite information regarding Applicant's proposed home design and confirms Applicant's full commitment to abide by this proposed home design. Finally, I look forward to attending the May 3rd meeting to answer any questions the Town Council, staff and/or neighbors may have regarding Applicant's proposed home at 8 Rolling Hills Road. Respectfully submitted, Joseph A. Lepera Square Footage & Lot Area Table for Vicinity Street Address Building Living Area Lot Area 8 Rolling Hills Road (Concept) 4,900 43,560 1 Rolling Hills Road 3,356 17,780 2 Rolling Hills Road 4,248 24,720 3 Rolling Hills Road 8,526 27,633 4 Rolling Hills Road 4,092 29,133 5 Rolling Hills Road 2,050 17,515 6 Rolling Hills Road 2,584 43,521 25 Rolling Hills Road 4,463 22,554 35 Rolling Hills Road 3,218 18,500 45 Rolling Hills Road 4,511 22,600 55 Rolling Hills Road 4,483 15,510 65 Rolling Hills Road 3,635 18,125 75 Rolling Hills Road 3,077 31,500 88 Rolling Hills Road 4,922 253,245 100 Rolling Hills Road 3,537 30,310 1 Stevens Court 4,232 48,659 5 Stevens Court 4,506 33,549 9 Stevens Court 3,454 21,166 2 Spring lane 5,081 16,875 3 Owlswood Road 4,191 23,400 Sources: Marin County Assessor's Office MarinMap EXHIBIT 2300 bethards drive,suite j boundary surveys . topographic mapping mccsanta rosa ca{ifornia 95405 aerial topography = _ subdivision mapping ®� p 707.542.8513•f 707.542.18'25 construction staking -l 111nowid ---- g.i.s. base maps EsumeyingA www.michaelfordinc.com land development services April 27,2017 Planning Department Town Of Tiburon 1505 Tiburon Blvd. Tiburon,CA 94920 RE: Story Pole Height Certification—8 Rolling Hills,Tiburon, CA To whom it may concern: This letter certifies that I, Michael E. Ford, conducted a field survey at 8 Rolling Hills Road, Tiburon, CA.on April 26, 2017 for the purpose of verifying the story pole heights of poles (SP 6 through SP 13). Pole SP 10 was installed at 266.4' which is 1.1' lower than the designed height at 267.51. I also confirmed that the verified story poles heights are below the 10' height limit set forth in the building envelope, including after SP 10 is installed at the designed height of 267.5'. The attached story pole plan was surveyed and results are listed below: Story Pole No. Design Existing_ Height Above Oriaina.l Grade SP 6 255.5' 255.5' 33.6' SP 7 255.5' 255.5' 35.1' SP 8 267.5' 267.3' 30.7 SP 9 267.5' 267.4' 36.2' SP 10 267.5' 266.4' 31.3' SP 11 267.5' 267.3' 21.3' SP 12 264.0' 264.1' 7.6' SP 13 264.0 264.1' 8.3' Note: This survey is based on a topographic survey conducted for the subject parcel by Michael Ford Land Surveying, Inc. February 6t1i,2017. Respectfully, L Michael E. Ford,PLS 7237 •�. 'Sp",�wSN-1 EXHIBIT p J of ,� LEGEND T.O. TOP OF LOCATION OF STORY POLES ol ( I +228.5"T.O.LEVEL 1 ROOF 04 +240.5'T.O.LEVEL 2 ROOF C6 Q -255H T.O.LEVEL 3 ROOF +267.5'T.O.LEVEL 4 ROOF 12 13 +264.0'T.O.GARAGE ROOF ADJACENT PROPERTY 6 ROLLING HILLS ROAD lj�i PROPERTY LINE,TYP. A 23-6" 17.-0- 2rr5!' 30'-1" EXISTING ENVELOPE ul GARAGE C? (y LEVEL ,.ENTRY LEVEL +255.5' LEVEL3 +240.5' LEVEL 2 DRIVEWAY +228.5' 8 ROLLING SLOPE DOWN - I LEVEL I HILLS ROAD +217.5' sp bi GUEST i POOF SHOWN DASHED,TYP. PARKING! LEVEL 4 10 --------- -7- 91-0" 651-31 —33'-0" ------------ ------- ---------------- L.EPERA+ ASSOCIATES , PG A T 1_" O R N 1= Y S April 26, 2017 Town of Tiburon Town Council 1505 Tiburon Boulevard Tiburon, CA 94920 Re: Supplement to Page 21 (Updated View from 4 Rolling Hills Road) Dear Members of the Town Council: On April 21, 2017, California Story Poles placed story poles at the outermost corner of each level as requested by the Planning Department. Attached are updated photographs taken from 4 Rolling Hills Road's patio after the story poles were placed. Respectfully submitted, P4k. Joseph A. Lepera Jo,g(,ph A. Lep(,x-(,-,,°-<;{, Esq, 601 Montgomery Street Suite 665 San Francisco, California 94111 Office 415.362.2529 Mobile 415.215.1001 Facsimile 415.362.9022 Jose_ph C�Ieperalaw.CWTI EXHIBIT J p. I of LEPEPA-iASSOCIATES , PC A T T O R N E Y S April 26, 2017 Town of Tiburon Re: Supplement to Page 22 (View from 4 Rolling Hills Road) Page 2 10 5 7 6 Story poles 8, 9 & 10 which form Level 4 of the proposed house are located in front of trees and away from the view of Richardson Bay, which is to the right of this photo (see next page). Story poles 6 and 7 are lower down and below the Richardson Bay view line (see next page). EXHIBIT q P. J of m3 LEPERA -i ASSOCIATES , PC A 1" T O R N F Y S April 26, 2017 Town of Tiburon Re: Supplement to Page 22 (View from 4 Rolling Hills Road) Page 3 a Diagrammatic representation of approximate view from 4 Rolling Hills Road based on Photo on previous page (page 2 of this supplement) EXHIBIT 6 p. 3 of 3 RESOLUTION NO. (Draft)-2017 A RESOLUTION OF THE TOWN COUNCIL OF THE TOWN OF TIBURON PARTIALLY GRANTING AN APPEAL BY RITA BURGESS, DAVID READERMAN, ET AL, OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION'S APPROVAL OF AMENDMENTS TO A RECORDED PARCEL MAP (PM 5-90) INVOLVING A VACANT LOT LOCATED AT 8 ROLLING HILLS ROAD (ASSESSOR PARCEL NO. 058-111-24) WHEREAS, on January 25, 2017, the Planning Commission held a public hearing to consider an application (File#OTHER2016-001) requesting amendments to a recorded parcel map (PM 5-90) that created a lot at 8 Rolling Hills Road in 1971, said amendments requesting the removal of a building envelope and a height restriction placed on the lot on the face of the parcel map; and WHEREAS, at that hearing, numerous property owners in the vicinity opposed the application and raised issues involving among other things, impacts on views and on neighborhood character; and WHEREAS, following the public hearing, the Planning Commission voted 3-2 to approve the application and adopted Resolution 2017-02 to that effect; and WHEREAS, on February 6, 2017, Rita Burgess, David Readerman, and several other nearby property owners (collectively "Appellants") filed a timely appeal of the Planning Commission's decision to the Town Council; and WHEREAS, on March 15, 2017, the Town Council held a duly-noticed public hearing on the appeal, during which testimony was heard and considered regarding the application and the Planning Commission's review and decision on the application; and WHEREAS, after hearing all testimony and receiving all documents in the record, the Town Council voted 4-0 to continue the appeal and require the applicant and/or applicant's representatives to provide additional information and materials regarding a conceptual house design for the vacant lot at 8 Rolling Hills Road; and WHEREAS,the Town Council held a continued public hearing on May 3, 2017, at which it reviewed the additional information and materials submitted by or on behalf of the applicant, and considered all correspondence and testimony received at the continued hearing; and WHEREAS, the Town Council finds that the project application consists of File #OTHER2016-001, on file with the Town of Tiburon Community Development Department. The official record for this Project application is hereby incorporated and made part of this Town Council Resolution No. (Draft)-2017 -4-42017 Page 1 of 3 EXHIBIT p. ' of resolution. The record includes, without limitation,the staff reports, minutes, application materials, and all comments and materials received at the public hearings; and WHEREAS, the Town Council further makes the following findings: 1) There are changes in circumstances, as set forth in the official project record, which make any or all of the conditions of the map no longer appropriate or necessary. (2) The modifications to the map do not impose any additional burden on the fee owners of the real property. (3) The modifications to the map do not alter any right, title, or interest in the real property reflected on the recorded map. (4) The map as modified continues to conform to Section 66464 of the Subdivision Map Act. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Town Council of the Town of Tiburon hereby partially grants the appeal of the Appellants by imposing the following conditions of approval: 1. The building envelope is hereby removed from the parcel map entitled"Lands of Noah and Wheary", filed for record on April 28, 1971 at Book 5, page 90 of Parcel Maps, Marin County Records. Said removal shall be implemented in a manner prescribed by law and acceptable to the County Surveyor of the County of Marin and the Marin County Recorder. 2. The note on the parcel map entitled "Lands of Noah and Wheary", filed for record on April 28, 1971 at Book 5,page 90 of Parcel Maps, Marin County Records, shall be modified to read as follows: "NOTE: THE BUILDING HEIGHT SHALL NOT EXCEED 10.0 FEET ABOVE THE STREET ELEVATION AT MONUMENT A." Said modification shall be implemented in a manner prescribed by law and acceptable to the County Surveyor of the County of Marin and the Marin County Recorder. 3. The Town Council directs the Design Review Board and/or Town staff to carefully consider the original rationale for the now-removed building envelope during review of any applications for site plan and architectural review associated with the lot, said rationale being set forth in Planning Commission staff report dated 1/25/2017 and the letter dated March 8, 1971 from Planning Director Wayne Moody (Exhibit 2 to said staff report). Said items are available for public review in the Town of Tiburon Planning Division in File#OTHER2016-001; 8 Rolling Hills Road. Town Council Resolution No. (Draft)-2017 -4-42017 Page 2 of 3 4 EXHIBIT p. of PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Town Council on , 2017, by the following vote: AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: NAYS: COUNCILMEMBERS: ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: JIM FRASER, MAYOR TOWN OF TIBURON ATTEST: LEA STEFANI, TOWN CLERK Town Council Resolution No. (Draft)-2017 -4-42017 Page 3 of 3 EXHIBIT 0 P. UP � Town Council Meeting � TOWN OF TIBURON g `��� 1505 Tiburon Boulevard May 3,2017 Agenda Item: PN Tiburon, CA 94920 t' STAFF PO . To: Mayor and Members of the Town Council From: Community Development Department Subject: Zoning Ordinance Text Amendments: Consider Text Amendments to Title IV, Chapter 16 (Zoning) of the Tiburon Municipal Code Regarding the Regulation of Marijuana; File MCA2017-002; Town Council- initiated Amendments (Ordinance—First Reading) Reviewed By: ,2 ' BACKGROUND In November 2016, California voters enacted Proposition 64, the Control, Regulate and Tax Adult Use of Marijuana Act("AUMA"). On January 18, 2017, the Town Council received a presentation from Town Attorney Ben Stock regarding AUMA and the Medical Cannabis Regulation and Safety Act ("MCRSA"), adopted by the state legislature in 2015. Under these laws, a variety of medical and non-medical marijuana businesses can operate subject to local ordinances. In addition, individuals can cultivate marijuana for their own personal medical or recreational use provided they comply with local regulations. Currently, the Tiburon zoning ordinance addresses only"marijuana dispensaries"by prohibiting them in all zones. This prohibition was enacted at a time when medical marijuana facilities were the only types of commercial marijuana facilities allowed under state law. All that changed with AUMA. The state intends to begin issuing marijuana-related commercial licenses after January 1, 2018, but will not issue marijuana-related licenses in a municipality that expressly prohibits such uses. The Town Council took a preliminary step toward such a prohibition in February 2016, when it adopted a Resolution 07-2016 affirming the Town's presumptive ban of marijuana cultivation and sale based on the "permissive" nature of its zoning ordinance, whereby a use is considered prohibited if it is not expressly permitted. This resolution is attached as Exhibit 1 to this report. While the Resolution is adequate as a preliminary step, an express prohibition is recommended if the intent is to ban such uses from a community going forward. Following review of the January 18, 2017 staff report and presentation, the Town Council directed staff to begin the zoning text amendment process, and provided preliminary direction to staff on the contents of a draft ordinance that would regulate marijuana cultivation, delivery and commercial business activity within the Town of Tiburon. The staff report and the adopted minutes of the January 18, 2017 Town Council meeting are attached as Exhibits 6 and 7. Please refer to these documents for additional background and details. TOWN OF TIBURON PAGE 1 OF 3 Town Council Mecting May 3;2017 ANALYSIS Based on the preliminary direction from Town Council, staff prepared a draft ordinance (Exhibit 2) for public hearing before the Planning Commission. The draft ordinance proposed: ➢ Repealing all of the Town's current zoning ordinance provisions regarding marijuana. ➢ Adopting new marijuana-related provisions for the zoning ordinance that would do the following: • Adopt new definitions for use in regulating marijuana-related activities, including definitions for"commercial cannabis activity", "cultivation", "marijuana", "medical marijuana", "medical marijuana facility", "non-medical marijuana facility", and"establish" or"operate" a marijuana facility of any kind. • Prohibit medical marijuana facilities in all zones. • Prohibit non-medical marijuana facilities in all zones. • Restrict the cultivation of marijuana for personal use to no more than six (6) plants inside a private residence or inside a fully enclosed and secured accessory structure to that residence, subject to certain standards including property owner permission, building code compliance, and no use of gas products (propane, butane, etc.), for purposes of marijuana cultivation. No permit would be required. • Restrict delivery of marijuana such that medical marijuana and medical marijuana products only may be delivered in Tiburon only to qualified patients, or to persons with an identification card, by the primary care giver of the patient or person or by a licensed medical marijuana dispensary operating in compliance with state law. No delivery of recreational marijuana would be permitted within Tiburon and delivery of medical marijuana would be limited as set forth above. The proposed regulations would replace both the current zoning ordinance provisions and Resolution 07-2016 with respect to land use regulation of marijuana. The proposed regulations attempt to strike a balance between the values of the community and the largely recognized medical benefits of marijuana for qualified patients. State law preempts municipalities from prohibiting the cultivation of up to six marijuana plants in private residences for personal use of the residents, subject to limited local standards or conditions. Preliminary Town Council direction to staff was to entirely prohibit outdoor marijuana cultivation and to set basic"standards" for indoor cultivation in private residences, but not require any zoning permit or inspection process for the indoor cultivation of up to six plants in private residences for personal use. A redline document depicting the proposed deletions and additions to the zoning ordinance is attached as Exhibit 3. REVIEW AND RECOMMENDATION BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION The Planning Commission held a duly-noticed public hearing on April 12, 2017 to review and consider the proposed zoning text amendments. The Planning Commission adopted Resolution TOWN OF TIBURON PAGE 2 OF 3 Town.Council MCCUJIg May 3,2017 2017-03 recommending adoption of the proposed text amendments to the Town Council, as amended to add a standard requiring that any marijuana cultivated for personal use in a residence or accessory structure "shall not be detectable by sight or smell from adjacent properties or public places." This added standard has been incorporated into the draft ordinance. The Planning Commission resolution and draft minutes of its meeting are attached as Exhibits 4 and 5. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW Staff has preliminarily determined that adoption of this ordinance is statutorily exempt from the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act(CEQA) pursuant to Section 15378 of the CEQA Guidelines in that it does not constitute a project under CEQA, and if it were found to constitute a project, it would be exempt pursuant to the general rule set forth in CEQA Guidelines Section 15061(b)(3). The Planning Commission concurred with this determination. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Town Council hold first reading of the proposed ordinance after making any desired revisions to the document. The procedure would be as follows: 1. The Town Council should hold a public hearing and consider any testimony. 2. If appropriate, make any modifications, move to read by title only and carry the motion; then read the title and hold a roll call vote to pass first reading, waiving any additional readings. 3. If passed for first reading, the ordinance will be scheduled for adoption at the next regular meeting of the Council. EXHIBITS 1. Town Council Resolution No. 07-2016. 2. Draft ordinance. 3. Redline of proposed Zoning Ordinance amendments. 4. Planning Commission Resolution No. 2017-03. 5. Minutes (draft) of Planning Commission meeting of April 12, 2017. 6. Staff report from Town Council meeting of January 18, 2017. 7. Minutes from Town Council meeting of January 18, 2017. Prepared By: Scott Anderson,Director of Community Developme TOWN OF TIBURON PAGE 3 OF 3 RESOLUTION NO.07-201.6 A RESOLUTION OF THE TOWN COUNCIL OF THE TOWN OF TIBURON AFFIRMING THE PROHIBITION OF MARIJUANA CULTIVATION AND SALE WHEREAS, Pursuant to California law, Health and Safety Code sections 11.357 and 11358,it is a criminal offense to possess or cultivate marijuana unless otherwise authorized by law; and WHEREAS, in 1996, California voters approved Proposition 215, Health and Safety Code sections 11362.5 et seq., which provides that individuals may obtain and use marijuana for personal medicinal purposes when recommended by a physician; and WHEREAS, in 2003, the California Legislature passed legislation to further regulate the usage and cultivation of medical marijuana; and WHEREAS, on October 9, 2015, Governor Brown signed the Medical Marijuana Regulation Act ("MMRSA", Assembly Bills 243, 266, and Senate Bill 643), effective January 1, 2016, which establishes a comprehensive State licensing and regulatory framework for the cultivation, delivery,and sale of medical marijuana; and WHEREAS, MMRSA provides that local agencies that wish to prohibit the cultivation of marijuana within their jurisdictions must explicitly prohibit such cultivation by March 1,2016, after which time cultivation.will be allowed pursuant to State issued licenses; and WHEREAS, the Tiburon Municipal Code, Chapter 16, constitutes a permissive zoning scheme,under which those uses that do not constitute a pertiiitted or conditionally permitted use are prohibited; and WHEREAS,the cultivation.of marijuana is not a permitted use within the Town's Zoning Code and is therefore prohibited; and WHEREAS, marijuana dispensaries are specifically prohibited by the Tiburon Zoning Code in Section 16-20-030; and WHEREAS,the sale of marijuana is not a permitted use within the Town's Zoning Code and is therefore prohibited; and WHEREAS, the Town wishes to clarify and affirm the existing prohibition against the cultivation and sale of marijuana within its jurisdiction; and WHEREAS,the Town hereby affirms the prohibition against the cultivation of marijuana that exists in its Zoning Code; and WHEREAS, the Town also hereby affirms the prohibition against the sale of marijuana that exists in its Zoning Code. Page I 1 Tiburon Town Council.Resolution No. 07-2016 02/0312016 1 of EXHIBIT p. NOW,THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Town Council of the`I of Tiburon as follows: 1. The cultivation of marijuana within the Town of Tiburon is prohibited; and 2. Marijuana dispensaries and sale of marijuana within the Town of Tiburon are prohibited. PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Town Council of the Town of Tiburon on February 3, 2016 by the following vote: AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: Doyle,Fraser, Fredericks, O'Donnell NAYS: COUNCILMEMBERS: None A ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: Tollini JIM FRASr:-M. C'E'�MAYOR TOWN TIBURON ATTEST: DIANE CR-ANE- COPI,TOWN CLERK Page 2 Tiburon Town Council Resoluflon No, 07-2016 0210312016 EXHIBIT ( P. Z of 1 2 3 ORDINANCE NO. XXX N. S. 4 5 AN ORDINANCE OF THE TOWN COUNCIL OF THE TOWN OF TIBURON 6 AMENDING MUNICIPAL CODE TITLE IV, CHAPTER 16 (ZONING) 7 BY MAKING VARIOUS TEXT AMENDMENTS RELATED TO 8 MARIJUANA FACILITIES, CULTIVATION AND DELIVERIES 9 lo SECTION 1. FINDINGS. 11 12 A. On April 12, 2017, the Planning Commission, following a public hearing, recommended 13 to the Town Council adoption of various text amendments to Title IV, Chapter 16 14 (Zoning) of the Tiburon Municipal Code regarding regulation of marijuana facilities, 15 marijuana cultivation and marijuana deliveries. 16 17 B. The Town Council held a duly noticed public hearing on May 3, 2017 and has heard and 18 considered all public testimony on the proposed Ordinance. 19 20 C. The Town Council finds that all notices and procedures required by law attendant to the 21 adoption of this Ordinance have been followed. 22 23 D. The Town Council finds that the amendment actions made by this Ordinance are 24 necessary for the protection of the public health, safety, and welfare. 25 26 E. The Town Council has found that the amendments made by this Ordinance are consistent 27 with the goals and polices of the Tiburon General Plan and other adopted ordinances and 28 regulations of the Town of Tiburon, and further the intent and purposes of General Plan 29 goals and policies. 30 31 F. The Town Council finds that adoption of this ordinance is exempt from the requirements 32 of the California Environmental Quality Act(CEQA) pursuant to Section 15378 of the 33 CEQA Guidelines in that it does not constitute a"project" under CEQA, and if it were 34 found to constitute a project, it would be exempt pursuant to the general rule set forth in 35 CEQA Guidelines Section 15061(b)(3). 36 37 SECTION 2. ADOPTION OF AMENDMENTS TO MUNICIPAL CODE. 38 39 Title IV, Chapter 16 (Zoning) of the Tiburon Municipal Code is amended as follows: 40 41 (A) Section 16-20.030(A)(4) [Prohibited uses] of the Tiburon Municipal Code is 42 hereby repealed. 43 44 (B) In Section 16-100.020(M) [Definitions], the definition of"Marijuana dispensary" 45 is hereby repealed. 46 47 (C) Section 16-40.090 is hereby added to read as follows: Tiburon Town Council Ordinance No. xxx N. S. Effective--1--12017 1 EXHIBIT Al P. 1 of 48 Sec. 16-40.090 Marijuana facilities, cultivation and delivery. 49 50 A. Purpose. 51 52 The purpose and intent of this section is to prohibit medical marijuana facilities, non- 53 medical marijuana facilities, marijuana cultivation, and certain marijuana deliveries, as 54 defined below, within the town's corporate limits. It is recognized that it is a federal 55 violation under the Controlled Substances Act to possess or distribute marijuana even if 56 for medical purposes. Additionally, there is evidence of an increased incidence of crime- 57 related secondary impacts in locations associated with marijuana facilities and in 58 connection with marijuana deliveries. Such negative impacts are contrary to and 59 undermine policies that are intended to promote and maintain the public's health, safety, 60 and welfare. 61 62 B. Definitions. 63 64 As used in this section, the following terms shall have the meaning set forth below. 65 66 (1) "Commercial cannabis activity" shall have the meaning set forth in Business and 67 Professions Code section 19300.50). 68 69 (2) "Cultivation" means any activity involving the planting, growing, harvesting, 70 drying, curing, grading, or trimming of marijuana. 71 72 (3) "Establish" or "operate" a medical marijuana facility or non-medical marijuana 73 facility means and includes any of the following: 74 75 a. The opening or commencement of the operation of a medical marijuana facility 76 or non-medical marijuana facility; 77 78 b. The conversion of an existing business, facility, use, establishment, property, 79 or location to a medical marijuana facility or non-medical marijuana facility; 80 81 c. The addition of a medical marijuana facility or non-medical marijuana facility 82 to any other existing business, facility, use, establishment, property, or location. 83 84 (4) "Marijuana" shall have the meaning set forth in Health and Safety Code section 85 11018 and Business and Professions Code section 19300.5(f) and any successor 86 sections thereto. 87 88 (5) "Medical marijuana" is marijuana used for medical purposes where that medical 89 use is deemed appropriate and has been recommended by a physician who has 90 determined that the person's health would benefit from the use of marijuana in the 91 treatment of acquired immune deficiency syndrome ("AIDS"), anorexia, arthritis, 92 cancer, chronic pain, glaucoma, migraine, spasticity, or any other serious medical 93 condition for which marijuana is deemed to provide relief as defined in Health and 94 Safety Code section 11362.7(h). Tiburon Town Council Ordinance No. xxx N. S. Effective 4--/2017 2 EXHIBIT P.-LI oftai 95 96 (6) "Medical marijuana facility" means any business, facility, use, establishment, 97 property, or location, whether fixed or mobile, where medical marijuana is sold, made 98 available, delivered, and/or distributed by or to three or more people. A "medical 99 marijuana facility" includes any business, facility, use, establishment, property, or 100 location, whether fixed or mobile, where a commercial cannabis activity, as defined 101 by Business and Professions Code section 19300.50),takes place. A "medical 102 marijuana facility" does not include the following uses provided that the location of 103 such uses is otherwise regulated by this Code or applicable law and any such use 104 complies strictly with applicable law including, but not limited to, Health and Safety 105 Code sections 113 62.5, 113 62.7, et seq.: 106 a. A clinic licensed pursuant to Chapter 1 of Division 2 of the Health and Safety 107 Code; 108 b. A health care facility licensed pursuant to Chapter 2 of Division 2 of the Health 109 and Safety Code; 110 c. A residential care facility for persons with chronic life-threatening illness 111 licensed pursuant to Chapter 3.01 of Division 2 of the Health and Safety Code; 112 d. A residential care facility for the elderly licensed pursuant to Chapter 3.2 of 113 Division 2 of the Health and Safety Code; 114 e. A residential hospice; or 115 f. A home health agency licensed pursuant to Chapter 8 of Division 2 of the 116 Health and Safety Code. 117 118 (7) "Non-medical marijuana facility"means any building, facility, use, 119 establishment, property, or location where any person or entity establishes, 120 commences, engages in, conducts, or carries on, or permits another person or entity to 121 establish, commence, engage in, conduct, or carry on, any activity that requires a state 122 license or nonprofit license under Business and Professions Code sections 26000 et 123 seq., including but not limited to marijuana cultivation, marijuana distribution, 124 marijuana transportation, marijuana storage, manufacturing of marijuana products, 125 marijuana processing, the sale of any marijuana or marijuana products, and the 126 operation of a marijuana microbusiness. A"non-medical marijuana facility" includes 127 any "commercial marijuana activity" as defined by Business and Professions Code 128 section 26001(d). 129 130 C. Medical marijuana facilities, non-medical marijuana facilities, marijuana 131 cultivation, and certain marijuana deliveries prohibited. 132 133 (1) Medical marijuana facilities are prohibited in all zones in the town and shall not be 134 established or operated anywhere in the town. 135 136 (2) Non-medical marijuana facilities are prohibited in all zones in the town and shall not 137 be established or operated anywhere in the town. 138 139 (3) No person may own, establish, open, operate, conduct, or manage a medical 140 marijuana facility or non-medical marijuana facility in the town, or be the lessor of 141 property where a medical marijuana facility or non-medical marijuana facility is located. Tiburon Town Council Ordinance No. xxx N. S. Effective 4--/2017 3 BXHIB r p. 3 of 142 No person may participate as an employee, contractor, agent, volunteer, or in any manner 143 or capacity in any medical marijuana facility or non-medical marijuana facility in the 144 town. 145 146 (4) No use permit, site plan and architectural review permit, tentative map,parcel map, 147 variance, grading permit, building permit, business license, certificate of occupancy, or 148 other zoning, subdivision, encroachment or other town permit will be accepted, approved 149 or issued for the establishment or operation of a medical marijuana facility or non- 150 medical marijuana facility. Any such permit issued in error shall be null and void. 151 152 (5) No person or entity may cultivate marijuana at any location in the town, except that a 153 person may cultivate no more than six (6) living marijuana plants inside his or her private 154 residence, or inside an accessory structure to his or her private residence located upon the 155 grounds of that private residence that is fully enclosed and secured against unauthorized 156 entry, provided that all of the following standards are met: 157 a. The owner of the property provides written consent expressly allowing the 158 marijuana cultivation to occur; 159 b. The person conducting the marijuana cultivation complies with all applicable 160 Building Code requirements set forth in Chapter 13 of the Municipal Code; 161 c. There is no use of gas products (CO2, butane, propane, natural gas, etc.) on the 162 property for purposes of marijuana cultivation; and 163 d. The marijuana cultivation complies with Health and Safety Code section 164 11362.2(a)(3). 165 e. The living plants and any marijuana produced by the plants shall not be 166 detectable by sight or smell from adjacent properties or public places. 167 168 (6) No person and/or entity may deliver or transport marijuana from any fixed or mobile 169 location, either inside or outside the town, to any person in the town, except as follows: 170 a. A person may deliver or transport medical marijuana or medical marijuana 171 products to a qualified patient or person with an identification card, as those terms 172 are defined in Health and Safety Code section 113 62.7, for whom he or she is the 173 primary caregiver within the meaning of Health and Safety Code sections 11362.5 174 and 11362.7(d). 175 b. A licensed medical marijuana dispensary operating in compliance with 176 Business and Professions Code sections 19300 et seq., may deliver medical 177 marijuana or medical marijuana products to a qualified patient or person with an 178 identification card, as those terms are defined in Health and Safety Code section 179 11362.7, residing within the town. 180 181 (7) Nothing contained in this section shall be deemed to permit or authorize any use or 182 activity that is otherwise prohibited by any state or federal law. 183 184 D. Enforcement. 185 186 The town may enforce this section in any manner permitted by law. Violation of this section 187 shall be and is hereby declared to be a public nuisance and contrary to the public interest and 188 shall, at the discretion of the town, create a cause of action for injunctive relief. Tiburon Town Council Ordinance No. xxx N. S. Effective--1--12017 4 EXHIBIT IL P. of 189 SECTION 3. SEVERABILITY. 190 If any section, subsection, subdivision, paragraph, sentence, clause or phrase of this 191 Ordinance, or its application to any person or circumstance, is for any reason held to be invalid 192 or unenforceable, such invalidity or unenforceability shall not affect the validity or enforceability 193 of the remaining sections, subsections, subdivisions, paragraphs, sentences, clauses or phrases of 194 this Ordinance, or its application to any other person or circumstance. The Town Council of the 195 Town of Tiburon hereby declares that it would have adopted each section, subsection, 196 subdivision, paragraph, sentence, clause or phrase hereof, irrespective of the fact that any one or 197 more other sections, subsections, subdivisions, paragraphs, sentences, clauses or phrases hereof 198 be declared invalid or unenforceable. 199 SECTION 4. PUBLICATION AND EFFECTIVE DATE. 200 201 This ordinance shall be in full force and effect thirty (30) days after the date of adoption. 202 Pursuant to the provisions of the California Government Code, a summary of this ordinance shall 203 be prepared by the Town Attorney. At least five (5) days prior to the Town Council meeting at 204 which adoption of the ordinance is scheduled,the Town Clerk shall (1) publish the summary in a 205 newspaper of general circulation in the Town of Tiburon, and (2) post in the office of the Town 206 Clerk a certified copy of this ordinance. Within fifteen (15) days after the adoption of this 207 ordinance, the Town Clerk shall (1)publish the summary in a newspaper of general circulation in 208 the Town of Tiburon, and (2) post in the office of the Town Clerk a certified copy of the 209 ordinance along with the names of those Council members voting for and against the ordinance. 210 211 This ordinance was read and introduced at a regular meeting of the Town Council of the 212 Town of Tiburon, held on , 2017, and was adopted at a regular meeting of the 213 Town Council of the Town of Tiburon,held on , 2017, by the following 214 vote: 215 216 AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: 217 218 NAYS: COUNCILMEMBERS: 219 220 ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: 221 222 223 224 JIM FRASER, MAYOR 225 TOWN OF TIBURON 226 227 ATTEST: 228 229 230 231 LEA STEFANI, TOWN CLERK Tiburon Town Council Ordinance No. xxx N. S. Effective--1--12017 5 EXHIBIT a P.?of REDLINE VERSION TOWN OF TIBURON MUNICIPAL CODE-TALE 1V,CHAPTER 16,ZONING ORDINANCE Requirements for Approval of Development and New Land Uses 16-20.030 16-20.030 - Allowable Land Uses and Zoning Permit Requirements A. Allowable land uses. The uses of land allowed by this Zoning Ordinance in each zone are listed in Section 16-21, Table 2-1; Section 16-21.030; Section 16-22.030; Section 16- 23.030; Section 16-24.030; Section 16-25.030; Section 16-26.030; Section 16-27.030; and Section 16-28.030 together with the type of Zoning Permit required. Specific land uses are defined in Article X(Definitions). 1. Establishment of an allowable use. a. Any one or more land uses identified by the sections listed under Subsection A as being allowable within a specific zone may be established on any lot within that zone, subject to the Zoning Permit requirements of Subsection B below and compliance with all applicable requirements of this Zoning Ordinance. b. Where a single lot is proposed for development with two or more of the land uses listed in sections identified in Subsection A. above, the overall project shall be subject to the permit requirements established by Subsection B for any individual use. 2. Use not listed. a. A land use that is not listed in the sections identified in Subsection A, and is determined by the Director to not be included in Article X (Definitions) under the definition of a listed land use, is not allowed within the Town, except as otherwise provided by Subsection A.3, or Section 16-20.040 (Exemptions from Zoning Permit Requirements). b. A land use that is not listed in the sections identified in Subsection A within a particular zone is not allowed within that zone, except as otherwise provided in Subsection A.3, or Section 16-20.040 (Exemptions from Zoning Permit Requirements). 3. Similar and compatible use may be allowed. The Director may determine that a proposed use not listed in this Article is allowable as follows: a. Required findings. The Director may determine that a proposed use is similar to and compatible with a listed use and may be allowed only after first making all of the following findings: (1) The characteristics of, and activities associated with, the use are similar to one or more of the listed uses and will not involve a greater intensity than the uses listed in the applicable zone; (2) The use will be consistent with the purposes of the applicable zone; Article I1-Zones&Allowable Land Uses Effective 7-1-2016 II-4 EXHIBIT P.--L of TOWN OF TIBURON MUNICIPAL CODE—TITLE IV,CHAPTER 16,ZONING ORDINANCE Requirements for Approval of Development and New Land Uses 16-20.030 (3) The use will be consistent with the General Plan and any applicable specific plan, precise development plan or equivalent permit; (4) The use will be compatible with the other uses allowed in the zone; and (5) The use is not listed as allowable in another zone. A determination that a use qualifies as a "similar use" and the findings supporting the determination shall be in writing. b. Applicable standards and permit requirements. When the Director determines that a proposed, but unlisted, use is similar to a listed use when applying the Zoning Ordinance, the proposed use will be treated in the same manner as the listed use in determining where it is allowed, what permits are required, and what other standards and requirements of this Zoning Ordinance apply. C. Referral for determination. The Director may refer the question of whether a proposed use qualifies as a similar and compatible use directly to the Commission for a determination at a public meeting. d. Appeal. A determination of additional uses, similar or accessory to those allowed, may be may be appealed in compliance with 16.66 (Appeals). 4. Prohibited uses. a. MariljuaHa Dispensaries are prohibited in all zones. b. The sale of mar�uana is prohibited in all zones-. 0. The lt' .,t' of ohib,:ted inallizenes. Fepur-poses of this see4ion, r cceultivation of » planting, Fneans any activity involving the grewing, harvesting, dpying, -, giucding, orrriximing of B. Permit requirements. Section 16-21, Table 2-1; Section 16-21.030; Section 16-22.030; Section 16-23.030; Section 16-24.030; Section 16-25.030; Section 16-26.030; Section 16- 27.030; and Section 16-28.030 provide for land uses that are: 1. Allowed subject to compliance with all applicable provisions of this Zoning Ordinance, including Site Plan and Architectural Review, where required, and subject to first obtaining any building permit or other permit required by the Municipal Code; 2. Allowed subject to the approval of a Conditional Use Permit(Section 16-52.040); Article II-Zones&Allowable Land Uses Effective 7-1-2016 II-5 EXHIBIT P. I of TOWN OF TIBURON MUNICIPAL CODE—TITLE IV,CHAPTER 16,ZONING ORDINANCE Definitions M M. Definitions, "M." Maintenance. Repair work on a building or structure, including painting, carpentry, glazing, and the reinforcement or replacement of defective parts, including roofs, foundations, structural members, and the like, but not including an addition to or enlargement of the building, structure or living area. Mar-quana Dispensary. Any use that involves making mar-ijuana available fef any > without limitation, medieal pufpOses in aeeafdanee with Health and Safety Code Seetion 11362.5 (Pr-opositien 215). Master plan,conceptual. See"Conceptual master plan." Mean high tide line. The line establishing the mean high tide elevation. Mean high tide line is used to define the jurisdiction of the Bay Conservation and Development Commission, which includes a band of land 100 feet shoreward from the mean high tide line. See, also, "Lot line, rear." Medical services. Businesses primarily engaged in furnishing outpatient medical, mental health, surgical and other personal health services, but which are separate from hospitals. Counseling services by other than medical doctors or psychiatrists are included under "Offices." Medical services - hospitals. The provision of diagnostic services and extensive medical treatment, including surgical and other related services. These establishments have an organized medical staff, inpatient beds, and equipment and facilities to provide complete health care services. May include on-site accessory clinics and laboratories, accessory retail uses and emergency heliports. Medical services - clinics, labs. Businesses primarily engaged in furnishing outpatient medical, mental health, surgical and other personal health services, but which are separate from hospitals, including: 1. Health management organizations(HMOs); 2. Medical and dental laboratories; 3. Medical, dental and psychiatric offices; 4. Out-patient care facilities; 5. Other allied health services. Counseling services by other than medical doctors or psychiatrists are included under "Office." Mezzanine.An intermediate floor placed within any story or room. Mobile Home. A trailer, transportable in one or more sections, that is certified under the Article X-Definitions Effective 7-1-2016 X-23 EXHIBIT I P. 3 of 6 Sec. 16-40.090 Marijuana facilities, cultivation and delivery. A. Purpose. The purpose and intent of this section is to prohibit medical marijuana facilities, non- medical marijuana facilities, marijuana cultivation, and certain marijuana deliveries, as defined below, within the town's corporate limits. It is recognized that it is a federal violation under the Controlled Substances Act to possess or distribute marijuana even if for medical purposes. Additionally, there is evidence of an increased incidence of crime- related secondary impacts in locations associated with marijuana facilities and in connection with marijuana deliveries. Such negative impacts are contrary to and undermine policies that are intended to promote and maintain the public's health, safety, and welfare. B. Definitions. As used in this section the following terms shall have the meaning set forth below. (1) "Commercial cannabis activity" shall have the meaning set forth in Business and Professions Code section 19300.5(j). (2) "Cultivation" means any activity involving the planting= rowing, harvesting, drying,_curing, grading, or trimming of marijuana. (3) "Establish" or "operate" a medical marijuana facility or non-medical marijuana facility means and includes any of the following: a. The opening or commencement of the operation of a medical marijuana facility or non-medical marijuana facility; b. The conversion of an existing business, facility, use, establishment, property, or location to a medical marijuana facility or non-medical marijuana facility; c. The addition of a medical marijuana facility or non-medical marijuana facility to any other existing business, facility, use, establishment, property, or location. (4) "Marijuana" shall have the meaning set forth in Health and Safety Code section 11018 and Business and Professions Code section 19300.5( and any successor sections thereto. (5) "Medical marijuana" is marijuana used for medical purposes where that medical use is deemed appropriate and has been recommended by a physician who has determined that the person's health would benefit from the use of marijuana in the treatment of acquired immune deficiency syndrome "AIDS"), anorexia, arthritis, cancer, chronic pain glaucoma, migraine, spasticity, other serious medical condition for which marijuana is deemed to provide relief as defined in Health and Safety Code section 11362.7(h). (6) "Medical marijuana facility" means any business, facility, use, establishment, property, or location whether fixed or mobile, where medical marijuana is sold, made EXHIBIT 6 P. of _ available, delivered, and/or distributed by or to three or more people. A "medical marijuana facility" includes any business, facility, use, establishment, property, or location, whether fixed or mobile, where a commercial cannabis activity, as defined by Business and Professions Code section 19300.5(j), takes place. A "medical marijuana facility" does not include the followingprovided that the location of such uses is otherwise regulated by this Code or applicable law and any such use complies strictly with applicable law including, but not limited to, Health and Safety Code sections 11362.5, 11362.7, et seq.: a. A clinic licensed pursuant to Chapter 1 of Division 2 of the Health and Safety Code; b. A health care facility licensed pursuant to Chapter 2 of Division 2 of the Health and Safety Code, c. A residential care facility for persons with chronic life-threateningillness lness licensed pursuant to Chapter 3.01 of Division 2 of the Health and Safety Code; d. A residential care facility for the elderly licensed pursuant to Chapter 3.2 of Division 2 of the Health and Safety Code; e. A residential hospice; or f. A home health agency licensed pursuant to Chapter 8 of Division 2 of the Health and Safety (7) "Non-medical mariivana facility" means any building, facility, use, establishment,property, or location where any person or entity establishes, commences, engages in, conducts, or carries on, or permits another person or entity to establish, commence, engage in, conduct, or carry on, any activity that requires a state license or nonprofit license under Business and Professions Code sections 26000 et seq., including but not limited to marijuana cultivation, marijuana distribution, marijuana transportation, marijuana storage, manufacturing of marijuana products, marijuana processing, the sale of any marijuana or marijuana products, and the operation of a marijuana microbusiness. A"non-medical marijuana facility" includes any "commercial marijuana activity" as defined by Business and Professions Code section 26001(d). C. Medical marijuana facilities, non-medical marijuana facilities, marijuana cultivation, and certain marijuana deliveries prohibited. (1) Medical marijuana facilities are prohibited in all zones in the town and shall not be established or operated anywhere in the town. (2) Non-medical marijuana facilities are prohibited in all zones in the town and shall not be established or operated anywhere in the town. (3) No person may own, establish, open, operate, conduct, or manage a medical marijuana facility or non-medical marijuana facility in the town, or be the lessor of property where a medical marijuana facility or non-medical marijuana facility is located. No person may participate as an employee, contractor, agent, volunteer, or in any manner or capacit in medical marijuana facility or non-medical marijuana facility in the town. (4) No use permit, site plan and architectural review permit, tentative map, parcel map, variance, rg ading permit, building permit, business license, certificate of occupancy, or '3 EXHIBIT cp. : of other zoning subdivision, encroachment or other town permit will be accepted, approved or issued for the establishment or operation of a medical marijuana facility or non- medical marijuana facility. Any such permit issued in error shall be null and void. (5) No person or entity may cultivate marijuana at any location in the town, except that a person may cultivate no more than six (6) living marijuana plants inside his or her private residence or inside an accessory structure to his or her private residence located upon the grounds of that private residence that is fully enclosed and secured against unauthorized entry, provided that all of the following standards are met: a. The owner of the property provides written consent expressly allowing the marijuana cultivation to occur; b. The person conducting the marijuana cultivation complies with all applicable Building Code requirements set forth in Chapter 13 of the Municipal Code; c. There is no use of gas products (CO2, butane, propane, naturalag s, etc.) on the property for purposes of marijuana cultivation; and d. The marijuana cultivation complies with Health and Safety Code section 11362.2(a)(3). e. The living plants and any marijuana produced by the plants shall not be detectable by. "or smell from adjacent properties or public places. -.d (6) No person and/or entity may deliver or transport marijuana from any fixed or mobile location either inside or outside the town, to any person in the town, except as follows: a. A person may deliver or transport medical marijuana or medical marijuana products to a qualified patient or person with an identification card, as those terms are defined in Health and Safety Code section 11362.7, for whom he or she is the primarygiver within the meaning of Health and Safety Code sections 11362.5 and 11362.7(d). b. A licensed medical marijuana dispensary perating in compliance with Business and Professions Code sections 19300 et seq., may deliver medical marijuana or medical marijuana products to a qualified patient or person with an identification card, as those terms are defined in Health and Safety Code section 113 62.7, residing within the town. (7) Nothing contained in this section shall be deemed to permit or authorize any use or activity that is otherwise prohibited by any state or federal law. D. Enforcement. The town may enforce this section in any manner permitted by law. Violation of this section shall be and is hereby declared to be a public nuisance and contrary to the public interest and shall at the discretion of the town, create a cause of action for injunctive relief. EXHIBIT 3 P. 6 of RESOLUTION NO. 2017-03 A RESOLUTION OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF THE TOWN OF TIBURON RECOMMENDING TO THE TOWN COUNCIL ADOPTION OF TEXT AMENDMENTS TO THE TIBURON ZONING ORDINANCE RELATING TO REGULATION OF MARIJUANA WHEREAS, the Town of Tiburon has initiated text amendments to the Town's Zoning Ordinance, codified as Title IV, Chapter 16 of the Tiburon Municipal Code; and WHEREAS, a notice of the public hearing on the proposed amendments was published in a newspaper of general circulation within the Town of Tiburon on March 29, 2017 and other noticing was provided as required by law; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission did hold a duly noticed and advertised public hearing on April 12, 2017 and considered any testimony and correspondence received prior to or at the public hearing; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has considered the preliminary environmental determination that the adoption of the proposed ordinance does not constitute a project under CEQA as defined in Section 15378 of the CEQA Guidelines, and if it were found to constitute a project, it would be exempt pursuant to the general rule set forth in CEQA Guidelines Section 15061(b)(3); and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission finds that the proposed zoning text amendments are consistent with the goals, policies, and programs of the Tiburon General Plan and any applicable plans and are consistent with the requirements and objectives of the Zoning Ordinance; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission finds that the proposed amendments will not be detrimental to the public health, safety or welfare of the Town. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the Planning Commission hereby recommends that the Town Council adopt the Zoning Ordinance text amendments as set forth in the attached Exhibit"A". PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the Planning Commission of the Town of Tiburon held on April 12, 2017, by the following vote: TIBURON PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO.2017-03 04/12/2017 1 EXHIBIT p. B of (� AYES: COMMISSIONERS: NAYS: COMMISSIONERS: ABSENT: COMMISSIONERS: ERICA WILLIAMS, CHAIR Tiburon Planning Commission ATTEST: AN WATROUS, SECRETARY Attachment: Exhibit"A" TIBURON PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO.2017-03 04/12/2017 2 EXHIBIT P. I, of � EXHIBIT "A" Title IV, Chapter 16 (Zoning) of the Tiburon Municipal Code is amended as follows: (A) Section 16-20.030(A)(4) [Prohibited uses] of the Tiburon Municipal Code is hereby repealed. (B) In Section 16-100.020(M) [Definitions], the definition of"Marijuana dispensary" is hereby repealed. (C) Section 16-40.090 is hereby added to read as follows: Sec. 16-40.090 Marijuana facilities, cultivation and delivery. A. Purpose. The purpose and intent of this section is to prohibit medical marijuana facilities, non-medical marijuana facilities, marijuana cultivation, and certain marijuana deliveries, as defined below, within the town's corporate limits. It is recognized that it is a federal violation under the Controlled Substances Act to possess or distribute marijuana even if for medical purposes. Additionally,there is evidence of an increased incidence of crime-related secondary impacts in locations associated with marijuana facilities and in connection with marijuana deliveries. Such negative impacts are contrary to and undermine policies that are intended to promote and maintain the public's health, safety, and welfare. B. Definitions. As used in this section, the following terms shall have the meaning set forth below. (1) "Commercial cannabis activity" shall have the meaning set forth in Business and Professions Code section 19300.50). (2) "Cultivation" means any activity involving the planting, growing, harvesting, drying, curing, grading, or trimming of marijuana. (3) "Establish" or "operate" a medical marijuana facility or non-medical marijuana facility means and includes any of the following: a. The opening or commencement of the operation of a medical marijuana facility or non-medical marijuana facility; TIBURON PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO.2017-03 04/12/2017 3 EXHIBIT p. 3 of b. The conversion of an existing business, facility, use, establishment, property, or location to a medical marijuana facility or non-medical marijuana facility; c. The addition of a medical marijuana facility or non-medical marijuana facility to any other existing business, facility, use, establishment, property, or location. (4) "Marijuana" shall have the meaning set forth in Health and Safety Code section 11018 and Business and Professions Code section 19300.5(0 and any successor sections thereto. (5) "Medical marijuana" is marijuana used for medical purposes where that medical use is deemed appropriate and has been recommended by a physician who has determined that the person's health would benefit from the use of marijuana in the treatment of acquired immune deficiency syndrome ("AIDS"), anorexia, arthritis, cancer, chronic pain, glaucoma, migraine, spasticity, or any other serious medical condition for which marijuana is deemed to provide relief as defined in Health and Safety Code section 11362.7(h). (6) "Medical marijuana facility" means any business, facility, use, establishment, property, or location, whether fixed or mobile, where medical marijuana is sold, made available, delivered, and/or distributed by or to three or more people. A "medical marijuana facility" includes any business, facility, use, establishment, property, or location, whether fixed or mobile, where a commercial cannabis activity, as defined by Business and Professions Code section 19300.50), takes place. A "medical marijuana facility" does not include the following uses provided that the location of such uses is otherwise regulated by this Code or applicable law and any such use complies strictly with applicable law including, but not limited to, Health and Safety Code sections 113 62.5, 113 62.7, et seq.: a. A clinic licensed pursuant to Chapter 1 of Division 2 of the Health and Safety Code; b. A health care facility licensed pursuant to Chapter 2 of Division 2 of the Health and Safety Code; c. A residential care facility for persons with chronic life-threatening illness licensed pursuant to Chapter 3.01 of Division 2 of the Health and Safety Code; d. A residential care facility for the elderly licensed pursuant to Chapter 3.2 of Division 2 of the Health and Safety Code; e. A residential hospice; or f. A home health agency licensed pursuant to Chapter 8 of Division 2 of the Health and Safety Code. TIBURON PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO.2017-03 04/12/2017 4 EXHIBIT p. of (7) "Non-medical marijuana facility"means any building, facility, use, establishment, property, or location where any person or entity establishes, commences, engages in, conducts, or carries on, or permits another person or entity to establish, commence, engage in, conduct, or carry on, any activity that requires a state license or nonprofit license under Business and Professions Code sections 26000 et seq., including but not limited to marijuana cultivation, marijuana distribution, marijuana transportation, marijuana storage, manufacturing of marijuana products, marijuana processing, the sale of any marijuana or marijuana products, and the operation of a marijuana microbusiness. A"non-medical marijuana facility" includes any "commercial marijuana activity" as defined by Business and Professions Code section 26001(d). C. Medical marijuana facilities, non-medical marijuana facilities,marijuana cultivation, and certain marijuana deliveries prohibited. (1) Medical marijuana facilities are prohibited in all zones in the town and shall not be established or operated anywhere in the town. (2) Non-medical marijuana facilities are prohibited in all zones'in the town and shall not be established or operated anywhere in the town. (3) No person may own, establish, open, operate, conduct, or manage a medical marijuana facility or non-medical marijuana facility in the town, or be the lessor of property where a medical marijuana facility or non-medical marijuana facility is located. No person may participate as an employee, contractor, agent, volunteer, or in any manner or capacity in any medical marijuana facility or non- medical marijuana facility in the town. (4) No use permit, site plan and architectural review permit, tentative map, parcel map, variance, grading permit, building permit, business license, certificate of occupancy, or other zoning, subdivision, encroachment or other town permit will be accepted, approved or issued for the establishment or operation of a medical marijuana facility or non-medical marijuana facility. Any such permit issued in error shall be null and void. (5) No person or entity may cultivate marijuana at any location in the town, except that a person may cultivate no more than six (6) living marijuana plants inside his or her private residence, or inside an accessory structure to his or her private residence located upon the grounds of that private residence that is fully enclosed and secured against unauthorized entry, provided that all of the following standards are met: a. The owner of the property provides written consent expressly allowing the marijuana cultivation to occur; TIBURON PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO.2017-03 04/12/2017 5 EXIllBi,r P. _of b. The person conducting the marijuana cultivation complies with all applicable Building Code requirements set forth in Chapter 13 of the Municipal Code; c. There is no use of gas products (CO2, butane, propane, natural gas, etc.) on the property for purposes of marijuana cultivation; and d. The marijuana cultivation complies with Health and Safety Code section 11362.2(a)(3); and e. The living plants and any marijuana produced by the plants shall not be detectable by site or smell from adjacent properties or public places. (6) No person and/or entity may deliver or transport marijuana from any fixed or mobile location, either inside or outside the town, to any person in the town, except as follows: a. A person may deliver or transport medical marijuana or medical marijuana products to a qualified patient or person with an identification card, as those terms are defined in Health and Safety Code section 113 62.7, for whom he or she is the primary caregiver within the meaning of Health and Safety Code sections 11362.5 and 11362.7(d). b. A licensed medical marijuana dispensary operating in compliance with Business and Professions Code sections 19300 et seq., may deliver medical marijuana or medical marijuana products to a qualified patient or person with an identification card, as those terms are defined in Health and Safety Code section 113 62.7, residing within the town. (7) Nothing contained in this section shall be deemed to permit or authorize any use or activity that is otherwise prohibited by any state or federal law. D. Enforcement. The town may enforce this section in any manner permitted by law. Violation of this section shall be and is hereby declared to be a public nuisance and contrary to the public interest and shall, at the discretion of the town, create a cause of action for injunctive relief. TIBURON PLANNING COMMISSION RESOLUTION NO.2017-03 04/12/2017 6 ( ( EXHIBIT " `w P.6 of PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES NO. 1073 Regular Meeting April 12, 2017 Town of Tiburon Council Chambers 1505 Tiburon Boulevard, Tiburon, California CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL: Chair Williams called the meeting to order at 7:35 p.m. Present: Chair Williams, Commissioners Kulik, Weller and Welner Absent: Vice Chair Corcoran Staff Present: Planning Manager Dan Watrous ORAL COMMUNICATIONS: There were none. COMMISSION AND STAFF BRIEFING Commission and Committee Reports/Director's Report - Manager Watrous had no report. PUBLIC HEARING 1. Zoning Text Amendments: Consider Recommendation to the Town Council Regarding Text Amendments to Chapter 16 (Zoning) of the Tiburon Municipal Code Regulating Marijuana; File#MCA2017-002; Town Council-initiated Amendments (SA/DW) Planning Manager Watrous gave the staff report, stating in November 2016, California voters enacted Proposition 64, the Control, Regulate and Tax Adult Use of Marijuana Act(AVMA"). Currently, the Tiburon zoning ordinance addresses only "marijuana dispensaries"by prohibiting them in all zones and the Town has until 2018 to expressly prohibit recreational marijuana commercial activities or lose that ability with respect to state licensed facilities. The Town Council took a step toward such a prohibition in February 2016 which affirmed the Town's presumptive ban of marijuana cultivation and sale based on the "permissive"nature of its zoning ordinance, whereby a use is considered prohibited if it is not expressly permitted, and following the January 18, 2017 meeting, the Town Council directed staff to begin the zoning text amendment process and provided preliminary direction to staff on the contents of a draft ordinance that would better regulate marijuana cultivation, delivery and commercial business activity. The direction from the Town Council was for staff to prepare a draft ordinance that would: TIBURON PLANNING COMMISSION April 12,2017 MINUTES NO. 1073 DRAFT PAGE 1 EXHIBIT p._L of 6 ➢ Repeal all of the Town's current zoning ordinance provisions regarding marijuana. ➢ Adopt new marijuana-related provisions for the zoning ordinance that would do the following: • Adopt new definitions for use in regulating marijuana-related activities, including definitions for"commercial cannabis activity", "cultivation", "marijuana", "medical marijuana", "medical marijuana facility", "non-medical marijuana facility", and "establish" or"operate" a marijuana facility of any kind. • Prohibit medical marijuana facilities in all zones. • Prohibit non-medical marijuana facilities in all zones. • Restrict the cultivation of marijuana for personal use to no more than six (6) plants inside a private residence or inside a fully enclosed and secured accessory structure to that residence, subject to certain standards including property owner permission, building code compliance, and no use of gas products (propane, butane, etc.), for purposes of marijuana cultivation. No permit would be required. • Restrict delivery of marijuana such that medical marijuana and medical marijuana products only may be delivered in Tiburon only to qualified patients, or to persons with an identification card, by the primary care giver of the patient or person or by a licensed medical marijuana dispensary operating in compliance with state law. No delivery of recreational marijuana would be permitted within Tiburon and delivery of medical marijuana would be limited as set forth above. Staff recommends that the Planning Commission hold a public hearing, take any testimony from interested persons, and deliberate upon the proposed text amendments contained in the draft ordinance, considering all evidence and testimony in the record, and move to adopt the attached Resolution recommending approval of the zoning text amendments to the Town Council. Mr. Watrous introduced Nira Doherty, Attorney with Burke, Williams and Sorensen, contract law firm providing legal services to the Town, who was available to answer questions. Chair Williams asked if regulations for private cultivation and those allowed in accessory structures comes from state law. Ms. Doherty confirmed this and noted that state law provides for the maximum of six plants in the primary dwelling unit and any legal accessory structures. Commissioner Weller asked if the limits on plants were additive. Ms. Doherty stated that there is a maximum of six plants allowed on the property. Chair Williams asked about Town Council concerns over safety issues around private cultivation and if the proposed code amendments took into account all concerns around safety raised by the Council. Mr. Watrous stated that the amendment was not an exhaustive list, but instead deferred to the Building Code requirements and regulations that deal with safety issues, which he believed covered all of the Town Council's concerns. Chair Williams asked for more information about reference in the Council minutes and in the proposed language about the evidence of public safety concerns relating to prohibitions on outdoor cultivation and deliveries of recreational marijuana. Mr. Watrous stated that the Police TIBURON PLANNING COMMISSION April 12,2017 MINUTES NO. 1073 DRAFT PAGE 2 EXHIBITS P. a of 6 Chief testified that more visible activities can create a public safety concern whereas uses inside a structure would not be visible. The Chief believed that a preponderance of recreational deliveries as a regular occurrence would become more of a target, as opposed to medical marijuana which occurs less frequently. Commissioner Welner asked for the current legal status of medical marijuana delivery services and how deliveries could be regulated based upon land use powers. Ms. Doherty stated what the AUMA does is clarify any ambiguities that exist with the Medical Cannabis Regulation and Safety Act("MCRSA") and specifically allows a local entity to ban deliveries to specific locations within their jurisdiction, but may not ban or prohibit transportation through its jurisdiction. She said that as long as someone possesses a legal limit of 28.5 grams of dried marijuana and legal limits of other types of marijuana and are driving through a jurisdiction,the local agency may not ban or prohibit that activity. She stated that the delivery services are considered land uses because they are a business that would establish itself through its delivery point of contact. Therefore, on-line delivery service or a business outside of the geographic boundaries of a local agency would be considered a business subject to any police, land use and zoning powers of the local jurisdiction once a delivery is made at a location within the Town. Commissioner Welner referred to the interplay between these regulations and federal law and asked if the Town is restricting and not authorizing uses, there was no way for the Town to be perceived as violating federal law. Ms. Doherty said that the proposed ordinance was expressly compliant with state law with respect to personal cultivation and possession, but personal cultivation and possession even of the amounts the state now allows is still illegal under federal law. She therefore believed that the Town was taking the most conservative and safest approach in terms of complying with federal law. Commissioner Kulik asked what other municipalities have done regarding private cultivation and what would cross the lines of being "reasonable" in the eyes of the courts. Ms. Doherty said that there is a spectrum but most ordinances they see as being"reasonable" include limitations involving health and safety compliance issues such as wiring, fire risks, and nuisances related to smell, visibility, or access by children. She said that some cities have discussed requiring permits for possession of 28.5 grams or cultivation of six plants, which would likely be considered reasonable as long as the permit process does not go beyond the intent of state law, which is to ensure that each property can cultivate six plants. She noted that permitting processes may also offer a local jurisdiction the capabilities of recovering its costs of inspecting and enforcing, but in her personal experience, can become quite cumbersome, as people are very unwilling to obtain permits to cultivate marijuana in a residence. However, she felt that this would probably be something considered reasonable by a court. Commissioner Kulik stated that a permit can be used as an enforcement mechanism and asked if fines or penalties could be assessed. Ms. Doherty said that the Town can assess penalties for violation of the ordinance as drafted even without a permit requirement, adding that a violation of the Municipal Code would be subject to administration citation and civil penalties. Chair Williams asked if the Council deliberated at its January meeting about requiring permits and whether their decision was that this might be onerous or burdensome. Mr. Watrous clarified TIBURON PLANNING COMMISSION April 12,2017 MINUTES NO. 1073 DRAFT PAGE 3 EXHIBIT P. 3 of G� that the Council recognized the Town's limited staff and that an extra layer of permitting and code enforcement work could become a burden. Chair Williams stated that the current amendment did not include testing laboratories within its definitions and asked if that was encompassed. Mr. Watrous stated that this would fall under the definition of medical marijuana facility which talked about commercial cannabis activity. Chair Williams opened the public hearing. There were no speakers and she closed the public hearing. Commissioner Welner stated that he supported the ordinance and noted that when the Commission deliberated on this some time ago he initially had concerns about passing a regulation that applied to a law that had not been passed. He said that that issue and ambiguities with delivery services had been resolved. Commissioner Kulik prefaced his statements that his comments were not about the merits or lack thereof or larger issues surrounding marijuana, but viewed specifically through the lens of planning and land use issues discussed earlier. He said that in his time on the Commission he believed that this was probably the most dramatic change in land use enacted in the Town. Because of this, he said that he looked to the assumptions that property owners have in making purchases or tenants in renting residences and the one thing that struck him was the private cultivation of marijuana. He asked questions regarding reasonable limits the Commission could place on this to insulate residents and property owners from a land use perspective. In terms of cultivation, he said that he would support a policy of"out of sight, out of smell and out of mind" for personal cultivation in a private residence. He therefore suggested that the Commission might want to consider a permitting process for cultivation of marijuana that would limit cultivation to an interior space. He said that he was not entirely clear of what"public view"would mean in specificity. He stated that in Old Tiburon where there are incomplete streets and setbacks are minimal, as well as in attached condominiums, it is entirely plausible that residents could view marijuana plants growing, as well as smell odors which could be viewed as a nuisance. Commissioner Weller said that he was uncomfortable with the notion that a state can decide to ignore federal law, which has been done in this case. He agreed that Tiburon should adopt the most narrow ordinance possible to adopt limiting marijuana cultivation, use and delivery pursuant to state law because they are not prepared to go to battle with the State of California. Therefore, he said that the proposed amendments fooled that course reasonably well, even though he was unhappy with having to allow residential cultivation. He said that he supported certain processes relating to permitting and enforcement, but was also cognizant of the limited resources of the Town and was not prepared to impose an enforcement regime at this time. He supported the ordinance as proposed. Mr. Watrous noted that he proposed limitations under personal cultivation would not necessarily require a permitting process. He said that it is possible to add to the list of regulations, within reason, without necessarily taking the next step to requiring a permit. TIBURON PLANNING COMMISSION April 12,2017 MINUTES NO. 1073 DRAFT PAGE 4 EXHIBIT p. of Chair Williams supported the proposed amendments to accommodate existing laws and be proactive about setting forth regulations so the Town does not forfeit its ability to do so in the future. She supported prohibitions on commercial businesses, whether medical or non-medical, and outdoor cultivation and delivery. Regarding indoor cultivation, she agreed with Commissioner Weller and stated that staff considered the potential benefits in terms of fees and penalties and weighed those against the cost of staff time and energy and has come up with language that is appropriate for now. She felt that Commissioner Kulik's concerns about public nuisance issues fell under the umbrella of public health, safety and welfare concerns, and she said that she would be open to discussing whether to add a few limiting conditions under Section C.5 if it did not add to the burdens of staff. Commissioner Kulik stated for clarification of a"public space" and how it relates to looking from a window of a private residence into a window of another's private residence. Ms. Doherty stated that state law does not restrict visibility of marijuana or marijuana products from another private residence and only limits the visibility from a public space, meaning a right-of-way, a public park, or a building in which the public is invited. She said if the Commission wished to include this language, the Town could add further limitations that would ensure no visibility from adjacent private residences. Commissioner Kulik supported adding language to Section 5, Subsection E to "Regulate personal cultivation to an interior space a way where it is not visible and odors cannot emanate to a neighboring property." Commissioner Welner said he that he wanted to make sure that nothing in the revised language could be interpreted to eliminate regular nuisance procedures if there is a nuisance that involves cultivation. Ms. Doherty confirmed, stating that Subsection D in the proposed ordinance states that any violation of the ordinance shall be deemed a public nuisance and that the Town would be able to enforce the nuisance. Commissioner Weller stated if someone who grew recreational marijuana, complying with the six plant limitation, in a room with a window facing the adjacent house and using bright grow lights 24 hours a day, would be considered a nuisance under other standards. Ms. Doherty stated that it would, as all permissible uses within the Town's zoning code are still subject to nuisance violations, as the person conducting a cultivation activity pursuant to this ordinance can still be deemed guilty of a nuisance for violating any other provision of the code or the provision of this ordinance itself. Commissioner Kulik asked if someone cultivated marijuana for recreational use in a private residence in front of a window that was open and the adjacent property was inhabited by children and smells and sights were noticeable, would this fall under nuisance provisions if this was deemed to be impactful by a neighbor. Ms. Doherty stated that it would depend, as the perception of a nuisance by an individual is not necessarily a nuisance per se under the code. She said that some ordinances provide that certain glaring light levels and certain smells constitute a nuisance, but she was not sure that this was in the Tiburon Municipal Code. Mr. Watrous said that he would tend to believe that just seeing the plants might not rise to the level of a nuisance. TIBURON PLANNING COMMISSION April 12,2017 MINUTES NO. 1073 DRAFT PAGE 5 EXHIBIT P. 5' of Commissioner Weller asked if the Commission could add a condition that would be consistent with the Town's regulations and state law that cultivation of marijuana shall not be detectable by sight or smell from adjacent properties. Ms. Doherty stated that she believes that that would be in the Commission's purview of a declaration of a nuisance as well as a reasonable regulation under the AVMA. Commissioner Weller proposed a recommendation to the Town Council an amendment to add to Condition E that"personal marijuana cultivation shall not be detectable by sight or smell from adjacent properties." Chair Williams agreed and confirmed this would add to the language that comes from the law that cultivation in a private residence must be fully enclosed and secure and not visible from an adjacent property. Commissioner Welner stated that he was not strongly opposed to adding Commissioner Weller's proposed revision as a recommendation to the Town Council, but his preference was that since this is very new, the Commission could recommend adding this to the ordinance later if concerns and disputes arise. Commissioner Weller thought that if the Town did not include the revision, people would place plants in windows on the borders of property because of light. He questioned what circumstances would the Commission ever wish people to cultivate marijuana that was visible by sight or smell from adjacent properties. Commissioner Kulik said that if the Commission was going to err on one side, he would like it to be the most respectful to all property owners without violating state law. He said that personal cultivation would still be allowed but it would have to be in a respectful manner to adjacent property owners and not subject to sight or smell. Chair Williams thought that it was appropriate to include language to grow marijuana out of sight. She noted that other issues might come up in six to eight months which the Commission could address at that time as opposed to anticipating problems and addressing them now. Commissioner Kulik stated that his reasoning was that there are minimal or no setbacks in condominiums, marijuana plants can be quite large and six plants would have a strong odor. Chair Williams supported Commissioner Weller's proposed additional language. Ms. Doherty clarified the amendment would read: "The living plants and any marijuana produced by the plants shall not be detectable by site or smell from adjacent properties or public places." ACTION: M/S (Kulik/Weller) to adopt the attached Resolution recommending approval of the zoning text amendments to the Town Council, as amended. Motion carried 4-0. ACTION ITEM 1. Planning Commission Minutes—Meeting of March 22, 2017 TIBURON PLANNING COMMISSION April 12,2017 MINUTES NO. 1073 DRAFT PAGE 6 EXHIBIT S P. 6 of l M Town Councieetin TOWN OF TIBURON g January 18,2017 1505 Tiburon Boulevard . Tiburon,CA 94920 Agenda.Item: -�, STAFF POR To`. Mayor & Members of the Town Council From: Office of the Town Attorney Subject: Regulation of Marijuana: Analysis and Request for Guidance Regarding the Town's Regulation of Marijuana Subsequent to the Passage of Proposition 64 (Control, Regulate and Tax Adult Use of M juana'Act) Reviewed by' BACKGROUND This reportanalyzes the Town ofTiburon's marihuana regulations in light of the Medical Cannabis Regulation and Safety Act("MCRSA") 1, adopted by the Legislature in 2015, and Proposition 64, known as the "Control, Regulate and Tax Adult Use of Marijuana Act"(the "AUMA"), approved by voters on November 8, 2016. Under these state laws; a variety of medical and.non-medical marijuana businesses can operate subject to local ordinances. In addition, individuals can cultivate marijuana for their own personal medical or recreational uses provided they comply with local regulations. In light of the state laws and in order to_ensure that,the Town maintains local.control over all marijuana land uses to the fullest extent possible, the Town Council should consider making certain amendments to I its Municipal Code. The range of amendments is discussed in more detail below, but all involve the addition of express provisions within the zoning ordinance to clearly address the salient issues related to marijuana cultivation, delivery, and commercial business activity: ANALYSIS Legislative History On October 9; 2015, Governor Brown signed Assembly Bills 243 and 266 and Senate Bill 643. Taken together, the three bills create MCRSA; a comprehensive state regulatory and:licensing system governing the cultivation;testing, and distribution of medical marijuana, as well as physician recomrnendations for medical marijuana:`MCRSA is intended to govern all commercial cannabis activities,which'are defined as"cultivation;possession;manufacture; processing, storing, laboratory testing, labeling,transporting, distribution, or sale of medical ' Sen ,Bill 8$7, signed by Governor Brown on June 27, 201 6,ch anged the name of the Medical Marguan Regulation and Safety Act to the Medical Cannabis Regulation and Safety;Act: EXHIBIT of Jarluary 1.�,?i; i cannabis or a medical cannabis product." Under MCRSA, all medical marijuana businesses,or commercial cannabis activities, must have a state license and a local permit, license, or other authorization in order to operate lawfully within California. (Bus. & Prof. Code § 19320(a).) On November 8, 2016, California voters approved the AVMA, which allows individuals to possess, use, and cultivate recreational marijuana in certain amounts. An individual may possess up to 28.5 grams of non-concentrated marijuana or 8 grams of marijuana in a concentrated form (e.g., marijuana edibles). In addition, an individual_may cultivate up to six marijuana plants at his or her private residence provided that no more than six plants are being cultivated on the property at one time. The AUMA also establishes a regulatory system for commercial businesses that is very similar to the medical marijuana regulatory system under MCRSA. Under the AUMA, recreational marijuana cultivators, manufacturers, distributors, retailers, and testing laboratories may operate lawfully if they obtain a state license and comply with local ordinances. The League of California Cities has prepared a memorandum further explaining the AUMA and it is attached as Exhibit 1. The AUMA does not limit local police power authority over commercial marijuana business and land uses. Cities may prohibit such businesses completely if they so choose. With regard to private cultivation, however, there is one important limitation on local police power. Cities may ban private outdoor marijuana cultivation, but they may not completely ban private indoor cultivation of six marijuana plants.or less. The AUMA provides that private indoor cultivation of six or fewer marijuana plants is lawful under both state and local law and is only subject to "reasonable" local regulations. The Town of Tiburon currently prohibits medical marijuana facilities in the Municipal Code, specifically in the zoning ordinance. This prohibition includes those facilities that are commonly known as medical marijuana dispensaries, cooperatives, and collectives. (Mun. Code § 16- 20.030(a)(4).) The prohibition also includes marijuana cultivation. (Mun. Code § 16- 20.030(a)(4)(c).) The Town's regulations, however, do not address recreational marijuana businesses and certain medical marijuana businesses, such as medical marijuana manufacturers, distributors, transporters, and testing laboratories. Identified Areas for Amendment of Local Regulation The Town of Tiburon's current regulations regarding marijuana are summarized in Town Council Resolution 07-2016, attached as Exhibit 2. Town staff has identified the following areas of local regulation where the Town Council should consider making amendments to the Municipal Code in response to the current state laws. 1. The Town Council should consider amendments to address recreational marijuana businesses in express terms. Under the AUMA, such businesses do not need a local permit to operate lawfully. Unless a municipality has clear regulations regarding recreational marijuana businesses, the state could issue a license to an otherwise unwanted establishment. Furthermore, if the Town does not have express recreational marijuana business regulations, it may be more difficult for the Town to bring enforcement actions against violators. ToWNOFTIBURON! Page 2 of F.XHIRTT of Fo n C:oulw l \lec.t.ing 2017 2. The Town Council should consider amendments regarding regulation of private marijuana cultivation. While the Town's broad prohibition against all marijuana cultivation remains enforceable following the AVMA as to outdoor cultivation and most forms of indoor cultivation, it is no longer enforceable against indoor residential cultivation of six or fewer marijuana plants. The Town Council will need to determine the scope and nature of any indoor cultivation regulations. 3. The Town Council should consider adopting express zoning provisions regarding certain medical marijuana businesses that the current Town zoning regulations do not address. These businesses include marijuana manufacturers, distributors, transporters, and testing laboratories. 4. The Town Council should consider adopting express zoning regulations regarding marijuana delivery services. With these modifications, staff believes that Tiburon's marijuana regulations will be better positioned to address the unique challenges posed by marijuana land uses, which are likely to become more prevalent following the AUMA's passage. Policy Issues and Options Business and Professions Code section 26200 provides that municipalities may "completely prohibit the establishment or operation of one or more types of businesses licensed under"the AVMA. Therefore, as under MCRSA, municipalities have a wide range of regulatory options under the AVMA to deal with recreational marijuana land uses. These options include an express ban on all or some of the businesses permitted under the AVMA, or establishing a regulatory framework for commercial marijuana businesses. If the Town Council desires to control marijuana land uses, it should rely on express provisions in the Municipal Code, as opposed to reliance on "permissive zoning". In determining the scope of these express regulations,the Town Council should consider three key policy issues. Policy Issue#1 —Commercial Marijuana Activities The first task for the Town Council is to determine how it wants to address commercial marijuana businesses. With regard to such businesses, the Town Council has the following options: ➢ The Town could continue its existing prohibition against medical marijuana dispensaries and commercial cultivation sites and extend it to cover the remaining medical marijuana businesses recognized under MCRSA and the recreational marijuana businesses recognized under the AVMA. Under this option,the Town would prohibit all commercial marijuana businesses throughout the Town. ➢ The Town could allow all or some of the marijuana businesses recognized under MCRSA and/or the AVMA. If the Town Council decides to allow marijuana businesses under a regulatory scheme, it should consider the following additional questions: -Tows,"'i)t TIBC lIION Page.3 of 6 EXHIBIT 4 p. :�of I l ov n Col ncil 11���Cin l,at�.i;.�ry 1;3,_0] - What type of restrictions should apply to marijuana land uses? Locational restrictions may include the designation of certain zoning districts as permissible locations and separation requirements to avoid clustering of marijuana land uses. Some cities have limited the number of marijuana establishment permits that they are willing to issue. Operating requirements can be extensive and include the following: the use of licensed security guards, designated hours of operation, prohibition against on-site marijuana consumption, installation of adequate odor control devices and ventilation systems, and limitations on access to minors. - What type of permit or permits will be required? Some cities have imposed conditional use permit requirements for marijuana land uses, while others have required annual renewable regulatory permits. - How will the Town process marijuana land use applications? A Town could take a number of approaches for processing applications: (1) first come, first serve; (2) lottery; and/or(3) scoring system. Under a lottery system, pre-qualified applicants are selected through a random lottery to apply for the required marijuana land use permit. - If marijuana businesses are allowed, what type of local taxes should the Town impose? If approved by voters,the Town could impose a local marijuana excise tax based on a percentage of gross receipts for retail businesses or the square footage of a cultivation or manufacturing site. In addition, the Town could enact a marijuana business regulatory fee to pay for the cost of processing applications, issuing licenses, and performing the necessary inspections. Policy Issue#2—Personal Cultivation The Town Council will need to determine the extent to which it wants to prohibit or allow private marijuana cultivation. Municipal Code section 16-20.030(A)(4)(c) currently prohibits all marijuana cultivation in the Town, including private indoor and outdoor cultivation. The Town Council could choose to continue this policy regarding private marijuana cultivation. However, if the Town Council takes this approach, it should amend its existing ban to reflect the AUMA's provision that municipalities cannot completely ban private indoor cultivation of six or fewer marijuana plants. Some municipalities that have addressed private indoor marijuana cultivation have imposed local permit and safety inspection requirements. As long as such requirements do not effectively ban private indoor cultivation, courts would likely consider them to be reasonable regulations and therefore permissible under the AVMA. The issue is whether Town staff members have the time and resources to implement a private marijuana cultivation permit and inspection program. Many municipalities have decided based on local circumstances that the burden and expense of local permit and inspection requirements for private indoor cultivation outweigh the potential benefits of the added regulations. Alternatively, the Town Council could allow private indoor and/or outdoor marijuana cultivation for either medical or recreational purposes, or both. The Town Council could impose EXHIBIT P.—If of I )tt 1:11.1 arV 'Ci' U 1. various conditions on private cultivation, including security requirements, odor restrictions and control requirements, setback requirements, and restrictions against marijuana plants that are visible from neighboring properties or public rights-of-way. Policy Issue 93 —Marijuana Deliveries Finally, the Town Council may consider adding express provisions regarding marijuana deliveries. Under both MCRSA and the AVMA, a municipality retains the police power authority to prohibit marijuana deliveries that begin or end within its boundaries. However, a municipality cannot prevent a delivery service from using public roads to simply pass through its jurisdiction from a licensed dispensary to a delivery location outside of its boundaries. If the Town Council wishes to prohibit marijuana deliveries, it may consider the following language: "No person and/or entity may deliver or transport marijuana from any fixed or mobile location, either inside or outside the Town, to any person in the Town." If the Town Council desires to allow limited deliveries to qualified patients, it could add the following exception to the delivery ban: " . . . except that a person may deliver or transport medical marijuana to a qualified patient or person with an identification card, as those terms are defined in Health and Safety Code section 113 62.7, for whom he or she is the primary''caregiver within the meaning of Health and Safety Code sections 11362.5 and 11362.7(d)." The Town Council could also choose to generally allow marijuana deliveries, which under state law can only be made by licensed dispensaries or retailers. The state is working on the implementing regulations, which may further explain how medical and recreational marijuana deliveries will occur. It will be up to the Department of Consumer Affairs to determine how much marijuana can be transported during the delivery process. This is an important question because a small amount of marijuana can have a significant street value, making it an attractive criminal target. Any health and safety regulations developed by the state for marijuana deliveries will represent the minimum state-wide standards. Conclusion The explicit local control language in MCRSA and the AUMA provide local governments with broad discretion to deal with marijuana land uses. In order to ensure that the Town of Tiburon can exercise that authority fully, the Town Council should amend the Municipal Code to address the various marijuana activities that are recognized under both MCRSA and the AVMA. The purpose of this report is to seek initial guidance from the Town Council for the preparation by staff of a draft ordinance setting forth proposed amendments. The Planning Commission would then hold a public hearing on the proposed amendments and forward its recommendations to the Town Council for further public hearing and possible adoption. I-)v,!i\(:)FTIt>lRto\ p,a,e S of 6 EXHIBIT_ p. of 1..,�:;:1; C:c�ianci);�le Cin18, ;_; 2 01 11 RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Town Council: 1. Ask any questions or seek clarification from staff. 2. Accept public comment on the item. 3. Deliberate on the proposed options and provide initial direction to staff. 4. Authorize preparation of a draft ordinance and direct staff to commence with the public review process for its adoption. EXHIBITS 1. League of California Cities memo regarding the AUMA, dated December 26, 2016. 2. Town Council Resolution 07-2016, adopted February 3, 2016. Prepared by: Ben Stock,Town Attorney Scott Anderson,Director of Community Development _l_ow\i or,Tirt IRON Page 6 of 6 EXHIBIT p. 6 of 1400 K Street, Suite 400 • Sacramento, California 95814 LEAGUE. Phone: 916.658.8200 Fax: 916.658.8240 - (A-, C/ i_I F«R N i A www.cacities.org C1 T .I. E S MEMORANDUM' To: League of California Cities' City Managers Department League of California Cities' City Attorneys Department From: League Staff Date: September 26, 2016 Re: The Control, Regulate and Tax Adult Use of Marijuana Act On November 8, 2016,the Control, Regulate, and Tax Adult Use of Marijuana Act("AUMA"or "Act") will come before California voters as Proposition 64. If passed,the AUMA will legalize the nonmedical use of marijuana by persons 21 years of age and over; and the personal cultivation of up to six marijuana plants. In addition,the AUMA will create a state regulatory and licensing system governing the commercial cultivation,testing, and distribution of nonmedical marijuana, and the manufacturing of nonmedical marijuana products. The regulatory system governing these commercial marijuana activities largely mirrors the Medical Marijuana Regulation and Safety Act("MMRSA"), but there are key differences. This memorandum will provide an overview of the AUMA, highlight the ways in which the AUMA differs from the MMRSA, and identify the issues that cities will need to take action on if the AUMA passes. I. Overview of the AUMA A. Personal Nonmedical Marijuana Use The AUMA makes it legal for persons 21 years of age or older to: (1) smoke or ingest marijuana or marijuana products; (2)possess, process,transport, purchase, obtain, or give away to persons 21 years of age or older, without any compensation, 28.5 grams of marijuana, or 8 grams of concentrated marijuana, including as contained in marijuana products; and (3) possess, plant, cultivate, harvest, dry or process up to six living marijuana plants for personal use.2 The AUMA requires that marijuana in excess of 28.5 grams that is produced by plants kept pursuant to the personal cultivation provision of the Act be kept in a locked space on the grounds of a private residence that is not visible from a public place.' Although persons 21 years of age or older may use and possess nonmedical marijuana under the Act, their ability to engage in these activities is not unfettered. The AUMA prohibits the smoking ' DISCLAIMER: These materials are not offered as or intended to be legal advice.Readers should seek the advice of an attorney when confronted with legal issues.Attorneys should perform an independent evaluation of the issues raised in these materials. z Health&Saf.Code§ 11362.2(a). 'Health&Saf.Code§ 11362.2(a)(2). 1 > -a a NO. _ IP-VUTRTT L4- , 77- n I of marijuana: (1) in any public place, except where a local jurisdiction has authorized use on the premises of a retailer or microbusiness in accordance with Business and Professions Code section 26200; (2) where smoking tobacco is prohibited; (3) within 1,000 feet of a school,day care center, or youth center while children are present; and (3) while driving, or riding in the passenger seat of, any vehicle used for transportation.4 Moreover, individuals cannot possess marijuana on school grounds, in day care centers, or in youth centers while children are present, or possess an open container of marijuana or marijuana products while driving, operating,or riding in any vehicle used for transportation.5 The AUMA further provides that cities may prohibit possession and smoking in buildings owned, leased, or occupied by the city, and that employers, including cities, may maintain a drug and alcohol free workplace by prohibiting the use, consumption, possession, transfer, transportation, sale, display or growth of marijuana in the workplace.6 1. Personal Cultivation The AUMA provides that local governments can reasonably regulate, but cannot ban,personal indoor cultivation of up to six living marijuana plants within the person's private residence.' The Act defines private residence as "a house, an apartment unit, a mobile home, or other similar dwelling unit."8 This includes cultivation in a greenhouse on the same property as the residence that is not physically part of the home, as long as it is fully enclosed, secure, and not visible from a public space.9 The AUMA completely protects the ability of local governments to regulate, and to ban,personal outdoor cultivation operations.t0 However, it purports to repeal any ordinance that bans outdoor cultivation upon the California Attornel General's determination that nonmedical use of marijuana is lawful under federal law.I B. Commercial Nonmedical Marijuana Activity Under the AVMA, California will have a comprehensive state regulatory system for nonmedical marijuana that governs the industry from"seed to sale."The Bureau of Marijuana Control, currently the Bureau of Medical Cannabis Regulation,which is within the Department of Consumer Affairs, will have primary responsibility for administering and enforcing the AUMA.12 The AUMA divides state licensing and enforcement responsibilities among three agencies: (1) the Department of Consumer Affairs,which will issue licenses for marijuana the transportation, 4 Health&Saf.Code§§ 11362.3; 11362.4. 'Health&Saf.Code§§ 11362.3(3), 11362.3(4). 6 Health&Saf.Code§ 11362.45 (f)-(g). 'Health&Saf.Code§§ 11362.1(a)(3), 11362.2. 8 Health&Saf.Code§ 11362.2(5). 9 Health&Saf.Code§ 11362.2(a)(2). 10 Health&Saf.Code§ 11362.2(b)(3). 11 Health&Saf.Code§ 11362.2(b)(4). 12 Bus.&Prof.Code§26010. 2 EXHIBIT p. of storage, distribution, and sale of marijuana;13 (2)the Department of Food and Agriculture will issue marijuana cultivation licenses, which will administer the provisions of the AUMA related to the cultivation of marijuana;14 and (3)the Department of Public Health, which will issue licenses for marijuana manufacturers and testing laboratories.15 Each of these state licensing authorities is responsible for creating regulations governing their respective areas of responsibility, and must begin issuing licenses by January 1, 2018.16 A state marijuana license will be valid for one year.17 A separate state license is required for each commercial marijuana business location.18 With the exception of testing facilities, any person or entity licensed under the AUMA may apply for and be issued more than one type of state license.19 1. Local Control All nonmedical marijuana-businesses must have a state license.20 A state license cannot issue to an applicant whose operations would violate the provisions of any local ordinance or regulation.2 1 However a state applicant need not provide documentation that the applicant has a local license or permit. The AUMA does not limit the authority of a local jurisdiction to adopt and enforce local ordinances regulating or completely prohibiting state-licensed marijuana businesses.22 Local jurisdictions may establish"standards, requirements, and regulations regarding health and safety, environmental protection, testing, security, food safety, and worker protections that exceed state standards."23 2. Local Enforcement Like the MMRSA; the AUMA establishes a dual enforcement scheme for commercial marijuana activities that violate either state or local laws. The state licensing authorities will enforce state statutes and regulations. State authorities can suspend or revoke state licenses,24 pursue civil penalties against violating businesses in an amount equal to three times the applicable licensing fee per violation,25 or may prosecute violators criminally.26 Local authorities will be responsible 13 Bus.&Prof.Code§26012(a)(1). 14 Bus.&Prof.Code§26012(a)(2). 15 Bus.&Prof.Code§26012(3). 16 Bus.&Prof.Code§§26012(c),26013 (a). 17 Bus.&Prof.Code§26050(c). 18 Bus.&Prof.Code§26055(c). 19 Bus.&Prof.Code §26053. 20 Bus.&Prof.Code§26038.) 21 Bus.&Prof.Code§26055(e). 22 Bus.&Prof.Code§26200(a).But see,Bus.&Prof.Code§§ 19340(f),26080(b),26090(c)[prohibiting cities from preventing the use of public roads to lawfully transport or deliver nonmedical marijuana]. 23 Bus.&Prof.Code§26201. 24 Bus.&Prof.Code§2603. 25 Bus.&Prof.Code§26038(a) 26 Bus.&Prof.Code§26038(c). 3 EXHIBIT P. of 14- for enforcing local ordinances and regulations.27 For state-licensed facilities operating within a city, a city may have authority to enforce state law and regulations "if delegated the power to do so by the [B]ureau [of Marijuana Control] or a licensing authority."28 II. Key Differences Between the AUMA and MMRSA A. Licensing The MMRSA established dual licensing of medical marijuana businesses, requiring both local approval and a state license in order for a business to operate legally.29 Specifically, the MMRSA requires applicants to provide the relevant state licensing entity with documentation proving their compliance with local ordinances and regulations.30 The AUMA does not require an applicant to provide evidence of local permission prior to being issued a state license.31 Instead, the AUMA prohibits state licensing entities from approving licenses for activities that would violate local ordinances.32 Thus, state licensing officials bear the onus of evaluating local regulatory compliance. Under this system,the AUMA allows a nonmedical marijuana business licensed by the state to operate within city limits unless the city's municipal code prohibits the use. Cities that wish to regulate or prohibit'nonmedical marijuana'businesses will need to do so before the State begins issuing licenses, either by enacting a nonmedical marijuana ordinance/regulation or by amending an existing medical marijuana ordinance/regulation to include nonmedical marijuana within its scope. B. License Revocation Under the MMRSA, revocation of a local license or permit unilaterally terminates the ability of the medical marijuana business to operate in the jurisdiction issuing the permit, until such time as the local permitting entity reinstates it.33 Under the AUMA, if a local jurisdiction revokes a local license,permit, or authorization for a licensee to engage in commercial marijuana activity within the local jurisdiction,the Bureau of Marijuana Control must initiate proceedings to determine whether the state license issued should be suspended or revoked within ten days of being notified by the local jurisdiction of the local revocation.34 Note, however,that, even if the state license is not suspended or revoked immediately, the business cannot operate within the local jurisdiction once local revocation occurs. 27 Bus.&Prof.Code§26200(b). 2'Bus.&Prof.Code§23202(a). 29 Bus.&Prof.Code§ 19320(b). 30 Bus.&Prof.Code§ 19322(a). 3`Bus.&Prof.Code§26056. 32 Bus.&Prof.Code §26055(e). 33 Bus.&Prof.Code§ 19320(d). 34 Bus.&Prof.Code§26200(c). 4 EXHIBIT C. Personal, Indoor Cultivation Under the MMRSA, local governments possess the power to regulate and completely ban personal, indoor cultivation.35 Under the AUMA local governments can "reasonably regulate" indoor cultivation of up to six marijuana plants for personal use, but cannot ban it.36 D. Personal Outdoor Cultivation Under the MMRSA local governments can prohibit all outdoor cultivation. Under the AUMA local governments can prohibit all outdoor cultivation, until such time as the Attorney General determines that the use of nonmedical marijuana is lawful in the State of California under federal law.37 Upon such determination, the AUMA purports to repeal all local bans on outdoor cultivation.38 E. Amendment Any portion of the MMRSA can be amended at any time, if there is sufficient political support within the Legislature for making substantive changes to the regulatory structure. Under some circumstances, an amendment to the MMRSA by the Legislature might arguably violate The Compassionate Use Act of 1996 (adopted by the voters as Proposition 215), which decriminalized the personal use of medical marijuana.39 Under the AVMA,the Legislature may amend Sections 5 (relating to the use of medical marijuana for medical purposes) and 6 (relating to state licensing) and the provisions relating to penalties by majority vote. The Legislature may amend any other provision of the Act by a 2/3 vote. Any amendment must further the purposes and intent of the AUMA. The purpose and intent of the Act include allowing local governments to ban nonmedical marijuana businesses. F. Taxation The AUMA imposes new state taxes on medical and nonmedical marijuana in the following manner: • Effective January 1, 2018, the AUMA imposes an excise tax at the rate of 15%of gross retail sales receipts.40 o This tax will be in addition to existing state and local sales tax.41 Given that state and local sales taxes can range from 7-10%,the combined excise tax+sales tax at the retail level could approach 25%; "Health&Saf.Code§ 11362.777(g);Maral v. City of Live Oak(2013)221 Cal.App.4th 975,984;Kirby v. County of Fresno(2015)242 Cal.App.4th 940,969-970. 36 Bus.&Prof.Code§ 11362.2(b)(1). 37 Bus.&Prof.Code§ 11362.2(b)(4). 38 Bus.&Prof.Code§ 11362.2(b)(4). 39 Health&Saf.Code§ 11362.5. 40 Rev.&Tax Code§34011(a). 5 EXHIBIT n_ E h of 6-4- • Effective January 1, 2018, the AUMA imposes a separate cultivation tax on all harvested marijuana as follows:42 o $9.25 per dry-weight ounce on all marijuana flowers; o $2.75 per dry-weight ounce on all marijuana leaves; • The AUMA prohibits imposition of state and local sales taxes on medical marijuana.43 • The AUMA exempts marijuana cultivated for personal use from taxation.44 The AUMA does not pre-empt local taxation.45 However,the AUMA's estimated cumulative tax rate of nearly 35% on the purchase of nonmedical marijuana has potentially troubling implications for local governments. A high state tax rate by itself may depress sales and stimulate the black market. Any local taxation of marijuana should be governed by an awareness that a high retail sales tax rate, imposed on an industry that, until recently, has not been regulated at all, might stimulate black market activity and compromise the anticipated yield of revenue. In order to avoid such a result, cities might consider imposing an excise tax on discrete commercial nonmedical marijuana activities rather than on retail sales.New taxes on marijuana require compliance with Proposition 218. 1. Allocation of State Tax Revenues After repaying certain state agencies for marijuana regulatory costs not covered by license fees,, and making certain grants to universities for research and development and the Governor's Office of Business and Economic Development,the AUMA distributes the remaining tax revenue as follows: • 60%for youth programs, substance abuse education, prevention and treatment; • 20%for environmental cleanup and remediation; and 20%for state and local programs that reduce DUI and grant programs designed to reduce negative health impacts resulting from marijuana legalization G. Deliveries Under the MMRSA, medical marijuana deliveries can only be made from a state-licensed dispensary in a city, county, or city and county that does not explicitly prohibit it by local ordinance.46 A delivery person must carry a copy of the dispensary's state-issued license,a government ID, and a copy of the delivery request.47 The patient or caregiver requesting the delivery must also maintain a copy of the delivery request.48 Dispensaries and delivery People who comply with MMRSA are immune from prosecution for marijuana transportation. 9 4' Rev.&Tax Code§34011(d). 42 Rev.&Tax Code§ 34012. 43 Rev.&Tax Code§34011(g). 44 Rev.&Tax Code§ 340120). 4s Rev.&Tax Code § 34021. 46 Bus.&Prof.Code§ 19340(a). 4'Bus.&Prof.Code§§ 19340(b)(2), 19340(d). 48 Bus.&Prof.Code§ 19340(e). 49 Bus.&Prof.Code§ 19317(f). 6 EXHIBIT p.j�_of Under the AVMA, deliveries can be made by a state-licensed retailer, microbusiness, or nonprofit unless they are prohibited by local ordinance.50 Although the AUMA does require a customer requesting delivery to maintain a copy of the delivery request, there is no express requirement that delivery people carry or maintain any records.51 Moreover, unlike the MMRSA, the AUMA does not require that deliveries come from a dispensary. Instead, it states that "Deliveries, as defined in this division, may only be made by a licensed retailer or microbusiness, or a licensed nonprofit under Section 26070.5."12 Thus,there is at least some question regarding whether deliveries may be made from non-retail locations by retail employees. Under both the MMRSA and the AUMA, local jurisdictions can ban or regulate deliveries within their borders.53 However, local jurisdictions cannot prevent a delivery service from using public roads to simply pass through its jurisdiction from a licensed dispensary to a delivery location outside of its boundaries.54 III. Local Regulatory Options 55 The AUMA preserves the authority of a city to adopt business regulations and land use regulations for nonmedical marijuana activities.56 A. Personal Marijuana Cultivation Under the AUMA local governments can regulate or ban all personal, outdoor cultivation,until such time as the Attorney General determines that the use of nonmedical marijuana is lawful in the State of California under federal law. In addition, local governments can "reasonably regulate," but cannot ban,personal, indoor cultivation.Nothing in the AUMA requires a city to enact an ordinance or regulation by a certain date. However, assuming that the AUMA passes, if a city does not have a ban or regulatory scheme governing personal, outdoor cultivation or a regulatory scheme governing personal, indoor cultivation in place before November 9, 2016, a person may legally engage in personal cultivation of up to six marijuana plants at his or her private residence. 50 Bus.&Prof.Code §26090(a). 51 Bus.&Prof.Code§26090(b). 52 Bus.&Prof.Code§26090(a). 53 Bus.&Prof.Code§§ 19340(a), 19316(a),26200. 54 Bus.&Prof.Code§§ 19340(f),26080(b),26090(c). 55 For a thorough discussion of the various marijuana regulatory options that a city may consider,see McEwen, Medical Maryuana-Revisited After New State Laws(Spring 2016)<http://www.cacities.org/Resources- Documents/Member-Engagement/Professional-Departments/C ity-Attorneys/Library/2016/Spring-2016/5-2.016- Spring-Medical-Marijuana-%E2%80%93-Revisited-After>.In addition,sample ordinances may be found on the League's website,at:http://www.cacities.org/Policy-Advocacy/Hot-Issues/Medical-Marijuana. But note:the regulatory schemes discussed in the McEwen paper and posted on the League's website pertain to medical marijuana businesses under the MMRSA and may need to be modified to comply with the requirements of the AUMA. 56 Health&Saf.Code§ 11362.2;Bus.&Prof.Code§§26201,26200(a). 7 EXHIBIT p. of B. Nonmedical Marijuana Businesses The AUMA recognizes a range of businesses, including dispensaries, cultivators, manufacturers, distributors, transporters, and testing laboratories. Cities may expressly ban, adopt business regulations, or adopt land use regulations pertaining to any or all of these businesses. Again, the AUMA does not require a city to enact a regulatory scheme or ban by a certain date. However, assuming that the AUMA passes in November, if a city wishes to regulate or ban marijuana businesses before marijuana businesses may legally operate within the city, the .regulations or ban will need to take effect before the state begins issuing nonmedical marijuana business licenses. The League anticipates that cities have until January 1, 2018 to enact bans or regulations relating to nonmedical marijuana businesses, because: (1) nonmedical marijuana businesses cannot operate in any city without a state license;57 (2)the state licensing agencies in charge of implementing the AUMA have stated that they anticipate that they will not begin issuing licenses under the MMRSA until January 2018, and it is unlikely that said agencies will be able to begin issuing licenses under the AUMA before they begin issuing licenses under the MMRSA; and(3)the AUMA does not require state agencies to issue licenses until January 1, 2018.58 It is not the League's position that state licensing agencies cannot issue licenses before January 1, 2018,just that it is unlikely that they will do so. C. Caution Against Use of Permissive Zoning Under a permissive zoning code, any use not enumerated in the code is presumptively prohibited, unless an authorized city official finds that the proposed use is substantially the same in character and intensity as those land uses listed in the code.59 Although the MMRSA upheld a city's authority to rely on permissive zoning to prohibit medical marijuana land uses, it is unlikely that cities will succeed in arguing that nonmedical marijuana land uses are prohibited by permissive zoning under the AUMA. This is so because: (1)the statutory language in the AUMA regarding local control seems to anticipate that a city will adopt an ordinance explicitly prohibiting and/or regulating nonmedical marijuana businesses (rather than relying on the silence of its Code to argue for a prohibited use);60 (2)the AUMA does not contain the same protective language as the "Bus.&Prof.Code§26038. 58 Bus.&Prof.Code§26012(c). 59 See City of Corona v. Naulls(2008) 166 Cal.App.4th 418,433-436.See also County of Los Angeles v. Hill(2011) 192 Cal.App.4th 861,871 [holding that"medical marijuana dispensaries and pharmacies are not`similarly situated' for public health and safety purposes"]; City of Monterey v. Carrnshimba(2013)215 Cal.App.4th 1068, 1091 [holding that a medical marijuana dispensary was not substantially similar to the listed commercial use classifications for personal services,retail sales,pharmacies and medical supplies]; County of Tulare v. Nunes (2013)215 Cal.App.4th 1188, 1205 [holding that a medical marijuana collective did not qualify as an"agricultural" land use because"marijuana is a controlled substance and is not treated as a mere crop or horticultural product under the law"]. 60 Bus.&Prof Code§26200 ["Nothing in this division shall be interpreted to supersede or limit the authority of a local jurisdiction to adopt and enforce local ordinances to regulate businesses licensed under this division,including, but not limited to,local zoning and land use requirements,business license requirements,and requirements related 8 EXHIBIT _ p. of 1�{ MMRSA with respect to permissive zoning;61 and (3) the AVMA explicitly designates nonmedical marijuana as an agricultural product—thus if a city's permissive zoning code authorizes agricultural uses,the city may be precluded from arguing that marijuana is prohibited.62 Therefore, cities that wish to ban all or some nonmedical marijuana activities should adopt express prohibitions, even if they operate under a permissive zoning code. IV. What actions need to be taken? At this time city officials should: (1) review the city's municipal code; (2) consider whether they wish to regulate the personal cultivation of nonmedical marijuana indoors; (3) consider whether they wish to regulate or ban the personal cultivation of nonmedical marijuana outdoors; (4) consider whether they wish to enact business regulations of nonmedical marijuana businesses; (5) consider whether they wish to enact land use regulations of nonmedical marijuana businesses; (6) consider whether they wish to enact local taxes on marijuana; and (7) comply with Proposition 218 if they decide to enact local taxes on marijuana. Cities should prioritize considering or enacting ordinances regulating personal nonmedical marijuana cultivation, because it will be legal under state law on November 9, 2016 if the AUMA passes, whereas nonmedical marijuana businesses will not be able to operate lawfully until the state licensing system becomes operational (likely in late 2017). Although cultivation for personal use will be legal as of November 9, 2016 if the AUMA is approved by voters, local governments will not lose any regulatory authority if they do not have an ordinance in place addressing personal cultivation before the election. Locals will retain the ability to regulate personal cultivation and to enact related ordinances at any time after the election. The only change the AUMA will make in this area is to prohibit local bans of indoor cultivation for personal use. No ordinance enacted prior to the election can prevent this change in the law. to reducing exposure to second hand smoke,or to completely prohibit the establishment or operation of one or more types of businesses licensed under this division within the local jurisdiction."](emphasis added). 61 Compare Health&Saf.Code§ 11362.777(b)(3)[a"person or entity shall not submit an application for a state license . . .if the proposed cultivation of marijuana will violate the provisions of any local ordinance or regulation, or if medical marijuana is prohibited by the city,county,or city and county in which the cultivation is proposed to occur,either expressly or otherwise under principles of permissive zoning"] with Bus.&Prof Code§26205(e) ["Licensing authorities shall not approve an application for a state license under this division if approval of the state license will violate the provisions of any local ordinance or regulation adopted in accordance with Section 26200.."]. 62 Bus.&Prof.Code§26067(a). 9 EXHIBIT ,', P. Kof ["4 RESOLUTION NO. 07 A RESOLUTION Of THE TOWN COUNCIL OF THE TOWN OF TWURON AFVIJRW-NG TI E PROHIT3ITMN:0-F MXRMANA,C,"VATION AND SALE WHEREAS,Pursuant to California j6w, lje41th and Safety Code sections 11.357 atid 1135$,.it is a c h m.inal offense to possess or cu Ifil v4te marijuana a un1ess otherwise authorized by law; and WHEREAS, in 1996, California voters approved Proposition 2 15-1z.Health and$ft r O)R that.i dLuals may. obtain and:use jai-Ijklim a fQ Code sections-1 I'M.2.5 et seq, personal medicinal purpo�e.s when tia.comi w"'imid-fl,4 by, 0 phy8ioiap_', and passed legislation ur 11 er r6 414tofile usage anal etil ation of inedtc j! WHBREASxen'October-9-2015 Governor Bt.,Owp-giarie,,d.the Medical Maiij � ,� k(gjo-te,till 643), effectiveJamary 1, Regulation A0t'("MM,.RSAX"', Assembly ffil%'24-3., 26-6mdS .20 1 whi0and teoilotory. framework. for the - which. comp Mate cultivatiojj, delivery,and sale OfTA'adl 4WUu. ana; and. WHEREAS::, agencies that wish topr' .theQ-:-u'lf'VRti0u Of pro such cultivation by Marc111,2:01:6,, marijuana Within t bIIIlPri : SdWOO$ ftWt-ONIP - it't issued licenses; and after which bine cultivationvvfftbc,40*WP0t.WW' 10---tate Ce WIIEREAS,.the jlb�otojj Municipal.Code,Chapter 1,6i constitutes a.permissive zoning scheme, uzrde which those-uses that'd4fa constitute P003WOd or condi OnaHy permitted use are prohibited; and, WH:EREAS:,the cults of on of ing*09-isnot A poinji-tto.d.uge Within the.Tom's Zoning Code and is therefore prohi Md WHIER�S,'jjja.f.iju,4Va d.ispensa es;are specifically prohibited the T jburon Zoning by t ., Code inSeo 16-10-03`0; and ed use within the Town's Zoniag Code- WHMA-S,the. 's marijuana �w�'aperrnjtt and is thmfbte Prohi.bited; Aftd WHEREAS,jh-,cTbwo W'�hes;togand affithe exis ng pr6libition against the l ct4tivafroji.and sale of marijuana within its Judadiaiou- and W14UREAS, the Town hereby affitins the prohibition against the cultivation of marijuana that exists it:its.ZQuing.Code;.and. WHEREAS,the Town-also hereliy ;i s the vrol01twt agamnsf.the sale of marijuana that exists ill-its Zoning Code. EXHIBIT-6-- p, (6 ofj: Page Tiburoy.iTown Cowicil.Resoh-dim No. 07-201-6 0710312016 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Town Council of the Town of Tiburon as follows: L The cultivation of inarijuatia n the Tb'"'iff Tiburon,isjprohi:bited; and 2. Marijuana dispensaries and sale::of niar.jju a w1ithin the:Tow� of T. uto, are prohi .t, d an n e bi e PASSED AND ADOPTED at axegular meth ig-of the Town Council of the Town of Tiburon on February 3, 2016 by the following vote: AYES: COUNCILMEMMS: Doyle,,Fi-asej-,,Rod Cdckg.i 0"Oormell NAYS: COUNC ILMEMBERS: None A I .AASZNT: COUNCILMMAMS,; lb A.M. 0,R OOZE 4AY TOWN 0: V� T.1 x BURON ATTESY: DIANE CTZAN�.� CQPL.T G- IAIN CLERK Page 2 Tibumn Ton Council Resolution Afro. 07-20.)6 021031-2016 Torun EXHIBIT p. (-4-of 2017 Storm Drain Rehabilitation Project (Director of Public Works Barnes) Councilmember Tollini asked how many storm drain segments had been inspected and cleaned. Director of Public Works Barnes replied that 25 were completed. 8. Tiburon Tourism Business Improvement District—Accept report and adopt resolution of intention to levy assessments (Town Manager Chanis) MOTION: To adopt Consent Calendar Items 1-8, as amended. Moved: O'Donnell, Doyle Vote: AYES: Unanimous ACTION ITEMS 1. Regulation of Marijuana — Receive staff report and provide guidance on regulating marijuana subsequent to the passage of Proposition 64 (Town Attorney Stock) Town Attorney Stock gave the staff report.He said Proposition 64(Control,Regulate and Tax Adult Use of Marijuana Act)passed in the November 2016 election overwhelmingly in California.He said many municipalities are now enacting ordinances to deal with the legal use of recreational marijuana. Stock said Proposition 64 allows the possession of concentrated and non-concentrated marijuana, and allows an individual (21+)to cultivate up to six marijuana plants inside a private residence for personal use. Proposition 64 also allows for the commercial sale of recreational marijuana if operators obtain a state license and comply with local ordinances.He said the State of California will likely begin issuing these licenses for commercial sale of recreational marijuana no earlier than January 2018. Stock stated Staff was requesting guidance before drafting an ordinance for first review by the Planning Commission. He said the Town should decide to either ban recreational marijuana businesses entirely or develop a system to deal with them as they arise. He stated that the Town can prohibit recreational marijuana businesses, but the ban must be expressly codified prior to 2018. He requested Council consider the following matters for discussion: 1) Commercial Businesses—does Council desire to allow recreational marijuana businesses to operate in Tiburon? The Town currently prohibits medical marijuana commercial operations. Council may choose to make a distinction with recreational marijuana.This will pose the question of how to control the types of outfits and facilities that may arise. Or Council may choose to impose an express ban on recreational marijuana commercial operations. Town Council Minutes #02-2017 January 18, 2017 Page 3 2) Cultivation—the new law allows individuals to grow up to six marijuana plants inside a private residence. The Town cannot impose a ban on interior cultivation, but can enact bans or regulations relating to health and safety concerns relating to the cultivation of those plants. Some cities have enacted a regulatory regime, requiring permits and inspections. Cities are, however, entitled to ban outdoor cultivation of plants. 3) Delivery — the new law takes away local police power to ban marijuana delivery movement through the public streets of a municipality, but it does retain discretion to regulate or prohibit delivery stops in that municipality's jurisdiction. The Town of Tiburon does not currently ban medical marijuana deliveries,but does have the authority to ban recreational marijuana deliveries. Stock said that after Council provides feedback, Staff will take a draft ordinance to the Planning Commission before bringing the ordinance back to Council for approval and adoption at a later date. He concluded his report an invited questions from the Council. Councilmember Fredericks asked what the Town must do,at minimum,to conform to the new state law.Could they simply amend the current ordinance to accommodate any changes?Would they have to change the medical marijuana delivery laws already in place?Town Attorney Stock said the Town would not have to change the medical marijuana ordinance already in place, but Council should decide if recreational marijuana would also be encompassed within those restrictions. He further clarified that if there were no ordinance in place,recreational marijuana delivery would be legal in Tiburon. If the Town wants to prohibit recreational marijuana commercial establishments,the Town would need to "enact a prohibition." Councilmember Tollini clarified that at a minimum,Tiburon must allow the interior cultivation of six marijuana plants. Fredericks asked how feasible it would be to distinguish a medical marijuana delivery versus a recreational marijuana delivery. Stock commented that the State will have an enforcement arm to ensure deliveries comply with local restrictions. Fredericks confirmed that Council did not need to address the general issue of marijuana possession. She said Council only needed to address recreational marijuana delivery, the enforcement and regulation of interior cultivation,and outdoor cultivation. Stock confirmed,and further clarified that the cultivation of six interior plants will be legal under state law,but the regulation of that cultivation is up for discussion. He also added that Council should decide whether or not to allow recreational marijuana commercial activities. Vice Mayor O'Donnell commented that the Town already has a prohibition on the commercial sale of medical marijuana,and suggested simply amending the ordinance to add"recreational marijuana" verbiage. Stock confirmed that could be worked into the existing ordinance. Mayor Fraser asked for a clarification as to the process of adopting this ordinance. Stock said the Town Council Minutes #02-2017 January 18, 2017 Page 4 EXHIBIT P. of Planning Commission will review the draft ordinance first as a zoning amendment,will hold a public hearing, and then make a recommendation to the Town Council. Fraser asked if there were any"best practices"from other municipalities. Stock said there were many different ordinances to consider, but the biggest and most difficult issue to address is the enforcement of a permit regime.He said interior cultivation could be subject to some criteria,but the enforcement of a permit would be difficult. Fraser asked if the Town would lose the option to amend or adjust their decision. Stock said the Town would not lose the ability to change their decision in regards to cultivation,but would lose its ability to expressly ban recreational marijuana commercial activities in 2018. Mayor Fraser opened the floor for public comment. There was none. Councilmember Fredericks said Council should make the minimal changes necessary to the current ordinance to comply with new state laws, and said Council should carefully review options to regulate with fair balance. She commented that many of those conducting research on the medical uses of marijuana now have an interest in the industry,and expressed concern that businesses may not be as forthcoming as they should be about the medical impacts of the products they are distributing. She said there is addiction potential in the recreational use of marijuana, but said she hoped that those who have legitimate medical uses for marijuana have adequate access. Vice Mayor O'Donnell said the Town should amend the existing ordinance to include prohibition of commercial sale of recreational marijuana. He said the Town should not be involved in policing compliance with the allowable cultivation of six plants, but there are safety concerns with interior cultivation: makeshift apparatuses, growing lamps, and faulty wiring in homes. He added that the growers might even be renting the property. He said these considerations, as well as the"up to six plants" State regulation, should be included in the final ordinance, due to safety concerns. O'Donnell asked about the Town's current policy on medical marijuana delivery. Stock replied that medical marijuana delivery is legal in Tiburon, and further clarified that both medical and recreational marijuana deliveries require a state license. O'Donnell asked if there was a maximum amount of marijuana a delivery-person can carry. Stock said the State will create a maximum, but municipalities could limit how much is delivered to a residence at a time. He said cities have done this with the intention of reducing potential crime. O'Donnell commented that delivery restrictions may be difficult to enforce. Councilmember Doyle agreed that the amended ordinance should accommodate the new laws. He agreed that delivery enforcement would be difficult,but questioned allowing recreational marijuana delivery while prohibiting commercial activity. Stock confirmed that Doyle was suggesting continuing to allow medical marijuana delivery, but prohibiting recreational marijuana delivery. Doyle acknowledged that it would be difficult to enforce that regulation, and asked Chief of Police Cronin for his opinion on the matter. Town Council Minutes #02-2017 January 18, 2017 Page 5 EXHIBIT D. � of L� Chief Cronin said the maximum allowable amount of plants grown inside a residence is manageable —but any more would pose fire safety risk. He added that if there were limitations to the allowable amount to carry and deliver,the likelihood of crime and related crime would be lessened.He said a delivery-person carrying excess quantities of marijuana might be at a higher risk of robbery or other crime. He added outdoor cultivation could pose a similar public safety hazard if the plants were easily visible, and suggested including a regulation that outdoor cultivation of marijuana plants should be out of public view. He added that some limitations make sense, but in his experience, medical marijuana deliveries are inconspicuous and don't pose many hazards. Councilmember Doyle noted that medical marijuana deliveries are helpful to those that need it,but recreational marijuana delivery could have the potential to cause a public safety issue. Vice Mayor O'Donnell asked Chief Cronin if he had a suggested cap on allowable quantity.Cronin said he would have to research what other communities have done, but said the State of California will develop a limit. Mayor Fraser said he was in support of banning delivery of recreational marijuana.He acknowledged that it would be difficult to enforce, but said he thought it would be better for the community. Councilmember Fredericks asked if Tiburon's ordinance allowed medical delivery just because it is not expressly prohibited. Town Attorney Stock said the ordinance expressly allows medical marijuana delivery. Councilmember Tollini agreed that commercial businesses should be prohibited (medical and recreational alike)and outdoor cultivation should also be prohibited. She suggested researching what other municipalities have done to ensure indoor cultivation is done safely. She said until the State provides a maximum deliverable amount of recreational marijuana, the Town should prohibit. Councilmember Fredericks said there had been some discussion to constraining medical marijuana deliveries in that the delivery could only be accepted by a caretaker. She asked that this be explored in a future staff report. Mayor Fraser agreed with his colleagues. He supported tightening regulations on commercial establishments, prohibiting outdoor cultivation and exploring safety regulations on indoor cultivation. He also supported banning recreational marijuana deliveries in Town, and said that regulation could be adjusted if necessary. No action taken. ---- ----- -- 2. Town Council Board and Committee Assignments—Adopt updated list of Town Council Committees and board representation for 2017 (Mayor Fraser) Town Manager Chanis gave the staff report. He said it is now timely for the annual review of Town Town Council Minutes 902-2017 January 18, 2017 Page 6 EXHIBIT-1 P. 4 of 4 TOWN OF TIBURON Town Council Meeting • L�, 1505 Tiburon Boulevard May 3,2017 Tiburon,CA 94920 Agenda Item: STAFF PO . To: Mayor and Members of the Town Council From: Community Development Department Subject: Smoking Ordinance Amendments: Consider Amendments to Title VI, Chapter 28 (Smoking and Tobacco Regulations) of the Tiburon Municipal Code; File MCA2017-003; Town-initiated Amendments (Ordinance—First Reading) Reviewed By: BACKGROUND The Town of Tiburon has regulated smoking and tobacco sales since 1992, with a major update, primarily focusing on second-hand smoke, occurring in 2011 and minor revisions regarding electronic cigarettes made in 2014. Local regulation of smoking and tobacco is continuously evolving nation-wide, in part due to the American Lung Association's ongoing efforts to protect the public from the health hazards associated with smoking and tobacco smoke. These efforts include a grading system that points out areas where local regulation of smoking and tobacco sales could be enhanced. The proposed amendments reflect the latest findings from the grading system identifying areas where Tiburon's smoking and tobacco sales regulations could be improved. Staff identified this as an appropriate time to update the Town's smoking regulations, as separate revisions were required in conjunction with voter-approval of Proposition 64,the Control, Regulate and Tax Adult Use of Marijuana Act (AVMA) in November 2016. ANALYSIS The proposed amendments are summarized as follows: ➢ Addition of new definitions for"place of employment", "service area" (replacing "service line"), and"tobacco retailer". ➢ Amendment of existing definitions for"common interest complex", "retail tobacco store", "smoking", and "tobacco paraphernalia". ➢ Addition of the term "marijuana"to certain ordinance provisions. ➢ New or revised regulations regarding tobacco retailers, retail tobacco stores, required signage for tobacco sellers, and vending of tobacco products. ➢ Augmentation of the smoking prohibitions in Town-owned structures and facilities. A redline document depicting the proposed amendments to Tiburon's current smoking and tobacco regulations is attached as Exhibit 1. While there are no known establishments within TOWN OF TIBURON PAGE 1 OF 2 the town of Tiburon that sell cigarettes or tobacco products, the primary downgrade from the American Lung Association was that the Town's signage regulations did not encompass tobacco retailers. The amendments correct this situation and also reflect newly-adopted state law raising the age limit to 21 years instead of 18 years for sale of tobacco products and posting of related signs on establishments that sell such products. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW Staff has preliminarily determined that adoption of this ordinance is statutorily exempt from the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act(CEQA)pursuant to Section 15378 of the CEQA Guidelines in that it does not constitute a project under CEQA, and if it were found to constitute a project, it would be exempt pursuant to the general rule set forth in CEQA Guidelines Section 15061(b)(3). STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Town Council hold first reading of the proposed ordinance (Exhibit 2), waiving any additional readings. The procedure would be as follows: 1. The Town Council should hold a public hearing and consider any testimony. 2. If appropriate, move to read by title only and carry the motion; then read the title and hold a roll call vote to pass first reading, waiving any additional readings. 3. If passed for first reading, the ordinance will be scheduled for adoption at the next regular meeting of the Council. EXHIBITS 1. Redline document depicting the proposed amendments in context. 2. Draft ordinance. Prepared By: Scott Anderson,Director of Community Development TOWN OF TIBURON PAGE 2 OF 2 REDLINE VERSION CHAPTER 28 SMOKING AND TOBACCO REGULATIONS 28-1 Findings and Purpose. (a) The town council finds that: (1)Numerous scientific studies have found that tobacco smoke is a major contributor to indoor air pollution; (2) Reliable scientific studies, including studies by the Surgeon General of the United States and studies commissioned and assessed by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, have shown that breathing sidestream or secondhand smoke is a significant health hazard to nonsmokers; particularly to children and teens, elderly people, individuals with cardiovascular disease, and individuals with impaired respiratory function, including asthmatics and those with obstructive airway disease; (3) Health hazards induced by exposure to environmental tobacco smoke include lung and other forms of cancer, respiratory infection, decreased respiratory function, decreased exercise tolerance, broncho-constriction and broncho-spasm, and that the most common cause of premature death from environmental tobacco smoke is heart disease; (4) Reliable scientific studies assessed by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency have found that sidestream and secondhand tobacco smoke causes the death of at least fifty-three thousand nonsmokers annually and is a leading cause of premature death and disability among nonsmokers; (5)Nonsmokers with allergies, and respiratory diseases and those who suffer other ill effects of breathing sidestream or secondhand tobacco smoke may experience a loss of job productivity or may be forced to take periodic sick leave because of adverse reactions to same; (6) Persons, particularly employees, have a right to a smoke-free environment if they desire; (7) Tobacco smoking is a leading cause of fires, and cigarette and cigar burns and ash stains on merchandise and fixtures cause economic losses to businesses; (8) Substantial scientific evidence exists that the direct use of tobacco products causes cancer, heart disease, and various other medical diseases. The Surgeon General of the U.S. has found that tobacco-caused diseases are the leading cause of premature, preventable death and disability in the U.S.; (9) The National Centers for Disease Control have found that at least four hundred thirty-four thousand Americans die each year from tobacco-caused diseases. The Surgeon General of the U.S. and U.S. Department of Health and Human Services have found that a majority of those Americans who die of tobacco-caused diseases became addicted to nicotine in tobacco products as adolescents before the age of legal consent; (10) The National Institute on Drug Abuse has concluded that the nicotine in tobacco products is a powerful addictive drug and identifies nicotine addiction as the most widespread example of drug dependence in the U.S.; (11) The Surgeon General of the U. S. has found that nicotine in tobacco products is as addictive as cocaine and heroin; (12) 87.9% of non-smokers showed detectable levels of cotinine (a metabolite of nicotine) in their blood, the most likely source of which is secondhand smoke exposure; Town of Tiburon Smoking Regulations Chapter 28 redlined 4-25-2017 Page I of 14 EXHIBIT (13) There is no Constitutional right to smoke; (14) Secondhand smoke can seep under doorways and through wall cracks and through ventilation systems; (15) State law prohibits smoking in virtually all indoor places of employment reflecting the state policy to protect against the dangers of exposure to secondhand smoke; (16) A local ordinance that authorizes residential rental agreements to include a prohibition on smoking of tobacco products within the common areas of multi-unit residences is not prohibited by state law; (17) California law declares that anything which is injurious to health or obstructs the free use of property, so as to interfere with the comfortable enjoyment of life or property, is a nuisance. (b) Accordingly,the town council finds and declares that the purposes of this chapter are: (1) To protect public health, safety and general welfare by prohibiting tobacco smoking in certain public places and in places of employment; and (2) To guarantee the right of nonsmokers to breathe air free of toxins from combustion of tobacco, tobacco product, tobacco-like product, spices or any other plant or herbal materials to the extent that local regulation of sources of combustion of those materials is allowed by law and to recognize that the need to breathe air free of the toxins produced by smoking has priority over the desire to smoke; (c) The town council further finds it is within its basic police power to implement and enforce the provisions of this chapter. 28-2 Definitions. The following words and phrases, whenever used in this chapter, shall be construed as defined in this section: "Bar" means an area which is devoted to the serving of alcoholic beverages for consumption by patrons on the premises and in which the serving of food is only incidental to the consumption of such beverages. "Business"means any sole proprietorship,joint venture, corporation or other business entity formed for profit-making purposes, including retail establishments where goods or services are sold, as well as professional corporations and other entities where legal, medical, dental, engineering, architectural or other professional services are delivered. "Common interest complex"means a multi-unit residence that is a condominium project, a community apartment project, a stock cooperative, or a planned development as defined by California Civil Code section 4100, or successor sections thereto4-3-5-f. "Electronic smoking device" means an electronic or battery-operated device that delivers vapors for inhalation. This term shall include every variation and type of such devices whether they are manufactured, distributed, marketed or sold as an electronic cigarette, an electronic cigar, and electronic cigarillo, an electronic pipe, an electronic hookah or any other product name or descriptor. Town of Tiburon Smoking Regulations Chapter 28 redlined 4-25-2017 Page 2 of 14 "Employee" means any person who is employed by any employer in consideration for direct or indirect monetary wages or profit, and any person who volunteers his or her services for a nonprofit entity. "Employer" means any person, partnership, corporation, including a municipal corporation, or nonprofit entity, which employs the services of one or more individual persons. "Enclosed area"means all space between a floor and ceiling that is enclosed on all sides by solid walls or windows (exclusive of door or passage ways) that extend from the floor to the ceiling, including all space within said walls or windows that may be screened or divided by partitions or other materials or devices that do not extend to the ceiling or are not solid. "Health department"means the County of Marin Health Department. "Landlord" means any person who owns real property leased as residential property, any person who lets residential property, or any person who manages such property, except that"landlord" does not include sublessors. "Minor"means any individual who is less than 18 years old. "Multi-unit residence" means premises containing four(4) or more Units, except that individual Units on separate parcels within a common interest complex are exempt from provisions of this chapter. "Multi-unit common area"means any indoor or outdoor area of multi-unit residence premises accessible to and usable by residents of different units and/or members of the public, including but not limited to halls and paths, lobbies, laundry rooms, common areas, outdoor eating areas, play areas and swimming pools; except that"Multi-unit common area" does not include outdoor, non- enclosed common area facilities located within a common interest complex. "Nonprofit entity"means any corporation, unincorporated association or other entity created for charitable, philanthropic, educational, character-building, political, social or other similar purposes, the net proceeds from the operations of which are committed to the promotion of the objectives or purposes of the entity and not to private gain. A public agency is not a"nonprofit entity" for purposes of this chapter. "No smoking sign"means a sign containing the words "No smoking" or the international "No smoking" symbol (consisting of a pictorial representation of a burning cigarette in a red circle or red heart with a red bar across it). "Opening" means and shall include any main entrances, exits, operable windows, and ventilation intake systems. Town of Tiburon Smoking Regulations Chapter 28 redlined 4-25-2017 Page 3 of 14 "Outdoor eating area"means an outdoor area, whether covered or uncovered, under the control of a restaurant or bar or other food and/or drink- serving business or establishment, where the consumption of food and/or drink occurs. "Person" means any natural person, partnership, cooperative association, private corporation, personal representative, receiver, trustee, assignee, or any other legal entity. "Place of employment" means any area under the legal or actual control of an employer that an employee or the general public may have cause to enter in the normal course of operation, regardless of the hours of operation, including,but not limited to indoor and outdoor work areas construction sites vehicles used in employment or for business purposes, taxis, employee lounges and restrooms, conference and banquet rooms, employee cafeterias, warehouses, long-term care facilities, and lobbies and hallways. A private residence is not a place of employment unless it is used as a child care or residential health care facility. "Premises" means a piece of land and any improvements upon it such as is usually described in.a deed, deed of trust or mortgage; including legally separate but contiguous pieces of land that are owned by the same natural person or by legal persons under common control. "Public event"means an event open to the public, including but not limited to sports events, entertainment, speaking performances, ceremonies, pageants, parades, fairs and farmer's markets. "Public park"means any parkland open to the public that is owned by the town and is designated"Parks & Recreation" on the zoning map of the town. "Public place" means any enclosed area to which the public is invited or in which the public is permitted, including but not limited to, banks, educational facilities, health facilities, shopping malls, laundromats, public transportation facilities, reception areas, restaurants, bars, retail food production and marketing establishments, retail service establishments, retail stores, hotels and motels and the individual rooms therein, theaters and waiting rooms. A private residence is not a"public place." "Reasonable distance"means a distance of at least twenty-five (25) feet. "Restaurant" means any coffee shop, cafeteria, sandwich stand, private and public school cafeteria, including any associated outdoor eating area, and any other eating establishment which gives or offers for sale food to the public, guests or employees, as well as kitchens in which food is prepared on the premises for serving elsewhere, including catering facilities. Town of Tiburon Smoking Regulations Chapter 28 redlined 4-25-2017 Page 4 of 14 "Retail tobacco store" means a retail store utilized primarily for the sale of tobacco products, tobacco paraphernalia, or smoking products, and in which the sale of other products is merely incidental.i "'��^'� +..^ P,•;,, afy fflefe4ft, is fn,• sale—eei3r any fee--' of bevefage for eonsumption on the pfe.­'_­ "Self-service merchandising" means open display of tobacco products or tobacco paraphernalia in a manner that is accessible to the general public without the assistance of the retailer or employee of the retailer. This includes point-of- sale tobacco promotional products (such as tobacco industry tee shirts, caps, key chains, give-aways), to which the public has access without the assistance of an employee. A vending machine is a form of self service displays. "Separate ventilation system"means a system that is exhausted to the outside and negatively pressurized. "Sefviee line" means any indoof line at=whiek one of moFe pefsons afe waiting for- of feeeiving sefviee of any kind, whether- of not sueh sefviee involves the exehange of money. "Service area" means any publicly or privately owned area, including streets and sidewalks, that is designed to be used or is regularly_ used by one or more persons to wait for or receive a service or make a transaction, whether or not such service or transaction involves the exchange of money. The term "service area" includes but is not limited to information kiosks automatic teller machines (ATMs)ticket lines, bus stops or shelters, transit shelters, ferry terminals, mobile vendor lines, or taxi cab stands. "Smoking" means engaging in an act that produces gas, particles, vapor or smoke by means of means of combustion, electrical ignition or vaporization, where the apparent or usual purpose of said act is the human inhalation of the byproducts. "Smoking" does not include acts where (a)the combustion or vaporization material contains no tobacco or;nicotine and(b) the purpose is solely olfactory, such as producing smoke from incense. "Smoking" does include the use of a lighted pipe, lighted cigar;or lighted cigarette, lighted hookah, electronic smoking device or other device of any kind containing tobacco, tobacco product, tobacco-like product, marijuana, spices, or any other plant or herbal materials to the extent that local regulation of such lighted device, product or material is allowed by law. "Sports arena"means enclosed or unenclosed sports pavilions, gymnasiums, health spas, swimming pools, roller and ice rinks, bowling alleys and other similar places where members of the general public assemble either to engage in physical exercise, participate in athletic competition, or witness sports events. Town of Tiburon Smoking Regulations Chapter 28 redlined 4-25-2017 Page 5 of 14 "Tobacco paraphernalia" means cigarette papers or wrappers, pipes, holders of smoking materials of all types, cigarette rolling machines, and any other item designed for the smoking, preparation, storing, or consumption of tobacco, marijuana, or other similar products. "Tobacco product" means: (a) any substance containing tobacco leaf, including but not limited to cigarettes, cigars, pipe tobacco, hookah tobacco, snuff, chewing tobacco, dipping tobacco, bidis, blunts, clove cigarettes, or any other preparation of tobacco; and (b) any product or formulation of matter containing biologically active amounts of nicotine that is manufactured, sold, offered for sale, or otherwise distributed with the expectation that the product or matter will be introduced into the human body by inhalation; but does not include any cessation product specifically approved by the U. S. Food and Drug Administration for use in treating nicotine or tobacco dependence. "Tobacco retailer" means any person who sells, offers for sale, or does or offers to exchange for any form of consideration, tobacco, tobacco products, tobacco paraphernalia, or smoking products within the corporate limits of the Town of Tiburon. "Tobacco retailing" shall mean the doing of any of the above. This definition is without regard to the quantity of tobacco, tobacco products, or tobacco paraphernalia sold, offered for sale, exchanged, or offered for exchange. "Tobacco vending machine"means any machine, appliance, or other mechanical device operated by currency, token, debit card, credit card, or any other form of payment that is designed or used for vending purposes, including, but not limited to, machines or devices that use remote control locking mechanisms. "Town"means the Town of Tiburon. "Town manager" means the Town Manager of the Town of Tiburon, or his or her designee. "Town open space" means any open space land or easement owned by the Town and designated as "Open Space" on the zoning map of the town. "Unit" means: (a) a dwelling space consisting of essentially complete independent living facilities for one or more persons, including, for example, permanent provisions for living and sleeping, and any private outdoor spaces like balconies and patios; and (b) senior citizen housing and single room occupancy hotels, as defined in California Health and Safety Code section 50519(b)(1) or successor sections thereto, even where lacking private cooking facilities or private plumbing facilities. "Unit" does not include lodging in a hotel or motel that meets the requirements set forth in California Civil Code section 1940(b)(2). Town of Tiburon Smoking Regulations Chapter 28 redlined 4-25-2017 Page 6 of 14 "Vendor-assisted" means only a store employee has access to the tobacco product and assists the customer by supplying the product. The customer does not take possession of the product until it is purchased. 28-3 Smoking Prohibited in Town-owned Vehicles and Facilities. Smoking is prohibited in all town-owned vehicles, including jitneys and buses and other means of public transit under the authority of the town, and all enclosed residential and non-residential facilities, buildings, or structures owned, leased, occupied, and/or controlled by the town. 28-4 Smoking Prohibited in Public Parks and Town Open Spaces. (a) Smoking is prohibited in all public parks, whether in an enclosed area or an unenclosed area. (b) Smoking is prohibited in all town open spaces, whether in an enclosed area or an unenclosed area. 28-5 Smoking Prohibited in Certain Public Places. (a) Smoking is prohibited in all outdoor eating areas, as defined herein. (b) Smoking is prohibited within twenty-five (25) feet of any entrance, exit, or opening to a public building. (c) Smoking is prohibited in all public events, and at events or functions for which a Special Event Permit has been issued by the Tow. (d) Smoking is prohibited in all enclosed public places within the town, including, but not limited to,the following places: (1) Elevators; (2) Buses, taxicabs, and other means of public transit under the authority of the town and ticket, boarding, and waiting areas of public transit depots; (3) Restrooms; (4) Service areas; (5) Retail stores; (6) All areas available to and customarily used by the general public in all business and nonprofit entities patronized by the public, including but not limited to offices (such as attorneys, doctors, and other professionals), banks, laundromats, malls, hotels and motels and the individual rooms therein; (7) Restaurants; (8) Bars; (9) Public areas of aquariums, galleries, libraries or museums when open to the public; (10)Any facility that is primarily used for exhibiting motion pictures, stage productions, lectures, musical recitals or other similar performances; (11) Sports arenas and convention halls; (12) Every room, chamber, place of meeting or public assembly, including school buildings under the control of any board, council, commission, committee including joint committees, or agencies of the town or any political subdivision of Town of Tiburon Smoking Regulations Chapter 28 redlined 4-25-2017 Page 7 of 14 the state during such time as a public meeting is in progress, to the extent such place is subject to the jurisdiction of the town; (13) Waiting rooms, hallways, wards and rooms of health care facilities, including, but not limited to, hospitals, clinics, physical therapy, mental health, and drug and alcohol treatment facilities, doctors' and dentists' offices; (14) Lobbies, hallways and other common areas in senior citizen residences, nursing homes, and child-care facilities; (15) Multi-unit common areas; (16) Lobbies, hallways and other common areas in multiple-unit commercial facilities; (17) Polling places. (b)Notwithstanding any other provisions of this section, any owner, operator, manager or other person who controls any establishment, building, structure, or facility may declare that entire establishment, building, structure, or facility as a non-smoking establishment, building, or structure. 28-6 Smoking Regulated in Places of Employment. (a) Each employer having an enclosed place of employment located within the town shall adopt, implement, make known and maintain a written smoking policy that shall contain the following requirements: Smoking is prohibited in all enclosed facilities within a place of employment without exception. This includes common work areas, auditoriums, classrooms, conference and meeting rooms, private offices, elevators, hallways, medical facilities, cafeterias, employee lounges, stairs, restrooms, non-personal vehicles and all other enclosed facilities. (b) The smoking policy shall be communicated to all employees within thirty (30) days of its adoption, and at least annually thereafter. (c) All employers shall comply with these non-smoking provisions and shall be responsible for their implementation in their places of employment. (d) "No Smoking" signs shall be conspicuously posted at building entrances and in employee lounges, cafeterias and lunchrooms. (e) All employers shall supply a written copy of the smoking policy to any existing or prospective employee. (f) Places of employment exempt from the prohibition on smoking in other sections of this chapter shall also be exempt from this section. 28-7 Smoking Prohibited in Multi-unit Common Areas and in Multi-unit Residences. (a) Smoking is prohibited in all multi-unit common areas except that a landlord may designate a portion of the outdoor area of the premises as a smoking area as provided in paragraph(b) below. (b)A designated smoking area: Town of Tiburon Smoking Regulations Chapter 28 redlined 4-25-2017 Page 8 of 14 (1) Must be located at least twenty-five (25) feet from any indoor area where smoking is prohibited; (2) Must not include, and must be at least twenty-five (25) feet from, outdoor areas primarily used by children including, but not limited to, areas improved or designated for play or swimming; (3) Must be no more than 25% of the total outdoor area of the premises for which it is designated; (4) Must have a clearly marked perimeter; (5) Must be identified by conspicuous signs; and (6) Must not overlap with any area in which smoking is otherwise prohibited by this chapter or other provisions of this Code, state law, or federal law. (c)Non-smoking units required in multi-unit residences: (1) New multi-unit residences: In every multi-unit residence that receives a certificate of occupancy after August 19, 2011, one hundred percent(100%) of the units (including private outdoor spaces associated with such units, such as balconies,patios and decks), shall be non-smoking units by law. (A) Required Lease Terms: Every lease or other agreement for the occupancy of a unit in a new multi-unit residence shall include: 1. A clause stating that smoking is prohibited in the unit; 2. A clause stating that it is a material breach of the lease or agreement to violate any law regulating smoking while on the premises, smoke in any unit, or smoke on any multi-unit common area in which smoking is prohibited; and 3. A clause stating that all lawful occupants of the multi-unit residence are express third-party beneficiaries of the above-required clauses. (B) The California Apartment Association's Form 34.0, revised January 2007, meets the requirements for lease terms as outlined and is an option for use to comply with this subsection. (2) Existing multi-unit residences: In every multi-unit residence already existing on August 19, 2011, one hundred percent (100%) of the units (including private outdoor spaces associated with such units, such as balconies, patios and decks), shall by law be non-smoking units by July 1, 2014. A landlord may make units non-smoking prior to July 1, 2014. (A) Landlords shall, by October 18, 2011, notify each existing and new tenant as of August 19, 2011, of the lease terms required by this chapter. (B) Required Lease Terms: Every new lease, lease renewal, lease extension, or other agreement for the occupancy of a unit in a multi-unit residence made on or after August 19, 2011, shall include: 1. A clause stating that smoking is prohibited in the unit; 2. A clause stating that it is a material breach of the lease or agreement to violate any law regulating smoking while on the premises, smoke in any unit, or smoke on any multi-unit common area in which smoking is prohibited; and 3. A clause stating that all lawful occupants of the multi-unit residence are express third-party beneficiaries of the above-required clauses. 4. Prior to July 1, 2014, this subsection 28-7(c)(2)(B) shall not apply to renewal of a lease or other agreement for occupancy with a person lawfully occupying the unit on August 19, 2011. On July 1, 2014, this exception shall expire and all leases, lease renewals, lease extensions, and other agreements for occupancy shall comply with this subsection 28-7(c)(2)(B). Town of Tiburon Smoking Regulations Chapter 28 redlined 4-25-2017 Page 9 of 14 (C) The California Apartment Association's Form 34.0, revised January 2007, meets the requirements for lease terms as outlined and is an option for use to comply with this subsection. (D) Grace Period for Electronic Smoking Devices. This subsection 28- 7(c)(2), shall not apply to the use of an electronic smoking device until October 17, 2015. (d) The lease or agreement terms required by subsection (c)(1) or (c)(2) of this section are hereby incorporated by force of law into any lease or other agreement for the occupancy of a unit in a multi-unit residence made on or after August 19, 2011 that does not comply fully with subsection(c)(1) or (c)(2) of this section. (e) A tenant who breaches the smoking regulations of a lease or knowingly allows another person to do so shall be liable to: (1) the landlord; and (2) to any lawful occupant of the multi-unit residence who is exposed to secondhand smoke as a result of that breach. A landlord shall not be liable to any person for a tenant's breach of smoking regulations if the landlord has fully complied with the requirements of this chapter. (f) Failure to enforce any smoking regulation of a lease or agreement on one or more occasions shall not constitute a waiver of the lease or agreement provisions required by this section and shall not prevent future enforcement of any such smoking regulation on another occasion. (g) Disclosure of Dedicated Smoking Area. Every landlord shall maintain a diagram that illustrates the precise location and configuration of any designated smoking area. This diagram shall accompany every new lease, lease renewal, lease extension, or other agreement for the occupancy of a unit in a multi-unit residence after August 19, 2011. (h) Prohibitions and Duties Generally: (1) No person shall smoke or knowingly permit smoking in an area of the premises under his or her legal or de facto control in which smoking is prohibited by a lease or agreement term, by this chapter, this Code, or any other state or federal law, provided, however, that this prohibition does not apply to a person who is already compelled to act under state or federal law. (2) No person shall knowingly permit the presence or placement of ash trays, cans, or other receptacles within multi-unit common areas under his or her legal or de facto control in which smoking is prohibited by this chapter, this Code, or any other state or federal law, including, for example and without limitation, within at least twenty-five (25) feet of any non-smoking area. (3) "No smoking" signs, with letters of no less than one inch in height or the international "No smoking" symbol (consisting of a pictorial representation of a burning cigarette enclosed in a red circle crossed by a red bar) shall be clearly and conspicuously posted in the multi-unit common areas, at every entrance and exit, and on every floor near an elevator or common stairwell. Such signs shall be maintained by the landlord. Signs must be posted in sufficient numbers and locations in the multi-unit common areas and at entrances and exits to make areas where smoking is prohibited obvious to a reasonable person. The absence of signs shall not be a defense to a violation of any provision of this section. (4) This chapter shall not create additional liability for a landlord for a person's violation of this chapter provided that the landlord has fully complied with the required disclosure, sign posting, and other provisions of this chapter. Town of Tiburon Smoking Regulations Chapter 28 redlined 4-25-2017 Page 10 of 14 (5) The provisions of this chapter are restrictive only and establish no new rights for a smoker. (6) Notwithstanding any provision of this chapter or other provisions of this Code or failure to restrict smoking under this chapter, including any explicit or implicit provision that allows smoking, nothing in this chapter shall operate to limit a person's legal rights under other laws with regard to smoking, including, for example, claims of nuisance, trespass, property damage, and personal injury. 28-8 Smoking Not Prohibited; Owner Option to Prohibit. (a) Except as otherwise prohibited by applicable county, state or federal law, the following areas shall not be subject to the smoking restrictions of this chapter: (1) Private residences, except when used as a child care or residential health care facility, or except as set forth in Section 28-7; (2) Private vehicles not located in a multi-unit common area; (3) Retail tobacco stores, only if:; (A) The retail tobacco store does not sell edible products, including, for example, food, water, or drinks, and does not allow such products to be consumed on the premises; and (B) The retail tobacco store prohibits minors from entering the store at all times. (4)Unenclosed areas where smoking is not otherwise prohibited by law; (5) An enclosed place of employment that employs only the owner and no other employee or employees, provided that: (A) The place of employment is not a public place, and (B) The enclosed area containing the place of employment does not share a ventilation system with any other enclosed place of employment or public place. (b)Nothing in this section shall be construed to prevent an owner, operator, manager or other person who controls any business, establishment or facility from declaring that entire business, establishment or facility as non-smoking. 28-9 Duty of Person, Employer, Business or Non-profit Entity. (a)No person, employer, business, or nonprofit entity shall knowingly permit the smoking of tobacco products in an area which is under the legal or actual control of the person, employer, business, or nonprofit entity and in which smoking is prohibited by law and the person, employer, business or nonprofit entity is not otherwise compelled to act under state or federal law. (b)No person, employer, business, or nonprofit entity shall knowingly or intentionally permit the presence or placement of ash receptacles, such as, for example, ashtrays or ash cans, within an area that is under the legal or actual of the person, employer, business, or nonprofit entity and in which smoking is prohibited. 28-10 Posting of Signs. (a) The person, employer, business or non-profit entity with legal or actual control of a building or area where smoking is prohibited by this chapter shall clearly and Town of Tiburon Smoking Regulations Chapter 28 redlined 4-25-2017 Page 11 of 14 conspicuously post "No Smoking" signs at the entrances of every building, as well as in other areas under their control where smoking is prohibited under this chapter. However, where an entire building or premises is non-smoking, only entrances need be signed, provided that they are signed to that effect. (b) Every tobacco retailer, retail tobacco store., and every vendor of tobacco products shall visibly post signage pursuant to California Business and Professions Code section 22952, or successor sections thereto, which signage shall expressly reference California Penal Code section 308, or successor sections thereto, at the entrances of any premises subject to regulation under section 28-11 of this chapter and applicable county, state and/or federal law. (c) The absence of signs shall not be a defense to a violation of any provision of this chapter. 28-11 Sale of Tobacco Products Regulated. (a) Any person, business tobacco retailer, retail tobacco store, or other establishment subject to this chapter shall post plainly visible signs at each point of purchase of tobacco products that state "THE SALE OF TOBACCO PRODUCTS TO PERSONS UNDER EIGHTEEN YEARS OF AGE IS PROHIBITED BY LAW. PHOTO ID REQUIRED. THE FINE FOR BUYING TOBACCO FOR ANYONE UNDER 1 IS $200". The letters on said signs shall be at least one-half(1/2) inch tall. These signs shall be updated as necessary to conform to any subsequent state or federal requirements or amendments to Business and Professions Code section 22952 and/or Penal Code section 308(a) or successor sections thereto. (b)No person business tobacco retailer, or other establishment subject to this chapter shall sell offer to sell or permit to be sold any tobacco product to an individual without requesting and examining identification establishing the purchaser's age as twenty, (21) years or greater unless the seller has some clear and convincing basis for knowing the buyer's age. (c) It shall be unlawful for any person, business, tobacco retailer, or retail tobacco store to sell permit to be sold, or offer for sale any tobacco product by means of self-service merchandising or by any means other than vendor-assisted sales. (d)No person business, tobacco retailer, retail tobacco store, or other establishment subject to this chapter shall locate, install, keep, maintain or use, or permit the location, installation keeping maintenance or use on his, her or its premises any vending machine for the purpose of selling or distributing any tobacco product. (e) Any person business tobacco retailer, retail tobacco store, owner, manager, or operator of any establishment subject to this chapter that violates any provision of this section shall be deemed guilty of a misdemeanor and upon conviction shall be subject to a fine as set forth in Penal Code section 308(a) or successor sections thereto. (a) it shall be unlawful f6f any pefsen, business, oF tvtail tobaeeo stefe to sell, permit Bi— be sold, of A;af foF sale any tebaeeo pr-aduet by means of self sefviee Fner-ehandi b, by n means other than „der- assisted sales (b) It shall be unlawful for- any person, business, or- retaii tobaeeo stefe to , install, keep, maintain e, e +t the lennt �r' installation, lie g' maintenanee oF use on Town of Tiburon Smoking Regulations Chapter 28 redlined 4-25-2017 Page 12 of 14 11is;f or its , a;,,, maehffle for +1,e 1 of ;fig Of distributing n tobae-eo preduet-. (nl T,Tn person, b s, retail toha eVo-JLore, of owner, mar. -co, of operator of afly tshl'slIt h: n++o provisions of this n+;o shall ol�l_oizf`+ +o_ X11 of permit to be sold an),+ohnnno ., odue+ton individual without requesting_an,.ex-}ffl-k-lifig idem greater unless the sellef has some other eleaf and eonvifleing basis for knowing the bi P (d) Any person, business, retail tobaeeo store of other- establishment sobjeet to proVisi-.1- of this seetion shall post plainly k4s,"11-111- 11 1—1 at the point of purehase of tobaeeo pfeduets 1, ..h e0filply With the SigRage FeEtttifefflefltS of r nlifn ,in R, n Professio Iiness thereto.Gode seetion 22952, of stteeessor seetions thereto. These signs shall be "dated to eonform to any subsequent sta4_e-of -f�_Aftrffil requirements and/or-amendments to Galifern (e) Any person, business, retail tobaeeo- store of other establishment subjeet to provisions of this seetion shall post signs at eaeh entFanee to any premises on whieh any toba p o bll ly ,shall state, ccWarning: The fine for buying tobaeeo for anyone under 18 is " in at least one half tall, and shall eite California Penal Gode 309(a) of sueeessof see thereto. These signs s4all be upLat-ed to e-Onfofm to any subsequent state of federal .equitemen+ and/or amendments+o Deal Gude sectio„ 308(a) of sueeessof ena fine as set forth in Penal Gode seetion 309(a), or snee-11-. 1114-its +;n s (f) Any per-son, business, retail tobaeeo store, Of owner, manager or- operator of any establishment subjeet+- --visions of this seetion who violates arty provision of seetion shall e deemed guilt, of a misdemeanor and upon eonvietion shall be subjeet to . 28-12 Enforcement. (a) The remedies provided by this chapter are cumulative and in addition to any other remedies available at law or in equity. (b)Notice of these regulations shall be given to all applicants for a business license or renewal thereof. However, lack of such notice shall be no defense to a violation of this chapter. (c) Enforcement of this chapter shall be the responsibility of the town manager, who shall have the powers enumerated in this chapter and in chapter 31 of the Tiburon Municipal Code as well as the power to issue citations for violation of the chapter in accordance with section 853.6 of the California Penal Code, or successor sections thereto. (d) The health department shall require, while an establishment is undergoing otherwise mandated inspections, certification from the owner, manager, operator or other person having control of such establishment that all requirements of this chapter have been complied with. (e) Health department inspectors, on their regular restaurant inspections, shall check for compliance with sign posting requirements. Restaurants shall be notified in writing of any violations on the standard health inspection report. Further, such violations shall be reported in writing by the health department, on a quarterly basis, to the administrative authority in the jurisdiction where such violations occur. (f)Notwithstanding any other provision of this chapter, a private citizen may bring legal action to enforce this chapter. Town of Tiburon Smoking Regulations Chapter 28 redlined 4-25-2017 Page 13 of 14 28-13 Violations and Penalties. (a) It is unlawful for any person who owns, manages, operates or otherwise controls the use of any premises or areas subject to regulation under sections 28-3, 28-4, 28-5, 28-6, 28-7, 28-9, 28-10, or 28-11 of this chapter to fail to comply with any of its provisions. (b) It is unlawful for any person to smoke in any area where smoking is prohibited under provisions of this chapter. (c) Any person, business, retail tobacco store, or owner, manager or operator of any establishment subject to this chapter who violates any provision of this chapter, other than section 28-11, shall be deemed guilty of an infraction and upon conviction shall be subject to payment of a fine not to exceed $100 or the limits set forth in Government Code section 36900, as may be amended from time to time, whichever is lower. (d) Violations of section 28-11 shall be a misdemeanor. 28-14 Non-retaliation. No person or employer shall discharge, refuse to hire or in any manner retaliate against any employee or applicant for employment because such employee or applicant exercises any right to a smoke-free environment afforded by this chapter. 28-15 Public Education. The town manager or his/her designee will engage in a continuing educational program to explain and clarify the purposes and requirements of this chapter, as well as a guide to owners, operators and managers with compliance. However, lack of such education shall be no defense to a violation of this chapter. 28-16 Governmental Cooperation. The town manager or his/her designee may annually request other governmental and educational agencies having facilities within the town to establish local operating procedures in cooperation and compliance with this chapter. This includes urging all federal, state, county and school district agencies to update their existing smoking control regulations to be consistent with current health findings regarding environmental tobacco smoke. 28-17 Other Applicable Laws. It is the intent of the town to supplement applicable state and federal law and not to duplicate or contradict such law, and this chapter shall be construed in a manner consistent with that intention. This chapter shall not be interpreted or construed to permit smoking where it is otherwise restricted by other applicable laws. Town of Tiburon Smoking Regulations Chapter 28 redlined 4-25-2017 Page 14 of 14 1 ORDINANCE NO. XXX N. S. 2 3 AN ORDINANCE OF THE TOWN COUNCIL OF THE TOWN 4 OF TIBURON AMENDING PROVISIONS OF TITLE VI, 5 CHAPTER 28 OF THE TIBURON MUNICIPAL CODE 6 (SMOKING AND TOBACCO REGULATIONS) 7 8 The Town Council of the Town of Tiburon does ordain as follows: 9 10 Section 1. Findings. 11 12 A. On July 20, 2011 the Town Council adopted Ordinance No. 531 N. S. making 13 substantial revisions to its smoking and tobacco regulations; said regulations were 14 further amended in October 2014 by adoption of Ordinance No. 553 N. S. 15 addressing electronic smoking devices. 16 17 B. The Town Council now desires to further revise Tiburon's regulations concerning 18 smoking and tobacco with respect to definitions, tobacco retailers, smoking in 19 certain public areas, and posting of signs. 20 21 C. The Town Council held a public hearing on , 2017 and has heard and 22 considered any and all public testimony on this matter. 23 24 D. The Town Council finds that all notices and procedures required by law attendant to 25 the adoption of this Ordinance have been followed. 26 27 E. The Town Council finds the amendments made by this Ordinance are necessary for 28 the protection of the public health, safety, and welfare. 29 30 F. The Town Council finds the amendments made by this Ordinance are consistent 31 with the goals and policies of the Tiburon General Plan and other adopted 32 ordinances and regulations of the Town of Tiburon. 33 34 G. The Town Council finds these amendments are covered by the general rule that the 35 California Environmental Quality Act(CEQA) applies only to projects that have the 36 potential for causing a significant effect on the environment pursuant to CEQA 37 Guidelines Section 15061(b)(3), and further finds that if the amendments were not 38 covered by the above section, the amendments would be categorically exempt 39 pursuant to Sections 15305, 15307 and/or 15308 of the CEQA Guidelines. 40 41 Section 2. Amendments to Title VI, Chapter 28, Section 28-2. 42 43 Title VI, Chapter 28 of the Tiburon Municipal Code is hereby amended as follows: 44 45 (A) In Section 28-2, the definition of"Common interest complex" is amended to EXHIBIT P---L of Town of Tiburon Ordinance No.XXX N.S. Effective--1--/2017 Page I 46 read as follows: 47 48 "Common interest complex"means a multi-unit residence that is a 49 condominium project, a community apartment project, a stock cooperative, 50 or a planned development as defined by California Civil Code section 4100, 51 or successor sections thereto. 52 (B) In Section 28-2, the definition of"Place of employment" is added to read as 53 follows: 54 55 "Place of employment" means any area under the legal or actual control of 56 an employer that an employee or the general public may have cause to enter 57 in the normal course of operation, regardless of the hours of operation, 58 including, but not limited to, indoor and outdoor work areas, construction 59 sites, vehicles used in employment or for business purposes, taxis, employee 60 lounges and restrooms, conference and banquet rooms, employee cafeterias, 61 warehouses, long-term care facilities, and lobbies and hallways. A private 62 residence is not a place of employment unless it is used as a child care or 63 residential health care facility. 64 65 (C) In Section 28-2, the definition of"Retail tobacco store" is amended to read 66 as follows: 67 68 "Retail tobacco store"means a retail store utilized primarily for the sale of 69 tobacco products, tobacco paraphernalia, or smoking products, and in which 70 the sale of other products is merely incidental. 71 72 (D) In Section 28-2, the definition of"Service line" is hereby deleted. 73 74 (E) In Section 28-2, the definition of"Service area" is added to read as follows: 75 76 "Service area" means any publicly or privately owned area, including streets 77 and sidewalks, that is designed to be used or is regularly used by one or 78 more persons to wait for or receive a service or make a transaction, whether 79 or not such service or transaction involves the exchange of money. The term 80 "service area" includes but is not limited to information kiosks, automatic 81 teller machines (ATMs), ticket lines, bus stops or shelters, transit shelters, 82 ferry terminals, mobile vendor lines, or taxi cab stands. 83 84 (F) In Section 28-2, the definition of"Smoking" is amended to read as follows: 85 86 "Smoking"means engaging in an act that produces gas, 87 particles, vapor or smoke by means of combustion, electrical 88 ignition or vaporization, where the apparent or usual purpose 89 of said act is the human inhalation of the byproducts. EXHIBIT . p. ofy Town of Tiburon Ordinance No.XXX N.S. Effective--/--/2017 Page 2 90 "Smoking" does not include acts where (a) the combustion or 91 vaporization material contains no tobacco or nicotine and(b) 92 the purpose is solely olfactory, such as producing smoke from 93 incense. "Smoking" does include the use of a lighted pipe, 94 lighted cigar or lighted cigarette, lighted hookah, electronic 95 smoking device or other device of any kind containing 96 tobacco, tobacco product, tobacco-like product, marijuana, 97 spices, or any other plant or herbal materials to the extent that 98 local regulation of such lighted device, product or material is 99 allowed by law. 100 101 (G) In Section 28-2, the definition of"Tobacco paraphernalia" is amended to 102 read as follows: 103 104 "Tobacco paraphernalia" means cigarette papers or wrappers, pipes, holders 105 of smoking materials of all types, cigarette rolling machines, and any other 106 item designed for the smoking, preparation, storing, or consumption of 107 tobacco, marijuana, or other similar products. 108 109 (H) In Section 28-2, the definition of"Tobacco retailer" is added to read as 110 follows: 111 112 "Tobacco retailer" means any person who sells, offers for sale, or does or 113 offers to exchange for any form of consideration, tobacco, tobacco products, 114 tobacco paraphernalia, or smoking products within the corporate limits of 115 the Town of Tiburon. "Tobacco retailing" shall mean the doing of any of 116 the above. This definition is without regard to the quantity of tobacco, 117 tobacco products, or tobacco paraphernalia sold, offered for sale, exchanged, 118 or offered for exchange. 119 120 (1) Section 28-3 is amended to read as follows: 121 122 Smoking is prohibited in all town-owned vehicles, including jitneys and 123 buses and other means of public transit under the authority of the town, and 124 in all enclosed residential and non-residential facilities, buildings, or 125 structures owned, leased, occupied and/or controlled by the town. 126 127 (J) Section 28-5(d)(4) is amended to read"Service areas". 128 129 (K) Section 28-5(b) is amended to read as follows: 130 131 (b)Notwithstanding any other provisions of this section, any owner, 132 operator, manager or other person who controls any establishment, building, 133 structure, or facility may declare that entire establishment, building, 134 structure, or facility as a non-smoking establishment, building, or structure. EXHIBIT I p. 3 of 6, Town of Tiburon Ordinance No.XXX N.S. Effective 4--/2017 Page 3 135 136 (L) Section 28-8 is revised to read as follows: 137 138 (a) Except as otherwise prohibited by applicable county, state or federal law, 139 the following areas shall not be subject to the smoking restrictions of this 140 chapter: 141 (1) Private residences, except when used as a child care or residential health 142 care facility, or except as set forth in Section 28-7; 143 (2) Private vehicles not located in a multi-unit common area; 144 (3) Retail tobacco stores, only if: 145 (A) The retail tobacco store does not sell edible products, including, 146 for example, food, water, or drinks, and does not allow such products 147 to be consumed on the premises; and 148 (B) The retail tobacco store prohibits minors from entering the store 149 at all times. 150 (4) Unenclosed areas where smoking is not otherwise prohibited by law; 151 (5)An enclosed place of employment that employs only the owner and no 152 other employee or employees, provided that: 153 (A) The place of employment is not a public place, and 154 (B) The enclosed area containing the place of employment does not 155 share a ventilation system with any other enclosed place of 156 employment or public place. 157 (b)Nothing in this section shall be construed to prevent an owner, operator, 158 manager or other person who controls any business, establishment or facility 159 from declaring that entire business, establishment or facility as non-smoking. 160 161 (M) Section 28-10 is amended to read as follows: 162 163 (a) The person, employer, business or non-profit entity with legal or actual 164 control of a building or area where smoking is prohibited by this chapter 165 shall clearly and conspicuously post"No Smoking" signs at the entrances of 166 every building, as well as in other areas under their control where smoking is 167 prohibited under this chapter. However, where an entire building or 168 premises is non-smoking, only entrances need be signed, provided that they 169 are signed to that effect. 170 (b) Every tobacco retailer, retail tobacco store, and every vendor of tobacco 171 products shall visibly post signage pursuant to California Business and 172 Professions Code section 22952, or successor sections thereto, which 173 signage shall expressly reference California Penal Code section 308, or 174 successor sections thereto, at the entrances of any premises subject to 175 regulation under section 28-11 of this chapter and applicable county, state 176 and/or federal law. 177 (c) The absence of signs shall not be a defense to a violation of any 178 provision of this chapter. 179 EXHIBIT p. 4, of Town of Tiburon Ordinance No.XXX N.S. Effective--1--/2017 Page 4 180 (N) Section 28-11 is amended to read as follows: 181 182 (a) Any person, business, tobacco retailer, retail tobacco store, or other 183 establishment subject to this chapter shall post plainly visible signs at each 184 point of purchase of tobacco products that state "THE SALE OF TOBACCO 185 PRODUCTS TO PERSONS UNDER EIGHTEEN YEARS OF AGE IS 186 PROHIBITED BY LAW. PHOTO ID REQUIRED. THE FINE FOR 187 BUYING TOBACCO FOR ANYONE UNDER 21 IS $200". The letters on 188 said signs shall be at least one-half(1/2) inch tall. These signs shall be 189 updated as necessary to conform to any subsequent state or federal 190 requirements or amendments to Business and Professions Code section 191 22952 and/or Penal Code section 308(a) or successor sections thereto. 192 (b)No person, business, tobacco retailer, or other establishment subject to 193 this chapter shall sell, offer to sell, or permit to be sold any tobacco product 194 to an individual without requesting and examining identification establishing 195 the purchaser's age as twenty-one (21) years or greater unless the seller has 196 some clear and convincing basis for knowing the buyer's age. 197 (c) It shall be unlawful for any person, business, tobacco retailer, or retail 198 tobacco store to sell, permit to be sold, or offer for sale any tobacco product 199 by means of self-service merchandising, or by any means other than vendor- 200 endor- 200 assisted sales. 201 (d)No person, business, tobacco retailer, retail tobacco store, or other 202 establishment subject to this chapter shall locate, install, keep, maintain or 203 use, or permit the location, installation, keeping, maintenance or use on his, 204 her or its premises any vending machine for the purpose of selling or 205 distributing any tobacco product. 206 (e) Any person, business, tobacco retailer, retail tobacco store, owner, 207 manager, or operator of any establishment subject to this chapter that 208 violates any provision of this section shall be deemed guilty of a 209 misdemeanor and upon conviction shall be subject to a fine as set forth in 210 Penal Code section 308(a) or successor sections thereto. 211 212 Section 3. Severability. 213 214 If any section, subsection, clause, sentence, or phrase of this Ordinance is for any 215 reason held to be invalid or unconstitutional by a decision of a Court of competent 216 jurisdiction, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of the 217 Ordinance. The Town Council of the Town of Tiburon hereby declares that it would have 218 passed this Ordinance, any section, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase thereof, 219 irrespective of the fact that any one or more sections, subsections, sentences, clauses, or 220 phrases may be declared invalid or unconstitutional. 221 222 Section 4. Effective Date. 223 224 This ordinance shall be in full force and effect thirty (30) days after the date of EXHIBIT T p.Y of Town of Tiburon Ordinance No.XXX N.S. Effective--1--/2017 Page 5 225 adoption. Pursuant to the provisions of the California Government Code, a summary of this 226 ordinance shall be prepared by the Town Attorney. At least five (5) days prior to the Town 227 Council meeting at which adoption of the ordinance is scheduled, the Town Clerk shall (1) 228 publish the summary in a newspaper of general circulation in the Town of Tiburon, and (2) 229 post in the office of the Town Clerk a certified copy of this ordinance. Within fifteen(15) 230 days after the adoption of this ordinance, the Town Clerk shall (1) publish the summary in a 231 newspaper of general circulation in the Town of Tiburon, and (2) post in the office of the 232 Town Clerk a certified copy of the ordinance along with the names of those Council 233 members voting for and against the ordinance. 234 235 This ordinance was read and introduced at a regular meeting of the Town Council of 236 the Town of Tiburon, held on , 2017, and was adopted at a regular meeting 237 of the Town Council of the Town of Tiburon, held on , 2017, by the 238 following vote: 239 240 AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: 241 242 NAYS: COUNCILMEMBERS: 243 244 ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: 245 246 247 248 249 JIM FRASER, MAYOR 250 TOWN OF TIBURON 251 ATTEST: 252 253 254 255 256 LEA STEFANI, TOWN CLERK EXHIBIT p. 6 of Town of Tiburon Ordinance No.XXXN.S. Effective--1--/2017 Page 6 TOWN OF TIBURON Town Council Meeting �. y 1505 Tiburon Boulevard Ma 3 2017 Tiburon,CA 94920 Agenda Item: P�j tj STAFF REPORT To: Mayor and Members of the Town Council From: Community Development Department Subject: Amego Title IV, Chapter 15 (View and Sunlight Obstruction from Tre the Tiburon Municipal Code; (Ordinance, First Reading) Reviewed By: " BACKGROUND In December 1991, the Town Council adopted an entirely revamped View and Sunlight Ordinance following years of mounting litigation expenses incurred in the defense of its prior view and sunlight regulations. Unlike its predecessor, the 1991 ordinance removed the Town from direct involvement and enforcement of view or sunlight blockage issues stemming from the growth of trees, thus removing the Town from exposure to litigation over the application and/or enforcement of the regulations. The constitutionality of the ordinance was subsequently challenged as part of dispute between private property owners. The trial court found the ordinance unconstitutional on its face, but that decision was reversed by a state appeals court and the decision was published. No amendments to the current View Ordinance have been made since its adoption over 26 years ago, and staff is unaware of any additional legal challenges to its validity. The Town's ordinance has been widely consulted and is frequently used as a model for the regulation of view and sunlight blockage from trees in other communities. The Town Council, in response to citizen inquiries and requests, discussed the possibility of amending the View Ordinance at the Town Council-Staff Retreat held on March 3, 2017 (see Exhibit 1). Direction from the Council was for staff to return with an ordinance proposing slight modifications narrowly focusing on removing binding arbitration clauses and streamlining the remedies process without jeopardizing the validity of the view and sunlight regulations. ANALYSIS Staff has prepared a draft ordinance incorporating the direction of the Council. All proposed amendments are shown in redline format in attached Exhibit 2. The draft ordinance is attached as Exhibit 3. Briefly, the amendments propose the following: ➢ Eliminating requirements for, and references to, "arbitrator", "arbitration" and "binding arbitration". ➢ Amending the definitions of"oak tree", "tree claim" and"undesirable tree". ➢ Amending the requirements for private mediation in order to establish deadlines for mutual agreement on a choice of mediator (20 days after agreement to enter mediation) TOWN OF TIBURON PAGE 1 OF 2 Town Council Meeting Maya 3„2017 and conclusion of the mediation process (60 days after the mediator is selected), unless extended by mutual consent of the parties. These modifications reduce the potential for stalling tactics that could drive up costs and unnecessarily prolong tree disputes. ➢ Making a minor clarification to the apportionment of cost provisions of restorative action. ➢ Making minor miscellaneous amendments related to the above items for internal consistency. Town staff believes that the proposed amendments are responsive to resident concerns about certain shortcomings of the tree and view dispute process while protecting the legal validity of the Town's regulations. Correspondence from residents received leading up to the proposed amendments is attached as Exhibit 4. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW Staff has preliminarily determined that adoption of this ordinance is statutorily exempt from the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act(CEQA) pursuant to Section 15378 of the CEQA Guidelines in that it does not constitute a project under CEQA, and if it were found to constitute a project, it would be exempt pursuant to the general rule set forth in CEQA Guidelines Section 15061(b)(3). STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Town Council hold first reading of the proposed ordinance. The procedure would be as follows: 1. The Town Council should hold a public hearing and consider any testimony. 2. If appropriate, move to read by title only and carry the motion; then read the title and hold a roll call vote to pass first reading, waiving any additional readings. 3. If passed for first reading, the ordinance will be scheduled for adoption at the next regular meeting of the Council. EXHIBITS 1. Excerpt of Summary of Town Council-Staff Retreat held on March 3, 2017. 2. Redline version of View Ordinance depicting the proposed amendments. 3. Draft Ordinance. 4. Resident correspondence leading up to proposed amendments. Prepared By: Scott Anderson,Director of Community Developme � TOWN OF TIBURON PAGE 2 OF 2 Director of Public Works/Town Engineer Barnes agreed. He gave an overview of pricing that Staff and Council had reviewed in recent years. He said it might not be worthwhile. Mayor Fraser requested the item be included on a future Town Council agenda for further discussion. TreeNiew Obstruction Ordinance Remedies Town Manager Chanis and Director of Community Development Anderson commented on several citizen requests to have Staff review the existing View Ordinance, and to consider making revisions to the remedies offered for local disputes, particularly the option for binding arbitration. Director Anderson commented on Staff reservations on making too many changes. Councilmember Doyle said the ordinance does not offer many ways to take positive action for those affected by a growing tree. He said citizens want to be good neighbors, and he hoped that there was a way to help these neighborhoods deal with the issues. He suggested adding a more specific guideline (without the current degree of legal enforcement). He said the Town values its neighborhoods, and the way people treat each other. Councilmember Tollini inquired about the arbitration clause. Town Attorney Stock said both parties must agree to do arbitration. He did not necessarily agree that arbitration is good for municipalities, because the arbitrator does not always understand public law, but said it is quicker and cheaper than court. Planning Manager Watrous added that in some cases, residents have used arbitration as "a stalling mechanism". Councilmember Fredericks said some neighbors have long-standing agreements, and the Town should not make any changes that affect those agreements that work. She agreed that remedies should be streamlined. Vice Mayor O'Donnell and Councilmember Doyle discussed the tradition that the neighbors who want the tree trimmed usually pay for it, but those new to Town are usually unaware of that. Doyle said people lose track of their maintenance, and that is when the problems begin, especially because too much cutting of a tree at the wrong time of year can damage or kill the tree. There was a consensus among the Council to have Staff return with a slight modification to the View Ordinance narrowly focused on eliminating or smoothing out the binding arbitration and remedies process. MARCH 3,201.7 COUNCIL-STAFF RETREAT SUMN4ARY Page 3 of 8 REDLINE VERSION Chapter 15 - VIEW AND SUNLIGHT OBSTRUCTION FROM TREES 15-1 - Purpose and principles. (a) The purposes of this chapter are to: (1) Establish the right of persons to preserve views or sunlight which existed at any time since they purchased. or occupied a property from unreasonable obstruction by the growth of trees. (2) Establish a process by which persons may seek restoration of such views or sunlight when unreasonably obstructed by the growth of trees or other vegetation (see definition of"Tree"). (b) The rights and the restorative process are based upon the following general principles: (1) The town recognizes that residents, property owners and businesses cherish their outward views from the Tiburon Peninsula, and that they also cherish the benefits of plentiful sunlight reaching their buildings and yards. The town recognizes that both outward views and plentiful sunlight reaching property contribute greatly to the quality of life in Tiburon, and promote the general welfare of the entire community. (2) The town also recognizes the desire of many of its residents, property owners and businesses for beautiful and plentiful landscaping, including trees. The town realizes that this desire may sometimes conflict with the preservation of views and sunlight, and that disputes related to view or sunlight obstruction are inevitable. (3) Owners and residents should maintain trees on their property in a healthy condition for both safety reasons and for preservation of sunlight and outward views. Before planting trees, owners and residents should consider view and sunlight blockage potential, both currently and at tree maturity. Persons have the right to seek civil remedies when threatened by dangerous tree growth. (4) The town shall establish a process by which persons may seek to preserve and restore views or sunlight which existed at any time since they purchased or occupied property from unreasonable obstruction by the growth of trees. The town shall also establish a list of factors to be considered in determining appropriate actions to restore views or sunlight. (5) When a view or sunlight obstruction dispute arises, the parties should act reasonably to resolve the dispute through friendly communication, thoughtful negotiation, EXHIBIT SI p. of compromise and other traditional means, such as discussions with the appropriate neighborhood or homeowner association. Those disputes which are not resolved through such means shall follow the procedure established herein. (6) It is the intent of the town that the provisions of this chapter receive thoughtful and reasonable application. It is not the intent of the town to encourage clear-cutting or substantial denuding of any property of its trees by overzealous application of provisions of this chapter. 15-2 - Definitions. For the purpose of this chapter, the meaning and construction of words and phrases is as follows: "Active use area" means the most frequently occupied portion or portions of a commercial building from which views are available. "Arbitrator-" means a netitfal person who will eonduet a pfoeess similar to a tFial, and��o will heaf testimony, eensidef evidenee, and mak:e a binding deeision for-the dispt4ing parties, "Binding afbitr-ation" means a legal proeedufe as set f6fth in seetion 1290 et seq. of the Code of Givil Pr-aeedur-e—. "Complaining party" means any property owner (or legal occupant with written permission of the property owner) who alleges that trees located on the property of another person are causing unreasonable obstruction of his or her pre-existing views or sunlight. "Mediator" means a neutral, objective third person who assists people in finding mutually satisfactory solutions to their problem. "Person" means any individual, corporation, partnership, firm or other legal entity, excluding the Town of Tiburon. "Primary living area" means the portion or portions of a residence from which a view is observed most often by the occupants relative to other portions of the residence. The determination of primary living area is to be made on a case-by-case basis. "Protected tree" means any of the following: "Heritage tree," meaning any tree which has a trunk with a circumference exceeding sixty inches, measured twenty-four inches above the ground level. "Oak tree," means any type of oak tree, including but not limited to coast live oak, blue oak, California black oak, interior live oak, canyon live oak, Engelmann oak or valley oak tree. "Dedicated tree," meaning a tree of special significance so designated by resolution of the town council. EXHIBIT I P. I of "Removal" means the elimination of any tree from its present location. "Restorative action" means any specific requirement to resolve a tree dispute. "Stump growth" means new growth from the remaining portion of the tree trunk, the main portion of which has been cut off. "Sunlight" means the availability of direct or indirect sunlight to the primary living area of a residence. "Thinning" means the selective removal of entire branches from a tree so as to improve visibility through the tree and/or improve the tree's structural condition. "Topping" means elimination of the upper portion of a tree's trunk or main leader. "Tree" means any woody plant with the potential to obstruct views or sunlight, including but not limited to trees, shrubs, hedges, and bushes. References to "tree" shall include the plural. "Tree claim" means the written basis for Effbitration or court action under the provisions of this chapter. "Tree owner" means any person owning real property in Tiburon upon whose land is located a tree or trees alleged by a complaining party to cause an unreasonable obstruction. "Trimming" means the selective removal of portions of branches from a tree so as to modify the tree(s) shape or profile or alter the tree's appearance. "View" means a scene from the primary living area of a residence or the active use areas of a nonresidential building. The term "view" includes both upslope and downslope scenes, but is generally medium or long range in nature, as opposed to short range. Views include but are not limited to skylines, bridges, landmarks, distant cities, distinctive geologic features, hillside terrains, wooded canyons, ridges and bodies of water. Some additional examples are: (1) San Francisco Bay (including San Pablo Bay, Richardson Bay, and islands therein); (2) The San Francisco-Oakland Bay Bridge; (3) The Golden Gate Bridge; (4) The Richmond-San Rafael Bridge; (5) Mount Tamalpais; (6) The Tiburon Peninsula or surrounding communities (including the city of San Francisco). "Windowing" means a form of thinning by which openings or "windows" are created to restore views and or sunlight. 15-3 - Rights established. F EXHIBIT p. 3 of `�l (a) Persons shall have the right to preserve and seek restoration of views or sunlight which existed at any time since they purchased or occupied a property, when such views or sunlight are from the primary living area or active use area and have subsequently been unreasonably obstructed by the growth of trees. (b) In order to establish such rights pursuant to this chapter, the person must follow the process established in this chapter. In addition to the above rights, private parties have the right to seek remedial action for imminent danger caused by trees. (c) All persons are advised that the alteration, removal, and planting of certain trees requires a permit under chapter 15A of the Tiburon Municipal Code (Trees). The applicability of chapter 15A should be determined prior to any action on trees. 15-4 - Unreasonable obstruction prohibited. (a) No person shall plant, maintain or permit to grow any tree which unreasonably obstructs the view from, or sunlight reaching, the primary living area or active use area of any other parcel of property within the Town of Tiburon. (b) Because the maintenance of views and sunlight benefits the general welfare of the entire town, any unreasonable obstruction of views or sunlight from the primary living area or active use area shall also constitute a public nuisance. 1.5-5 - Criteria for determining unreasonable obstruction. The following criteria are to be considered (but are not exclusive) in determining whether unreasonable obstruction has occurred: (a) The extent of obstruction of pre-existing views from, or sunlight reaching, the primary living area or active use area of the complaining party, both currently and at tree maturity. (b) The quality of the pre-existing views being obstructed, including obstruction of landmarks, vistas, or other unique features. (c) The extent to which the trees interfere with efficient operation of a complaining party's pre-existing solar energy systems. (d) The extent to which the complaining party's view and/or sunlight has been diminished over time by factors other than tree growth. 15-6 - Criteria for determining appropriate restorative action. When it has been determined that unreasonable obstruction has occurred, then the following unweighted factors shall be considered in determining appropriate restorative action: (a) The hazard posed by a tree or trees to persons or structures on the property of the complaining party including, but not limited to, fire danger and the danger of falling limbs or trees; (b) "The variety of tree, its projected rate of growth and maintenance requirements; EXHIBIT P. W pp of (c) Aesthetic quality of the tree(s), including but not limited to species characteristics, size, growth, form and vigor; (d) Location with respect to overall appearance, design or use of the tree owner's property; (e) Soil stability provided by the tree(s) considering soil structure, degree of slope and extent of the tree's root system; (I) Privacy (visual and auditory) and wind screening provided by the tree(s)to the tree owner and to neighbors; (g) Energy conservation and or climate control provided by the tree(s); (h) Wildlife habitat provided by the tree(s); (i) Whether trees are "protected trees," as defined in section 15-2 of this chapter. 15-7 - Types of restorative action. (a) Restorative actions include but are not limited to the following: (1) Trimming; (2) Thinning or windowing; (3) Topping; (A) Removal with replacement plantings; (5) Removal without replacement plantings. (b) In all cases, the documentable extent of view or sunlight existing at any time during the tenure of the present owner or legal occupant is the maximum limit of restorative action which may be required. (c) Restorative action may include written conditions (including ongoing maintenance), and directions as to appropriate timing of such actions, and may be made to run with the land and apply to successors in interest. Where removal is required, replacement by appropriate species should be considered. (d) In cases where trimming, windowing or other restorative action may affect the health of a tree which is to be preserved, such actions should be carried out in accordance with standards established by the International Society of Arboriculture for use in the state of California. 15-8 - Town guidelines concerning restorative action. The Town of Tiburon provides the following general guidelines concerning restorative actions: (a) Undesirable trees. By reason of their tall height at maturity, rapid growth, dense foliage, shallow root structure, flammability, breakability or invasiveness, certain types of trees have been deemed "undesirable" by the town, including Blue Gum Eucalyptus, Coast Redwood, Monterey Pine, Canary Pine, Monterey Cypress trees, or any other tree which generally grows more than three feet per year in height and is capable of reaching a height of over thirty-five feet at maturity. When considering restorative action for "undesirable" trees, aggressive action is preferred. (b) Protected trees. The Town of Tiburon has designated certain trees to be "protected trees," defined in section 15-2. Any alteration or removal of protected trees will require EXHIBIT of 0/ a permit from the town's planning director pursuant to chapter 15A of the Tiburon Municipal Code. (c) Stump growth. Stump growth generally results in the hazard of weals limbs, and its protection is not desirable. When considering restorative action for stump growth, aggressive action is preferred. Restorative action which will result in future stump growth should be avoided. (d) Trimming. Trimming is the most minor form of physical restorative action. This option is recommended when minor unreasonable obstruction has occurred, provided that ongoing maintenance is guaranteed. (e) Thinning or windowing. When simple trimming will not resolve the unreasonable obstruction, thinning or windowing may be necessary. These should be supervised by a certified arborist. (f) Topping. Topping as a restorative action should be used with caution. Topping can have deleterious effects on a tree's health, appearance and cost of maintenance. Topping frequently results in stump growth. "free removal, with replacement plantings, may be a preferable alternative. (g) Removal. Tree removal may be required where such removal is essential to preserve pre- existing views or sunlight. While normally considered a drastic measure, tree removal can be the preferred solution in many circumstances. (h) Maintenance. Ongoing tree maintenance requirements are strongly recommended as part of restorative action in order to achieve lasting preservation of pre-existing views or sunlight. (i) Permanence. Conditions of restorative action should be recorded and run with the land to help guarantee permanent preservation of pre-existing views and sunlight. 15-9 - Process for resolution of obstruction disputes. The following process shall be used in the resolution of view and sunlight obstruction disputes between parties. (a) (1) Initial reconciliation. A complaining party who believes that tree growth on the property of another has caused unreasonable obstruction of views or sunlight from the primary living area or active use area shall notify the tree owner in writing of such concerns. (2) The notification should, if possible, be accompanied by personal discussions to enable the complaining party and tree owner to attempt to reach a mutually agreeable solution. If personal discussions fail, neighborhood associations may be willing to assist with the resolution of the obstruction dispute. (3) For trees located on town-owned property, see section 15-16. (b) (1) Mediation. If the initial reconciliation attempt fails, the complaining party shall propose mediation as a timely means to settle the obstruction dispute. (2) Acceptance of mediation by the tree owner shall be voluntary, but the tree owner shall have no more than thirty days from service of notice to either accept or reject the offer of mediation. If mediation is accepted, the parties shall mutually agree upon a mediator — �< EXHIBIT p � of � within ten twenty (20) days of the acceptance of mediation, or the offer of mediation shall be deemed to have been declined. (3) It is recommended that the services of a professionally trained mediator be employed. The eottn4y of Marin provides professional mediation serviees at a nominal eost. (4) The mediation meeting may be informal. The mediation process may include the hearing of viewpoints of lay or expert witnesses, and shall include a site visit to the properties of the complaining party and the tree owner. Parties are encouraged to contact immediate neighbors and solicit input. (5) The mediator shall consider the purposes and policies set forth in this chapter in attempting to help resolve the dispute. The mediator shall not have the power to issue binding orders for restorative action, but shall strive to enable the parties to resolve their dispute by written agreement in order to reduceee the potentialneed for binding ar-bit,.atio,, , r litigation. The mediation shall be completed within sixty (60) days following mutual agreement upon the choice of mediator, unless extended by mutual consent of the parties, or the mediation shall be deemed to have failed. 15-10 - Tree claim preparation. (a) In the event that the initial reconciliation process fails, and mediation either is declined by the tree owner or fails, the complaining.party must prepare a tree claim, and provide a copy to the tree owner, in order to pursue either binding arbitFation or under the authority established by this chapter. (b) A tree claim shall consist of all of the following: (1) A description of the nature and extent of the alleged obstruction, including pertinent and corroborating physical evidence. Evidence may include but is not limited to photographic prints, negatives or slides. Such evidence must show absence of the obstruction at any documentable time during the tenure of the complaining party. Evidence to show the date of property acquisition or occupancy by the complaining party must be included; (2) The location of all trees alleged to cause the obstruction, the address of the property upon which the tree(s) are located, and the present tree owner's name and address; (3) Evidence of the failure of initial reconciliation, as described in section 15-9, to resolve the dispute. The complaining party must provide physical evidence that written attempts at reconciliation have been made and have failed. Evidence may include, but is not limited to, copies of and receipts for certified or registered mail correspondence; (4) Evidence that mediation, as described in section 15-9, has been attempted and has failed, or has been declined by the tree owner; (5) Specific restorative actions proposed by the complaining party to resolve the unreasonable obstruction. arbitration-. arbitration.(a) in those eases where the initial i!eeeneiliation preeess fails and w-hefe mediation i-s declined by the tree ownef or-has failed, the eemplaining pafty must e r- in wfiting4o stibmit the dispute to binding afbitr-ation, and the tree owner-FRay eleet 1--tinding EXHIBIT P. of ( eet binding ar-bitration. if aeeepte,a the ,,.,,.+;os shall„gree on a speeifie ,,buff,,f within twenty one days ,.l,,; .. and shall submit a eoniplle+,-- -W.-AR—en, r«+ + +I,o rl ;r;,, <r ,+<, and the +.eo This fepoft shall inelude the afbitfalor's findings with respeet to seetions 15 5 and 15 6 of this 6nzptei up@t3iiet limit Ofthe -Afbitratof's repoft shall be filed with the town attorney upon eompletion. Any deeision of the arbitrator shall be enfor-eeable pufsuant to the provisions of Code of Givil Pfoeedufe Beet o 1280 et JSP 1.5-12 - Litigation. (a) In those cases where the initial reconciliation process fails, and mediation is eitherbin4i-ng afbit,.afio,, ;s declined by the tree owner or fails, then civil action may be pursued by the complaining party for resolution of the view or sunlight obstruction dispute under the rights and provisions of this chapter. (b) The litigant must state in the lawsuit that initial reconciliation failed and that mediation was either declined by the tree owner or failedafbitfati nwa off fe an no „^^o„+o,a, and ui vi�i utiv that a copy of the lawsuit was riled with the town attorney. A copy of any order or settlement in the lawsuit shall also be filed with the town attorney. 1.5-13 - apportionment of costs. (a) Cost of mediation and afbitfat The complaining party and tree owner shall each pay fifty percent of mediation of ,,rbit<.atio,, fees, unless they agree otherwise or allow the mediator of trof-discretion for allocating costs. (b) Cost of litigation. To be determined by the court or through a settlement. (c) Cost of restorative action. To be determined by mutual agreement or court order. through mediation, ar-bitfation, eouft judgment of settlement-. 1.5-14 - Liabilities. (a) The issuance of mediation findings, a .,fbit,,atior fepo,* or a court decision shall not create any liability of the town with regard to the restorative actions to be performed. (b) Failure of the town to enforce provisions of this chapter shall not give rise to any civil or criminal liabilities on the part of the town. 15-15 - Limitations. It is not the intent of the town in adopting this chapter to affect obligations imposed by an existing easement or a valid preexisting covenant or agreement. EXHIBIT p. of L 15-1.6 - 'frees on town-owned property. Trees located on town-owned property are exempt from the provisions of this chapter. Requests or complaints regarding trees located on town-owned property should be made in writing to the superintendent of public works for consideration in accordance with policies adopted by the town. EXHIBIT p• 0f 1 ORDINANCE NO. XXX N. S. 2 3 AN ORDINANCE OF THE TOWN COUNCIL OF THE TOWN 4 OF TIBURON AMENDING PROVISIONS OF TITLE IV, 5 CHAPTER 15 OF THE TIBURON MUNICIPAL CODE 6 (VIEW AND SUNLIGHT OBSTRUCTION FROM TREES) 7 8 9 The Town Council of the Town of Tiburon does ordain as follows: 10 11 Section 1. Findings. 12 13 A. The Town Council adopted its current View and Sunlight Obstruction from Trees 14 regulations in 1991, codified as Title IV, Chapter 15 of the Municipal Code. 15 16 B. The Town has recently received information that the binding arbitration provisions 17 set forth in Chapter 15 could result in unintended cost and other ramifications that 18 detract from their intended purpose as originally set forth in the regulations, and the 19 purpose of this amending ordinance is to remove the arbitration provisions from 20 Chapter 15 of the Tiburon Municipal Code. 21 22 C. The Town Council held a public hearing on , 2017 and has heard and 23 considered any and all public testimony on this matter. 24 25 D. The Town Council finds that all notices and procedures required by law attendant to 26 the adoption of this Ordinance have been followed. 27 28 E. The Town Council finds that the amendments made by this Ordinance are necessary 29 for the protection of the public health, safety, and welfare, and that the amendments 30 will have no deleterious effect on future use of the regulations for their intended 31 purposes. 32 33 F. The Town Council has found that the amendments made by this Ordinance are 34 consistent with the goals and policies of the Tiburon General Plan and other adopted 35 ordinances and regulations of the Town of Tiburon. 36 37 G. The Town Council finds that adoption of this ordinance is statutorily exempt from 38 the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act(CEQA)pursuant to 39 Section 15378 of the CEQA Guidelines in that it does not constitute a project under 40 CEQA, and if it were found to constitute a project, it would be exempt pursuant to 41 the general rule set forth in CEQA Guidelines Section 15061(b)(3). 42 43 Section 2. Adoption of Amendments to the Tiburon Municipal Code. 44 45 Title IV, Chapter 15 of the Tiburon Municipal Code is amended as follows: Town of Tiburon Ordinance No.xxx N S. Effective--1--/2017 Page I EXHIBIT—3 p. I of 46 A. Section 15-11 of the Tiburon Municipal Code is hereby deleted. 47 48 B. In Section 15-2 [Definitions], the definitions for"Arbitrator" and"Binding 49 arbitration" are hereby deleted. 50 51 C. In Section 15-2 [Definitions], the definition for"Oak tree" is modified to read as 52 follows: 53 54 "Oak tree," means any type of oak tree, including but not limited to coast live oak, 55 blue oak, California black oak, interior live oak, canyon live oak, Engelmann oak 56 or valley oak tree. 57 D. In Section 15-2 [Definitions], the definition for"Tree claim" is modified to read as 58 follows: 59 60 "Tree claim" means the written basis for court action under the provisions of this 61 chapter. 62 E. Section 15-8(a) is modified to read as follows: 63 64 Undesirable trees. By reason of their tall height at maturity, rapid growth, dense 65 foliage, shallow root structure, flammability, breakability or invasiveness, certain 66 types of trees have been deemed "undesirable" by the town, including Blue Gum 67 Eucalyptus, Coast Redwood, Monterey Pine, Canary Pine, Monterey Cypress 68 trees, or any other tree which generally grows more than three feet per year in 69 height and is capable of reaching a height of over thirty-five feet at maturity. 70 When considering restorative action for "undesirable" trees, aggressive action is 71 preferred. 72 73 F. Section 15-9(b) is hereby amended to read as follows: 74 75 (b) (1) Mediation. If the initial reconciliation attempt fails, the complaining party 76 shall propose mediation as a timely means to settle the obstruction dispute. 77 (2) Acceptance of mediation by the tree owner shall be voluntary, but the tree 78 owner shall have no more than thirty (30) days from service of notice to either 79 accept or reject the offer of mediation. If mediation is accepted, the parties shall 80 mutually agree upon a mediator within twenty (20) days of the acceptance of 81 mediation, or the offer of mediation shall be deemed to have been declined. 82 (3) It is recommended that the services of a professionally trained mediator be 83 employed. 84 (4) The mediation meeting may be informal. The mediation process may 85 include the hearing of viewpoints of lay or expert witnesses, and shall include a 86 site visit to the properties of the complaining party and the tree owner. Parties 87 are encouraged to contact immediate neighbors and solicit input. Town of Tiburon Ordinance No.xxx N S. Effective--/--/2017 Page 2 EXHIBIT 3 p. of 88 (5) The mediator shall consider the purposes and policies set forth in this 89 chapter in attempting to help resolve the dispute. The mediator shall not have the 90 power to issue binding orders for restorative action, but shall strive to enable the 91 parties to resolve their dispute by written agreement in order to reduce the 92 potential for litigation. The mediation shall be completed within sixty (60) days 93 following mutual agreement upon the choice of mediator, unless extended by 94 mutual consent of the parties, or the mediation shall be deemed to have failed. 95 96 G. Section 15-9(b)(5) is hereby amended to read as follows: 97 98 (5) The mediator shall consider the purposes and policies set forth in this 99 chapter in attempting to help resolve the dispute. The mediator shall not 100 have the power to issue binding orders for restorative action, but shall strive 101 to enable the parties to resolve their dispute by written agreement in order 102 to reduce the potential for litigation. 103 104 H. Section 15-10(a) is hereby amended to read as follows: 105 106 (a) In the event that the initial reconciliation process fails, and mediation is 107 either declined by the tree owner or fails, the complaining party must 108 prepare a tree claim, and provide a copy to the tree owner, in order to pursue 109 litigation under the authority established by this chapter. 110 111 I. Section 15-12 is hereby amended to read as follows: 112 113 (a) In those cases where the initial reconciliation process fails, and mediation 114 is either declined by the tree owner or fails, then civil action may be 115 pursued by the complaining party for resolution of the view or sunlight 116 obstruction dispute under the rights and provisions of this chapter. 117 118 (b) The litigant must state in the lawsuit that initial reconciliation failed and 119 that mediation was either declined by the tree owner or failed, and that a 120 copy of the lawsuit was filed with the town attorney. A copy of any order 121 or settlement in the lawsuit shall also be filed with the town attorney. 122 123 J. Section 15-13 is hereby amended to read as follows: 124 125 (a) Cost of mediation. The complaining party and tree owner shall each pay fifty 126 percent of mediation fees, unless they agree otherwise or allow the mediator 127 discretion for allocating costs. 128 129 (b) Cost of litigation. To be determined by the court or through a settlement. 130 (c) Cost of restorative action. To be determined by mutual agreement or court Town of Tiburon Ordinance No.xxx N S. Effective--1--/2017 Page 3 EXHIBIT 3 p. of 131 order. 132 K. Section 15-14 is hereby amended to read as follows: 133 134 (a) The issuance of mediation findings or a court decision shall not create any 135 liability of the town with regard to the restorative actions to be performed. 136 137 (b) Failure of the town to enforce provisions of this chapter shall not give rise to 138 any civil or criminal liabilities on the part of the town. 139 140 Section 3. Severability. 141 142 If any section, subsection, clause, sentence, or phrase of this Ordinance is for any 143 reason held to be invalid or unconstitutional by a decision of a Court of competent 144 jurisdiction, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of the 145 Ordinance. The Town Council of the Town of Tiburon hereby declares that it would have 146 passed this Ordinance, any section, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase thereof, 147 irrespective of the fact that any one or more sections, subsections, sentences, clauses, or 148 phrases may be declared invalid or unconstitutional. 149 150 Section 4. Effective Date. 151 152 This ordinance shall be in full force and effect thirty (30) days after the date of 153 adoption. Pursuant to the provisions of the California Government Code, a summary of this 154 ordinance shall be prepared by the Town Attorney. At least five (5) days prior to the Town 155 Council meeting at which adoption of the ordinance is scheduled, the Town Clerk shall (1) 156 publish the summary in a newspaper of general circulation in the Town of Tiburon, and (2) 157 post in the office of the Town Clerk a certified copy of this ordinance. Within fifteen(15) 158 days after the adoption of this ordinance,the Town Clerk shall (1) publish the summary in a 159 newspaper of general circulation in the Town of Tiburon, and (2) post in the office of the 160 Town Clerk a certified copy of the ordinance along with the names of those Council 161 members voting for and against the ordinance. 162 163 164 This ordinance was read and introduced at a regular meeting of the Town Council of 165 the Town of Tiburon, held on , 2017, and was adopted at a regular meeting 166 of the Town Council of the Town of Tiburon, held on , 2017, by the 167 following vote: 168 169 170 AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: 171 172 NAYS: COUNCILMEMBERS: 173 174 ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS: Town of Tiburon Ordinance No.xxx N.S. Effective--1--/2017 Page 4 EXHIBIT �� p. of 175 176 177 178 179 JIM FRASER, MAYOR 180 TOWN OF TIBURON 181 ATTEST: 182 183 184 185 LEA STEFANI, TOWN CLERK Town of Tiburon Ordinance No.xxx N S. Effective--1--/2017 Page 5 EXHIBIT P. Sof September 24, 2016 To. Mayor Erin Tollini, Vice-Mayor Jim Fraser, Town Council Members, &.Town Manager Greg Chanis,TOWN OF TIBURON, CALIFORNIA Re.,_Request for improvement of the View and Sunlight Obstruction From Trees Ordinance; opportunity for improvement of nelahborhood relations Dear Mayor Toliini, Vice-Mayor Fraser, Town Council Members and Town Manager Greg Chanis, We need your help on a serious community issue. We believe that the current View & Light Ordinance is unfair for it allows a person who is in flagrant violation of the Town's ordinances to hold a neighbor's view hostage. As experienced in our neighborhood, the Ordinance rewards those who refuse to trim their trees, and deprives view-holders of relatively quick and inexpensive remedies when neighborly attempts at resolution are unsuccessful. As currently written, the Ordinance mandates expensiverio vate arbitration solely at the demand of the violating tree-owner. Even if the view-holder is not inclined to pursue private arbitration due to its hefty costs in the way of private arbitrator fees, open-ended duration, and lack of judicial oversight, he is deprived of the option of filing a relatively inexpensive and,expeditious action in court without the consent of the violating tree-owner. This loophole, unlike the parallel Ordinance of our sister-community of Belvedere (which entitles either party to seek redress in court without protracted and expensive private arbitration, gives a unilateral tactical and financial advantage to the violating tree-owner. Thus, as has happened in our neighborhood, some violating tree.-owners demand exorbitant cash payments (as high as $100,000) as an alternative to expensive private arbitration, which typically drags on for years without judicial oversight. This is not fair, and suggests a lack of due process. It has engendered considerable frustration, has eroded neighborhood relations, has enriched "tree lawyers"without achieving satisfactory results, has deprived many of us of the views that we enjoyed at the time we purchased our homes, and has eroded our property values. We request that the "View and Sunlight Obstruction from Trees" Ordinance be re-visited so that, in those cases where neighborly efforts at resolution are unsuccessful, view-holders are not deprived of timely and meaningful remedies. We would appreciate your placing this matter on the Town Council's Agenda so that improvements can be explored. Thank you for your courtesy, and, thank you, especially, for your volunteer efforts on behalf of our community. �6�-r3 .�9uatu.�zzr� BOB AUSTRIAN,45 Southridge West RICK&LALITA WATERMAN,36 Southridge West - EXHIBIT p._L of Request to Town Council-View ano Sunlight Obatrudign FroM Trees Or inn e Page Two September 24, 2016 4.7 Southridge Page Two S4tmbr 24, 20i Request to Town Council_ ` w n ii r in ng Page Two September 24, 2016 aW � AR� i-ot S N IP65 hoSouthridge West EXHIBIT P. of AMENDMENT OF 15-11 TO INCLUDE A LITIGATION CLAUSE SIMILAR TO BELVEDERE'S Some 27 years ago, when Tiburon's "tree" Ordinance was being crafted, court actions routinely took 5 or more years. Not sufficient courts/judges to handle the burgeoning population. Indeed, it was the public's outcry over the glacial pace of the public justice system that persuaded legislators to enact "Fastrack"--- Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) statutes mandating judicial mediation, judicial arbitration, etc. within very short and tightly-controlled periods of time (4 months) in all civil cases. Thus, over the past decades, the backlog on civil dockets has virtually vanished. Indeed, as seen in the recent much-publicized Belvedere "tree" case, civil cases in Marin County courts are concluded in 10 months or less even in the most vigorous situations. Unfortunately, over the same decades, there has been a vigorous effort to privatize the justice system mostly by creative lawyers and their corporate clients to the detriment of consumers. High-priced private arbitration/mediation services that do not receive public scrutiny have flourished. "Arbitration" has been touted as a panacea without mention of the many pitfalls, deprivation of rights, and enormous costs of this privatized system. Fortunately, in November 2015, the New York Times published two well-researched articles describing the problems with private arbitration. This has helped to raise public awareness and has been on point with the many problems we have experienced with trying to enforce our "tree" ordinance. For almost 15 years, we have struggled... THE TAXPAYER-SUPPORTED PUBLIC JUSTICE SYSTEM COURT FEES: Marin County Superior Court filing fee is $370. For people of modest means, all court fees are waived. No waiver of fees with private arbitration/mediation services. ALTERNATIVE DISPUTE RESOLUTION (ADR) UNDER THE AUTHORITY OF THE COURTS: Upon filing a lawsuit, plaintiff is required to serve ADR notice on the adverse party. All court- appointed arbitrators are highly trained (minimum 10 years of experience required). Options: a) Voluntary Settlement Conferences - no fees b) Mediation - Modest Means Mediation/self-represented party - no fees/$150. Private mediator's fees in recent much-publicized case were approximately $35,000.00! c) Non-binding Judicial Arbitration; no fees - right to request a trial de novo with a judge d) Binding Judicial Arbitration - no fees; no right to appeal the arbitrator's decision e) Neutral Evaluation - no fees f) Mandatory Settlement Conferences - no fees DISCOVERY: is governed by clear rules. Unlike a private arbitrator/mediator, Judge assigned to the case can award sanctions if there is stalling or mischief. If judicial mediation/arbitration fails, case is assigned for trial by judge (at no charge to the parties). With private arbitration, there are no hard and fast rules. Thus, there is plenty of room for gamesmanship without penalty. TRIAL PRIORITY FOR SENIORS: California Code of Civil Procedure 36(a)(2): "The court shall set the matter for trial not more than 120 days (4 months!).... and there shall be no continuance...." SPEEDY RESOLUTION: Recent Belvedere case was filed on 4/23/15. No senior-citizen priority. Yet, trial less than 10 months later--- 2/19/16. By contrast, many people in Tiburon have been flailing around with private mediators/arbitrators, expensive attorneys (non-negotiable approx. EXI-3IBIT P. 3 of $500/hr) and high-priced arborists/experts for years without an end in sight. Foot-dragging and recalcitrance is common. The attorneys and private mediators have no financial incentive to hurry things along...the more they drag out the matter, the more they get to bill...Hundreds of thousands of dollars are spent on protracted private (secret) proceedings while an army of "tree" lawyers, arborists and private mediators/arbitrators thrive. INSURANCE COVERAGE: Parties to binding private arbitration are deprived of potential insurance coverage. Plaintiff is asserting a claim for his view; he is precluded from asserting an ancillary claim for an "occurrence" which could trigger a duty to defend and indemnify. He has to file a separate action in court and go through the burdens all over again. Furthermore, the parties are deprived of the muscle of the insurance company in negotiating a compromise. As an aside, insurance companies are not known to pay lawyers $500-$600/hour! Individual citizens do not have equivalent negotiating power. DISCLOSURES & IMPACT ON VALUE OF VIEW HOMES THAT ARE UP FOR SALE: While the Ordinance is public, it is not a document that is recorded on the title. Therefore, sellers of view homes and their realtors/brokers may have a duty to disclose that the tree Ordinance mandates private binding arbitration in the event the Tree Owner is un-cooperative. This impacts value and is a particular concern to those of us who are in our golden years and in declining health, and need to consider our options. Kucera v. Lizza (1997): We agree with the Court of Appeals that Tiburon's ordinance, in general, is a valid exercise of its "police power". However, in 1997, this Court was not asked to consider due process/equal protection aspects of Section 15-11 that requires the Complainant to submit to Binding Arbitration while the Tree Owner is under no such compulsion. Both parties should have equal right to select the venue and the means that would be most appropriate. View Holder should not be required to "split" his cause of action between that which is mandated to private binding arbitration and that which is not. View Holder should not be required to forfeit his right to prompt equitable relief. He should not be forced to incur the enormous burden, expense and delays of private mediation to be followed by binding private arbitration at the whim of the Tree Owner. He should not be denied access to public, taxpayer- supported justice under court supervision and at a negligible (or free) cost. BELVEDERE VIEW ORDINANCE: Adopted in 1998, some 6 years after Tiburon. At Sections 8.28.04F & G, the Ordinance affords equal rights to both parties: "....In those cases where mediation is declined by the tree owner or fails, and both parties agree to binding arbitration,..." (emphasis added) "Litigation. Where binding arbitration is not agreed upon by the parties the complainant may file a civil action in the Marin County superior court...." (emphasis added). On 1/25/05, our former Town attorney, Ann Danforth, wrote: ......Belvedere's approach looks reasonable....I will ask the Town Council if they'd like to consider amending our ordinance to include an arbitration clause similar to Belvedere's" Such a small tweak will not have any adverse impact on the concerns of our Town, but it will greatly help us maintain our precious views. EXHIBIT p. 4 of� MARIN COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT 3501 Civic Center Drive P.O. Box 4988 San Rafael, CA 94913-4988 (415)444-7040 �CfFOPN"P'l ALTERNATIVE DISPUTE RESOLUTION (ADR) INFORMATIONAL NOTICE (California Rule of Court 3.221) The plaintiff must serve a copy of this notice with the complaint on all parties to this case. Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) is a way of solving legal disputes without going to trial. Using ADR may have a variety of benefits, depending on the type of ADR process used and the circumstances of the particular case. ADVANTAGES OF ADR Save Time A dispute often can be settled or decided much sooner with ADR; often in a matter of months, even weeks, while bringing a lawsuit to trial can take a year or more. Save Money When cases are resolved earlier through ADR, the parties may save some of the money they would have spent on attorney fees, court costs, experts'fees, and other litigation expenses. Increase Control Over the Process and the Outcome In ADR, parties typically play a greater role in shaping both the process and its outcome. In most ADR processes, parties have more opportunity to tell their side of the story than they do at trial. Some ADR processes, such as mediation, allow the parties to fashion creative resolutions that are not available in a trial. Other ADR processes, such as arbitration, allow the parties to choose an expert in a particular field to decide the dispute. Preserve Relationships ADR can be a less adversarial way to resolve a dispute. For example, an experienced mediator can help the parties effectively communicate their needs and point of view to the other side. This can be an important advantage where the parties have a relationship to preserve. Increase Satisfaction In a trial, there is typically a winner and,a loser. The loser is not likely to be happy, and even the winner may not be completely satisfied with the outcome. ADR can help the parties find win-win solutions and achieve their real goals. This, along with all of ADR's other potential advantages, may increase the parties' overall satisfaction with both the dispute resolution process and the outcome. CV006(Rev.7/9/15) ALTERNATIVE DISPUTE RESOLUTION (ADR)INFORMATIONAL NOTICE Page 1 of 2 EXHIBIT p.�_ ofd DISADVANTAGES OF ADR If the case is resolved using ADR, the parties forgo their right to a public trial and they do not receive a decision by a judge or jury. If the case is not resolved using ADR and it proceeds to trial, the overall costs of the case may increase. TYPES OF ADR Mediation In mediation, an impartial person called a "mediator" helps the parties try to reach a mutually acceptable resolution of the dispute. The mediator does not decide the dispute but helps the parties communicate so they can try to settle the dispute themselves. Mediation leaves control of the outcome with the parties. Settlement Conferences Settlement conferences may be either mandatory or voluntary. In both types of settlement conferences, the parties and their attorneys meet with a judge or a neutral person called a "settlement officer" to discuss possible settlement of their dispute. The judge or settlement officer does not make a decision in the case but assists the parties in evaluating the strengths and weaknesses of the case and in negotiating a settlement. Settlement conferences are appropriate in any case where settlement is an option. Mandatory settlement conferences are often held close to the date a case is set for trial. Arbitration In arbitration, a neutral person called an "arbitrator" hears arguments and evidence from each side and then decides the outcome of the dispute. Arbitration is less formal than a trial, and the rules of evidence are often relaxed. Arbitration may be either"binding" or"nonbinding." Binding arbitration means that the parties waive their right to a trial and agree to accept the arbitrator's decision as final. Generally, there is no right to appeal an arbitrator's decision. Nonbinding arbitration means that the parties are free to request a trial if they do not accept the arbitrator's decision. Neutral Evaluation In neutral evaluation, each party gets a chance to present the case to a neutral person called an "evaluator." The evaluator then gives an opinion on the strengths and weaknesses of each party's evidence and arguments and about how the dispute could be resolved. The evaluator is often an expert in the subject matter of the dispute. Although the evaluator's opinion is not binding, the parties typically use it as a basis for trying to negotiate a resolution of the dispute. LOCAL ADR PROGRAMS For a Directory of Mediators and Arbitrators or information about the Modest Means Mediation Program, contact the Marin County Bar Association (MCRA) by calling (415) 499-1314 or emailing info(amarinbar.org. Additional information is also available on the MCBA website: www.marinbar.orq. STIPULATION TO USE ADR If all parties in the action agree to participate in ADR, a Stipulation to Use Alternative Dispute Resolution Process (CV002) may be filed with the court. This form is available at www.marincourt.orq or in the Clerk's Office. Please note, you are required to complete and submit the Notice of Settlement of Entire Case (Judicial Council Form CM-200)within 10 days of the resolution of your case. CV006(Rev.7/9/15) ALTERNATIVE DISPUTE RESOLUTION (ADR)INFORMATIONAL NOTICE Page 2 of 2 ]EXHIBIT p. G of C� Lea Stefani 0 From: Greg Chanis Sent: Tuesday, May 02, 2017 12:29 PM To: Lea Stefani Subject: FW:Input to Town Council regarding View Ordinance agenda item Greg Chanis,Town Manager Town of Tiburon 1505 Tiburon Boulevard Tiburon, CA 94920/(415)435-7383 From: Bob Austrian [mailto:baustrianPhotmail.com] Sent:Thursday, April 27, 2017 11:35 AM To:Greg Chanis<gchanis(otownoftibt.iron.org>; Jim Fraser@ MarinlsMVHome.com; Greg Chanis <gchanis@townoftiburon.org> Cc: Lalita Waterman <lalita.watermar)@gr 7ail.cotn> Subject: Input to Town Council regarding View Ordinance agenda item Dear Greg- Because of an obligation I have in New York next Wednesday evening, I'd like to provide additional written input in anticipation of the May 3rd, 2017 Council meeting. I understand that during the meeting changes to our View Ordinance will be on the Agenda. Please include this in the packet provided to Town Council Members in preparation for the May 3rd meeting. As a resident of our community since 1996, and member of a group of neighbors that has struggled with aspects of our View Ordinance for more than a decade, I strongly support the Town staff recommendations that mandatoryrip vate arbitration provisions be eliminated from our View Ordinance. Town Council will recall that I and other immediate neighbors have attended several Council meetings over the years with respect to this topic. I believe I speak for many when I share our expectation that the proposed changes will help relieve us of a procedural burden that has prevented our neighbors from fully resolving view/tree "issues"we have struggled with. Thank you very much for your thoughtful consideration of this important topic. Bob Bob Austrian 45 Southridge West Tiburon, CA (415) 794-1199 1 Lea Stefani From: Greg Chanis Sent: Wednesday, May 03, 2017 10:45 AM LATE MAiL #W To: Lea Stefani Subject: FW: Email from Allan Rappaport re: 8 Rolling Hills Greg Chanis,Town Manager Town of Tiburon 1505 Tiburon Boulevard Tiburon, CA 94920/(415)435-7383 From: Elizabeth Brekhus [mailto:elizabethb@brel<hus.comj Sent:Wednesday, May 3, 2017 10:36 AM To: Greg Chanis<gchanis@townoftiburon.org> Subject: Email from Allan Rappaport re: 8 Rolling Hills Dear Members of the Town Council: I own both 5 and 25 Rolling Hills Road. I am appealing the decision to lift the building envelope because I believe it will result in a house that is too massive and will encroach into the views from my property. I have already designed a remodel for 5 Rolling Hills and submitted plans for my property in reliance on the views that exist and so this project impacts the existing residence and my proposed project. I would like to see a smaller project that is thoughtfully designed and does not bring more mass to the front of the street. Allan Elizabeth Brekhus, Esq. Brekhus Law Partners 1000 Drakes Landing Road Greenbrae, CA 94904 phone: (415) 461-1001 facsimile: (415) 461-7356 elizabethb@brel<hus.com General Civil Litigation in the San Francisco Bay Area Confidentiality Notice: The information contained in this message is protected by the attorney/client privilege and/or the attorney work product privilege. It is intended only for the use of the individual named above, and the privileges are not waived by virtue of this having been sent by e-mail. If the person actually receiving this message or any other reader of this message is not the named recipient, or the employee or agent responsible to deliver it to the named recipient, any use dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received 1 LATE MAi L H,- ELIZABETH BREKHUS B rekh s 1000 DRAKES LANDING ROAD etizabechb@brekhus.com GRLENBRAE,CA 94904-3027 Law FACSIMILE: (415) 461-7356 PETER B. BREKHUS /] } (415) 461-1001 pecerb@breklius.com Partners www.brekhus.COM ATTORNEYS AT LAW May 3, 2017 MAY 0 3 2017 SENT VIA EMAIL ONLY PLANNING DIVISIQN Town Council Town of Tiburon 1505 Tiburon Blvd. Tiburon, CA 94920 RE: 8 Rolling Hills Road Dear Mayor Fraser and Members of the Town Council: We represent a number of neighbors surrounding 8 Rolling Hills Road. James and Joann To live at 88 Rolling Hills and their property adjoins the applicant's property. James Tarantino lives at 65 Rolling Hills, and David Readerman and Rita Burgess live at 55 Rollings Hills,which are homes just past 8 Rolling Hills, and around the turn in the road. George and Renate Lee reside at 4 Rolling Hills and their residence's primary views are oriented toward the back of the proposed 8 Rolling Hills residence. We also represent Allan Rappaport, owner of two contiguous lots, at 5 and 25 Rolling Hills Road. Dr. Rappaport's two properties are directly across the street from the applicant's project. All of these residents are appealing the Planning Commission's approval of Michelle Hughes' application(now apparently being pursued by Joseph Lepera)relating to 8 Rolling Hills to remove the building envelope condition and its associated height restriction. At the last meeting,we understand that the Town continued the matter with the direction to the applicant to create some preliminary drawings and put up story poles, so that residents and the Town could better understand the impact. The neighbors have had a chance to review the story poles, and you will hear a unanimous view from them at the council meeting,that the proposal will be an enormous detriment to the neighborhood. As you know, Rolling Hills is a private road. Residents own the road and they have an interest in making sure that the views of Richardson Bay from the road are open, that the street does not feel crowded by homes that encroach into the front yard setback, and that the development is in scale with the other homes and the surrounding environment. Even after over forty years,neighbors feel that 6 Rolling Hills sticks out like a sore thumb on the street. It stands too high, is too massive and was built far too close to the street. It totally destroyed and blocked the views from the Lees' residence, and as a result,they maintain Town of Tiburon Town Council May 3,2017 Page 2 plantings in front of their living room,to avoid a view of this residence. Having a second house in this view corridor, adds insult to injury. And sited as it is proposed, so close to the street and immediately adjacent to #6 will add to a very crowded feeling on the street and resemble townhomes. This situation is worsened by the fact that#6 was built with an insufficient side yard and front yard setback and#8 proposes no extra setback to make up the difference. If you have not already, please take a look at what this project will do to Renate and George Lees' views from 4 Rolling Hills Road, and consider also the impact that#6 had on their views. Stand in front of#6 and#8, and consider the small sliver of a view toward the hills and open space that will exist between#6 and#8 if the project is approved.Note how the road feels narrower in front of#6, and consider what the effect will be if#8 adds to that condition and how that will appear from Allan Rappaport's residences. The surrounding residents do not want this kind of development, and they feel like the Town is unfairly supporting this development when the applicant bought with full notice of the restriction, at a presumably discounted price. The staff report draws a comparison between the applicant's proposed house and the size of the other surrounding homes to support a finding allowing this house to be larger in size and push past the building envelope. That comparison does not seem entirely fair. For one, if you wanted to consider the other homes in the neighborhood to evaluate the appropriate home for this lot,you would immediately want to compare like lots and the siting of residences on the lots. This house has a very steep lot, and part of it is burdened by open space and pedestrian easements, and so it does not compare to other lots. The other residences in the neighborhood have gracious driveways, and are well sited on large lots to accommodate the size of the homes. This house will not be well-sited on the lot, but is proposed to encroach into the front yard setback, and is massive for the area it will inhabit. It does not matter that there is additional land and open space beyond the house almost because all views of that open space will be blocked by the proposed home. As we know,the building envelope condition was imposed on the site after Rolling Hills neighbors initiated abatement proceedings against the then-owners,Ralph and Kathryn Noah. And,the Town Council was also dissatisfied with#6 and declared the residence at 6 Rolling Hills Road to be a public nuisance. That is a very unique circumstance but one that was compelling at the time. The Town Planning Director, Wayne Moody, in approving the lot split, imposed specific conditions on the future development of the lot. We have the benefit of his thinking in his letters dated March 8, 1971 and April 16, 1971. (Exhibits A and B hereto.) The parcel map included the building envelope to restrict the mass of a residence on the adjoining lot, and in appreciation of the fact that#6 is too massive,was built too close to the street, and took views away from other neighbors. Mr..Moody specifically stated that the purpose was to benefit the neighborhood,the homes on Rolling Hills Road and to preserve the views from Rolling Hills Road itself. And the then owners of#6 and#8 accepted the condition of approval and did not appeal the Town's decision. Town of Tiburon Town Council May 3, 2017 Page 3 It also appropriate to consider that this lot has been sold with these restrictions, so there is no unfairness in imposing them as the applicant had no reasonable expectation that the Town would lift these restrictions. In contrast,the neighbors are very frustrated because the history of these restrictions seems to be less important to the Town, and they have relied on their understanding that the Town would not later lift this limitation. In that regard, we believe that the history of how the Town came to impose the restrictions has not been clearly presented. First, there seems to be a suggestion that the building envelope was imposed because the Town did not have Design Review rules in place and to ensure that a thoughtful design would eventually be required. But in fact, Mr. Moody states, in his April 16 letter(exhibit B),that he envisioned four conditions: (1) Provisions of an access easement across the lot at No. 6 Rolling Hills Road, so that no variance would be necessary to construct a garage in the front yard setback, and so the garage could be located low on the site. (2) A height restriction above Rolling Hills Road in order to preserve the view from across the street; from Rolling Hills Road itself, and from Mr.Noah's house. (I- believe I finally required a 10' or 12' maximum from the lowest part of Rolling Hills Road.) (3) Dedication of a scenic easement across approximately the lower half of the properties (trees and creek bed). Dedication also of a pedestrian easement in the creek area. (This was done in order to promote a future pedestrian pathway from Tiburon Boulevard to Round Hill Road.) (4) Application of Design Review to guarantee the accomplishment of the above conditions. From these conditions, it is clear that Mr. Moody contemplated that there would be Design Review of the proposed residence in addition to compliance with the building envelope. Another important point is that the Town contemplated that the residence would stay out of the front yard setback, and there would be a longer driveway to correct the architectural mistake that #6 made,whereas this project is being proposed to violate both of these conditions. There was some question at the last council meeting about whether the building envelope is "vague" and whether accessory structures could be in the building envelope. The building envelope is actually clearly defined, a plain reading of the document compels the conclusion that all buildings have to be in the building envelope, and the Town contemplated that the driveway easement on 96 would serve to access a garage"low on the site"and within the envelope. To the extent Design Review rules further restrict the development,that is appropriate and what should happen. Town of Tiburon Town Council May 3, 2017 Page 4 The controversy that existed then, has been resurrected by this project because the neighbors believe,rightly, that#6 Rolling Hills blocks views, detracts from the neighborhood, and residents are very concerned that the Town is contemplating allowing a second#6 to be built at#8 Rolling Hills, further exacerbating the already unfortunate design that exists there. Separate from the Town action, in imposing a building envelope on the lot created at 8 Rolling Hills Road,the then-owners of 75 and 65 Rolling Hills Road reached their own agreement with the Noahs in December of 1973. The agreement that was reached was recorded in the parties' chain of title and is expressly made enforceable by predecessors of 75 and 65 Rolling Hills today. The agreement is attached as Exhibit C hereto and the intent of the parties in entering the agreement is quite clear: 1. The agreement attaches the parcel map that includes the building envelope restriction, and the purpose of the agreement was to make sure that the restrictions included in the parcel map and other restrictions could be enforced by the neighbors. 2. The recitals state that "it is the desire and intention of all parties" ... "to restrict the lands""according to a common plan as to use and permissible buildings so that all of said land shall be benefited"and the purpose being"the preservation of the value and character of said land." 3. The agreement states"no house, garage, carport or other structure or any driveway may be built nor may any application for building permit be made with respect to parcel A reflected on Exhibit 4 attached hereto unless and until site plans and building plans have been first shown to Littman and Wenig and the following action or inaction occurs."The agreement goes on to detail that if they have"any objection" they have to respond with the objection and retain an architect,and together with a 3rd architect decide on the merits of the objection. The type of objections that were envisioned included the"location, appearance,height, bulk, scale,design and general aesthetic, architectural effect of the proposed structure."Hence the agreement clearly contemplated that the neighbors would not only weigh in on the future development of that lot through the town process,but they would have a right to be involved in how the lot is developed. This agreement is enforceable, and my client,Mr. Tarantino,who benefits from it,is prepared to enforce it. I believe Mr. Chatham will speak for himself,and say he is prepared to do the same. We do not believe that it is appropriate for the Town to allow this applicant to violate the agreements that his predecessors reached with the Town and with the neighbors. We also think it is not wise for the Town to lift the condition, because it puts the residents in a difficult position of deciding whether the safest course of action for them, in desiring to enforce the agreement against the applicant, is to litigate the approval of the removal of the condition as arbitrary and unreasonable. Town of Tiburon Town Council May 3, 2417 Page 5 This building envelope is a unique condition of approval,but the conditions that gave rise to it, still exist on Rolling Hills Road. On behalf of the residents, we request that the Town enforce the building envelope. Very truly yours, xle-� Elizabeth Brekhus cc: Clients Ben Stock,Esq. EXHIBIT A EXHIBIT A CITY OF TIBURON 30 MAIN STRFET • TIBURON CALIFORNIA 94930 March 8, 1971 MAR 9 9971 �rrlu'da I:IV Mr. Ralph Noah P.O. Box 131 Belvedere, Ga. 94920 Re: File No. 66811 Dear Mr. Noah: Pursuant to our recent conversations regarding the possibility of a lot split of your property at 6 Rolling Hills Road, I am submitting the following opinions for your consideration: 1. Deference is-made to my letter of October 14, 1970, wherein •1 .6ited possible reasons for denying the proposal. Below I have outlined certain conditions of approval which I feel would help rectify the previous concerns. 2. Section 14-40 of the Subdivision Ordinance relating to driveway grades could be satisfied by the inclusion of a condition which would require a driveway easement to be created over the adjacent parcel. this would enable easy automobile flow across the lot to a garage and would alleviate the necessity of a variance. 3. Sections 14.42 and 14-63, relating to the character of other lots in. the area, could be satisfied by the inclusion of a condition which would require design review for any structures. The design review procedure should be required for the follow- ing reasons : a) the view to Richardson Bay from Rolling Hills Road should be preserve zn or er o e p maintain t e ramat' open fee ing that now exists. b) the view of the hillside and Richardson Bay from the o s ac!'c :s 171 lin`r-1n1ls a s ou a preserved s mu as is ph s call ossib e, yet allowing the prospective home on the. lot .to take a minimum advantage o the San Francisco view. EXHIBIT NO Yavor DaNU1 It1c6 • Councilmen CARLISLE D=Ea, ANNE L. BUAPWOOb, DRANWOLL FANNINCEXHtB(T X36 P, 10 pE ,3 .: c) the view to Richardson Bay from the existing new home on the.property shoo a so ee a as ,. possible. J , .- � Section 14-42(h), relating to the proportion of the lots, could be satisfied by a condition which would require dediea- tion of a scenic and pedestrian easement over at least the :. lower half of the property. This would appear to fit in well with any future development either to the west or to the east of your property. This dedication could be in place of the required in-lieu parks and recreation, fees. 5. Any submission for approval should include a proposal for a f: "building envelope" which envelopa would shoal the horizontal "'• ''```` and vertical limits for any structure to be placed on the site. This would become a condition of any approval. ' ,r would consider the above conditions absolute minimum on any approval .of :a .lot split in this area. The City Council is in the process of approving revisions to the minor subdivision ordinance, which would require somewhat different submissions than have previously been re- ;.quired. 'These will probably be adopted on Monday night, Ma ,ch 8th, .�,'• and 1 will send you a copy of them after they are adopted. ' If you have any further questions, please don't'hesitate to call,. Sincerely, # . ,` t.. f.. Planning Director Ue WM:hbf cc:Phil V. Scott ! Y; -Bay W. Foreaker, Jr. ,;: i- EXHIBIT P. OF .`S.;R}"�sra i `��'•t'.f�`'..7;. .iit':: :•r� .�.�$tv;c;•,;,jay.: �.., . ./`i hili..H"x��..��r$ C. ... ., 'w.:•: .. ,;f}:, L�.. .. EXHIBIT B EXHIBIT B t,'A . . i .,: 9 .. 1. k f Irr�t . ; ,:_.,. I `,(uUltant�uOu� ,: J '( Z' 1 Y . k 3 '+,. . -le n; (�j�• 1. `k , Y P a�1�ir i �`�[�i s�*41 rai� C 3 h ( F, y , t re' 4 b. . % 7 r ) �.. . . . ). 1 7. ` . y t Apri I I�r Ig7t t.+ rle \. a .t^ Ln .. .. ;ilt's " 4 , YIN � Ct tY Mani;� ° f }; `y, !i'`3.i: °t i yy Q+k(k-,f v 11 IR V'.,f F 7y� c c F i yt;+�y �' p { . . Nt-,ax 7 1. T{i �S� .t:'. M, �q'�}(`�4 Yyz.:� K k. '. t� v. .. z t : - �' s '` �'�.f rid f�'` .i I NJCi�, 4' �s ! 5 i i-T L y a` i`e ` • R} -. v r -s - .. IT, NJE3 (- 1.1 t. 1 `/n� y', t { s y i €C T� �y y fi n {{. p 5�f n �tsae `} i.S^1.{V � (It1�111Ss'�YY14�Sy�F r �3 Y�tetirel� � 1 { t�1j 1F z� y"I .ft p1�y/..vp�! I�, Jl i0 li4 t�1.d to �' IN f, {h-�4 t R(�ew i a�CL 3('S 5 a j-a� .tc. i t `t-£C xy c. k+f d Y i.; y. s t x .. � A f dT v1 � l�,x ,+ 'z' ) 'n ''tk 7iS --r ki ill�, a 51"r i,�st 11 s,*" fi I�3Y . "Sg" C ` ..P £ '� 'i �.c .'' S- `�l t `"c i1 6 L� ,r >t t ,��1' r Yf ti 1 d r',, .I k`tr►� p�r� a �►�/' '�{ k ; i '` 4�' r h doh an dx'trema.l y.. ,. r S t�P x yt . @t 27 Y A.{ n.�. ,e 5S. t vk < F .f � 7 �ti< A di fGE,' `(p, e fain Ise , °4'• ,obs rya , `f " f '-had pre' ri v rz 3 J51 ".vs 1. 3 lkc. S SZ 1 �S YL 7Xs a�f 3 f rt �t v t sou"q3$' 1 ?:� ;exp?"4�Y� �; Y �� �� ie ears ¢ ran $d r y t �1,a f ss a„n,, f e tFkona l nQd 1 fi hh�t #t,�4� e,i #I"t" (r� t-dt '. � r, j ij, t {t ag0 'Qf'riC�t� rd > A <',,,w .a L f c4 F�. l�r y`. � c s-t TY of S .. ! Q v. i t w h '.'LiL' }..r' �, �$ w$k Ar l\' 9 It/ ! K. 1 na iii rivIt$Lt ;for exp t'tet i;p`u�; ofefi i� ;, p Foi�(ail s to d �I p<,(rE�+ a 'i n E on, �o P '^tl_) ! 1't&' z e - c '�.,s<vt 1! { a x'S g i'•a <4 Y3 v a 4 {l�`RY'!'YJ n y`v5 t ' ownor st d 5e ieaitehitifild aIf' t ' Qvi3d � pve�If,rough .,x? s J y +y'M* .s Fi 5,a�-t k Ar" —1,"� t , L ! f s rte r ( iirl . th`e r W..%. `d e�det��, \his ( ��t na l etSbbr �o tt i ,Y , er ytreme l jr: r' aG �ti ����..* - p ►4e1 I aA.a;1,, -11 �toIr<s�9ti, - 1."; c lfilh 11 p oblams .,` of tf�e ali�acent h ar�d ai s�artgd tir# rbrrantedi pray dr�a 'st�alf and .. Jtiz, i .A F- ,t I ✓- F . Gaunci+l- i ' i S \f �' - { J. 7L y -] )l Y7 i' F 1 �f i ' EJeverthel'ess, I have a�ttQ(npt d I. 1'he ►resp of my abi Ijitiv,y .f 3ntet`Pt'et and etifot`ce finelf 5 bdlvIs°�on,Orct oanGei L �t� rdle s of neiPhtsprhopd prds�ure' and__ prev(ou€ s�taf,f act Jr�rEs Note that+ fie ,ptanningorrnn'isstbrNf and t;punci ! have xi1;11'` adppted' a►>le�de"hC.ts, how ttfi Qr�dii�(pence Which w t t ( I i ey t acs 'm';ny rob j ears succi' ;` j T as, expi rattofi dat ,Yp�rooedu s; acrd �ubmissio� regi lrenM1ents f . ` f ` So.. to the point Saver`a� mcti�ths ..o; apout the tune thakrtf� ,rte(ghborhood dec t dere to E ii 1 t i ate abat8men : p rofeeed i ngs dga i nst 1�1 r Noah house a. 6 ,fi; Rai 1'I�ng_ H 11s Roadk t �trote • letter to Mr Noah indErafiilig th �, (f l were: f % posed hie problem of �c�iing on the lot sPltt application at )thafi time, I. ' ,. s< 1. wou I d most crta I (y deny i,t,: I abased that dei t s i on on se,ver�I ord i�arace sect I ons d1.ealt ng wa th access i,k i I 1 ty:,t l at;.s i zes, and l ofi chpra' ter For 5, the moment, fihe matter-then died it should . kept in mind fhet the city ` 11W —.11 was, a.l so at that tains negofi t at i ng w(th NWS' Ra i I road' i n reference to condertina tion pro, ..-.. gs, 9ne, of our :ma�or`.points .belnq that NW1.P cou}I',g,-not subdivide Into long; n,arrgw, ,lof4s " . . ,.,>`; . .. . 1. Lir r ' a EXHIBIT C P. Q OF )y" . - . Mr: Robert ;L KI(evert 24 >` Apr;! 1 I6. I.97I After Courtci I , !n tts [;nfi, 11$ wts iaan, decirared Mr . Noah's house to be a publ (c nuisance �hd �1r Noah thee b¢e�ar► to hake �orhecttve measurbs, dts eJuss(ons beg>3,n tak 1`n p t<aee b a t n Y f aet-d l hg NO pp reposed I of sp i t I made sever( vistas fio`the"s[fie w.l< h>tnc mh�ut, hof^ Naah', confer retl with the Gi+"�yng(n�e'r and f�epu�fiyA�t�fvrrl ,„' f�(�c seriot�$(y constde'red at ) aspects of prevlaus .ac'tions, rebdzl{�?1 (Qrir`itnl�rl �`, y�rtotls elements of the t ene�al t'iati przogr m (zipen! sp q `ra( � , ate Z„M. d the ape fific p61ghbor fi'aati, i hc�t u i ng f he ox”,(bfi ng<i�<P i ho%uses I fih'd n wr fi� E�1 r NQ E t(ng rriY pteytoos concerns wth res'pY `tire sribtvfsFQn QPt(( ahce, and r'ndtcating rfset cor(d( kions t wQt4i Im �S1n hose carrerns (Efi sfibu.ld. ' be h �dfiefi1 f`i rs t Batt p $ w tAI .Mr Noah}t� s tivg t�(fi sp l r 2- e. " acCe`pe(�ce I ipn1. b ;3 f ai Lfi � t, wh If� qu I d�be ►Wore i keeP:.t ng-,V; th t b'ay, ` w "'% U }he gha �� �te r ofe atehQt� d x' ( i f J oicsu l (I �t rbqu f red ga i n.i rig t Igo access tilspugh p 4 b a . f�Ygth1i{)ch`°Er� 'oal� ret�rfied ►has'not rrae�i�l��r`1�r� Ir h _ � �ry,�tiet� �nd( tc�es If iF►diatetl. t waNid Empgse hay, shou,l>dFbe t�� ( :� �y t u �(et� r$ iy th°�:y we're es fit lows; w t Provisfon�ofamaesEryp�t � `fta` 5a ph1e (off at oto f� Rcl I Enq hi t Is Yy tea. �, Rei t s' t ba�j� s �Vbt�, xbt� e� °s$ tp`e4► truct far ale L. trt th�3fslflrtx� G4yr � 00 V, eb�Yid be located: A ty Y i ., r,i A� a%1 t�jrZ �t17'"��/.�fl F� sz"(^t,yyAlJ g' '� +;) Fi ; h .• ,J kyr y � _¢ hetgh`t rGtrp ,Pf1w ,� Q��rYe Ilse` ' .0 i-se f artd r, tro ooh gar 1;2' I' R&A m S .S t�, k r i,+rv�?•'yitj r o-+f7 yh''�fi �i ",, i.t. j , (ed�cettot► af ,a'a�,cerd}Qat >5cs 'piIt'3�E' t�Y the for half. 'f of .the ►►}}r( ernes+ te`'haivA '`{� fei); -`"dt) atio also of b r "0-estrt An e�sec et�tlona E h order y .. tD p kresmate o f ut!r e 4 pa r a t rt Fk1way t(tx�i fi t p r-an Bou S ova r d to" Roued HiII R66d) r 4; Appltcatdon ofi Gestin f�evlewo guarantee the acco�npi(shment of:'the. above cond(tIons k ' s I hope this"answars your cuest(sQns' r if arty one of fihe above conditions cannot he"met;. I'. wou.t"d def t n T fe f,y dsi�Y tie app( i gat t ori t Stncerety, s eta ne Moony y P,Ianning Dl:rector 1+fM (t EXHIBIT C P. OF -t EXHIBIT C EXHIBIT C First American Title O"JO L GTCOKbs C40QI'TY OF!Wild RECOW-0 AT REQUEST OF When recorded return to: 80u1���;�� mf 132 BAGLEY, WhNCN1, HOSKINS 6 ROSENBERG Salo.9 street 'MtN.WT M. San Rafael, California 49902 . 170 __V/0 r JAW2 1974 L 17 0 Wg4l cash k Muk OW4,cancxeEMEnr IEE i� E_�HUEA ' This agreement is made this 20thday of December 1973, by the undersigned parties. WtlEREAS, Allan N, Littman and Caroline R. Utt.aan. husband and wife thereinafter referred to vollectivaly as 'Littman") are the owners of that certain parcel of improved real property located in the City of Tiburon, County of Karin, State of California, partioul.arly described in Exhibit 1 hereto; and WHHREA , Herbert .1* and Neverly Wenig, husband and wife (hereinafter referred to collectively ae "Wenig") are iowners of that certain parcel of inproved real property located in the City of Tiburon, County of Marin, State of California, particularly described in Exhibit 2 hereto; and WHEREAS, Palph C. Noah and Kathryn P. Noah, husband and wife (hereinafter referred to as "Noah") ere the owners of that certain paxcel of real property located in the City of Tiburon, County of Marin, State of California, particularly described in Exhibit 3 and depicted as Parcels A and a on i "Parcel Map". attached hereto as Exhibit 4; and WH£.REAS, it is the desire and intention of all parties .j hereto to restrict the lands described in Exhibits 3 and 4 hereto according to a common plan as to use and petmissible� buildings so that all of said land shall be benefited and each successive owner of all or a part of said Land shall be bene- fited by the preservation of the value and character of said NOW THEM)DRS, in consideration of the mutusl promises of the parties hereto, each to the others as convenantors and covenantees, and exprenaly for the benefit of, and to bind their 2 r�. zj« t'`# JAN 1 8 2017 First American Title EXHIBIT P. 1100F 3 4 First American Title OFFICIAL RACORW COUM OF XMIN I successors in interest, the said parties agree as follows: 1. Noah will make no further attempts to split . i parcels h or B reflected in "Parcel Map" attached as Exhibit 4. 2. Noah shall within thirty (30) days of the date of his execution of this agreement, weather permitting, remove the skylights from the residence located at 6 Rolling Hills Road, Tiburon, California, and shall not thereafter replace said skylights. 3. The chiomey on the residence located at 6 Rolling Hills Road, Tiburon, California, shall be suitably encased. in appropriate redwood. Naah shall pay the first $500.00 of the expense of encasing the chimney, and the balance of said expense shall be borne by Littman and Weng. The project of encasing the chimney shall be undertaken by Littman who shall retain the appropriate contractor and other I personnel. 4. No house, garage, carport or other structure or any driveway may be built nor may any application for building' permit be made with respect to Parcel N reflected on Exhibit 4 attached hereto unless and until site plans and building plans have been first shown to Littman and Wenig and the following action or inaction.occurs. if either Littman or Wenig have any objection, they shall, within thirty (30) days of the submission of the plans to them, designate an architect who will, together with an architect designated by Noah and a third architect selected by both of the architects, promptly decide upon the merits of any objections which Littran or Wenig may have to the location. appearance, height, hixlk, scale, design and general anesthetic EXHIBIT C P. OF First American Title First American Title JOMCIAL KZGOM)S COUNTY OF KMITt t - 1 t 1 1 architectural effect of the proposed structure. The architects shall have authority to reject or accept the objections in i whole or in part and their decision by at least two out of I three should be final and binding upon the parties to this agreement. If neither Littman nor Wenig make any objection within thirty (30) days 'after the submission of site plans j and building plane to them, they shall he deemed to have consented to the site plans and building plans so submitted. Said time limitation of thirty (30) days shall be extended to sixty (60) days if Litts,an or Wenig are away from home when the plans Are,submittad to them. IN WrfMSH WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this Agreement on the day and year first above written. (AH MUCH N. n CAMLIWE—R. LIT1i�7 HETMERT WMIG state of California Countv of San Francisco On 28 December 1473 appeared before me Allan. K. and Caroline R. Littman and Herbert and Beverly Wenig known to me to be the (notarial forml Persons whose names are subscrthed to the within instrument. -3- t7 3- i .. EXHIBIT l P. OF �T First American Title ___ First American Title I .i 5 DYXTCUf R1FC-0ItItiB Co My OF k"XIC j i I 'I i i 9TAM OF C&TIPORML n. a!br....20th .Mvl.........13gleember......... 6eyenkx7111rre.._..__. M—wr.................R 1.charcLRf esie.._..................__.._.................. ........._.N«.,r PxbGr ......_...._ .. _..!laj.._.............. Marin._. ....._......._......._......,..._................Sua.j c.lj.w."Wb" d.:�oewx„o.d.xdlr ..Nnn.lry.�jr ot.......Hal.Ph.._G. ...21RatL..atld..__-.. ��x� Kathy n P. Noah Idawl)RIEDE __......__...$.._......._....___..._.___._._...._...__.._.._..._...._.......___...__._..._....___.... 10(bAr tUOtiC-tILIfOAKIi bvew to w•le br.br t,«,1.8.._ .............r.knlW a A,Irirb(.io, - MMIN IC-91LCou" wrrr.wd«j.awYddd r.we'A.l._..t.A•.Y....— d Al— w�k AFM I.Iyr r 1N WITNESS WjIEgF.OP 1 bar kn W. .. .1.1 fwd f.1-1 wr.&Ad 04 ..' i.lbe.......... ..,.,....,..Co..ry el......._la'SLL'ISL..�._......... ... . .... . �1.b!a/F«i.OFF 1,? ... ... E •......._.....,_ _ � ._ _ Nary pmk 1.Y.d Ix lb'–.................;.e ot.._..M13b'Aq.........�.........b[.a d Wtlami. . IMY.•wMArwaMGa«.II Mt Commiuion 6xyaM......_uJ..31..7.7..................—..._ i ' .•ns......rv.0 x..• I f 1 ( f� Y 1 S I ?754 r EXHIBIT P. OF First American Title First American Title orne"L RICORDS COUM Or M.IN PARCEL ONE: ' LOT 19, an shown on that certain asap entitled, "Rolling Hills Unit Two", filed in the office of the County Recorder of Matin County oil May 21, 1962 in Map Book 11, at page 16. EXCEPTING THEREFROM all that certain portion thereof described as follova: REGINNING at a point in the Southeastern line of said Lot 19, being the point of intersection of the courses "North 46140'30" East, 158.829 feet and South 71004150" West 110.0 feet" as sold courses are shown on the map hereinabove referred to; thence North 46'40'30" East, 7,052 !:let; thence North 67"06'10" East L35.595 feet) to a point in the Southern line of Lot 19; thence along said Southern line, South 49650'10" West, 34.001 feet and South 71'04650" West, 110.00 Peet to the point of beginning. PARCEL TWO: BEGINNING at a point in the Northeastern line of Lot 19, at the point of intersection of the courses "North'13°04'50" West 161,091 feet and South 71.04'50" West 143.23 feet", as said lot and course are shown on that certain map entitled, "Rolling Wills unit Tao", filed in the office of the County Recorder of Marin County on May 21, 1962 in Map Book 11 at page 16; thence North 67.0610" East, 174.841 feet to a point• in the Northern line of said Lot 19) thence along said Northern Iine.South 49'50110" West 13.465 feet and South 71.04150" West 143.23 feet to the .point of beginning. PARCEL.THREE) ' A non-exclusive easement for roadway and utility purposes as ' set forth in easeaients, "First" "Second", 4Third" and "Fourth", j in deed from Judge to Sims and Wheat), dated October 28, 1947 • and recorded November 14, 1947 in Liber $70 of Official Recorda at 'page 39, Marin County Records. . 1 I EXHIBIT 1 t • EXHIBIT C P.��OF First American Title First American Title DYnCLAI.WMD9 COUNTY OF MIN 866064 / :N r1 1 That certain real property situate in the County of Marin. State of California, described at follows: PARCEL ONE: LUT 18t as shown an that certain wap entitled, "RollthR 1111is Unit Two", filed to the office of the County.Recordur of Marin County or, May 21, 1962 in Nap Book 11. at pare 16. EXCEPTING Ta:Rt:rROMi all that certain portion thereof described as fellows: lir:GIM uc at a point in the Southeastern, line. of Raid 14t IR, bring i the patnt ofintersection of the courses "South 169 15' West, 52,00 fest and South 716 04' 50" West, 65.00 fret" As said eournae are uhown on the wap hereinabove referred to; thence North 166 1S' F.Astl 7.401 feet; thence North 676 06' 10" Cast, 93.136 feet, to a point 1n the Southern line of Lot 10; thence alontt said Southern line, South 496 50' lo" Went 34.519 feet and South 716 04' 50" West, 65.00 feet, to the point of beginning. PAP.CEL TWO: All that portion of Lot 19, na shown on that certain map entitled, "Ro11ine Hills. Unit Two'.. filed in the office of the County Rncordor of Marin County on May 21. 1962 in Map E1ook 11, at page 16. described an follows: 0tm;Itint(ii at a point In the Southeastern line of favid Lot 19, h:'ing the point of Inter::er_ti.on of the couraas "Horth 469 nn' 30" (;est. 150.879 fent and fiouth 710 04' 50" Want 110.0 fret" ar, .aid courses :are shown un the ihor hnrcinsbove referred to; thence North 469 40' 30" 1:ant 7.052 snort; thence Horth 679 06' lo" Lase. 135.595 feet to a ' point Ch tho Southern line of Lot 19; thence alone; said Southern line, South 486 50' 10" Mort, 34.001 :get and South 71- 04' SO" West, 110.00 feet to the point of bnginninr. PARC(:, TilVi:f.: A non-exclusive ea•:omrnt for roadway and utility ,urp0000 as set forth in eaRnlae,itn, ';'ir;fc", -second" "Third", nn•1 "fourth" in deed fron Judpr. to ;ims awl Wheary, dated October 211, l^_4'2 .Ind recorded 9ovember :4, 1147 is Liber 570 of Ufficial Record;; at pare 39, Marin County Recards. PARCEL rriUR: An easement and ril.!it of wap for roadway1991., utility purposes over ' "spring Lane", an ahoom upon "Hop of Lolling Hills", recorded ,tune I 1954 in Liber 9 of (laps at 1,arte s e 11, ecot forth in dee. Cron 1:arin Title Buaranty-Company, a corporation, to Euttene C. Wneary and Cynthia T. Wheary, his wife, dated October 8, 1950 and recorder: October 10, 195(. EXHIBIT 2 154 Lex137 RECUROMS 140TE' This aacsrtMr eul'res At;ssnes (mar c1.taAtt AEPReaupalc) LA • EXHIBIT � P.. OF �3 1 First American Title First American Title DrIldIAL RY)OM 18 OOi)M OF "MIH 56tlSu cont i ..O , .,. 0 in Hook 1065 at psge 25 Official ,aecords of Marin County. i pARCLL ME: An easement over And A10nn a portion of Lot 11 as such lot is shown upon "lap of Rolling Hills", recorded June 1, 10.'.4 in Liber 0 of Ftapa At page 11, as set forth in ^Grant of Eanement", fro,4 rredrie Investment Company and Sims to Wheary dated August 3, 1956 recorded August 6,1956 in Book 1048'pape 481. I ?AHCEL A nonexelustve onaemont for driveway and utility purp08e3 over the following, described parcel of land. ll:i(iI:111itIG at a potnt In tho tiortheeatern lino of Lot 14, at the point i of Intargectiou of thn couran, "LiarL'h 13" Obt 50" wast .161.091 feeL and louth 71° 0x11 5n" llrtat IIt3•%3 feet vnAs}(said lonand ooufllodrinat,rrtn # on that nertal,n i�np entitled, { opfloa of tits County Rec,-rdur of Flartn County on Flay ?.1 1762 1n Ht Rook 11 at pag.o 161 thrones 11ortlt 67* OGt 10" :�uDL, 1711.f•S41 font to 1 ot.nt in tho florthern Sine of auld Got 19; then;w algilf3,'nald Horths,a 1 line South 49' 50' 10" Wet 33.465 foot and South 71 v4t 50" wear: { 143.21 foot to tho point of beginning. t f Y RECO DEWS NOTE' ; tl i '�(:)4 FIA18 INIS ppCUMEat RCl'f n[a 15 EaewN , t:Ret CLCARLV RCPROCUCIRLO i EXHIBIT P. OF � First American Title First American Title oFFIc1Ai.R90MP6 ODOM OF HMIN Ralph C. Noah Rolling Hills Road propoYty parcel A Description: Beginning at a point an the centerline of a 40.0 foot roadway easement, which point bears North 42013' west 111.90 feet and South 47058' West 442.3 feet from the most Southerly corner of that certain tract of land described as parcel One in Deed from Thomas B, Deffebach, et VX, to Marin Kunicipal Water District, dated March 8, 1927 and recorded April 6, 1927 in Book 115 At page 216, Official Records of Marin County; running thence from said point of beginning along the centerline of said 40 foot roadway easement north 47058' Hast 88.72 feet; thence leaving said centerline and running North 43044' West 204.78 feett run- riny thence North 40054' west 310.32 feet to the Northwesterly line of that certain Parcel of land conveyed by Barbara Crauntlett to cynthia T. Wheary by deed dated April 5, 1956 and recorded April Z3, 1956 in Book 1022 at page 606 Official Records of Marin County; running thence along said Northwesterly line South 340Lt' West 93.02 feet to the most Westerly corner of the aforementioned parcel of land; running thence along the Southwesterly line of said Parcel South 42013' East 492.89 feet to the point of beginning. Together with an easement for roadway and utility purposes over the existing roadway easomert leading to the California State Highway. Subject to a sanitary sewer easement over, on or under a parcel of land 5 feet wiaie lying 2.5 feet on each side of the .01;owing described centerline; iteginninq at a point in the Southwesterly Line distant thereon North 42013' west B-0 feet from the Southwesterly oorner cf the above described parcel A; running thence Horth 22017' cast 96.64 feet to a point in the Northeasterly line of said parcel A. . also subject to the offer of dedication of an easement for the preservation of scenic vines to remain as aper space, and an easement for a pedektrian walkway as recorded March 30, 1971 in Book 2448 at page 326 Karin County Records. Sheot 1 of 1 EXHIBIT 3 90i?754 1,039 EXHIBIT 13.1701`3+ First American Title First American Title 0"ICIAL MWOkb@ COUNTY OF MIN Ralph C. North Rolling Hills Road Property Parcel D Description: . eoginning at a Poi-It on tho•centerline of a 40.0 foot roadway easement, which point bears North 42013' West 117.90 feet anj South 47058 West 353.58 feet from the most Southerly corner of that certain tract of land described as Parcel One 3.n Dead from Thomas 0. Deffebach. at UX, to Marin Municipal Water District, ; dated March 9, 1927 And recorded April 6, 1927 in book 115 at page 216, official Records of Marin County; running thence from said point of beginning along the centerline of said 40 foot y� roadway easement North 47058' Eaat 76.00 feet; thence leaving said centariine and running North 43044' West 204.78 feet; running . thence North 36052'80" West 336.03 feet to the Northwesterly ljne of that certain Parcel of land conveyed by Barbara Gauntlett to Cynthia T, Whsary by deed 4ated April 5, 1956 and recorded , April 23, 1956 in book 1022 at page 608 official Records of Marin County; running thence along said Northwesterly line South 3401S' West 102.98 feet; thence leaving said line and running South 40054' East 310.32 feet; thence South 43044' Vast 204.78 feet to the point o,-beginning. s Together with an easement for roadway and utility purposes over the existing roadway easecent leading to the California t State Highway, t Subject to a driveway easement over a parcel of land described as follows: Beginning at a point in the Southwesterly line distant thereon ;north 43044' W"t 25.0 fees from the Southwesterly corner of the above described Parcel S; running thence South 4705d' last 25.0 feeti thence Routh 85057140" West 32.48 fent to said South- westerly line; thence along said line South 43044' Bast 20.0 feet to the point of beginning. Also Subject to the Offer o: dedication ac an easement for . the preservation of scanie value% to rem.:in•as open space, and an eavavant for a pedestrian walkway as recorded Nash 30, 1471 in Book 2446 at page 326 xarin County Recorda. Sheet 1 of I EG![BCT ] W�171 fdGi•){n EXHIBIT C P. jROF ;:i j First American Title D � m R!� m CD _ tt jY. ... I.,�ti^ rrMEF;n• .::::'C IG••' Ke..•.Je.r w. K ^•. rAncr;a -.i4 PARCEL MAP ���/� IINpT'Of MOAN•N01TN[11A'I � � k!?Y[SRJ•LiFi'NK•<I. _ .![fey r;cK•!.��{ e[rer/[I'l r..+mrf Y J Jeanitaaw[eJoew ewo M.vox Nee+w[E:f �'�.Y •«.. ._. ..<fs'� .; <.;. .gy�Ipp1J,. u M144[eWa<S wY�r.uNi ier•qi[M � -'� !�r~ � • • •„a, ••(Jn+ i<J+�A;ifM/<� ��•,/.il l�•���s:J</ IM+w,w..w tYGert•[M.NwI. ••:••::' '•+� . C T.A JMJM[w WY[•rEaplr[<S[a[YfW[U .—___' ^M^J'�, ...,.. -_—_-_—__+ n•./Y•T,'[v/w_CIY�wi ..,cw Nn KK[.;.0' • I EXHIBIT C, P.�`1 OF. 4. Al A/4Z'/3'W 20,0•7/ saay O 1/7.90 __ L__ 't Sf►R!/YG LANE ?C 9/rCA GJ PARCEL C .htig5 -00WO)�2d zdf Z.S9 Ae. agl��. O Z4-os of N4dd/ PLANNING DIRECTOR'S CERTIFICATE 4 /f7l i?Q I I CERTIFY THIS MINOR SUBDIVISION COMPLIES WITH THE APPLICAIPLE PROVISIONS OF CHAPTER 14 OF '� THE TIBUROgN CITY CODE. SI k, SION.ED & S t, -Of A9 OF.�' !7/ O1 4 ( / PLANNINS 0114 CTOR DATE LANDS O� � dFt!rTY If - U 'v9g' S2'Sa"E.y 336.og wo� 4 —LEGEND— STANDARD BTREET g0NU8lERT Sa. �� ( • BET IRON PIPE AND PIN WITH TAS th •, N O SET!•XY REOB1000 HUB "1 sc ENr� a ti,Q ,voz P A RM 8 vratvew.er F�+t. } r• rD A<RCStnv<n K40•S4 141?.'X 3/O 32 i.0>�Ac A/dy•d4'W 204.,f8' i� "I Mow a oPEN SAIACC`{Ill N i BASIS Of SEARINI sk - WFASEMENT -`•1 ' S'S�K�TARY —�_}?RO• •\Fp a I RflILtNB HILLS fIIUNA STREET YONUmveri SEWER EASE= 'A�tT1•� '� I UNIT TWO SNOSR ON RECORDED "Ar PAR E L A my ft "ANVE'D m��-• LO AC. St✓tLOtNG !' I� IA.&11.16 ROLLINS HILLS UNIT TWO Z46 , -�• ewvE,oaf .: �j y y /4 J5 mA►rook n �Aat Is A14Z /3'W 492.d3 (c. MOUE LAND-- Of Wi.Vx£LA"Ar 'IO' w7l-OA-a A/OTE:PAACe,L A ` THE BtuLOMfC ENVELOPE XE16NT SHALL AVr ZXCEE'O JO.O)rEET ABOVE THE STREET ELEVAT/QV AT MaN!/MFNT A PARCEL MAP LANDS OF NOAH AND WHEAF fCAT9 CITY ENGINEER'S CERTIFICATE RECORDER'S CERTIFICATE E001K 2265 OR PAGE 641D 8 641 ARD FTN.BOOK IC NE OR MOSS RY o1NEOT 001 AND As camomED VMS NAP HA7•BEN C.-U 1 CD TNLSEH:OAY OP AA014 ISTI FILw THra ,49 19>4e z .._ ADJACENT TO ROLLING HILLS UNIT "no UPON A FILLD SURVEY)IN CONVORYANCE fOR COBFORIIANCE WITH TH EOVIRCS 4. O!•*VCTIOR 11575 Of THE �+�q•�T� Ai '�,�,�L ,� pI EaDR 60015 11 OF MAPS AT PAGE 16 F THE BUBBIVISN)H'AP ACT AT THE REQUEST Of SUBDIVISION WAP ACT. -"'3`- .Rh>� � ToS AT PAQE TIRUROX,fAARIN COUNTYTCALLIFM iR A!/ACA/ .t*71 1 HEREBY CERTIFY St"ED SERIAL NO !Et 7LICABLC STATE LAWS ANO LOCAL ORDINANCES CITY &MEER AT THE MCQUE37 B! ;7l-_ J.WARREN-MUTE-REGISTERED CIVIL E SIGNED_ .J_ .�[ G�tf rXf MARCH 1971 SCAt COUNT I RECORMR /f BY DE Y RECONOE - LATE MAIL #-fHz( ELIZABETH BREKHUS B rekhus 1000 DRAKES LANDING ROAD dizabechb@brekhus.com GREENBRAE,CA 94904-3027 Law FACSIMILE: (415) 461-7356 PETER B. BREKHUS (415) 461-1001 pecerb@brekhus.com Partners www.brekhuS.Com ATTORNEYS AT LAW May 3, 2017 MAY 0 3 2017 SENT VIA EMAIL ONLY F'I BANNING DIVI5IQN Town Council Town of Tiburon 1505 Tiburon Blvd. Tiburon, CA 94920 RE: 8 Rolling Hills Road Dear Mayor Fraser and Members of the Town Council: We represent a number of neighbors surrounding 8 Rolling Hills Road. James and Joann To live at 88 Rolling Hills and their property adjoins the applicant's property. James Tarantino lives at 65 Rolling Hills, and David Readerman and Rita Burgess live at 55 Rollings Hills,which are homes just past 8 Rolling Hills, and around the turn in the road. George and Renate Lee reside at 4 Rolling Hills and their residence's primary views are oriented toward the back of the proposed 8 Rolling Hills residence. We also represent Allan Rappaport, owner of two contiguous lots, at 5 and 25 Rolling Hills Road. Dr. Rappaport's two properties are directly across the street from the applicant's project. All of these residents are appealing the Planning Commission's approval of Michelle Hughes' application(now apparently being pursued by Joseph Lepera)relating to 8 Rolling Hills to remove the building envelope condition and its associated height restriction. At the last meeting,we understand that the Town continued the matter with the direction to the applicant to create some preliminary drawings and put up story poles, so that residents and the Town could better understand the impact. The neighbors have had a chance to review the story poles, and you will hear a unanimous view from them at the council meeting,that the proposal will be an enormous detriment to the neighborhood. As you know, Rolling Hills is a private road. Residents own the road and they have an interest in making sure that the views of Richardson Bay from the road are open,that the street does not feel crowded by homes that encroach into the front yard setback, and that the development is in scale with the other homes and the surrounding environment. Even after over forty years,neighbors feel that 6 Rolling Hills sticks out like a sore thumb on the street. It stands too high, is too massive and was built far too close to the street. It totally destroyed and blocked the views from the Lees' residence, and as a result,they maintain Town of Tiburon Town Council May 3,2017 Page 2 plantings in front of their living room,to avoid a view of this residence. Having a second house in this view corridor, adds insult to injury. And sited as it is proposed, so close to the street and immediately adjacent to #6 will add to a very crowded feeling on the street and resemble townhomes. This situation is worsened by the fact that#6 was built with an insufficient side yard and front yard setback and#8 proposes no extra setback to make up the difference. If you have not already, please take a look at what this project will do to Renate and George Lees' views from 4 Rolling Hills Road, and consider also the impact that#6 had on their views. Stand in front of#6 and#8, and consider the small sliver of a view toward the hills and open space that will exist between#6 and#8 if the project is approved. Note how the road feels narrower in front of#6, and consider what the effect will be if#8 adds to that condition and how that will appear from Allan Rappaport's residences. The surrounding residents do not want this kind of development, and they feel like the Town is unfairly supporting this development when the applicant bought with full notice of the restriction, at a presumably discounted.price. The staff report draws a comparison between the applicant's proposed house and the size of the other surrounding homes to support a finding allowing this house to be larger in size and push past the building envelope. That comparison does not seem entirely fair. For one, if you wanted to consider the other homes in the neighborhood to evaluate the appropriate home for this lot, you would immediately want to compare like lots and the siting of residences on the lots. This house has a very steep lot, and part of it is burdened by open space and pedestrian easements, and so it does not compare to other lots. The other residences in the neighborhood have gracious driveways, and are well sited on large lots to accommodate the size of the homes. This house will not be well-sited on the lot,but is proposed to encroach into the front yard setback, and is massive for the area it will inhabit. It does not matter that there is additional land and open space beyond the house almost because all views of that open space will be blocked by the proposed home. As we know, the building envelope condition was imposed on the site after Rolling Hills neighbors initiated abatement proceedings against the then-owners,Ralph and Kathryn Noah. And, the Town Council was also dissatisfied with#6 and declared the residence at 6 Rolling Hills Road to be a public nuisance. That is a very unique circumstance but one that was compelling at the time. The Town Planning Director, Wayne Moody, in approving the lot split, imposed specific conditions on the future development of the lot. We have the benefit of his thinking in his letters dated March 8, 1971 and April 16, 1971. (Exhibits A and B hereto.) The parcel map included the building envelope to restrict the mass of a residence on the adjoining lot, and in appreciation of the fact that#6 is too massive, was built too close to the street, and took views away from other neighbors. Mr..Moody specifically stated that the purpose was to benefit the neighborhood,the homes on Rolling Hills Road and to preserve the views from Rolling Hills Road itself. And the then owners of#6 and#8 accepted the condition of approval and did not appeal the Town's decision. Town of Tiburon Town Council May 3, 2017 Page 3 It also appropriate to consider that this lot has been sold with these restrictions, so there is no unfairness in imposing them as the applicant had no reasonable expectation that the Town would lift these restrictions. In contrast, the neighbors are very frustrated because the history of these restrictions seems to be less important to the Town, and they have relied on their understanding that the Town would not later lift this limitation. In that regard, we believe that the history of how the Town came to impose the restrictions has not been clearly presented. First, there seems to be a suggestion that the building envelope was imposed because the Town did not have Design Review rules in place and to ensure that a thoughtful design would eventually be required. But in fact,Mr. Moody states, in his April 16 letter(exhibit B),that he envisioned four conditions: (1) Provisions of an access easement across the lot at No. 6 Rolling Hills Road, so that no variance would be necessary to construct a garage in the front yard setback, and so the garage could be located low on the site. (2) A height restriction above Rolling Hills Road in order to preserve the view from across the street; from Rolling Hills Road itself,and from Mr.Noah's house. (I, believe I finally required a 10' or 12' maximum from the lowest part of Rolling Hills Road.) (3) Dedication of a scenic easement across approximately the lower half of the properties (trees and creek bed). Dedication also of a pedestrian easement in the creek area. (This was done in order to promote a future pedestrian pathway from Tiburon Boulevard to Round Hill Road.) (4) Application of Design Review to guarantee the accomplishment of the above conditions. From these conditions, it is clear that Mr. Moody contemplated that there would be Design Review of the proposed residence in addition to compliance with the building envelope. Another important point is that the Town contemplated that the residence would stay out of the front yard setback, and there would be a longer driveway to correct the architectural mistake that #6 made,whereas this project is being proposed to violate both of these conditions. There was some question at the last council meeting about whether the building envelope is"vague"and whether accessory structures could be in the building envelope. The building envelope is actually clearly defined, a plain reading of the document compels the conclusion that all buildings have to be in the building envelope, and the Town contemplated that the driveway easement on#6 would serve to access a garage"low on the site"and within the envelope. To the extent Design Review rules further restrict the development,that is appropriate and what should happen. Town of Tiburon Town Council May 3, 2017 Page 4 The controversy that existed then,has been resurrected by this project because the neighbors believe, rightly,that#6 Rolling Hills blocks views, detracts from the neighborhood, and residents are very concerned that the Town is contemplating allowing a second#6 to be built at#8 Rolling Hills, further exacerbating the already unfortunate design that exists there. Separate from the Town action, in imposing a building envelope on the lot created at 8 Rolling Hills Road,the then-owners of 75 and 65 Rolling Hills Road reached their own agreement with the Noahs in December of 1973. The agreement that was reached was recorded in the parties' chain of title and is expressly made enforceable by predecessors of 75 and 65 Rolling Hills today. The agreement is attached as Exhibit C hereto and the intent of the parties in entering the agreement is quite clear: 1. The agreement attaches the parcel map that includes the building envelope restriction, and the purpose of the agreement was to make sure that the restrictions included in the parcel map and other restrictions could be enforced by the neighbors. 2. The recitals state that "it is the desire and intention of all parties" ... "to restrict the lands""according to a common plan as to use and permissible buildings so that all of said land shall be benefited"and the purpose being"the preservation of the value and character of said land." 3. The agreement states"no house, garage, carport or other structure or any driveway may be built nor may any application for building permit be made with respect to parcel A reflected on Exhibit 4 attached hereto unless and until site plans and building plans have been first shown to Littman and Wenig and the following action or inaction occurs."The agreement goes on to detail that if they have"any objection" they have to respond with the objection and retain an architect, and together with a 3rd architect decide on the merits of the objection. The type of objections that were envisioned included the"location, appearance,height,bulk, scale,design and general aesthetic, architectural effect of the proposed structure."Hence the agreement clearly contemplated that the neighbors would not only weigh in on the future development of that lot through the town process,but they would have a right to be involved in how the lot is developed. This agreement is enforceable, and my client,Mr. Tarantino,who benefits from it,is prepared to enforce it. I believe Mr. Chatham will speak for himself, and say he is prepared to do the same. We do not believe that it is appropriate for the Town to allow this applicant to violate the agreements that his predecessors reached with the Town and with the neighbors. We also think it is not wise for the Town to lift the condition, because it puts the residents in a difficult position of deciding whether the safest course of action for them, in desiring to enforce the agreement against the applicant, is to litigate the approval of the removal of the condition as arbitrary and unreasonable. Town of Tiburon Town Council May 3, 2017 Page 5 This building envelope is a unique condition of approval, but the conditions that gave rise to it, still exist on Rolling Hills Road. On behalf of the residents, we request that the Town enforce the building envelope. Very truly yours, aeaj�iZ Elizabeth Brekhus cc: Clients Ben Stock, Esq. EXHIBIT A EXHIBIT A CITY OF TIBURON 30 MAIN srRFET TIBURON CALIFORNIA 94920 .._...FD March 8, 1971 MAR 9 1971 jvI/n'vo L'IY Mr. Ralph Noah P.O. Box 131 Belvedere, Ca. 94920 Re: File No. 66811 Dear Mr. Noah: Pursuant to our recent conversations regarding the possibility of a lot split of your property at 6 Rolling Hills Road, I am submitting the following opinions for your consideration: 1, deference is-made to my letter of October 14, 1970, wherein ' '7 .6ited possible reasons for denying the proposal. Below I . have outlined certain conditions of approval which I feel a would help rectify the previous concerns. 2. Section 14-40 of the Subdivision Ordinance relating to driveway grades could be satisfied by the inclusion of a condition which would require a driveway easement to be created over the adjacent parcel. this would enable easy automobile flow across the lot to a garage and would alleviate the necessity of a variance. 3. Sections 14.42 and 14-63, relating to the character of other lots in. the area, could be satisfied by the inclusion of a condition which would require design review for any structures. ? the design review procedure should be required for the follow- ing reasons : a) the view to Richardson Bay from Rolling Hills Road should be preserve zn or er o e p maintain t e ramat' open fee ing that now exists. b) the view of the hillside and Richardson Bay from the-homes across IX ling'ffJJs oa WO—UM-Fe preserved as much. as is ph s call ossib e, yet allowing the prospective home on imum the. lot .to take a mina vantage o the San Francisco view. EXHIBIT NO I'( _ yayOf DaNU1 Blca CoundlMon CARLISLE QEczn, ANNE L. $LUpWOOD, BIQANWBI.L FANNINC EXHIBIT all /HCl D P. 1U OF ,-3 LL -:r c) the view--to Ttichardson Bay from the existing new home on the.property shoo a so e e as possible. ~ . Section 14.42(h), r'elatin to the g proportion of the lots, could be satisfied by a condition which would require dedica tion of a scenic and pedestrian easement over at least the :• lower half of the property. This would appear to fit in well. with any future development either to the west or to the east of your property. This dedication could be in place of the €:5*, :,: required in-lieu parks and recreation fees. Any submission for approval should include a proposal for a "building envelope" which envelops would chola the horizontal and vertical limits for any structure to be placed on the site. This would become a condition of any approval. ' is would consider the above conditions absolute minimum on any approval "of :a lot split in this area. The City Council is in the process of approving revisions to the minor subdivision ordinance, which would require somewhat different submissions than have previously been re- quired. These will probably be adopted on Mnday night, March 8th, and Z will send you a copy of them after they are adopted. klv If you have any further questions, please don't hesitate to call.. ': Sincerely, xr WA MOODY Planning Director ' �0 Vj IL ILA }t WM:hbf cC:Phil V. Scott .Bay W. Foreaker, Jr. �Y`cK`�;;'.rt.. ., �' ,,�`' :. *•%hie° 5:: :` •:`,:: ,r EXHIBIT P. OF . ,.j"`�'. �v,�,�r. ��. E'�.:Y:.�:'i:: :;' �ti':::'• ,N',it.�''.,W,•'.,,�•::y•:1,;�ii�.�:. EXHIBIT B EXHIBIT B 8' 1- " .. ' ' i `V i 1 , � \fit i....,:.: "� rS�.r5urrrJ�.r �cX �'i L"_.� . }uu.t a nr�unu `� } i.{ 8 Y ,' as :tri iSr,ntt�j� li' P d�tII t n9 '4°} � fY f ,ray [3 EEyRt.�EN'(' lJ_y q i 'y ' A `riIiI� ., % Q. . `(.�.irj" , 1 t �{ c� i t@— ., y t A zf'-. �7x s S Lx, Mr+ r r , r Fay . \ ;7. 3. `r L t t res Tl i} i � ``F���f 1 arra J`a4 ,, �„, , "'. 7. tI i� z xtr s .,. ., y k.!S t F Jx° ��.�Y� s�4,$yy^-fix '4 + ` a ti t r;i 5 1 ' , ' < s -f F .. s`t t �l �F - . ur j _' .[`e `.' ftsdF 1;0�yA i3�Ult pf?A1t,{ a�1 ,rss1}y u �y: Api�� 13, l have tit iAd fio r . F 4 1 V S yt Y F) I ,t .t t J 4 f . 3z � �f �o�J "yy h ' h t . 'sil" s�� P�.J , t cr � �s,�.)itag .Nt i is 4 AR �5. 7 $7" (h-Y�C y 1 tk e 4{1 34 t t r Igg..'t si 1 �7 x R f }r x +f �> `" !rx +J "§• „`i1<6 4 R�'a Sr C '�•t :7i+� '' i$`'.sT"'1k,1�. 5�' 1E1 --r 4�yvd� vrt% f i ;{�s it' t r vt 5 i.3k-, jl4iz r r r F bury �" � . �,'�fir + �= .Y'F,�li.i!' jlpe � # �" t�� 1 an,h �� Leh an eKtrem@ t' y.: . 7 d i f fit' ! fr1'r { �.y 1�„emoss ® of r' sar�s ,; � fF:i]adi re,�6',�i i ii'� �� 741... r4 6 ry .1 G y ,t 1 .s Y kY7 t r ,�" +r,� .. '! ;'`z'';` I.oui� Y�4` a�` �dP'iifi>1,��Jh '�4t+ a �t@ ?J"�,v$ ` t� + �J �L years .r a t s xy : i; 1ft a"n.o (•� t idQ�''��` > Ats i'ha t 1;� " `.4te S00 I t1,� i �?��d i't� ':? ;' .r, t t' r � �rn`ha i ngci:. r 9 : r r rtib K$ is-,ff�,C,:.. :t'xv,.,.,?( Jr+ t h ^ r IT i P + @ k ^r{xf ® ' ft�?r 5 hµP`OtCar1 S l.. `n>Ci<x=.�I'fi< Q n.i.on �h�« na i t*i fQ r , ,t l�f i pug, p , 1. oi6ndr" iii d `5e (e �"11y' ehEtil�dai41 (� th `,pti30.t � pt, v�1 tf�rough k t t f +�' 11 q �s,�r,;� 'I + 8 er w 1 1. til`@'.�?drGest!�ap �7Cj9d1'Q, r'15 " 5` ��i19 n@���bof'�1D;o�t� �i t�$�`�9� �XI�r6�I y.. 1 u -•1 1 7J 4l5 �Yti l' kC y y C 1 ac;t% �Jri'z hFtTS '� s we 1 i as' 2;?a'�� qq 19t1,��d r �T' ,c h p u, Tams. { > �` Y1:f Ll{_ C. i �' f , -S. hY�� l f �GY y4,e5 N IF!? 1 '!1 ` of .t@``a�iaeenf hs�lne,r. ar�d � •perked drbrranted{ �irasur�a 6it��tfi� and — :t ^ caunci+f: �.. h ,:• _ f ' ! NeI. ve hel'gss, f have "tt�fnptYed h11 .1'Jte ►yes £of my abT"I,ity to 1"t`JTc:wop - end ii : e►if"""" fide!' - - . Yrtsi"onl0rt_ of GQ� �r��g�rdless of-Itnei��hbprhsog8 pt,' s§GF@' and . . ,; pFevTou s�af,f ac�lgns., Note thaF,rhe Plannthgomm'issio>}{a ►d Cpunctt have j..�iO�. a 1pli4" ar�ie`t�,dme"ht," `tro fipb �r�d T pante wt-ACt i ch w tEi ( I I ev t ata m my p rob J errrs succi ;� as eXptrattor) dat ,TPro@ciuFes, hd su'bmissicsn �equi%remRltts� . ! So, to the point, Seve�`aJ mdhthsic�, apoufi the tune ttZat tft8 t�e(ghborhood dectde to iiitfiate abafimen proeetltngs dgainst t�lr Noti'� hou�p at 6 .'�' Rol Iifi� Htl (� Roadj Y wrote a,. letter Io Mr Nt�ah indicating th f, if I. were posedh@ problem of. acting on the. lot split appllcafiton at 'that tlme; f< would Inot certainly deny it 1�Ii:basad that da�ts(an qn seX.ver I ordtnanGe sect(Q,ps dea! Ing w.t th aec�5s t p i I I tY:,r lot sizes and lot chArale. For the momwnt, -the ma i'er then died t t shou(d 6e kept i n m[ted ., 6t- the. 'c 1 fy �0 ,; was a l s.o. 1.at i hat gime negot t at i ng w1 Ih N4tP Ra i I road 'i n refel`enee to ccindertina PV., tion proceedings, otte of our "malar paints be(ng fihat NWP could.,.nofi subdivide i nto .Dong, "narrow1,i ots . . :f.�,; . . .,. :,. .. it+. : N EXHIBIT C P. U OF .')U' " ' ! : . Mr': Robert L Kl ienert.. ; Z4 :' Apr,i 1 .E 6, 1:971 . lifter Co�lrlci I , in its Cnfi,riltd wi den, A—' ac Ar—,:tJoah�s house to be a pUbllc nuisance end Mr t�[o6ti ihe0 began to haCe CbrPeetiva measures,. dis- cuss t ons began taking p IEaee � a t t �aai-d i hgs�hhe p rQpased 16t sp I i t : I made severs► vis[t� to the site wis h> hh jvh �tti�u�, s oah, confarretl with. the G}i(hy f"ng I neer and leput'y Cit X AQrt1° } facJ ser t ou$ty considered a( 1 aspects of previous .aft i ons, fila `f fi e �ene r~a 1 p I an: program (openpae fa i , a� c „ � the dei t i c ne i ghbor-. tiocti, I ha l u i ngthe irk i � Cid<. Qi,'tiv,Use I t h'en wrt�te l�Ir No ►, f t'i ng my pheys to� conEer�ns wf h ras`px t 4Q re sdb itu( i�an of�d>t►ahce, and �`ndicattng wfSa f corid ii Ons t wQiJ�d J t�'pijs �I � i'� `fi t reo f't fhose, correrns (!t sfibu.l d. be hQ ed tfi� ray f'I rs�t A to 00 w f Mr Nosh 5 to'ti vg `titin sP I r t the 2 ache jiatce l t nen fop antiiifS 'I+b wh t Ali wqu t be more i kee i n w t1 h Y .n r.$F\ AY i7 •yam ..S kl.w' (f:'"i ys} V S 4- df a3'l" .. thehlar� er o the n4eor� d '} I' o� Jori i �ul� hYe required gain"I rig ae r pF r + ti {� , � 1:Vices til�Qugh Pe, 'Xf� thz$,_ w�►i{tchYF�rr f tvaM rp�orted utas. not puss>I b J e), 1 do rroterit�er` t��c�i��(ly,�h i cid ��d,i t i aril i( t nd i catetl. t wau l d .r E mQq�e � fhev shou(>df bea ��r�,�� u•�i C;P�h i uMge`t��rd I,iy 5th'ey we`re as f�t lows I Provistonsof� a'n c e s t :� satab !pt at NQ f Rcf( Iinq hiiIs ' Rdt ,¢ A' f ;rio v$k u '(, zb = e 's" i `tp' a4truct �araga .. : x ,s r i n the ¢¢er�ihfi c, t� ' y t at Mp; far gm ,Oodii d be la�cated trnp L++'$n ` ridreserya a 1` , v i ev From aet os h 3 � kl fi,i} ad isb i f, and r' firms oah sRKMAr ffl �1I'jP- i r si" tnaX mum f rofiih� }�� j n% #tfl3;rt ) ti NJ 11e t 31 [iad i c$t i on of,s� rsce i{er� ` k3 c ` r h 4 q iQat�>rts ls�> aPri �Y the Iower haI# of .the r tls (`t ere '¢a'+ ' a e``� kfe�i) dGaion ais vf{ Rede tri an; ga5p_wI�t , nY� t B„ C� � � �ti fis utas dans i h order. to;• rrsrnote a :futul�'�e �ra, kway trt `i iptran. Bots 1: ,,d tQ R Roand'-H11I Fto�d) 4; ApP i(cat')on of Ges tgn Rei i eta to guaranteQ .the accomp I'i s..meht of: the. ` I: hope th t s"answers your^,""Masfil cans'. r' t f any one of the above coed i t ions cannot be. mei ; I'.viou.l d de f!n ire(,y r� iye app! eat t on slncerel.y, , Mayne R9oody Plag D(rector nnin Vg olEXHIBIT P. OF 11 EXHIBIT C EXHIBIT C First American Title f)PF1CLtL ftYC06tb5 COt)oi'fY OF NARIN _ qq RECORDED AT REQUEST OF When recorded return toy f1nuK����'f fAGFry BAGLEY, nTANCHI, HOSKINS 6 ROSENBERG B'•w��'.." " � San B RafaStreel, Californiaryt� /+••6'�MM.PAST M. San Rafael, C4990L . � 1iV .�C/ .r JAW2 1974 { 170 70 041 krotQr N w h dxh.C>�, l AG1iEk�ENT This agreement is made this 20thday of December 1973, by the undersigned parties. WHEREAS, Allan N. Littman and Caroline P. Littman, husband and wife (hereinafter referred to (wllectivoly as "Littman") ate the owners of that certain parcel of improved real property located in the City of Tiburon, County of morin, State of California, particularly described in Exhibit 1 hereto; and WHEREAS, Herbert Wenig and Beverly Wenig, husband Iand wife (hereinafter referred to colleckively as "Wenig") are • owners of that certain parcel of reproved real property located in the City of Tiburon, county of Marin, State of California, , partioularly described in Exhibit 2 heretot and WHEREAS, palph C. Noah and Kathryn P. Noah, husband and wife (hereinafter referred to as 'Noah") are the owners of that certain parcel of real property located in the City of Tiburon, County of Navin, state of California, particularly described in Exhibit 3 and depicted as parcels A and a on i "Parcel Nap-, attached hereto as Exhibit 4; and I WRP.REhs, it is the desire and intention of all parties hereto to restrict the lands described in Exhibits 3 and 4 hereto according to a common plan as to use and pertkiissible� buildings so that all of said land shall be benefited and each successive owner of all or a part of said Land shall be bene- fited by the preservation of the value and character of said !and: NOW THERUS DRE, ill consideration of the mutual promises of the parti,os hereto, each to the others as convenantors and fcovenantees, and expressly for the benefit of, and to bind their 1 J t JAN 1 8 2017 First American Title EXHIBIT P. 11100F-3y" First American Title I)MCM RYCMOs CQ%QM OF Wall 4 I 1 �E . 1 successors in interest, the said parties agree as follows: 1. Noah will make no further attempts to split in "Parcel Map" attached as parcels A or B reflected Exhibit 4. 2. Noah shall within thirty (30) days of the date of his execution of this agreemant, weather permitting, remove the skylights from the residence located at 6 Rolling Rills Road, Tiburon, California, and shall not thereafter replace said skylights. 3. The chianey on the residence located at 6 Rolling Hills Road, Tiburon, California, shall be suitably encased., in appropriate redwood. Noah shall pay the first $500.00 of the expense of encasing the chimney, and the balance of said expense shall be borne by Littman and Wenig. The project of encasing the chimney shall be undertaken by Littman who shall retain the appropriate contractor and other personnel. 4. No house, garage, carport or other structure or any driveway may be built nor may any application for building' permit be wade with respect to Parcel A reflected on Exhibit 4 attached hereto unless and until site plans and building plans have been first shown to Littman and Wenic and the following action or inaction.occurs. It either Littman or Wenig hale any objection, they shall, within } t thirty (30) days of the submission of the plans to them, designate an architect Who will, together with an architect f i designated by Noah and a third architect selected by both of the architects, proMptly decide upon the merits of any objections which Littman or Wenig may have to the location, appearance, height, bulk, scale, design and general anesthetic EXHIBIT C P. IOF Y[ First American Title First American Title 1 DFTICIAL MOULDS CDi1NIY OF KWIN E i 1 E architectural effect of the proposed structure. The architects shall have authority to reject or accept the objections in i whole or in part and their decision by at least two out of three should be final and binding upon the parties to this .I agreement. If neither Littman nor Wenig make any objection , within thirty (30) days 'after the submission of site plans j and buildinq plane to them, they shall be deemed to have consented to the site pians and building plans so submitted. Said time limitation of thirty (30) days shall be extended to sixty (60) days if Littman or Wenig are away from home when,the plans Are,submitted to them.. IN WrMs9 WNBAEOr, the parties hereto have executed this Agreement on the day and year first above written. RALPH c. MoAK rrTMN :r 'NOM LSTSli71W A HERBERT WENIG ,ISCY. lU/� ��'LLf'�(.L State of California GG County of San Francisco On 28 December 1473 appeared before me Allan. N. and Caroline R. Littman and Herbert and Beverly Wenig known to me to he the (notarial form) persons whose names are subscribed co the within instrument. - -3- �:��774 a�'33F . EXHIBIT P.110F 3� First American Title First American Title • .I t _ DMCIAL RICUo" COLMY OF milt i I i i y ............ es.y...... rs..,..�.;r.�..�e..r.....s.GY�Ak.X-.thele.......,. ..............._...................... nf.._............... Marin._. .._......._......._............_........__..,S,.,r.I Cdif, ...«unl.A.nh, —,K•,orrry Xalp11....G. ., _ Kathy n P. Noah µ1pUtR0 RIE,OE .-_......_....$.........__..._ _.....___. ._...___....._.._.._..._............___...___..._......__.... jOWffVIitIC•tllliOMRlf1 iwoaurow.reb.,3l«^'B.._.rbauce.a.....-4Y.e..............,.kWWf,A,04kunv MMIM COUNTY ,:YCy Derr.id.dwri•!ut e•ne rA.,.__tBaY_-w•md IM WITNESS fYllEltFbP i h—1•«ryNo rv<w/tw/M./vel nr s�MA url , rbe......... ............G.r+Y a/..........1'IaT.Ill............. .............. J{./q eJ yen n/FN fl Nw+Y hbic fn.nd fx IAc...................<.'e.ntr ot.._.. + '. .T.1......,....._...._..fi+a of WVami.. MyC—i..an ............_.._ I I I i f i .?-154 r EXHIBIT P. OF .J First American Title First American Title i omcm RB.CORDS COUNTY OF IWtIN PARCEL ONE, IAT 19, as shown on that certain map entitled, "Rolling Hills Unit Two", filed in the office of the County Recorder of Marin County on May 21, 1462 in Map Book 11, at page 16. EXCEPTING THEREFROM all that certain portion thereof described as followat BEGINNING at a point in the Southeastern line of said Lot 14, , being the point of intersection Of the courses "North 46°40'30" East, 158.829 feet and South 71004150" West 110.0 feet" as Said courses are shown on the map hereinabove referred to; thence North 46°40'30" East, 7.052 siet; thence North 67'06110" East 135.595 feet> to a point in the Southern line of Lot 19; thence along said Southern line, South 49650'10" West, 34.001 feet and South 71'04'50" West, 110.00 feet to the point of beginning. PARCEL TWO- BEGINNING at a point in the Northeastern lino of Lot 19, at the' point of intersection of the courses "North 13"04150" West 161.091 feet and South 71.04'50" West 143.23 feet", as said lot and course are shown on that certain map entitled, "Rolling Hills unit Two", filed in the office of the County Recorder of Marin County on May 21, 1962 in Flap Book 11 at page 16; thence North 67.06110" East, 174.841 feet to a point in the Northern line of said Lot 19; thence along said Northern line.South 49.50110" West 33,465 feet and South 71.04150" West 143.23 feet to the.point of beginning. ?ARCRL,THRE,L"t ' A non-exclusive'easeatent for roadway and utility purposes as ' set forth in easements, "First" "Second", "Third" and "Pourth", j in deed from Judge to Sims and Wheary, dated October 28, 1947 and recorded Novonbe•- 14, 1447 in Liber 570 of Official Recorda at 'page 39, Marin County Records. j EXHIBIT 1 qq • EXHIBIT C° P. �OF �t First American Title First American Title OFFICIAL RR MDO COUK11 OF MMIN N66O6q /1 ' 1 �J I That certain real property situate in the County of Merin. State of California, described as follows: PARCEL ONE: LUT 16t as shown on that certain map entitled, "Rolling Hillr Unit Two", filed in the office of thr. County.Recardar of Marin County on May 21, 1962 in Map Book 11. at page 16. EXCEPTING TanuROM, all that certain portion thereof described as follows: st:cimm at a point in the Southeastern line.. of a.tid 1.ot 1R, being the potnt of intersection of the courses "South 16. 15' West, S7.60 i feat and South 71" 041 60" West, 65.00 fret" an said eournas are shown on the map hereinabove referred to; thence North 166 15' East 7.401 feet; thence North 670 06' 10" Past, 03.116 fret, to a point 1n the Southern line of Lot 18; thence along paid Southern line, South 49" $0' lo" West 34.$19 feet and South 71° 04' 50" West, 65,00 feet, to the point of beginning. PAP.CPL TWO: All that portion of Lot 19, an shown on that certain map entitled. "Rolling Mills. Unit Two'k, filed in tile.office of the' County Rncorder of Marin Calinty on May 21. 1962 in flap O•ook 11, at pare 16. described as follows: 0};r,IiRIINr, at n point in the Southeastern line of nfli<I Lot 79, bring the. point of interoecti.on of the cour£.ea "North 46" nn' 10" Past, 1511.879 feet and fiout4 71" 04' 50" Wart 1I0.0 fret" an .aid courses are shown on the m..til hereinabove reforratl to; thcttc.t Nortlt 46.0 4n' 30" East 7.052 fnet; thence North 670 06' 10P I.tot 11..595 feet to a point ih the Southern line of Lot 19; thenen alrntia said Southern line, South 490 SO' 10" Went, 3+1.001 inet and South 710 04t SO" West, 110.00 feet to the point rf bnginninC. PARCEL THIN:f.: A non-exclusive na••.r: ont for roadway antl utility ,1lrpoona as set fot•th in easnwa.ltn, ' irst" 'Second". "Third", AoAnil "Fourth" in deed fron Jut1?e. to riles m"1 Wheary, dated Octobet• 214, 1447 .ted recorded November :4, 1147 xa ..iber S70 of Ufficial Recorc:o. at papc 39, Marin County Records. PARCEL rrillR: Ali easement and rii:'tt of way for roadway Anti etility purpnnes over ' "Spring Lane", an ahoont upon "Nap of I:ollini: Hills". recorded June. 1 1954 in Libor 8 of ilapa at parte 11, as act forth In dcrt: fron liar Ln Title ,uaranty.Coepany, a corporation, to Eugene C. Wheary and Cynthia X. wheary, his wife. tldte•L October 80 1956 and recordeti October 10, 106G EXHIBIT 2 I:A n,337 1lecnf;;rr�xs Year¢• I TRIS aOCtlMENY RCCUYEP F$31441"NCHI(CI.EYFLY PEPMUCIAC) i . EXHIBIT P.-ISOF t`q_ First American Title — First American Title o"IClAL Rs.C:OMM OOiYM OF WMIN 56QGu coni ( ..� ,. ,;,.• } © . in Hook 1065 at page 15 Official Aecorda of Marin County. • PARCU rIn; iAn aaoement over and AlonR a ,nrtion of Lot 11 os such lot is drown Upon "ltap of Rolling hills", recorded June 1, 19'.4 in Libor a of flaps At page 11, as set forth in "Grant of Ennement", fror+ rredrit: j Investment Company and Sims to tiheary dated August 3, 1956 rooarded r August 6,1956 in Book 1048 page 461, f VAitCE�L SIR,^, + A nonoxcltestve onnamont ror driveway end utility purposes over the -� rollowlnp, described parcel or land. Ui1(;I�11171(tl at a potnt in tho ilorthoest6rn line of Lot 19, At the point of Snteraectitat of thn courenn "North 13' UP SO" West 161.091 feet and ; Dnuth 71' Oil' 50" Wnat I13.73 feat", ns said lot and course Ara eltrwn i An that nertalt iv+p entitled, "11011n), $1115 II111t Two", filed in 1`n ofrJca of tkte county ltoc+-rdur or Flartn Gounty on Naar 21 l%I2 in Nt { took 11 at paJ;u 161 1-hence Ilorth 67* 06+ 10" hunt. 1711 •&41 font to point in the Northern line of auld bot 19: thentte Alp(}}•''saki Northe,n i line South 49' 50' lot' West 33.465 feat and South 71 v4' S0" Gest: i 143.23 foot to the point of beginning. 1 REc60UR`s 110 7:74 fm33 (N15 pecCRL'Et RCI{EQ!f SNewN , 1 uM �Xa't ct EARI{RtreaauoRLE) i EXHIBIT P. 1(2 OF 3LIL First American Title First American Title OFFICIAL.RXCM06 ODOM OF WIN Ralph C. Noah Rolling Hills Road Proporty Parcel A Description: Beginning at a point on the centerline of a 40.0 foot roadway easement, which point bears North 42013' West 111.90 Leet and South 47058' west 442.3 feet fxom the most Southerly corner of that certain tract of land described as parcel One in Deed from Thomas H. Deffebach, et ux, to Karin Municipal Water District, dated March 8, 1917 and recorded April 6, 1927 in Book 115 at page 216, official Records of Marin County; running thence from said point of beginning along the centerline Of said 40 foot roadway easement North 47058' East 88.71 feet; thence leaving said centerline and running North 43944' West 104.78 fast; run- . ring thence North 40054' west 310.12 feet to the Northwesterly lino of that certain Parcel of land conveyed by Barbara Gauntlets to Cynthia T. Wheary by deed dated April 5, 1956 and recorded April 23, 1956 in Book 1022 at page 606 Official Records of Marin Cou:tty: running thence along said Northwesterly line south Wit' West 93.02 feet to the most westerly corner of the aforementioned Parcel of land; running thence along the Sout:twcsterly line of said Parcel south 42013' East 492.89 feet to the point of beginning. Together with an easement for roadway and utility purposes over the existing roadway easomert leading to the California State Highway. Subject to a sanitary sewer easement over, on or under a parcel 01 land 5 feet Vida lying 2.5 feet on each side of the following described centerline; beginning at a point in the Southwesterly Line distant thereon North 42013' West B.0 feet from the Southwesterly corner of the above described parcel A; running thence North 22017' East 96.84 feet to a point in the Northeasterly line of said Parcel A. - Al.0 subject to the offer of dedication of an easement for the preservation of scenic values to remain as open apace, and an easement for a pedaktrian walkway as recorded March 30, 1971 in Book 2448 at page 326 Karin County Records. Sheet 1 of 1 EXHIBIT 3 giJ? 54 FIt7c•}�•J EXHIBIT 13.1701' 9- First American Title First American Title 0"ICIAL 000"s Coum or MM1N Ralph C. Noah Rolling Hills Road property Parcel D Description: Beginning at a point on the.centerline of a 40.0 foot roadway easement, which point bears North 42013' West 117.90 feet an4 (' South 47058 West 353.58 feet from the most Southerly corner of that certain treat of land described as Parcel one In Deed from j Thomgs D. Deffebach, of ux, to Marin Municipal Water District, t } dated March Or 1927 and recorded April 6, 1927 in book 115 at page 216, official Records of Marin County; running thence. Lrom said point of beginning Along the centerline of said 40 foot f roadway easeoent North 47050' East 76.00 feFtj thence leaving ' said centerline and running North 43044' West 204.70 feet, running . thence North 36052'50" West 336.03 feet to the Northwesterly line of that certain Parcel of land conveyed by Barbara Gauntlett to Cynthia T. Wheary by deed (fated April 5, 1956 and recorded , April 23, 1956 in Book 1022 at page 600 official Records of !Sarin county, running thence along said Northwesterly line South 34015' West 102.90 feet; thence leaving said line and running South 40054' Est 310.32 feet] thence South 43044' East 204,70 feet to the point of beginning. i Together with an easement for roadway and utility purposes over the existing roadway easereat leading to the California State Highway. Subject to a driveway easement over a parcel of land described 1 as follows: 1 Beginning at a point in the Southwesterly line distant . thereon ;north 43044' West 25.0 feet from the Southwesterly corner of the above described Parcel B; xunniny thence South 47058' Bast 25.0 feet, thence south 05057'40" west 32.40 feet to said South- westerly lire; thence along said line South 43044' East 70,0 feet to the point of beginning. Also stusject to the offer o: dedication o: an easement for . the preservation of scenic valu0s to reu.:in as open space. and a;, easeaoat for a pedestrian walkway as recorded March 30, 1971 in Sook 2440 at page 326 bKarir. County Recorda. Sheet I of 1 rUIBET 1 2-154 PAY-mo EXHIBIT C P. VOF , " First American Title D CD m � m co t•__ .. `OM1 M1:``r� I � ,».,. i? i � • ! •` Y E i j•...««, ii�� w1•P•` .may ,.._.. 1.- �� f u rt /7•\ «....��..». .._.._._....f,::,—rte'.._. ;... "'_Y\•. _.._ o/'����, i PARCEL MAP is rs� �IXP{'K NOAN.N61m[.Rv 1 '� YAYL]2r'Liti X•r1 —_ ••S•�5c+r,•.TS Aso +ewrauy tfdt'Lt1 rr wa.t saN<+a.t«+w m.+oa enawtc:r � - ,�MW _ • w., ••CM.. r!J+�tf'(k:Jn ��•;/.il�t.�.,��e�'•J twV+Pv.x.�wmuvltlhN.wr+ a ...... .... ..+� +Nwrtx wrt-+rant+le<mtaweu iL EXHIBIT G P.���OF ��..'`�rr�GlTt. �e•S��yy ` v � .. 9j00 Q _ A/4Z /3•W 200•71 90.8/ O //7.94 1► 6a.,r ry 114z'i3`w g C ANE /rcA1 4) PARCEL C .dti gg .sroEro)�2a 20'! 2.99 Ac ��gl�fp O 44Nos or ae�v i PLANING DIRECTOR'S CERTIFICATE Hyl a?3taI I CERTIFY THIS MINOR SUBDIVISION COMPLIES WITH THE APPLICAALE PROVISIONS Of CHAPTER It OF '� i v THE TIBURON CITY CODE. v SI$NED /(l5 &M I tI7tP_ A&DF �7/ 01 4 LANOJ Of PLANNING Ot1l GTOR DAT G fA rrY N %Ao oe :or C } 7 f� �I . a L —LEGEND— C. p t A/ 3 44 PV Z04.7B h s STANDARD STREET MONUMENT C SO • SET IRON PIPE AND Pt%WITH TAG c ! m N e SET!'Xe REDWOOD HUD P A RtE L /90'54 wOTDRf[YlERWLii(tYfFKRD SE�. Q. aR310 32 4q•04• / 204.78• / OPEN VP � i2 1,IN-.1 §"O. G! EAsis of sEARINI '� ` S'S�viTMjY �4O' ROLLINGHILLS >rtARlt,c DvaaT•es r eET // 3lWFR EASE. W td FOUND STREET MONUMENTI PQREL Q roar A'LSLRVFD -. h UNIT TWO SHOWN ON RECORDED MAP ~ 4 AC. dL�tOe/vE.�y(,,, -� ^ M.a tt-is ROLLINS HILLS UNIT TWO 246/t ., GNYEI.ODg I .Ste, yI l to\ , I AIAP SOOK 11 PAYE If iso• s .VO2'/3•W 492.88 �CiICC.� MON.A LAK03 Of W/A'XFLA?AN •�• HETI-OA•S.. NOTE:PARCEL A rXE QUI omw ENVFGOPE XE16rr7 SXALL NOT EXCEED AO.0 FFEr ABOVE THE STREET BLEVArtoM Ar M0Nt1MENT A PARCEL MAP ,/a 816 p LANDS OF NOAH AND WHEAF ICATE CITY ENGINEER'S CERTIFICATE RECOVERS CEfMFICATE BOOK 2255 OR PAGE 640 a 641 AND PTH.BOOK IC NE ON UNDoe rT "acTION AND All Corrra.co Tms NAP HAI NEE"C-01HED THISy.OAY OF Q=/G ISI r1L." T"I.Zak DAY Sts 4 2?R 1,4- ADJACENT TO ROLLING HILLS UNIT SM6 WPM A FIELD 9URVET)IN CONFORMANCE FON CONFORMANCE WITH TH Eout REMENTs Of SiGTtON Its?$OF THE r IN meox BOOK II OF MAPS AT PAGE 16 F TME 1WIMVi%WNSAO ACT AT THE REQUEST OF suMVISION MAP ACT •AT PAYE TIGURON,IAARIN COUNTY,CILLIFOR! IN AfdoWW joIl I HERElT CERTIFY st"E0 r9.9 SERIAL NO Z2 Rd ' T FEE�y -PLtCAOLR STATE LAWS AND LOCAL ORDINANCES CITY QINEER AT THE REQUEST OF / 7 IRI�QJ�I J.WARREN-MUTE–REGISTERED CIVIL E ;ED W i/741tFt s1YNED: ALT=- G O lilt'tX/ MARCH 1�7t $CAI S5 ro YT COII�IRIKCORIKR DE - Lea Stefani From: Greg Chanis AI E MAIL OW Wednesday, Ma 03 2017 10:45 AM Sent: y L To: Lea Stefani Subject: FW: Email from Allan Rappaport re: 8 Rolling Hills Greg Chanis,Town Manager Town of Tiburon 1505 Tiburon Boulevard Tiburon, CA 94920/(415)435-7383 From: Elizabeth Brekhus [mailto:elizabethb@brekhus.com] Sent:Wednesday, May 3, 2017 10:36 AM To: Greg Chanis<gchanis@townoftiburon.org> Subject: Email from Allan Rappaport re: 8 Rolling Hills Dear Members of the Town Council: I own both 5 and 25 Rolling Hills Road. I am appealing the decision to lift the building envelope because I believe it will result in a house that is too massive and will encroach into the views from my property. I have already designed a remodel for 5 Rolling Hills and submitted plans for my property in reliance on the views that exist and so this project impacts the existing residence and my proposed project. I would like to see a smaller project that is thoughtfully designed and does not bring more mass to the front of the street. Allan Elizabeth Brekhus, Esq. Brekhus Law Partners 1000 Drakes Landing Road Greenbrae, CA 94904 phone: (415) 461-1001 facsimile: (415) 461-7356 elizabethb@brel<hus.com General Civil Litigation in the San Francisco Bay Area Confidentiality Notice: The information contained in this message is protected by the attorney/client privilege and/or the attorney work product privilege. It is intended only for the use of the individual named above, and the privileges are not waived by virtue of this having been sent by e-mail. If the person actually receiving this message or any other reader of this message is not the named recipient,or the employee or agent responsible to deliver it to the named recipient, any use dissemination,distribution or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received Yn Lea Stefani LATE MAIL #P ,Z From: Dan Watrous Sent: Wednesday, May 03, 2017 3:35 PM To: Lea Stefani; Scott Anderson Subject: Fwd: Second had smoke and other current in-home growth hazards Important info for May 3rd meeting of Town Council Attachments: Jamacian kids and cannabis 2016.pdf,ATT00001.htm; Persis cannabis use show neuropsuch decline from childhood Meier 2012 Proceed Nat Acad Scien.pdf; ATT00002.htm; Breastfeeding and MJ - Review 2009.pdf,ATT00003.htm; CO Child Exposure After Legalization JAMA Peds 2016.docx;ATT00004.htm; Cumul Effects Adolescent Marijuana Use-on Subclinical Psychotic Symptoms Feb 2016 Am J Psych.docx; ATT00005.htm; HICKMAN_et_al-2004-Addiction Drop out Rates.pdf; ATT00006.htm Sent from my iPhone Begin forwarded message: From: PHILLIPDRUM <phillipdrumcomcast.net> Date: May 4, 2017 at 2:47:42 AM GMT+8 To: "Fox, Lynn" <foxlynn a me.com> Ce: Jim Fraser <JSFraserlc comeast.net>, <emmetta,vikingind.com>, <frank a,standin s�tone group.com>, <askalicenow(cisa.net>, <erin20000 gqj Lcom>, <l niy Zfox(c�me.com>, Dan Watrous <dwatrous(a�townoftiburon.org> Subject: Re: Second had smoke and other current in-home growth hazards Important info for May 3rd meeting of Town Council Please note - these are scientific studies in peer reviewed journals. Where are the pro-pot SCIENTIFIC papers ... I've been waiting 20 yrs. The scientific evidence for nausea and vomiting and AIDS cachexia was STOLEN from the data from FDA-approved dronabinol (NOT marijuana). From: "Lynn Fox" <foxlynn(a_me.com> To: "Jim Fraser" <JSFraser1(a-comcast.net>, emmett(o)vikingind.com, frank(cr�.standingstonegroup.com, askalicenow(c usa.net, erin20000(c�gmail.com Cc: lynnfox ,me.com, "Dan Watrous" <dwatrous(c�townoftiburon.org> Sent: Wednesday, May 3, 2017 8:56:35 AM Subject: Second had smoke and other current in-home growth hazards Important info for May 3rd meeting of Town Council Re: In-Home Growth of 6 pot plants Dear Tiburon Town Council, Here are a few articles you may wish to review before the meeting tonight on IN-HOME GROWTH. i Mental Health and Addiction Research s. ff open acces.r�ext �A r^ Impact of cannabis on the neurocognitive performance of Jamaican adolescents Karyl Powell-Booth',W De La Haye'and Samantha Longman-Mills' 'University of Technology,Kingston,Jamaica 'The University of the West Indies,Mona Campus,Kingston,Jamaica Abstract Background:Cannabis is the most widely used illicit drug among Jamaican adolescent males.Neurocognitive impairment may be a residual effect of cannabis use. This study investigated the neuropsychological performances of adolescent male cannabis users on tests of learning,attention and memory. Methods:Purposive sampling was utilized to recruit cannabis users(n=30),while random sampling was utilized to select the control group of non-cannabis users (n=32).Tests of learning,attention and memory were administered from the Wide Range Assessment of Memory&Learning(WRAML 3)and the Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children(WISC-IV).The t-test statistic was used to identify differences between groups. Results:The mean age of the sample was 14.97±1.36 years.There was a significant difference between the performance of cannabis users and non-users on all tests of learning,attention and memory conducted in this study.The largest mean difference was for Verbal Intelligence Quotient(VIQ),t(60)=6.764,p<0.05,followed, by Digit Span Forward,t(60)=16.954,p<0.05 and Digit Span Backward,t(60)=17.755,p<0.05,while the smallest mean difference was for the Picture Memory Immediate subtest,t(60)=4.638,p<0.05. Conclusion:Findings support the fact that cannabis use impairs learning,attention and memory.These results support the need for public health policies aimed at targeting early prevention strategies,demand reduction and the identification and treatment of adolescent cannabis users in Jamaica. Introduction Method Within Jamaica there is a cultural belief that cannabis use is A cross-sectional design was utilised to investigate the performance associated with enhanced creativity, improved concentration [1] and of adolescent male cannabis users on tests of verbal intelligence, even improved reflexes[2].These mythical beliefs have resulted in high language,learning,attention,concentration and memory as compared rates of cannabis use,particularly among the youth,despite cannabis use to non-cannabis users.Purposive sampling techniques were utilised to being illegal in Jamaica.A 1987 survey of patterns of substance misuse identify 35 adolescent male cannabis users between the ages of 13-17 o years whose only drug of choice for the past 12 months was cannabis. among post primary Jamaican students identified a 19.8/0 lifetime These males reported smoking cannabis at least three times per week. prevalence for cannabis use,while a 2000 Jamaican National School's Random sampling techniques were used to select a comparison group Survey found the lifetime prevalence to have increased to 26.9%[3]. of 35 non-cannabis using adolescent males between the ages of 13-17 Research findings have suggested that cannabis use may impair years, from two Secondary High Schools in Kingston, Jamaica. 'the neuro-cognitive functioning [4-6]. However, some researchers have mean age for the total sample was 14.97±1.36 years.Participants in the cannabis using group who reported a history of a psychiatric diagnosis, suggested that the residual effects of heavy cannabis use on cognitive or the use of any drug other than cannabis were excluded from the functions are reversible, lasting only a few days after cessation [7]. study.In the comparison group(non-cannabis users)participants who Results from one longitudinal study found that cannabis use does not reported cannabis use within the last 12 months,or tested positive for have a long-term negative impact on intelligence[9],while others have metabolites of cannabis in their urine,were excluded from the study. found that heavy cannabis users had memory and learning impairments Cannabis users were required to abstain from using for a period even after six weeks of supervised abstention[8]. There is a paucity of research on cannabis and neuro-cognitive performance in the Caribbean Region, including Jamaica. Given Correspondence to: Winston De La Haye, M.D., M.P.H., D.M, Lecturer in the widespread use of cannabis and its easy availability for Jamaican psychiatry,Department of Community Health and Psychiatry,The University adolescents,it is important to identify if there are any neuro-cognitive of the West Indies,Mona Campus,Kingston,Tel:+1 (876)383-0348;Fax:+1 effects associated with cannabis use,among the youth population.This (876)631-3742;Intl.voice mail:+1(514)800-2627;E-mail:wdela@yahoo.com study therefore investigates whether cannabis use among Jamaican Key words:cannabis,memory,adolescent,Jamaican and male adolescent males will result in lowered performances on neuro- Received:October 04,2016;Accepted:October 21,2016;Published:October cognitive tasks. 26,2016 Ment Health Addict Res,2016 doi:10.15761/MHAR.1000118 Volume 1(3):71-73 Powell-Booth K(2016)Impact of cannabis on the neurocognitive performance of Jamaican adolescents of 24 - 48 hours prior to participating in the testing process. Of the by themselves;with smoking occurring mostly on the weekend,with 35 participants initially recruited for the cannabis use group, 3 were Saturday being reported as the most popular day of the week to smoke expelled from school and 2 chose to withdraw from the study.Of the cannabis. 35 participants in the non-user control group, 3 were excluded from the study because their urine contained metabolites of cannabis.A total Significant mean differences were observed between the neuropsychological performances of cannabis users versus non-users of 30 cannabis users and 32 non-users were inter viewed for the study. (Table 1). The largest mean differences were observed for Verbal Measures Intelligence Quotient(VIQ),t(60)=6.764,p<0.05,followed by Digit Span Forward, t (60)=16.954, p<0.05 and Digit Span Backward, t The measures utilised in this study are the: [1] Wide Range (60)=17.755,p<0.05,while the smallest mean difference was for the Achievement Test,Third Edition(WRAT 3);[2]subtests from the Wide Picture Memory Immediate subtest,t(60)=4.638,p<0.05(Table 1).Non- Range Assessment of Memory and Learning(WRAML)and[3]subtests users had better neuro-cognitive performances than cannabis users on from the Wechsler Intelligence Scales for Children, Fourth Edition the Picture Memory,Verbal Learning and Story Memory subtests,both (WISC-IV).The WRAT 3 is a widely used screening instrument for the immediate and delayed.However,the decline in performance was more presence of academic difficulties. It is a standardised instrument that evident among the users than the non-users,on the delayed tests(Table 2). has been normed for use with individuals between the ages 5-75 years, assessing the basic skills for reading,spelling and math computation. Discussion Participants were screened for academic difficulties with the WRAT 3 and those identified were excluded from the study. The mean age of cannabis initiation in this study was found to be early adolescence, as seen in other Caribbean studies [3,11]. As The WRAML is a standardized neuropsychological instrument for adolescence is the developmental period for experimentation and the assessment of learning and memory.The Picture Memory,Verbal risky behaviours,along with the cultural acceptability of cannabis use Learning and Story Memory subtests were selected to measure visual in Jamaica,this finding was anticipated.However,cannabis use during and verbal memory, as well as auditory sequencing and attention to adolescence is a cause for serious concern as the adolescent brain is still details.The WRAMI,has been found to have reliability coefficients of undergoing neural development and may be susceptible to impairments between.80 and.85. in neuro-cognitive functioning. The WISC-IV is a standardized benchmark instrument used Cannabis users exhibited lower scores on all assessed to measure the intelligence of children and adolescents. The Digit neuropsychological functions as compared to non-users.However,the Span, Coding, Vocabulary, and Similarities subtests of the WISC- greatest mean differences were observed through significantly lowered IV, were selected to assess working memory, mental manipulation, Verbal Comprehension as well as Digit Span scores. This finding concentration, attention, language development, general verbal implicates cannabis use during adolescence with impairing the neuro- intelligence,educational background and overall verbal comprehension. cognitive functions of working memory, attention, concentration, mental manipulation, language development and verbal intelligence. Procedure Cannabis users also had significantly lower visual,verbal and working Ethical approval was obtained from The University of the West memory scores than those of non-cannabis users with the largest Indies,Faculty of Medical Sciences'Ethics Committee and informed differences being seen on the delayed subtests. The observance of consent was obtained from the guardians of each volunteering student. significantly lower scores on the delayed subtests implies that the long- The students also signed an assent form prior to participating in the term memory of cannabis users may be more susceptibility to neuro- study.Participants from both groups(users and non-users of cannabis) cognitive decline. were asked to complete a self-administered demographic questionnaire Cannabis users had lower scores on all tests of learning, reporting their age,class grade,and substance use history.Participants attention and memory than non-users. This is consistent with in the non-user group were tested for the presence of cannabis findings from previous research studies on the impact of cannabis on metabolites in their urine. All participants were screened with the neuropsychologicalperformance [13-18]. A meta-analytic stud WRAT 3 and those with identified academic difficulties were excluded [ ] y b y from the study. Table 1.Mean differences in subtest scores between cannabis users and non-users. The WRAML and WISC-IV subtests were then administered to the Sub-Tests t of p Mean Difference selected students to assess their neurocognitive functions.Data analysis WRAML was accomplished using the Statistical Package for the Social Sciences Picture Memory Immediate 4.638* 60 0.00 1.03958 version 14(SPSS v.14)and t-tests were conducted to assess if there were Picture Memory Delayed 6.785* 60 0.00 1.39792 any significant differences between the performances of cannabis users Verbal Learning Immediate 6.334* 60 0.00 1.74375 and non-users. Verbal Learning Delayed 7.686* 60 0.00 2.1500 Story Immediate 8.062* 60 0.00 106875 Results Story Delayed 7.864* 60 0.00 2.29792 The sample consisted of 62 male students, 30 cannabis users and WISC-1v 32 non-users.The mean age of the total sample was 14.97±1.36 years, Digit Span Forward 16.954* 60 0.00 6.47083 with the mean age for users being 15.73± 1.173 years and non-users __ Digit Span Backward 17.755* 60 0.00 6.60417 14.25 ± 1.14 years. Approximately 18% of cannabis users started Coding 11.831* 60 0.00 3.18125 smoking cannabis before age 13,with a reported mean age of initiation Vocabulary 5.859* 60 0.00 1.54792 being 13.4 years. Seventy eight percent (78%) of users indicated that Similarities 5.401* 60 0.00 1,32708 they smoked at parties/clubs,and with friends,as opposed to smoking Verbal Comprehension Index 6.764* 60 0.00 6.64792 *p <.05 Ment HealtbAddict Res,2016 doi:10.15761/MHAR.1000118 Volume l(3):71-73 Powell-Booth K(2016)Impact o£cannabis on the neurocognitive performance of Jamaican adolescents Table 2.Subtest scale scores for cannabis users and non-users. the-Art and Future Directions:Taylor&Francis. Subtest scale scores Groups 5. Medina KL,Hanson KL,Schweinsburg AD,Cohen-Zion 1,4,Nagel BJ,et al.(2007) Non-User Cannabis Neuropsychological functioning in adolescent marijuana users: Subtle deficits n=32 User n=30 detectable after a month of abstinence.Journal ofthe International NeuropsJ,chological _.M... SD M......... SD Societyl3:807-820.[Crossret] Pic Memory immediate 12.41 0.91 1137 0.85 6. Kanayama G,Rogowska J,Pope HG,Gruber SA,Yurgelun-Todd DA(2004)Spatial Pic Memory Delayed 11.53 0.8 10.13 0.82 working memory in heavy cannabis users:a functional magnetic resonance imaging study.Psychopharntacologv 176:239-247.[Crossref] Verbal Learning Immediate 13.34 1.09 11.60 1.07 Verbal Learning Delayed 12.25 1.14 10.10 1.06 7. Pope HG Jr, Gruber AJ, Hudson JI, Huestis MA, Yurgelun-Todd D (2001) Neuropsychological performance in long-term cannabis users.Arch Gen Psychiatry 58: Story Immediate 13.47 1.13 11.40 0.85 909-915.[Crossret] Story Delayed 12.53 1.34 10.23 0.89 Digit-span forward 11.94 0.98 5.47 1.91 8. Schwartz RE, Gruenewald PJ, Klitzner M, Fedio P (1989) Short-term memory impairment in cannabis-dependent adolescents. American.Iournal of Diseases of Digit-span backward 10.94 0.76 4.33 1.84 Children 143:1214-1219.[Crossref] Coding 12.28 1.08 910 103 VIQ (04.28 3.85 97 63 3 89 '. 9� Fried Y,Watkinson B,James D,Gray R(2002)Current and former marijuana use: preliminary findings of a longitudinal study of effects on IQ in ymmg adults.CMA.I Vocabulary 12.78 124 11.23 0.77 166:887-891. '.Similarities 12.09 1.06 10.77 0.85 ---- 10.Burton D,Donders J,Mittenberg W(1996)A structural equation analysis of the Wide Range Assessment of Memory and Learning(WRAML)in the standardization sample. Grant,et al. [19] also identified impairment in the ability of chronic Child Nearopsychologv2:39-47. users of cannabis to recall new information, though findings by 11. De La Haye W,Harris J(2005)Early Age of Onset of Substance Abuse in Clients Schwartz[20]and Lyons[21]indicate an absence of long-term residual Treated in an Adolescent Substance Abuse Clinic in a General Hospital in Jamaica effects of cannabis use on cognitive abilities. [Abstract].Wesi Indian Med.15(suppl 5):24. Traditionally, Jamaicans view cannabis use as providing many 12.Plancherel B,Bolognini M,St6phan P,Laget J,Chinet L,et al.(2005)Adolescents' benefits.These findings are an important step in providing empirical beliefs about marijuana use: a comparison of regular users,past users and never/ evidence for possible cognitive impairment from cannabis use,among occasional users.J Drug Educ 35:131-146.[Crossret] the adolescent population. Further research is needed to determine 13.Pope HG Jr, Gruber AJ, Hudson JI, Huestis MA, Yurgelun-Todd D (2001) Neuropsychological performance in long-term cannabis users.Arch Gen Psychtatry 58: dose-related,in addition to long-term residual effects of cannabis use 909-915.[Crossret] on neuropsychological performance in the Caribbean.Understanding 14.Kelleher LM,Stough C,Sergejew AA,Rolfe T(2004)The effects of cannabis on the relationship between the complex factors that influence information-processing speed.Addict Behov 29:1213-1219.[Crossref] neurocognitive performance of cannabis users should further help to inform the development of public policy and legislation in Jamaica and 15.Pope HG Jr, Yurgelun-Todd D (1996)The Residual Cognitive Effects of Heavy the Caribbean. Marijuana Use in College Students..MMA 275:521-527.[Crossret] 16.Mendhiratta SS,Vanna VK,Dang R,Malhotra AK,Das K,et al.(1988)Cannabis and Limitations cognitive functions:a re-evaluation study.BrJAddict 83:749-753.[Crossret] 17.Fried PA,Watkinson B,James D,Gray R(2002)Current and Former Marijuana The sample size of 30 for the user group even though deemed Use:Preliminary Findings of a Longitudinal Study of Effects on IQ in Young Adults. sufficient, was still small and the present study consisted of male Canadian MedAssociation.J 166:887-891. participants only. It would be of interest to know if there is a gender IS Bolla KI,Eldreth DA,Matochik JA, Cadet JL(2005)Neural substrates of faulty difference in cannabis users' in performance on neurocognitive tests decision-making in abstinent marijuana users.Neuoinnage 26:480-492.[Crossret] of memory. 19.Grant I,Gonzalez R,Carey CL,Natarajan L,Wolfson T(2003)Non-acute(Residual) Neurocognitive Effects of Cannabis Use:A Meta-analytic Study.J Int Nenropsychol Conclusion Soc 9:679-689.[Crossret] The findings suggest that there is a significant difference in 20.Schwartz RH, Gruenewald PJ, Klitzner M, Fedio P (1989) Short-term memory performance between Jamaican male adolescent cannabis users and impairment in cannabis-dependent adolescents. Ain,1 Dis Child 143: 1214-1219. non-users on neuro-cognitive tests. Users of cannabis displayed [Crossret] cognitive deficits on all tests of memory, intelligence, language and 21.Lyons MJ,Bar JL,Panizzon MS,Toomey R,Eisen S,et al.(2004)Neuropsychological attention that were conducted.The present findings lend new support consequences of regular marijuana use:a twin study.Psvchol Med 34: 1239-1250, to the notion that cannabis use may impair neurocognitive functioning. [Crossret] There are implications for poor school performance by adolescent users of cannabis in Jamaica.These results support the need for public health policies aimed at targeting early prevention strategies,demand reduction,identification and treatment of adolescent cannabis users in Jamaica. References I. Chevatnes B(1988)Background to Drug Use In Jamaica.The University of the West Indies Kingston,Jamaica:Institute of Social and Economic Research(ISER). 2. Rubin(1975)Cannabis and Culture.The Hague,Paris:Mouton Publishers. Copyright:02016 Powell-Booth K.This is an open-access article distributed 3. Douglas K-G Pattens of(2000) Substance Use and Abuse Among Post Primary tinder the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License,which permits Students in Jamaica.Kingston:Planning Institue of Jamaica. unrestricted use,distribution,and reproduction in any medium,provided the 4. Kalechstein A,van Gorp WG(2011)Neuropsychology and Substance Use:State-of- original author and source are credited. Ment Health Addict Res,2016 doi:10.15761/MHAR.1000118 Volume 1(3):71-73 Persistent cannabis users show neuropsychological decline from childhood to midlife Madeline H. Meiera,b,1, Avshalom Caspia,b,c,d,e, Antony Ambler e•f, Honal-ee Harrington b•c'd, Renate Houtsb'c'd, Richard S. E. Keefe d, Kay McDonaldf,Aimee Wardf, Richie Poultonf, and Terrie E. Moffitta,b,c,d,e r� 'Duke Transdisciplinary Prevention Research Center,Center for Child and Family Policy,bDepartment of Psychology and Neuroscience,and`Institute for Genome Sciences and Policy,Duke University,Durham,NC 27708;dDepartment of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences, Duke University Medical Center, OU Durham,NC 27710;'Social,Genetic,and Developmental Psychiatry Centre,Institute of Psychiatry,King's College London,London SE5 8AF,United Kingdom; and(Dunedin Multidisciplinary Health and Development Research Unit,Department of Preventive and Social Medicine,School of Medicine,University of Otago,Dunedin 9054,New Zealand Edited by Michael I.Posner, University of Oregon,Eugene,OR,and approved July 30,2012(received for review April 23,2012) Recent reports show that fewer adolescents believe that regular nence from cannabis. There are two commonly cited potential cannabis use is harmful to health.Concomitantly,adolescents are limitations of this approach. One is the absence of data on initiating cannabis use at younger ages,and more adolescents are initial, precannabis-use neuropsychological functioning. It is using cannabis on a daily basis.The purpose of the present study possible that differences in test performance between cannabis was to test the association between persistent cannabis use and users and controls are attributable to premorbid rather than neuropsychological decline and determine whether decline is cannabis-induced deficits (17-20). A second limitation is re- concentrated among adolescent-onset cannabis users.Participants liance on retrospectively reported quantity, frequency, dura- were members of the Dunedin Study, a prospective study of tion, and age-of-onset of cannabis use, often inquired about a birth cohort of 1,037 individuals followed from birth(1972/1973) years after initiation of heavy use. to age 38 y. Cannabis use was ascertained in interviews at ages A prospective, longitudinal investigation of the association 18,21,26,32,and 38 y.Neuropsychological testing was conducted between cannabis use and neuropsychological impairment could at age 13 y, before initiation of cannabis use, and again at age redress these limitations and strengthen the existing evidence 38 y, after a pattern of persistent cannabis use had developed. base by assessing neuropsychological functioning in a sample of Persistent cannabis use was associated with neuropsychological youngsters before the onset of cannabis use, obtaining pro- decline broadly across domains of functioning,even after control- spective data on cannabis use as the sample is followed over ling for years of education.Informants also reported noticing more a number of years,and readministering neuropsychological tests cognitive problems for persistent cannabis users.Impairment was after some members of the sample have developed a pattern of concentrated among adolescent-onset cannabis users,with more long-term cannabis use.To our knowledge,only one prospective, persistent use associated with greater decline. Further, cessation longitudinal study of the effects of cannabis on neuropsychol- of cannabis use did not�x fully restore neuropsychological function- o ical functioning has been conducted (21)> and in this study, } ing among adolescent-onset cannabis users. Findings are sugges- the sample was small and the average duration of regular can- _ tive of a neurotoxic effect of cannabis on the adolescent brain nabis use was only 2 y. and highlight the importance of prevention and policy efforts In the present study,we investigated the association between targeting adolescents. persistent cannabis use—prospectively assessed over 20 y—and neuropsychological functioning in a birth cohort of 1,037 indi- marijuana longitudinal cognition viduals.Study members underwent neuropsychological testing in 1985 and 1986 before the onset of cannabis use and again in Cannabis, the most widely used illicit drug in the world, is 2010-2012, after some had developed a persistent pattern of increasingly being recognized for both its toxic and its ther- cannabis use. We tested six hypotheses. First, we tested the apeutic properties (1). Research on the harmful and beneficial "cognitive decline" hypothesis that persistent cannabis users effects of cannabis use is important because it can inform deci- evidence greater decline in test performance from childhood to sions regarding the medicinal use and legalization of cannabis, adulthood than nonusers.By examining within-person change in and the results of these decisions will have major public-health neuropsychological functioning, any effect of premorbid deficits consequences. As debate surrounding these issues continues in on later(postcannabis-initiation)test performance was nullified. the United States and abroad,new findings concerning the harmful Second,we tested the"specificity"hypothesis to address whether effects of cannabis on neuropsychological functioning are emerging. impairment is confined to specific neuropsychological domains Accumulating evidence suggests that long-term, heavy can- or whether it is more global. To test this hypothesis,we admin- nabis use may cause enduring neuropsychological impairment— istered multiple tests for each of five specific domains, as dif- impairment that persists beyond the period of acute intoxication ferent tests may be differentially sensitive to cannabis-associated (2).Studies of long-term,heavy cannabis users fairly consistently neuropsychological impairment. In conducting our analyses, we show that these individuals perform worse on neuropsychological tested alternative explanations for the association between per- tests (2-5), and some (6-8) but not all (9) studies suggest that impairment may remain even after extended periods of absti- nence. The magnitude and persistence of impairment may de- Author contributions: M.H.M.,A.C.,and T.E.M.designed research; M.H.M.,A.C.,A.A., pend on factors such as the quantity, frequency, duration, and H.H.,R.H.,R.S.E.K.,K.M.,A.W.,R.P.,and T.E.M.performed research;M.H.M.,A.C.,R.H., age-of-onset of cannabis use (2), as more severe and enduring and T.E.M.analyzed data;and M.H.M.,A.C.,and T.E.M.wrote the paper. impairment is evident among individuals with more frequent and The authors declare no conflict of interest. prolonged heavy use and a younger age-of-onset(3,6,8, 10-16). This article is a PNAS Direct Submission. The extant evidence base draws on case–control studies of See Commentary on page 15970. recruited cannabis users and comparison subjects. These stud- 'To whom correspondence should be addressed.E-mail:madeline.meier@duke.edu. ies screen participants for potential confounding factors, see Author Summary on page 15980(volume 109,number 40). such as alcohol and drug dependence, and compare them on This article contains supporting information online at www.pnas.org/lookup/suppl/doi:10. neuropsychological test performance after a period of absti- 1073/pnas.1206820109/-/DCSupplemental. www.pnas.org/cgi/doi/l 0.1 073/pnas.1 206820109 PNAS I Published online August 27,2012 1 E2657-E2664 sistent cannabis use and neuropsychological functioning by ruling IQ decline was most pronounced among the most persistent out potential confounding effects of (i) acute or residual can- cannabis-dependence group(i.e.,the 3+ group;n = 38),but the nabis intoxication, (ii) tobacco dependence, (iii) hard-drug de- effect of persistent cannabis dependence on IQ decline was not pendence (e.g., heroin, cocaine, amphetamines), (iv) alcohol solely attributable to this group. For example, the association dependence, and (v) schizophrenia. Third, we tested the "edu- between persistent cannabis dependence and full-scale IQ de- cation" hypothesis that persistent cannabis users experience cline was still apparent after excluding the study members with neuropsychological decline simply because they have eschewed 3+ cannabis-dependence diagnoses from the analysis(t= -2.94, academics and other opportunities for learning.Recent evidence P = 0.0034). Table S1 shows parallel results for persistent reg- suggests that staying in school can boost one's intelligence quo- ular cannabis use and persistent cannabis dependence. tient(IQ)(22),and cannabis users tend to receive less schooling than nonusers(23).Therefore,we tested whether the association Is Impairment Specific to Certain Neuropsychological Domains or Is It between persistent cannabis use and neuropsychological decline Global? Table 3 shows the effects of persistent cannabis de- remained after controlling for years of education. Fourth, we pendence on five different areas of mental function assessed at queried third-party informants to test the "everyday cognition" age 38 y. Effects represent mean neuropsychological test per- hypothesis that cannabis-induced neuropsychological impair- formance at age 38 y, adjusted for childhood IQ. Across ment translates into functional problems in daily life. Fifth, we different areas of mental function, study members with more tested the "developmental vulnerability" hypothesis that indi- persistent cannabis dependence generally showed greater viduals who begin cannabis use as adolescents are particularly neuropsychological impairment. Inspection of the means sug- vulnerable to the effects of persistent cannabis use on neuro- gests that the greatest impairments were for the domains of psychological functioning,as evidence suggests that cannabis has executive functioning and processing speed. To test whether especially toxic effects on the developing brain(24-31).Sixth,we impairment was relatively greater for certain domains, we tested the"recovery"hypothesis that former persistent users who compared cannabis-associated neuropsychological impairment quit or reduce their cannabis use may be able to restore their across the four Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale-IV (WAIS- neuropsychological health. IV) indexes (i.e., working memory index, processing speed in- dex, perceptual reasoning index, and verbal comprehension Results index), which share psychometric properties (i.e., reliability) Do Study Members with More Persistent Cannabis Use Show Greater important for such a test. Using a model-fitting approach, we IQ Decline?Table 1(far right column)shows effect sizes for within- fitted (i) a model allowing the association between persistent person IQ change from childhood to adulthood as a function of cannabis dependence and age-38 neuropsychological impair- persistent cannabis dependence. In this analysis, each stud meat adjusted for childhood IQ and sex to vary across the four P P Y � > Y J n' member served as his or her own control; given that the groups WAIS-IV indexes and (ii) a model equating this association were not equivalent on childhood IQ,we accounted for premorbid across the four WAIS-IV indexes. Results showed that associ- IQ differences by looking at IQ change from childhood to age 38 y. ations between persistent cannabis dependence and all four Study members with more persistent cannabis dependence WAIS-IV indexes could be equated without a resultant de- - -..ed greater IQ decline. For example, study members who terioration in model fit (Oxz = 2.13, df = 3,P = 0.55),which never used cannabis experienced a slight increase in IQ,whereas suggests that impairment was not statistically significantly dif- U those who diagnosed with cannabis dependence at one, two, or ferent across neuropsychological domains. three or more study waves experienced IQ declines of -0.11, -0.17,and-0.38 SD units,respectively.An IQ decline of-0.38 SD Is Impairment Attributable to Persistent Cannabis Use or Are There units corresponds to a loss of-6 IQ points,from 99.68 to 93.93. Alternative Explanations? We ruled out six alternative explan- Results of analyses for persistent cannabis dependence and per- ations for the observed effects of persistent cannabis use on sistent regular cannabis use were similar(Table 1). neuropsychological functioning, namely that these effects could Table 2 expands the analysis by showing results for the sub- be explained by (i) past 24-h cannabis use, (ii) past-week can- tests of different cognitive abilities that constitute the IQ. Per- nabis use, (iii) persistent tobacco dependence, (iv) persistent sistent cannabis dependence was associated with greater decline hard-drug dependence, (v) persistent alcohol dependence, and on the majority of the subtests. (vi) schizophrenia. We recalculated the mean change in full- Table 1. IQ before and after cannabis use N % male Age 7-13 full-scale IQ Age 38 full-scale IQ o IQ effect size* Persistence of cannabis dependence Never used, never diagnosed 242 38.84 99.84(14.39) 100.64(15.25) 0.05 Used, never diagnosed 479 49.48 102.32(13.34) 101.25(14.70) -0.07 1 diagnosis 80 70.00 96.40(14.31) 94.78(14.54) -0.11 2 diagnoses 35 62.86 102.14(17.08) 99.67(16.11) -0.17 3+diagnoses 38 81.58 99.68(13.53) 93.93(13.32) -0.38 Persistence of regular cannabis use Never used 242 38.84 99.84(14.39) 100.64(15.25) 0.05 Used, never regularly 508 50.59 102.27(13.59) 101.24(14.81) -0.07 Used regularly at 1 wave 47 72.34 101.42(14.41) 98.45(14.89) -0.20 Used regularly at 2 waves 36 63.89 95.28(10.74) 93.26(11.44) -0.13 Used regularly at 3+waves 41 78.05 96.00(16.06) 90.77(13.88) -0.35 Means(SDs)are presented for child and adult full-scale IQ as a function of the number of study waves between ages 18 y and 38y for which study members met criteria for cannabis dependence or reported using cannabis on a regular basis(at least 4 d/wk).The last column shows that study members with more persistent cannabis use showed greater IQ decline from childhood to adulthood. *This coefficient indicates change in IQ from childhood to adulthood,with negative values indicating decreases in IQ.These change scores are in SD units,with values of 0.20,0.50,and 0.80 reflecting small,medium,and large changes,respectively. E2658 www.pnas.org/Cgi/doi/10.1073/pnas.1206820109 Meier et al. Table 2. IQ subtest changes Never used, never Used, never 1 diagnosis, 2 diagnoses, 3+diagnoses, Linear trend IQ test/subtest diagnosed,n=242 diagnosed,n=479 n=80 n=35 n=38 t test* P Full-scale IQ 0.05 -0.07 -0.11 -0.17 -0.38 -4.45 <0.0001 Verbal IQ 0.02 -0.05 -0.13 -0.19 -0.31 -4.15 <0.0001 Information subtest 0.05 -0.08 0.02 -0.25 -0.15 -2.40 0.0168 Similarities subtest 0.03 -0.05 -0.03 -0.19 -0.44 -2.78 0.0056 Vocabulary subtest 0.07 -0.05 -0.16 -0.16 -0.45 -3.67 0.0003 Arithmetic subtest -0.05 -0.07 -0.05 0.00 0.06 -0.73 0.47 Performance IQ 0.08 -0.08 -0.09 -0.08 -0.42 -2.84 0.0046 Digit symbol coding subtest 0.15 -0.09 -0.17 -0.23 -0.62 -5.60 <0.0001 Block design subtest -0.03 -0.07 -0.01 -0.11 0.02 -0.55 0.58 Picture completion subtest -0.01 -0.08 0.08 0.05 0.15 1.18 0.24 Mean change in IQ subtest scores from childhood to adulthood is presented in 5D units as a function of the number of study waves between ages 18 y and 38 y for which a study member met criteria for cannabis dependence.These change scores can be interpreted as effect sizes,with values of 0.20,0.50,and 0.80 reflecting small, medium, and large effects, respectively. Persistent cannabis dependence was associated with IQ decline for the majority of IQ subtests administered in both childhood and adulthood,i.e.,when each study member served as his or her own control. *To test for a dose-response effect,we conducted an ordinary least-squares regression,estimating the linear trend controlling for sex. scale IQ as a function of persistent cannabis dependence, ex- sequent analyses because full-scale IQ captures overall in- cluding each of the aforementioned groups.We elected to show tellectual functioning. Fig. 1 shows that excluding each of these results just for full-scale IQ for this analysis as well as all sub- groups of study members did not alter the initial finding; effect Table 3. Five areas of mental function -•� tN Never used, Used,never never diagnosed, diagnosed, 1 diagnosis, 2 diagnoses, 3+diagnoses, Linear trend Age 38 y neuropsychological tests n=242 n=479 n=80 n=35 n=38 t test* P c�, zU Tests of executive functions 2 WAIS-IV Working Memory Index 0.01 0.03 -0.16 -0.03 -0.16 -2.16 0.0311 !_J N Wechsler Memory Scale Months of the 0.24 0.01 -0.38 -0.23 -0.63 -5.24 <0.0001 0 3 Year Backward Trail-Making Test B Timet -0.04 -0.03 0.16 0.08 0.19 1.15 0.25 �o au CANTAB Rapid Visual Information 0.05 0.01 -0.02 -0.04 -0.45 -2.58 0.0100 Processing A Prime(Vigilance) CANTAB Rapid Visual Information -0.02 0.01 0.06 0.04 -0.14 -0.05 0.96 Processing Total False Alarms' Tests of memory Rey Auditory Verbal Learning Total Recall 0.11 0.06 -0.26 -0.22 -0.48 -2.65 0.0081 Rey Auditory Verbal Learning Delayed Recall 0.14 0.02 -0.22 -0.28 -0.31 -2.11 0.0348 Wechsler Memory Scale Verbal Paired 0.07 0.06 -0.21 -0.21 -0.12 -1.48 0.14 Associates Total Recall Wechsler Memory Scale Verbal Paired 0.07 0.06 -0.19 -0.15 -0.14 -1.07 0.29 Associates Delayed Recall CANTAB Visual Paired Associates Learning 0.09 0.01 -0.06 -0.36 -0.10 -2.22 0.0270 First Trial Memory Score CANTAB Visual Paired Associates Learning -0.07 -0.03 0.17 0.33 -0.06 1.41 0.16 Total Errors' Tests of processing speed WAIS-IV Processing Speed Index 0.14 0.03 -0.21 -0.05 -0.61 -3.64 0.0003 CANTAB Rapid Visual Information -0.13 0.04 0.06 -0.20 0.25 1.92 0.06 Processing Mean Latency' CANTAB Reaction Time 5-Choice Reaction 0.19 -0.11 -0.13 -0.01 0.18 -0.38 0.71 Timet Tests of perceptual reasoning WAIS-IV Perceptual Reasoning Index 0.08 -0.02 0.07 -0.18 -0.12 -2.33 0.0202 Tests of verbal comprehension WAIS-IV Verbal Comprehension Index 0.10 -0.01 -0.03 0.02 -0.23 -3.04 0.0025 Neuropsychological test scores at age 38 y are shown as a function of the number of study waves between ages 18 y and 38 y for which study members met criteria for cannabis dependence.Scores are standardized means adjusted for baseline(childhood)full-scale IQ assessed before the onset of cannabis use. These means can be interpreted as effect sizes,with values of 0.20,0.50,and 0.80 reflecting small,medium,and large effects,respectively.Persistent cannabis dependence was associated with impairment in each of the five areas of mental function.CANTAB,Cambridge Neuropsychological Test Automated Battery; WAIS-IV,Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale-IV. *To test for a dose-response effect,we conducted an ordinary least-squares regression,estimating the linear trend controlling for childhood full-scale IQ and sex. tHigher score indicates worse performance. Meier et al. PNAS I Published online August 27,2012 1 E2659 at 3+Diagnoses I 2 Diagnoses .`.kis 1 Diagnosis jUsed,Never Diagnosed Never Used,Never Diagnosed -0.7 -0.6 -0.5 -0.4 -0.3 -0.2 -0.1 0 0.1 0.2 K ❑ Full Birth Cohort(n=874) ® Excluding Those with Persistent Hard-Drug Dependence(n=7) s ® Excluding Past-24-Hour Cannabis Users(n=38) Excluding Those with Persistent Alcohol Dependence(n=53) El Excluding Past-Week Cannabis Users(n=89) ❑ Excluding Those with Schizophrenia(n=28) I! Excluding Those with Persistent Tobacco Dependence(n=126) Fig.1. Ruling out alternative explanations.Shown is change in full-scale IQ(in SD units)from childhood to adulthood as a function of the number of study waves between ages 18 y and 38 y for which a study member met criteria for cannabis dependence.Change scores are presented for the full birth cohort and the cohort excluding(i)past 24-h cannabis users,(ii)past-week cannabis users,(iii)those with persistent tobacco dependence,(iv)those with persistent hard- drug dependence,(v)those with persistent alcohol dependence,and(vi)those with lifetime schizophrenia.Persistent tobacco,hard-drug,and alcohol de- pendence were each defined as dependence at three or more study waves.IQ decline could not be explained by other factors.Error bars=SEs. sizes, representing within-person IQ change as a function of tobacco, hard-drug, or alcohol dependence), and schizophrenia persistent cannabis dependence,remained virtually the same and remained statistically significant (t = —2.20,P = 0.0282). remained statistically significant (see Table S2 for IQ subtests). Furthermore,a multivariate regression of the effect of persistent Is Impairment Apparent Even After Controlling for Years of Education? cannabis dependence on full-scale IQ decline, controlling for The linear effect of persistent cannabis dependence on change in past 24-h cannabis use, persistent substance dependence (the full-scale IQ was significant before controlling for years of edu- number of study waves for which study members diagnosed with cation (t = —4.45,P < 0.0001; Table 2, top row) and remained Table 4. IQ decline after holding education constant Never used, Used, never Linear trend Sample never diagnosed diagnosed 1 diagnosis 2 diagnoses 3+diagnoses t test* P Full sample 0.05(n=242) -0.07(n=479) -0.11 (n=80) -0.17(n=35) -0.38(n=38) -4.45 <0.0001 High-school education or less -0.03(n=59) -0.14(n= 130) -0.16(n=43) -0.25(n=20) -0.48(n=26) -3.36 0.0009 Mean change in full-scale IQ from childhood to adulthood is presented in SD units as a function of the number of study waves between ages 18 y and 38 y for which a study member met criteria for cannabis dependence.These change scores can be interpreted as effect sizes,with values of 0.20,0.50,and 0.80 reflecting small,medium,and large effects,respectively.Change scores are presented for the full sample and for the sample of study members with a high- school education or less.Persistent cannabis dependence was associated with IQ decline in the full sample and the sample of study members with a high- school education or less. *To test for a dose-response effect,we conducted an ordinary least-squares regression,estimating the linear trend controlling for sex. E2660 I www.pnas.org/Cgi/doi/10.1073/pnas.1206820109 Meier et al. significant after controlling for years of education(t= —3.41,P= persistent users.This effect was concentrated among adolescent- 0.0007). Moreover, although fewer persistent cannabis users onset cannabis users, a finding consistent with results of several pursued education after high school (X2 = 63.94, P < 0.0001), studies showing executive functioning or verbal IQ deficits among the subset with a high-school education or less,persistent among adolescent-onset but not adult-onset chronic cannabis cannabis users experienced greater IQ decline (Table 4). users (8, 10, 14, 15), as well as studies showing impairment of learning, memory, and executive functions in samples of ado- Does Cannabis-Associated Neuropsychological Impairment Translate lescent cannabis users(11-13, 32). into Functional Problems in Daily Life?Informant reports of study The present study advances knowledge in five ways. First, by members' neuropsychological functioning were also obtained at investigating the association between persistent cannabis use and age 38 y. Study members nominated people "who knew them neuropsychological functioning prospectively, we ruled out pre- well."These informants were mailed questionnaires and asked to morbid neuropsychological deficit as an explanation of the link complete a checklist, including whether the study members had between persistent cannabis use and neuropsychological impair- problems with their attention and memory over the past year. ment occurring after persistent use. Second,we showed that the Table 5 shows mean informant-reported cognitive problems, impairment was global and detectable across five domains of adjusted for childhood IQ, as a function of persistent cannabis neuropsychological functioning.Third,we showed that cannabis- dependence. Informants reported observing significantly more associated neuropsychological decline did not occur solely be- attention and memory problems among those with more per- cause cannabis users completed fewer years of education.Fourth, sistent cannabis dependence. we showed that impairment was apparent to third-party inform- ants and that persistent cannabis use interfered with everyday Are Adolescent Cannabis Users Particularly Vulnerable?Adolescent- cognitive functioning. Fifth,we showed that, among adolescent- onset users,who diagnosed with cannabis dependence before age onset former persistent cannabis users, impairment was still evi- 18 y, tended to become more persistent users, but Fig. 2 shows dent after cessation of use for 1 y or more. Collectively, these that, after equating adolescent- and adult-onset cannabis users findings are consistent with speculation that cannabis use in ad- on total number of cannabis-dependence diagnoses, adolescent- olescence, when the brain is undergoing critical development, onset users showed greater IQ decline than adult-onset cannabis may have neurotoxic effects. users. In fact, adult-onset cannabis users did not appear to ex- The study's results must be interpreted in the context of its perience IQ decline as a function of persistent cannabis use. limitations. First, although we were able to rule out a set of Because it might be difficult to develop cannabis dependence plausible alternative explanations for the association between before age 18 y,we also defined adolescent-onset cannabis use in persistent cannabis use and neuropsychological functioning,such terms of weekly use before age 18 y [the correspondence be- as premorbid neuropsychological deficit and hard-drug and al- ptween cannabis dependence before age 18 y and weekly use cohol dependence among persistent cannabis users, our data z W before age 18 y was not perfect (K = 0.64)]. Results of this cannot definitively attest to whether this association is causal. W analysis (Fig. S1)were similar. For example, there may be some unknown"third"variable that X42 could account for the findings. The data also cannot reveal the O> t What Is the Effect of Cessation of Cannabis Use? Given that ado- mechanism underlying the association between persistent can- ='z lescent-onset cannabis users exhibited marked IQ decline and nabis dependence and neuropsychological decline. One hy- a u given speculation that this could represent a toxic effect of pothesis is that cannabis use in adolescence causes brain changes cannabis on the developing brain, we examined the cessation that result in neuropsychological impairment. Several lines of effect separately within adolescent-onset and adult-onset can- evidence support this possibility(24-31,33,34).First,puberty is nabis users.Fig.3 shows that,among adolescent-onset persistent a period of critical brain development,characterized by neuronal cannabis users,within-person IQ decline was apparent regardless maturation and rearrangement processes (e.g., myelination, of whether cannabis was used infrequently(median use = 14 d) synaptic pruning, dendritic plasticity) and the maturation of or frequently(median use = 365 d)in the year before testing.In neurotransmitter systems (e.g., the endogenous cannabinoid contrast, within-person IQ decline was not apparent among system), making the pubertal brain vulnerable to toxic insult adult-onset persistent cannabis users who used cannabis in- (33). Second, cannabis administration in animals is associated frequently(median use=6 d)or frequently(median use=365 d) with structural and functional brain differences, particularly in in the year before testing.Thus,cessation of cannabis use did not hippocampal regions, with structural differences dependent on fully restore neuropsychological functioning among adolescent- age and duration of exposure to cannabinoids (33). Third, onset former persistent cannabis users. studies of human adolescents have shown structural and func- tional brain differences associated with cannabis use(26,29,35). Discussion Alternatively, persistent cannabis users may experience greater Persistent cannabis use over 20 y was associated with neuro- neuropsychological decline relative to nonusers because they psychological decline, and greater decline was evident for more receive less education. Our results suggest that cannabis-associ- Table 5. Cognitive problems outside the laboratory Never used, Used, never never diagnosed, diagnosed, 1 diagnosis, 2 diagnoses, 3+diagnoses, Linear trend Age 38 y informant reports n=228 n=457 n=71 n=31 n=35 t test* P Informant-reported attention problems' —0.21 —0.07 0.31 0.64 0.96 7.74 <0.0001 Informant-reported memory problems' —0.27 —0.03 0.38 0.78 0.75 7.65 <0.0001 Shown are informant reports of cognitive problems at age 38 y as a function of the number of study waves between ages 18 y and 38 y for which study members met criteria for cannabis dependence.Scores are standardized means adjusted for baseline(childhood)full-scale IQ assessed before the onset of cannabis use.These means can be interpreted as effect sizes,with values of 0.20,0.50,and 0.80 reflecting small, medium,and large effects, respectively. Cognitive problems among persistent cannabis users were apparent to the"naked-eye." *To test for a dose-response effect,we conducted an ordinary least-squares regression,estimating the linear trend controlling for childhood full-scale IQ and sex. 'Higher score indicates worse everday problems. Meier et al. PNAS I Published online August 27,2012 1 E2661 0.4 , 1 Diagnosis 2 Diagnoses 3'Diagnoses 0.2 rn T of � d � v 0? U.v -0.2 { c� m 1`a a1 a c c i N•@ -0.4 c V � -0.6 -0.8 = p=.44 p=.09 P=.02 Cannabis Not Cannabis Cannabis Not Cannabis Cannabis Not Cannabis Dependent Dependent Dependent Dependent Dependent Dependent Before Age 18 Before Age 18 Before Age 18 Before Age 18 Before Age 18 Before Age 18 (n-17) (0-57) (n=12) (n-21) (0-23) (n-14) Fig.2. Adolescent vulnerability.Shown is change in full-scale IQ(in SD units)from childhood to adulthood among study members with 1,2,or 3+diagnoses of cannabis dependence as a function of age of onset of cannabis dependence.Individuals with adolescent-onset cannabis dependence(black bars)expe- rienced greater IQ decline than individuals with adult-onset cannabis dependence(gray bars).IQ decline of approximately-0.55 SD units among individuals ; J with adolescent-onset cannabis dependence in the 3+group represents a decline of 8 IQ points.Error bars=SEs. ated neuropsychological decline does not occur solely for this cent-onset former persistent cannabis users who quit or re- reason, because the association between persistent cannabis duced their use for 1 y or more suggests that neuropsycholo- �;�k?ti3 use and neuropsychological decline was still apparent after gical functioning is not fully restored in this time. Fifth, these controlling for years of education. Notably, the aforementioned findings are limited to a cohort of individuals born in Dunedin, processes are not mutually exclusive and may, in fact, be in- New Zealand in the 1970s.Notably,the prevalence of cannabis terrelated.For example,the toxic effects of cannabis on the brain dependence is somewhat higher among New Zealanders than may result in impaired neuropsychological functioning, poor Americans (39), but the potency of cannabis obtained from academic performance, and subsequent school dropout, which police seizures in New Zealand is similar to that of cannabis in then results in further neuropsychological decline. In this case, the United States (40, 41). our statistical control for education in the analysis of the asso- Increasing efforts should be directed toward delaying the on- ciation between persistent cannabis use and neuropsychol- set of cannabis use by young people,particularly given the recent ogical decline is likely an overcontrol (36). trend of younger ages of cannabis-use initiation in the United A second limitation is that we obtained information on past- States and evidence that fewer adolescents believe that cannabis year cannabis dependence and self-reported frequency of use is associated with serious health risk (42). In the present cannabis use with no external validation of use(e.g.,biological study, the most persistent adolescent-onset cannabis users evi- assays). Validation of cannabis use through laboratory meas- denced an average 8-point IQ decline from childhood to adult- ures could have helped detect cannabis users who did not re- hood. Quitting,however,may have beneficial effects,preventing port use. Underreporting of cannabis use due to concerns additional impairment for adolescent-onset users. Prevention about admitting to using an illegal substance is unlikely, and policy efforts should focus on delivering to the public the however,because study members,interviewed repeatedly over message that cannabis use during adolescence can have harmful 38 y about a number of illegal activities, have learned to trust effects on neuropsychological functioning, delaying the onset of the Dunedin Study's confidentiality guarantee. Moreover, any cannabis use at least until adulthood,and encouraging cessation such misclassification would have mitigated against differ- of cannabis use particularly for those who began using cannabis ences. Third, additional research is needed to define the in adolescence. parameters of use sufficient to produce neuropsychological impairment, such as the quantity, frequency, and age-of-onset Methods of use. Our findings suggest that regular cannabis use before Participants. Participants are members of the Dunedin Multidisciplinary age 18 y predicts impairment, but others have found effects Health and Development Study, a longitudinal investigation of the health only for younger ages(10, 15). Given that the brain undergoes and behavior of a complete birth cohort of consecutive births between April dynamic changes from the onset of puberty through early 1, 1972,and March 31, 1973,in Dunedin,New Zealand.The cohort of 1,037 adulthood (37, 38), this developmental period should be the children(91%of eligible births;52%boys)was constituted at age 3 y.Cohort families represent the full range of socioeconomic status in the general focus of future research on the age(s) at which harm occurs. population of New Zealand's South Island and are primarily of white Euro- Fourth, additional research is needed to determine whether pean ancestry. Follow-up assessments were conducted with informed con- cannabis-related neuropsychological impairment is reversible. sent at 5, 7,9, 11, 13, 15, 18,21,26,32,and most recently at 38 y of age, Our finding of neuropsychological difficulties among adoles- when 96% of the 1,004 living study members underwent assessment in E2662 I www.pnas.org/Cgi/doi/10.1073/pnas.1206820109 Meier et al. p=.03 p=.0002 p .73 p=.11 110 110 / (� f 105 105 wo�M.w RIO C'J 100 C'J 100 go,mg oChild IQ ToChild IQ 95 Ito EiAdult IQ in oAdult IQ 7 LL 90 LL 90 3;sRV`\ 85 gr 85MW� 80 fes, v, : __ 80 � Infrequent Frequent Infrequent Frequent Cannabis Cannabis Cannabis Cannabis Use at Age Use at Age Use at Age Use at Age 38 38 38 38 (n=17) (n=19) (n=13) (n=20) Adolescent-Onset (Used Cannabis Weekly Before Age 18) Adult-Onset(Did Not Use Cannabis Weekly Before Age 18) Fig.3. Postcessation IQ among former persistent cannabis users.This figure is restricted to persistent cannabis users,defined as study members with two or 'r more diagnoses of cannabis dependence.Shown is full-scale IQ in childhood and adulthood.IQ is plotted as a function of(i)age of onset of at least weekly cannabis use and(ii)the frequency of cannabis use at age 38 y.Infrequent use was defined as weekly or less frequent use in the year preceding testing at age 38 Y.Median use among infrequent and frequent adolescent-onset cannabis users was 14(range:0-52)and 365(range:100-365)d,respectively.Median use z among infrequent and frequent adult-onset cannabis users was 6(range:0-52)and 3,65(range:100-365)d,respectively.IQ decline was apparent even after ? cessation of cannabis use for adolescent-onset former persistent cannabis users.Error bars=SEs. o , 2010-2012.The Otago Ethics Committee approved each wave of the study. cannabis dependence and regular cannabis-use groups was high but not 3 W 2:, Study members gave informed consent before participating. perfect(weighted x=0.77). >_ 'G< Because individuals with missing data at one wave tend to return to the The Dunedin Study uses past-year reporting to maximize validity and z study at some later wave(s),the attrition in the Dunedin Study has not been reliability of recall.A potential consequence is that individuals could have a v i cumulative,and reasons for missing assessments seem to be idiosyncratic rather experienced dependence only during a gap between the Study's five 12-mo than systematic.There was no evidence of differential attrition for cannabis- assessment windows and gone uncounted.Our"net"of 1-y assessments at dependent individuals.For example,the 4%of study members who did not ages 18,21,26,32,and 38 y captured all but four of the cohort members participate at age 38 y were no more likely to have been cannabis dependent who reported receiving treatment for a drug-use problem between as- at age 18 y than study members who did participate(F=2.22,P=0.14). sessment windows. Three of the four were hard-drug and alcohol de- pendent, and the remaining person sought counseling for cannabis use Measures. Cannabis use. Past-year cannabis dependence was assessed with only as part of a child custody dispute. As these four cohort members the Diagnostic Interview Schedule(43,44)at ages 18,21,26, 32,and 38 y reported cannabis use but not dependence,they were classified as"used following criteria for the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Dis- but never diagnosed." orders(DSM)(45,46).Cohort members having missing data from three or Neuropsychological functioning.Intelligence was assessed in childhood at ages more of the five study waves(ages 18,21,26,32,and 38 y)were excluded 7,9,11,and 13 y,before the onset of cannabis use(only seven study members when we defined our cannabis-exposure variables: 97% of living cohort reported trying cannabis by age 13 y),and again in adulthood at age 38 y.We members were studied,composed of 83%of living study members with no report comparison of the Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children-Revised missing data points, 11% with one missing data point, and 3% with two (WISC-R)(47)and the WAIS-IV(48),both with M=100 and SD=15.At age missing data points. Our main exposure, persistence of cannabis de- 38 y,additional neuropsychological tests were administered, including the pendence, was defined as the total number of study waves out of five at Wechsler Memory Scale-III (WMS-III) (49), the Trail-Making Test (50), the which a study member met criteria for cannabis dependence.Study mem- Cambridge Neuropsychological Test Automated Battery(CANTAB)(51),and bers were grouped according to their number of dependence diagnoses:(i) the Rey Auditory Verbal Learning Test(52). Because the sample is a repre- those who never used cannabis at any study wave and thus could not have sentative birth cohort, it formed its own norms.Table S3 provides further become dependent, (ii)those who used cannabis at least once at one or details about each test.Each study member attended the research unit for more study waves but never diagnosed, (iii)those who diagnosed at one an 8-h day of assessments.All testing occurred in the morning in two 50-min wave,(iv)those who diagnosed at two waves,and(v)those who diagnosed counterbalanced sessions. at three or more waves. Informant reports of study members' neuropsychological functioning Because there were some study members who used cannabis on a regular were also obtained at age 38 y. Study members nominated people who basis but never met full criteria for a diagnosis of cannabis dependence,we knew them well.These informants were mailed questionnaires and asked to repeated analyses using persistent regular cannabis use as the exposure.At complete a checklist, including whether the study members had problems each of the five study waves between ages 18-38 y, study members self- with their attention and memory over the past year.The informant-reported reported the total number of days (0-365) they used cannabis over the attention problems scale consisted of four items: "is easily distracted,gets preceding year.Persistence of regular cannabis use was defined as the total sidetracked easily," "can't concentrate,mind wanders," "tunes out instead number of study waves out of five at which a study member reported using of focusing," and "has difficulty organizing tasks that have many steps" cannabis 4 d/wk or more(the majority of days in a week).Study members (internal consistency reliability = 0.79). The informant-reported memory were grouped as those who (i) never used cannabis, (ii) used but never problems scale consisted of three items: "has problems with memory," regularly,(iii)used regularly at one wave,(iv)used regularly at two waves, "misplaces wallet,keys,eyeglasses,paperwork,"and"forgets to do errands, and (v) used regularly at three or more waves. Correspondence between return calls,pay bills"(internal consistency reliability=0.64). Meier et al. PNAS I Published online August 27,2012 1 E2663 Control variables. Past 24-h cannabis use and past-week cannabis use were predicted neuropsychological test performance in adulthood (i.e., resi- assessed at age 38 y on the day of neuropsychological testing.Persistent DSM dualized change scores). (45,46)tobacco,hard-drug,and alcohol dependence were assessed over the Tables 2-5 present the t tests associated with the regression coefficient same 20-y period during which cannabis dependence was assessed,and the testing the linear effect of persistent cannabis use on change in neuro- number of study waves during which study members diagnosed was coun- psychological functioning, under the hypothesis that more persistent ted and used as covariates.For Fig.1,persistent dependence was defined as cannabis use predicts greater decline in neuropsychological functioning. having been diagnosed at three or more study waves.Research diagnoses of Change scores are presented in SD units as a function of persistence of lifetime schizophrenia(53)are also reported. cannabis use.These scores can be interpreted as effect sizes,with values of 4 0.20,0.50,and 0.80 reflecting small,medium,and large change,respectively Statistical Analysis.First,for the IQ test and subtests(47,48)administered in (54).Sex was included as a covariate in all statistical tests. both childhood and adulthood,change scores were created by subtracting OU the precannabis childhood IQ averaged across ages 7,9,11 and 13 y(or,for ACKNOWLEDGMENTS.We thank the Dunedin Study members,their fami- the seven members who reported trying cannabis by age 13 y,ages 7,9,and lies,the Dunedin Multidisciplinary Health and Development Research Unit 11 y)from postcannabis adulthood IQ. Negative scores indicate IQ decline. staff,and study founder Phil Silva.The Dunedin Multidisciplinary Health and Ordinary least-squares linear regression was used to test whether persistent Development Research Unit is supported by the New Zealand Health cannabis use(entered as a five-level independent variable,with each study Research Council.This research received support from UK Medical Research member receiving a score ranging from 1 to 5) predicted amount of IQ Council Grants G0100527 and MR/K00381X/1,US National Institute on Aging change. Second, for the neuropsychological tests administered only in Grant AG032282,US National Institute of Mental Health Grant MH077874, adulthood, ordinary least-squares linear regression, including full-scale and US National Institute on Drug Abuse Grant P30 DA023026.Additional childhood IQ as a covariate,was used to test whether persistent cannabis use support was provided by the Jacobs Foundation. 1. Murray RM, Morrison PD, Henquet C, Di Forti M (2007) Cannabis,the mind and 28. Rubino T, et al. (2009)Changes in hippocampal morphology and neuroplasticity society:The hash realities.Nat Rev Neurosci 8:885-895. induced by adolescent THC treatment are associated with cognitive impairment in 2. Solowij N,Battisti R(2008)The chronic effects of cannabis on memory in humans:A adulthood.Hippocampus 19:763-772. review.Curr Drug Abuse Rev 1:81-98. 29.Ashtari M, et al. (2011) Medial temporal structures and memory functions in 3. Solowij N, et al.; Marijuana Treatment Project Research Group (2002) Cognitive adolescents with heavy cannabis use.l Psychiatr Res 45:1055-1066. functioning of long-term heavy cannabis users seeking treatment.JAMA 287:1123-1131. 30.Chan GCK,Hinds TR,Impey 5,Storm DR(1998)Hippocampal neurotoxicity of Delta9- 4. Pope HG, Jr., Yurgelun-Todd D (1996) The residual cognitive effects of heavy tetrahydrocannabinol.J Neurosci 18:5322-5332. marijuana use in college students.JAMA 275:521-527. 31.Schneider M,Sch6mig E,Leweke FM(2008)Acute and chronic cannabinoid treatment r 5. Fletcher JM,et al.(1996)Cognitive correlates of long-term cannabis use in Costa Rican differentially affects recognition memory and social behavior in pubertal and adult men.Arch Gen Psychiatry 53:1051-1057. rats.Addict Biol 13:345-357. 6. Bolla KI,Brown K, Eldreth D,Tate K,Cadet JL(2002)Dose-related neurocognitive 32. Hanson KL,et al.(2010)Longitudinal study of cognition among adolescent marijuana effects of marijuana use.Neurology 59:1337-1343. users over three weeks of abstinence.Addict Behav 35:970-976. 7. Solowij•N (1998) Cannabis and Cognitive -Functioning (Cambridge Univ Press, 33.lager G,Ramsey NF(2008)Long-term consequences of adolescent cannabis exposure Cambridge,UK). , on the development of cognition, brain structure and function:An overview of B. Pope HG,Jr.,et al.(2003)Early-onset cannabis use and cognitive deficits:What is the animal and human research.Curr Drug Abuse Rev 1:114-123. ' nature of the association?Drug Alcohol Depend 69:303-310. 34.Scallet AC(1991)Neurotoxicology of cannabis and THC:A review of chronic exposure 9. Pope HG, Jr., Gruber AJ, Hudson JI, Huestis MA, Yurgelun-Todd D (2001) studies in animals.Pharmacol Biochem Behav 40:671-676. JNeuropsychologicalp g Y Y g 1 Y rY performance in long-term cannabis users.Arch Gen Psychiatry 58: 35.Jager G, Block RI, Lui'ten M, Ramsey NF(2010)Cannabis use and memo brain �. 909-915. function in adolescent boys: A cross-sectional multicenter functional magnetic *Qy` 10.Gruber SA, Sa ar KA, Dahlgren MK, Racine M, Lukas SE (2011)Age of onset of resonanceima in stud JAmAcadChildAdolescPs Psychiatry 49:561-572,572,e7-e3. g g 9 imaging Y• Y 0' marijuana use and executive function.Psychol Addict Behav,10.1037/a0026269. 36. Meehl PE(1971)High school yearbooks:A reply to Schwarz.J Abnorm Psychol 77: 11. Harvey MA,Sellman 1D, Porter RJ,Frampton CM(2007)The relationship between 143-148. non-acute adolescent cannabis use and cognition.Drug Alcohol Rev 26:309-379. 37. Giedd 1N, et al. (1999) Brain development during childhood and adolescence: A 12. Medina KL,et al. (2007)Neuropsychological functioning in adolescent marijuana longitudinal MRI study.Nat Neurosci 2:861-863. users:Subtle deficits detectable after a month of abstinence.J Int Neuropsychol Soc 38. Paus T (2005) Mapping brain maturation and cognitive development during 13:807-820. adolescence.Trends Cogn Sci 9:60-68. 13. Solowij N,et al.(2011)Verbal learning and memory in adolescent cannabis users, 39. Moffitt TE,et al.(2010)How common are common mental disorders?Evidence that alcohol users and non-users.Psychopharmacology(Berl)216:131-144, lifetime prevalence rates are doubled by prospective versus retrospective ascertainment. 14. Ehrenreich H,et al.(1999)Specific attentional dysfunction in adults following early Psychol Med 40:899-909. start of cannabis use.Psychopharmacology(Berl)142:295-301. 40. McLaren J,Swift W,Dillon P,Allsop S(2008)Cannabis potency and contamination: 15. Fontes MA, et al. (2011) Cannabis use before age 15 and subsequent executive A review of the literature.Addiction 103:1100-1109. functioning.Br J Psychiatry 198:442-447. 41. Hall W, Swift W(2000)The THC content of cannabis in Australia: Evidence and 16. Messinis L,Kyprianidou A,Malefaki S,Papathanasopoulos P(2006)Neuropsychological implications.Aust N Z J Public Health 24:503-508. ' deficits in long-term frequent cannabis users.Neurology 66:737-739. 42.Johnston LD,O'Malley PM,Bachman JG,Schulenberg JE(2011)Monitoring the Future 17. Giancola PR,Tarter RE(1999)Executive cognitive functioning and risk for substance National Survey Results on Drug Use,1975-2010:Secondary School Students(Institute abuse.Psychol Sci 10:203-205. for Social Research,University of Michigan,Ann Arbor,MI),Vol I. 18.Tarter RE,et al.(2003)Neurobehavioral disinhibition in childhood predicts early age 43. Robins LN, Helzer 1E, Croughan 1, Ratcliff KS(1981) National Institute of Mental at onset of substance use disorder.Am J Psychiatry 160:1078-1085. Health Diagnostic Interview Schedule.Its history,characteristics,and validity.Arch 19. Ersche KD, et al. (2012) Abnormal brain structure implicated in stimulant drug Gen Psychiatry 38:381-389. addiction.Science 335:601-604. 44. Robins LN,Cottler L,Bucholz KK,Compton W(1995)Diagnostic Interview Schedule 20.Verdejo-Garcia A,Lawrence AJ,Clark L(2008)Impulsivity as a vulnerability marker for for DSM-IV(Washington Univ School of Medicine,St Louis,MO). substance-use disorders: Review of findings from high-risk research, problem 45.American Psychiatric Association(1987)Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental gamblers and genetic association studies.Neurosci Biobehav Rev 32:777-810. Disorders(American Psychiatric Association,Washington,DC),3rd Ed,Revised. 21. Fried PA,Watkinson B,Gray R(2005)Neurocognitive consequences of marihuana- 46.American Psychiatric Association(1994)Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental a comparison with pre-drug performance.Neurotoxicol Teratol27:231-239. Disorders(American Psychiatric Association,Washington,DC),4th Ed. 22. Brinch CN,Galloway TA(2011)Schooling in adolescence raises IQ scores.Proc Natl 47.Wechsler D(1974)Manual for the Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Children-Revised Acad Sci USA 109:425-430. (Psychological Corporation,New York). 23. Horwood LJ,et al.(2010)Cannabis use and educational achievement:Findings from 48.Wechsler D (2008) Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale (Pearson Assessment, San three Australasian cohort studies.Drug Alcohol Depend 110:247-253. Antonio,TX),4th Ed. 24.Schneider M, Koch M (2003)Chronic pubertal, but not adult chronic cannabinoid 49.Wechsler D(1997)Wechsler Memory Scale(Psychological Corporation,San Antonio, treatment impairs sensorimotor gating,recognition memory,and the performance in TX),3rd Ed. a progressive ratio task in adult rats.Neuropsychopharmacology 28:1760-1769. 50.Army Individual Test Battery (1944) Manual and Directions for Scoring (War 25.Solowij N, Pesa N (2010) [Cognitive abnormalities and cannabis use]. Rev Bras Department,Adjutant General's Office,Washington,DC). Psiquiatr 32(Suppl 1):531-540. 51.Sahakian BJ, Owen AM (1992)Computerized assessment in neuropsychiatry using 26.Wilson W, et al. (2000) Brain morphological changes and early marijuana use:A CANTAB:Discussion paper.J R Soc Med 85:399-402. magnetic resonance and positron emission tomography study.l Addict Dis 19:1-22. 52. Lezak MD(2004)Neuropsychological Assessment(Oxford Univ Press,NewYork),4th Ed. 27.O'Shea M,Singh ME,McGregor IS,Mallet PE(2004)Chronic cannabinoid exposure 53. Reichenberg A, et al. (2010) Static and dynamic cognitive deficits in childhood produces lasting memory impairment and increased anxiety in adolescent but not preceding adult schizophrenia:A 30-year study.Am l Psychiatry 167:160-169. adult rats.J Psychopharmacol 18:502-508. 54.Cohen 1(1992)A power primer.Psychol Bull 112:155-159. E2664 I www.pnas.org/cgi/doi/10.1073/pnas.1206820109 Meier et al. I lindawi Publishing Corporation Journal of Toxicology Volwrie 2009,Article ll)596149,5 pages doi:10.1155/2009/596149 .Review Article Cannabis and Breastfeeding Aurelia Garry,'Virginie Rigourd,z Ammar Amirouche,3 Valerie Fauroux,3 Sylvie Aubry,z and Raphael Serreau4 Department d7ngenierie Biologique,Ecole Polytechnique de Waiversite de Nice-Sophia Antipohs, 1645 Route des Lucioles, 06410 Biot,Prarue 'L.actariurn d7le tie Prance,Institut de Puericuhure et de Perivatalogie,26 Boulevard Brune,7.5014 Paris,France Centre de Recherche Clinique Paris Centre,89 rue d'Assas,75006 Paris,France Centre de Recherche Chnique Paris Centre EA.3620,89 rue d'Assas 7,5006 Paris,L'rance Correspondence should be addressed to Raphael Serreau,raphael.serreau@cch.aphp.fr Received 5 November 2008;Accepted 18 February 2009 Recommended by Syed F.Ali Cannabis is a drug derived from hemp plant,Cannabis sativa,used both as a recreational drug or as medicine.It is a widespread illegal substance,generally smoked for its hallucinogenic properties.Little is known about the adverse effects of postnatal cannabis exposure throw breastfeeding because of a lack of studies in lactating women. The active substance of cannabis is the delta 9 letraHydroCannabinol(THC).Some studies conclude that it could decrease motor development of the child at one year of age. Therefore,cannabis use and abuse of other drugs like alcohol,tobacco,or cocaine must be contraindicated during breastfeeding. Mothers who use cannabis must stop breastfeeding,or ask for medical assistance to stop cannabis use in order to provide her baby with all the benefits of human mills. Copyright©2009 Aurelia Garry et al.This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted rise,distribution,and reproduction in any medium,provided the original work is properly cited. 1.Introduction effects of the cannabis are in progress. A California health care collective has developed a variety of alternative methods Breastfeeding is the natural way to feed an infant.It provides of administering medical cannabis orally and externally to benefits to mother and infant and should be the optimal avoid smoking which is the most widely used method of feeding choice for most infants. It contains appropriate administering cannabis.T hey provide an account of the pro- amounts of carbohydrates, proteins, fats, minerals, and duction, distribution, and administration of nonsmokable vitamins, and provides hormones and growth factor as cannabis products [2]. well as maternal antibodies that allow the baby appropriate The aim of this article is to attempt to answer the growth and anti-infection defence. Moreover, breastfeeding question:could cannabis be used during breastfeeding? helps bonding between mother and child,which is especially important when the mother is a drug addict. In most cases, when the mother uses drugs,the risks incurred by the infant 2.Definition and Epidemiology of Cannabis Use outweigh the benefits of breastfeeding [1]. Therefore, drug abuse poses a threat for the health of both mother and The species Cannabis saliva comes from the hemp plant child, and is used for various purposes such as fiber, as a drug, Nevertheless, cannabis can also be used in therapy. as medicine, for oil, as food, and so forth. Cannabis, also Indeed,medical cannabis can be prescribed for postoperative called marijuana or haschich, exists in different forms. pain. So far, this medical use of cannabis is legal only From a cannabis seedling, three products can be obtained. in some countries including Canada, Belgium, Australia, Marijuana comes from leaves,stems,and flower buds which the Netherlands, the United Kingdom, New Zealand, Spain are dried.It is generally smoked mixed with tobacco,rolled as and some states of North America. This usage generally a cigarette.Haschich is resin obtained from flower buds of the requires a prescription. Clinical trials on the therapeutic plant presented in compressed plates. It is generally smoked 2 Journal of Toxicology with tobacco and is often cut with other substances more oral motor weakness, which reveals a critical role for 0131 or less toxic. Haschich and marijuana oils are obtained by receptors in the initiation of milk suckling by neonates [8]. percolation from haschich purified with an organic solvent Other observations support the existence of an unknown or alcohol. Oils contain more cannabinoids than the other cannabinoid receptor, with partial control over milk inges- forms (30% to 60% of delta 9 TetraHydroCannabinol or tion in newborns [9]. Moreover, the endocannabinoid THC).They are placed on cigarette paper or added to joints system interacts with a number of better known molecules in order to increase their hallucinogenic power. involved in appetite and weight regulation,including leptin, To determine the current patterns of substance use ghrelin,and the melanocortins,which leads to the regulation among youths entering adulthood,sex and age-specific rates of energy balance and food intake [10]. Cannabinoids are of substance use (tobacco, alcohol, cannabis, etc.) in a also involved in the expression of key genes for neural large sample of French_youths aged 12-26 years have been development [11]. studied.Tobacco,cannabis,and polysubstance use were most The THTC acts on the mesocorticofimbic system via CI31 frequent among 19-21 year-olds with 10.9% of women receptors, which inhibit (.PABA release, and thus dopamin- who regularly use cannabis, and 4,6% of women who use ergic neurons are subsequently not inhibited anymore. The tobacco with alcohol and cannabis. The age of initiation effects of this mechanism are euphoria, modification of' of tobacco and cannabis use decreased. These results show lucidity and perceptions,and depersonalization.In animals, high prevalence rates of tobacco, alcohol, and drug use in THC, induces well-defined behavioural effects. Indeed, it adolescents and. young adults in France [3]. There were produces a characteristic combination of four symptoms: 1.2 millions regular cannabis users in France in 2005, and hypothermia, analgesia, hypoactivity, and catalepsy [12]. half of these were daily users. Regular use has increased Other experiments showed distinct effects of cannabis on against occasional use. According to the drugs addictions mice litters, such as lower body weight, when the parents and drugs European observatory, France is the leading were drugged postnatally during the period of lactation European country in terms of cannabis use in both adults only [13]. In striatum, CB] receptors decrease dopamine and youths. Would French breastfeeding women be more and glutamate release and increase GABA activity in the concerned about cannabis use during breastfeeding than synapse, which causes locomotor activity slowdown. C132 other European breastfeeding women? [4]. Cannabis is the receptors are responsible for anti-inflammatory effects, and illicit drug most often used by women of childbearing age. other therapeutic effects like analgesia,antiemetic effects and Studies conducted by North American and English teams decrease of intraocular pressure. from 1980 to 2000 show an incidence of cannabis use Cannabis causes sedation, weakness, and poor feeding during pregnancy of 3%, to 30% (more often 1011/o to 15%). patterns in adult [7]. Moreover cannabis abuse seems to be The prevalence of substance use among adolescent mothers a risk factor for depressive symptoms [14]. Indeed,frequent is significant. To capitalize on the large decrease in use cannabis use in teenage girls predicts later depression during pregnancy,drug prevention programs for adolescent and anxiety [15]. Cannabis use is also associated with an mothers should target the first 6 months postpartum [5]. In increased risk of developing schizophrenia [16].The relative Canada,Fried revealed that 3%of pregnant women regularly risk for schizophrenia among high consumers of cannabis use cannabis during pregnancy [6]. was 6.0 compared with nonusers [17]. 3.Pharmacology Data and 4.Cannabis and Breastfeeding Side Effects of Cannabis 4.1. Pharmacokinetic Data. Cannabis saliva grows abun- Cannabis is a recreational drug usually smoked with tobacco dantly among other natural vegetation in Pakistan, and it in cigarettes, either on an occasional or regular basis. It has been reported that buffaloes which graze upon this contains many compounds (more than 450). The active vegetation produce milk contaminated with THC.Low levels alkaloid is the delta 9 TetraHydroCannabinol (THC), and of the major metabolite for THC were found in the urine its concentration is variable according to the preparations of children of the region, who were being raised on the (<0.2%to >200/>).Its half-life is 1 to 2.3 days,and traces can milk from these animals.These observations suggest passive persist for up to 4 to 6 weeks. It is rapidly distributed to the consumption of marijuana through milk[18]. brain and adipose tissue. It is stored in fat tissues for long THC is excreted into human breast mills in moderate periods(weeks to months) [7]. amounts [19]. In one feeding, the infant would ingest 0.8%, THC is an agonist of the cannabinoid receptors 0131 of the weight-adjusted maternal intake of one joint[20].The located in the nervous system, and C132 in the brain and rano milk-to-plasma rates 8 in heavy users [19]. some parts of the immune system, notably in the spleen. Cannabis may affect the quality and quantity of breast The endocannabinoid system plays several key roles in milk [21], Indeed,studies in animals suggest that marijuana pre- and postnatal development. Indeed, during fbetal life, could inhibit lactation by inhibiting prolactin production the cannabinoid 0131 receptor acts on brain development, and,possibly,by a direct action on the mammary glands [7]. regulating neural progenitor differentiation into neurones Hale reports a positive evidence of risk on milk production. and glia(as CB2 receptor)and guiding axonal migration and Nevertheless, there are no human data to corroborate these synaptogenesis. Postnatally, CBI receptor blockade induces observations. Journal of Toxicology 3 42 ,Side Effects oit Baby and Irtfiznt. There are a few studies TABLE, 1: Mean motor development scores* corresponding with about the effects of cannabis consumption during.lactation cannabis exposure during gestation and lactation [23]. on infant health and development. More attention has been directed towards adverse effects of prenatal cannabis Motor Development IDI exposure. Days of infant Cannabis exposure Mean It is important.to note that newborns have also probably _..........._.._....�..........__._ __ ____ been exposed to cannabis during pregnancy. 'Therefore the Trirttester one effects observed in infant during breastfeeding will be the 0 105(n =84) combined result of foetal and neonatal exposure. Moreover, 1 to 44 99(it_36) cannabis is often combined with tobacco in a joint.'Thus,side 45 to 90 93(n= 16) effects of tobacco on infant must be considered. THC can accumulate in human breast milk to high Trirnestcr two concentrations [19], and infants exposed to marijuana 0 102(rt _ 98) through their mother's mills will excrete T'HC in their urine I to 44 104(rt=25) during 2 to 3 weeks 1211. According to Hale, marijuana 45 to 90 94(n= 13) could produce sedation and growth delay in infant [7], and Trimester three a study by Liston have demonstrated that infants exposed to 0 101 (n ==94) marijuana via breast milk show signs of sedation, reduced 1 to 44 107(n =28) muscular tonus,and poor sucking [21]. 45 to 90 94(n= 14) Moreover,because the important phase of brain growth occurs during baby's first months of life, THC could Lactation month one theoretically alter brain cells metabolism. Animal studies 0 102(n=81) have demonstrated alteration of DNA and .RNA synthesis, 1 to 44 106(n 38) and proteins needed for proper growth and development 45 to 90 90(n= 17) impaired in brain cells of newborn animals [21]. lactation month three' Two studies evaluated the effects of cannabis use by 0 102(n =84) lactating mother on their child's development. In the first study, no significant differences were found in terms of 1 to 44 103(n=28) weaning, growth, and mental of- motor development with 45 to 90 97(n= 13) regard to age [22]. The second study found that cannabis 'Motor developmental scores (Psychomotor Development Index, PDI) exposure via the mother's milk during the first month were from Bayley Scales of Infant Devc1opn7ent.During the first trimester, postpartum appeared to be associated with a decrease in 11D1 decreased with increasing cannabis exposure(test for linear trend,P .005).During the first lactation month,mean PDI for the higher exposure infant motor development at one year of age.Infants exposed group was lower than the PDI for the no or low exposure groups(one-way to cannabis for more than half of the days during the ANOVA P=.008). first trimester of gestation or the first month of lactation had significantly lower mean Psychomotor Development Index scores than infants with no cannabis exposure (cf. significant in infants at 12 months of age. In this study, Table 1). The study did not find a correlation between neither psychomotor nor mental development was affected cannabis exposure during the third month after birth and the by smoke exposure during pregnancy and early infancy. motor development.There was no relation between exposure Infections of the lower respiratory tract were more frequent cannabis during the first and the third month after birth and in the children of smoking mothers. Breast-fed infants the mental development of the infant. However•, it remains showed concentrations of cotinine 10-fold higher than those a preliminary study, and the cause-effect relation between who were bottle fed. Nicotine exposure via passive smoking cannabis exposure during breastfeeding and decrease of the only leads to cotinine excretion in urine of infants higher motor development of the infant is not necessarily simple than adult passive smokers [24], and direct. Other factors corn into play like cannabis exposure during pregnancy, passive exposure to cannabis smoke in ambient air, or the quality of the mother-child 4.3. Advice to Drug Addicted Mothers. Cannabis consump- relationship [23]. 'There are no studies relating to the long- tion during breastfeeding is contraindicated according to term effects of marijuana exposure through breast milk. Hale and the American Academy of Pediatrics in Breastfeed- Many of these findings remain suggestive due to the ing Mothers. If the mother regularly uses cannabis, breast- number of factors associated with cannabis use which are feeding is contraindicated. If the mother is an occasional difficult to control in epidemiologic and clinical studies. user and is not able to stop using cannabis, the situation Concerning side effects of tobacco on infants, a study should be evaluated on a case-by-case basis (age of the investigated the effects of smoke exposure via mothers'milk baby, quantities absorbed, etc.). Side effects that cannabis and/or via passive smoking during the first year of life. At can cause must be explained to the mother. pregnancy and birth,mean body weight of neonates from smoking mothers Addictions Studies Group recommends intensive prenatal was significantly lower than the weight of neonates from care,with substitution maintenance programs,by a medico- nonsmoking mothers. But this difference was no longer psychosocial team working in concert with ambulatory 4 Journal of Toxicology health and social workers,to prevent perinatal complications, (( RPV), Reference Centre on 'Teratogenic Agents (CRAT), and mother-infant separation, and Mother Risk Program, etc.). Medic-Al network will Moreover, the mother has to avoid cannabis smoke facilitate discussion about pharmacokinetic data in maternal exposure to her child and not to breastfeed during the milk and allow comparative study about potential benefits hours after cannabis use [21]. In all cases, the infant must and risks. be carefully monitored, and both mother and baby should follow a psychological and medical survey. Acknowledgment Mothers should be informed about the risk of sudden g infant death syndrome (SIDS) which is associated with The authors are very grateful to Susan J. Astley who gave maternal smoking during and after pregnancy. The odds her permission to use results from her paper "Maternal ratio for SIDS among normal birth weight infants was marijuana use during lactation and infant development at approximately 2 for passive exposure (only during infancy), one year." and raised to 3 for combined exposure (during pregnancy and infancy). These data suggest that both intrauterine and passive tobacco exposure are associated with an increased References risk of SIDS and are further inducement to encourage smoking cessation among pregnant women and families with [1] C.R. Howard and R. A. Lawrence, "Breast-feeding and drug children [25]. However, another study has been performed exposure,"Obstetrics and Gynecology Clinics of'North Anierica, to determine whether maternal or paternal use of drugs vol.25,no. 1,pp.195-217,1998.(2] W Chapkis and R. J. Webb, "Mother's milk and the muffin daring conception, pregnancy, and postnatally increases the man: grassroots innovations in medical marijuana delivery risk of SIDS during the first year of the infant's life. Their systems,"Journal of Ethnicity in Substance Abuse,vol.4,no.3- results show that there was no association between maternal 4,pp. 183-204,2005. recreational drug use and SIDS. But paternal marijuana use [3] M. Melchior, J.-F, Chastang, R Goldberg, and E. Fombonne, during the periods of conception,pregnancy,and postnatally "High prevalence rates of tobacco, alcohol and drug use in was significantly associated with SIDS [26]. adolescents and young adults in France: results from the GAGEL Youth study,"Addictive.l3chaviors, vol. 33, no. 1, pp. 122-133,2008. 5.Polyintoxieations [4] "Consommation de cannabis partout en France," La Revue Prescr•ire,vol.28,no.299,pp.702-703,2008. From all of the above information, cannabis abuse during [5] L. D. Gilchrist, J. M. Hussey, M. R Gillmore, M. J. Lohr, breastfeeding is not allowed. Mothers who use cannabis may and 1). M. Morrison, "Drug use among adolescent mothers: also use other drugs like amphetamine, cocaine, heroine, prepregnancy to 18 months postpartum,"Journal ofAdolescent and so forth. According to the Committee on Drugs of Health,vol.19,no.5,pp.337-344, 1996. the American Academy of Pediatrics, these drags belong [61 C. M. O'Connell and R A. Fried, "Prenatal exposure to to drugs of abuse for which adverse effects on the infant cannabis: a preliminary report of postnatal consequences in during breastfeeding have been reported. For example, school-age children,"Neurotoxicology and'Teratology,vol. 13, no.6,pp.631-639,19)1. cocaine intoxication can cause irritability, vomiting, liar- [7] T. W. Hale, Medications and Mother's Milk, Hale, Amarillo, rhoea, tremulousness, and seizures [27]. Therefore, other Tex,USA,2006. drug consumption must be taken into account. [8] E.Fride,"Multiple roles for the endocannabinoid system dur- ing the earliest stages of life:pre-and postnatal development," fi.COriCIUSlOn Journal of Neuroendocrinology,vol.20,supplement 1,pp.75— 81,2008. In conclusion, clinical and pharmacokinetic data indicate [yl T. Fride, A. Foox, E. Rosenberg, et at., "Milk intake and survival in newborn cannabinoid CB, receptor knockout that cannabis use is dangerous during breastfeeding for mice: evidence for a "CB3" receptor," European Journal of the child. Observed effects in breastfed infant like sedation Pharmacology,vol.461,no. 1,pp.27-34,2003. or reduced muscular tonus could be due to, not only [10] E.Fride,T.Bregmui,and T.C.Kirkham,"Endocamrabinoids cannabis, but also other drugs or medicines (psychotropic, and food intake:newborn stickling and appetite regulation in antiepileptic,etc.) that mothers are likely to take. . adulthood," Experimental Biology and Medicine,vol. 230,no. Mothers who are drug addicts and want to breastfeed 4,pp.'225-234,2005. their infant must be sustained by a multidisciplinary team. [11] J. Fernandez-Ruiz, M. G6mez, M. 1leniandez, R. de Miguel, A substitution treatment like methadone should be chosen and J.A. Ramos,"Cannabinoids and gene expression during in order to stop drug use and to protect their child brain development,"Neurotoxicity Research, vol. 6,no. 5, pp. from drug side effects. Medical teams must be advised 389-401,2004. [12] F. Chaperon and M.-H. Thiebot, "Behavioral effects of about medication, alcohol, and other drugs abuse that cannabinoid agents in animals," Critical Reviews in Neurobi- could be contraindicated with breastfeeding. The Medic- olov,vol. 13,no.3,pp.243-281, 1999. Al network provide health professionals and patients with [13] H. R. Frischknecht, B. Sieber, and P. G. Waser, "Behavioral up-to-date information [28]. Our references about drugs effects of hashish in micell,nursing behavior and develop- and breastfeeding are (Addictions and Pregnancy Stud- ment of the sucklings,"Psychopharrruicoiogy,vol,70,no.2,pp. ies Group (LEGA), Regional Pharmacovigilance Centre 155-161, 1980. Journal of Toxicology 5 1141 G.B. Bovasso,"Cannabis abuse as a risk factor for depressive symptoms,"American Journal of Psychiatry,vol. 158, no. 12, pp.2033-2037,2001. [15] G. C. Patton, C. Coffey, J. B. Carlin, L. Degenhardt, M. Lynskey, and W. hall, "Cannabis use and mental health in young people:cohort study,"British Medical Journal,vol.325, no.7374,pp. 1195-1198,2002. [16] S. Zanunit, P. Allebeck, S. Andreasson, 1. Lundberg, <md G. Lewis, "Self reported cannabis use as a risk factor for schizophrenia in Swedish conscripts of 1969:historical cohort study," British Medical Journal,vol. 325, no, 7374,pp. 1199-- 1201,2002. [17] S. Andreasson, A. Engstr6m, P. Allebeck, and U. Rydberg, "Cannabis and schizophrenia.A longitudinal study of Swedish conscripts,"The Lancet,vol.2,no.8574,pp. 1483-1486, 1987. [181 G. R. Ahmad and N. Ahmad, "Passive consumption of marijuana through milk:a low level chronic exposure to delta- 9-tetraluydrocannabinol(TI-IC),"Journal of T oxicology. Clinical 'Toxicology,vol.28,no.2,pp.255-260, 1990. [19] M. Perez-Reyes and M. E. Wall, "Presence of delta9- tetrahydrocannabinol in human milk," The New England Journal of Medicine,vol,307,no. 13,pp.819-820, 1982. [20] P. N. Bennett, "Cannabis," in Drugs and Human Lactation, P. N. Bennett and WHO Working Group, Eds., Elsevier, Amsterdam,The Netherlands,2nd edition, 1997.. [21] J. Liston, "Breastfeeding and the use of recreational drugs- alcohol, caffeine, nicotine and marijuana," Breastfeeding Review,vol.6,no.2,pp.27-30, 1998. 1 221 K,Tennes,N.Avitable,C.Blackard,et al.,"Marijuana:prenatal and postnatal exposure in the human," NIDA Research Monograph Series,vol.59,pp.48-60, 1985. [23] S. J. Astley and R. E. Little, "Maternal marijuana use during lactation and infant development at one year,"Neurotoxicology and'I'cratology,vol. 12,no.2,pp. 161-168, 1990. [241 B,Schulte-Hobein,1).Schwartz-Bickenbach,S.Abt:,C.Plum, and H. Nau, "Cigarette smoke exposure and development of infants throughout the first year of life: influence of passive smoking and nursing on cotinine levels in breast milk and infant's urine,"Acta Pwdiatrica,vol.81,no.6-7,pp, 550-557, 1992. [25] K. C. Schoendorf and J. L. Kiely, "Relationship of sudden infant death syndrome to maternal smoking during and after pregnancy,"Pediatrics,vol.90,no.6,pp.905-908, 1992. (26) 11.Klonoff-Cohen and R Lam-Kruglick,"Maternal and pater- nal recreational drug use and sudden infant death syndrome," Archives of Pediatrics and Adolescent Medicine,vol. 155,no.7, pp.765-770,2001. 1271 R.M.Ward,B.A. Bates,W.E. Benitz,et al.,"The transfer of drugs and other chemicals into human milk,"Pediatrics, vol. 108,no.3,pp.776-789,2001. [28] Medic-Al network, a French network in pharmacovigilance about drugs during breastfeeding, raphael.serreau@cch.aphp .fr. Lea Stefani LATE MAIL # P+1 -2w From: Dan Watrous Sent: Wednesday, May 03, 2017 3:38 PM To: Lea Stefani; Scott Anderson Subject: Fwd: Second had smoke and other current in-home growth hazards Important info for May 3rd meeting of Town Council Attachments: Mj time of day final report 3 9 17.docx; ATT00001.htm;WA State Mj Drivers in Fatal Crashes Dec 27 16 Final.docx;ATT00002.htm; Medical Marijuana Responsible for Traffic Fatalities Crancer Drum Sept 2016.docx; ATT00003.htm; Slow driving while Marijuana Impaired is a Myth Crancer 2016.docx;ATT00004.htm; Medical Marihuana Involved in CA Fatal Crashes 2 10 16 Final.docx;ATT00005.htm Sent from my iPhone Begin forwarded message: From: PHILLIPDRUM <phillipdrum o,comcast.net> Date: May 4, 2017 at 1:22:15 AM GMT+8 To: "Fox, Lynn" <foxln a,me.com> Cc: Jim Fraser<JSFraser1geomcast.net>, <emmett a,vikingind.com>, < rank a,standingstonegroup.com>, <askalicenow@usa.net>, <erin20000(a,gmai1.com>, <lynnfox a,me.com>, Dan Watrous <dwatrous(a,townoftiburon.org> Subject: Re: Second had smoke and other current in-home growth hazards Important info for May 3rd meeting of Town Council Here is the driving issue with marijuana. From: "Lynn Fox" <foxlynn(a)-me.com> To: "Jim Fraser" <JSFraser1(a)_comcast.net>, emmett(a vikingind.com, fran k(a)_standingstonegroup.com, askalicenow(a).usa.net, erin20000(a_)gmail.com Cc: lynnfox me.com, "Dan Watrous" <dwatrous townoftiburon.org> Sent: Wednesday, May 3, 2017 8:56:35 AM Subject: Second had smoke and other current in-home growth hazards Important info for May 3rd meeting of Town Council Re: In-Home Growth of 6 pot plants Dear Tiburon Town Council, Here are a few articles you may wish to review before the meeting tonight on IN-HOME GROWTH. Hope this helps. New Research data is coming to me daily and I would gladly pass along to you. Please think about postponing your decision making on regulations for in-home growth in Tiburon until September and maybe again in November when the most current i Marijuana and DUI Fatal Crashes Differ by Time of Day & Day of Week Alfred Crancer, B.S.,M.A.,Phillip Drum,Pharm. D. Abstract Marijuana and DUI fatal crashes by time of day are startlingly different. Marijuana fatal crashes dominates daytime populated rush hour traffic - before and after standard work hours.For 11 consecutive daytime one-hour time periods, 6am to 5pm,the percentage of marijuana crash fatalities exceeded DUI crash fatalities. DUI crashes dominate the evening hours and occur during some of the least populated road times. For 8 consecutive evening time periods, 8pm to 4am,the percentage of DUI crashes exceeded marijuana crashes. The top 4-hour period for marijuana-alone fatal crashes was 4 to 8 pm during commute traffic hours after work. Marijuana Drivers also under the influence of alcohol have fatal crashes peak slightly later, 6-10 pm. This is in comparison to DUI-alone crashes being heaviest from IOpm to 2am. Day of week for Marijuana fatal crashes occur about equally daily,where DUI crashes occur more frequently on weekends. Marijuana drivers killed more than 3,100 persons in the US,in 2015. Further,73% marijuana drivers were killed in the crash, and more than 1000 others(passengers,other drivers,pedestrians)were also killed in the marijuana-induced crash. The nearly 10 marijuana driving fatalities occur each day is the devastating result of increasing marijuana legalization. The number of marijuana fatal crashes are nearly half the DUI level and are increasing due to marijuana legalization. Both recreational use states(CO and WA)have 24%of all crashes being marijuana fatalities,and are approaching the national level of 30% for alcohol fatal crashes. Nationally,the percent of drivers tested for drugs is less than 50% and masks the true impact of marijuana driving.In WA,there is a disturbing decreasing trend of blood being tested for drugs in fatal crashes. Speeding(in 38%) and not using restraints (in 48%) are major factors in marijuana fatal crashes. Marijuana drivers in fatal crashes also had alcohol present,with 39% also DUI. Law enforcement must adjust and develop strategies to detect marijuana drivers to combat the emerging problem of daytime marijuana impaired driving. The strategies include 1)early roadside screening with oral swabs and breath testing, 2)using standard field sobriety tests to determine driving impairment which has been found to be highly accurate for marijuana, and 3)knowledge that marijuana fatalities occur mostly in the day time and peak immediately before and after work hours. Note that a smoked social marijuana high can be obtained in less than 2 minutes and the driving impairment effects can easily last up to 6-8 hours. Edible marijuana products have their effects begin 20-40 minutes after eating,peak effects occur 2-3 hours after ingestion and driving impairment last longer than smoked marijuana. Compared that to a 180-pound man who would have to consume 9 alcoholic drinks in a one-hour time period to be at the median BAC of fatal crash drivers of 0.18 BAC. Table of Contents Marijuana Drivers a Major Problem with more than 3000 Fatalities in 2015 1 Marijuana Drivers in Fatal Crashes Differ by Time of Day 1 Marijuana Drivers Differ by Day of Week 3 Speeding and not using restraints a Major Factor in Marijuana Fatal Crashes 3 Marijuana Fatal Crashes Increasing Due to Legalization 4 New Enforcement Strategies to Protect the Public from Marijuana Drivers Must be Developed. 6 Marijuana and DUI Fatal Crashes Differ by Time of Day& Day of Week Marijuana Drivers are an Increasing Problem with more than 3000 Fatalities in 2015The increasing legalization of marijuana for medical and then recreational use is impacting fatal crashes in the US. In 2015,the latest year for national data, and where less than half of all drivers are tested for drugs in a fatal crash. There were 3151 fatalities that involved a driver known to be impaired by the most common drug—marijuana. This is compared to the national data for DUI alcohol (DUI) fatal crashes in which 6952 persons were killed. Of those killed in marijuana crashes,2038 were the marijuana driver and 1113 were victims of the impaired driving. Also of note, 73%of the marijuana drivers also died in the crashes. As of 2015, only two states had implemented a program for recreational use of marijuana, WA and CO, with 24 states having a program for medical marijuana. Marijuana Drivers in Fatal Crashes Differ by Time of Day As shown in Table 1, statistical analysis of marijuana and DUI fatal crashes by time of day shows startling differences. Starting at 6am to 5pm, for 11 consecutive 1 hour time periods,the percentage of marijuana crashes exceeded DUI crashes. In the evening hours, starting at Bpm to 4am, for 8 consecutive time periods,the percentage of DUI crashes exceeded marijuana crashes. In addition, Marijuana fatal crashes had their heaviest 4 hr time period from 6 to 10 pm in the early evening compared to DUI crashes at IOpm to 2am. The top 4 consecutive hours for marijuana fatal crashes without DUI are from 4:00 pm to 7:59 pm. This accounted for 23% of the MJ no DUI group. This is a significant difference from DUI(peak hours 11:00 pm to 3am)that is not widely known. The highest DUI period accounts for 32.2% of the DUI fatal crashes. When marijuana is combined with other substances (including alcohol),the peak marijuana (MJ))hours were slightly later(6:00 pm to 9:59 pm)accounting for 22% of the Marijuana group. 61%of marijuana drivers were not DUI,with 39%also DUI. Also note that Marijuana fatal crashes from lam to 1pm,before the start of the average work day, are actually higher than DUI in raw numbers. Six consecutive time periods show fatal crashes for marijuana higher than DUI. Table 1 Next page because of length 1 Table 1.Top Hours for Marijuana, MJ No DUI,and DUI Fatal Crashes, 2015 FARS Crash Hou DUI MJ **MJ no *Stat. Diff DUI. Mj &DUI 4:OOam-4:59am 224 88 38 NO 5:OOam-5:59am 154 82 46 NO 6:OOam-6:59am 150 99 68 YES,Mj > 7:OOam-7:59am 97 104 79 YES,Mj > 8:OOam-8:59am 45 68 57 YES,Mj > 9:OOam-9:59am 39 69 62 YES,Mj > 10:OOam-10:59am 47 73 60 YES,Mj > 11:OOam-11:59am 63 83 78 YES,Mj > 12:OOpm-12:59pm 62 75 62 YES,Mj > 1:OOpm-1:59pm 95 95 79 YES,Mj > 2:OOpm-2:59pm 117 98 80 YES,Mj > 3:OOpm-3:59pm 154 112 94 YES,Mj > 4:OOpm-4:59pm 201 124 89 YES,Mj > 5:OOpm-5:59pm 292 142 98 NO 6:OOpm-6:59pm 342 156 105 NO 7:OOpm-7:59pm 351 158 105 NO 8:OOpm-8:59pm 410 145 76 YES,DUI> 9:OOpm-9:59pm 438 156 85 YES,DUI> 10:OOpm-10:59pm 417 144 74 YES,DUI> 11:OOpm-11:59pm 474 133 60 YES,DUI> 0:00am-0:59am 519 144 54 YES,DUI> 1:OOam-1:59am 547 141 43 YES,DUI> 2:OOam-2:59am 396 149 56 YES,DUI> 3:OOam-3:59am 447 121 52 YES,DUI> Unknown Hours 88 24 9 Total 6169 2783 1709 *2 x2 chi square, P<01 2 Marijuana Drivers Differ by Day of Week The preponderance of DUI crashes is week-end(Friday—Sunday)related whereas Marijuana fatal crashes are more evenly distributed during the week. Table 2.Day of Week for DUI Fatal Crashes,All Marijuana and Marijuana Not DUI,2015 FARS Data Day of Week DUI All Mj Mj not DUI Mon 477 342 242 Tues 571 343 223 Wed 605 346 227 Thurs 718 340 219 Mon-Thurs 2371 1371 911 % Mon- 38.4% 49.3% 53.3% Thurs Fri 1169 456 284 Sat 1580 532 266 Sun 1049 424 248 Fri- Sun 3798 1412 798 %Fri-Sun 61.6% 1 50.7% 1 46.7% Total 6169 2783 1709 Speeding and Not Restrained Major Factor in Marijuana Fatal Crashes Contrary to popular belief, marijuana drivers in fatal crashes are found speeding more than the average fatal crash driver. The myth of driving slow popularized in movies leads some in to believe that marijuana impaired drivers are not a problem. Table 3 shows that speeding of marijuana fatal drivers are higher than all drivers, and that the Percent of drivers restrained is almost 50% , significantly higher than all drivers in fatal crashed. It is also interesting to note that the unrestrained marijuana driver is in the daylight more than 40% of the time, easily visible to enforcement. Table 3. Percent of Drivers Speeding and Not Restrained by Driver Group, 2015 FARS Drivers Percent Not Speeding Restrained All 26.4%* 26.6`Yo* DUI 59.4% 42.3% Mj 47.7%* 37.6%* MJ not DUI 60.8% 31.8% * Mj higher than All Drivers for speeding and less than for restraint use. 3 Marijuana Fatal Crashes Increasing Due to Legalization Data in Table 4 show the increasing involvement of marijuana in fatal crashes—to being seen in 18.1% in all states in 2015 regardless of legal status. Medical marijuana states showed a 4.3% increase in use from 2014 to 2015. Note that as marijuana usage is more liberalize (moving from non-legal status to medical to recreational status), there is an increase in the percentage of marijuana driving fatalities (from an average over the past 2 years of data: 15% in non-legal states to 18% in medical states to 22% in recreational states). Further, since only 47% of drivers in fatal crashes are tested for drugs (alcohol, slightly higher at 56%), and the different state standards for reporting marijuana involvement; the actual marijuana involvement in crashes is probably much higher and closer to the alcohol levels. Washington state has reduced the percentage of marijuana blood testing in driving fatalities from 64% in 2013 to 52.2% in 2015 (Table 5). Table 4 on next page due to length 4 Table 4. Marijuana Use b State of Passenger Vehicle Drivers in Fatal Crashes by Marijuana Law, 2014 and 2015 FARS Data Medical & Recreational* Marijuana States Non-legal Status Marijuana States State % MJ % MJ % State % MJ % MJ % Fatalities Fatalities change Fatalities Fatalities change in 2014 in 2015 in 2014 in 2015 Alaska 28.1% 22.2% -5.8% Alabama 14.8% 14.6% -0.2% Arizona 10.5% 17.6% 7% Arkansas 21.9% 22% 0.1% California 18.4% 21.1% 2.8% Florida 10.5% 11.6% 1.1% Colorado* 20.5% 23.8% 3.4% Georgia 18.1% 14.6% -3.5% Connecticut 10.8% 11.3% 0.5% Idaho 19.1% 16.4% -2.7% Delaware 35.4% 27.5% -7.9% Indiana 11.6% 9.3% -2.3% DC 11.1% 25% 13.9% Iowa 18.6% 19.6% 1% Hawaii 16% 22% 6% Kansas 12.3% 12.9% 0.6% Illinois 17.2% 18.9% 1.7% Kentucky 17.6% 13.9% -3.7% Maine 5.3% 20% 14.7% Louisiana 21.2% 13.7% -7.5% Maryland 1.9% 0.5% -1.3% Mississippi 6.4% 16% 9.6% Massachusetts 19.6% 26.7% 7.1% Missouri 24.5% 25.2% 0.7% Michigan 20.8% 21.7% 1.1% Nebraska 13% 25.8% 12.8% Minnesota 8.5% 15% 6.5% N Carolina 0% 7.1% 7.1% Montana 21.5% 18.2% -3.3% N Dakota 3.8% 4.1% 0.3% Nevada 15.4% 16.8% 1.4% Ohio 18% 21.7% 3.7% New Hampshire 18.7% 24.4% 5.7% Oklahoma 8.4% 11.9% 3.5% New Jersey 13.7% 14.1% 0.4% Pennsylvania 10.3% 11.8% 1.5% New Mexico 17.5% 13.8% -3.7% So Carolina 21.2% 25.3% 4.1% New York 13.7% 23.5% 9.8% So Dakota 6.1% 7.7% 1.6% Oregon* 21.7% 17.2% -4.5% Tennessee 14.5% 12.4% -2.1% Rhode Island 23.5% 26.1% 2.6% Texas 15.3% 17.3% 2% Vermont 26.1% 36% 9.9% Utah 11.6% 13.9% 2.3% Washington* 27.7% 24.4% -3.3% Virginia 11.1% 16.9% 5.8% West 12.1% 17.8% 5.7% Virginia Ave all MJ 17.6% 20.3% 2.7% Wisconsin 17.5% 21.8% 4.3% States Ave MJ 23.3% 21.8% -1.5% Wyoming 15.9% 29.3% 13.4% Recreational Ave Medical 16.8% 20.1% 4.3% Ave Non- 13.9% 16.1% 2.4% MJ States Legal MJ States Ave MJ 15.7% 18.1% 2.4% Fatalities in ALL states 5 Table 5 shows the increase in marijuana fatal crashes in WA, one of the two states with recreational use of marijuana. Note that testing for both drugs and alcohol are declining. A declining test rate for drugs and alcohol will mask the true extent of the problem. Table 5.WA State Comparison of Marijuana and DUI Fatal Crashes, 2013,2014,&2015, NHTSA FARS Data Group 2013 2014 2015 Comment Total Fatal Crash Drivers 592 623 788 Increase* Alcohol Tested 379 347 411 %Tested 64.0% 55.7% 52.2% Decline* 08+found 118 104 100 %08+ 31.1% 30.0% 24.3% Drug Tested 370 342 400 %Tested 62.5% 54.9% 50.8% Decline* MjFound 66 87 92 % Mj 17.8% 25.4% 23.0% * student t test,Statistical difference, p< .01 New Enforcement Strategies to Protect the Public from Marijuana Drivers Must be Developed The first significant issue in determining the extent of the marijuana driving problem must include increased drug testing of fatal crash drivers which is 47% nationally and 56% for alcohol. Current marijuana fatal crash figures are nearly half the percentage of DUI, however, marijuana fatalities are increasing due to legalization of marijuana for medical& recreational use. Both CO and WA, recreational use states for 3 years(2013 —2015), already have 24%of fatal crashes with marijuana involvement approaching the national level of 30% for DUI fatal crashes. Also another concerning trend that has developed in Washington—decreased blood testing for marijuana by 11.8% over the same time period. Law enforcement must adjust to and develop strategies to combat the emerging problem of marijuana impairment. A 2016 study by R Hartman, et al in Accident Analysis and Prevention reported that Drug Recognition Expert Officers can accurately detect marijuana in driver with a 96.7% accuracy rate. They only needed to use four common field sobriety tests known to all officers—the one-legged stand,the finger to nose,the walk and turn, and a Modified Romberg balance test looking for eyelid tremors. "This study shows that DRE trained officers are NOT needed to detect marijuana, since none of the extra tests performed by those officers were statistically significant in determining marijuana presence", say Phillip Drum,Pharm. D. co-author of this report. The Salas Case in Bakersfield has allowed for the use of oral swab testing to perform a quick inexpensive screen for drugs in California. Also reaching the end of field testing by Hounds Lab is a combination non-invasive breath testing device to detect the presence of either marijuana and/or alcohol in a suspect. Additional enforcement patrol strategies must take into account that significant marijuana driver impairment is occurring earlier daily during rush hour traffic and later into the evening when combined with alcohol. Both the unbelted and speeding driver are clearly visible by enforcement in the daylight hours. This is significantly different than DUI driving alone which commonly occurs on the weekends and around midnight. To avoid the risk of marijuana traffic fatalities,users should heed the recent warnings from the document Monitoring Health Concerns Related to Marijuana in Colorado 2016. This report was generated by the Colorado Department of Public Health&Environment which recommends that the marijuana smokers should wait 6 hours or more after using 18 mg or less of THC. Marijuana edible users of 18 mg THC or less should wait 8 hours or more until driving. For most marijuana drivers this would be an impractical solution. 6 1 Slow driving while Marijuana Impaired is a Myth! Al Crancer, B.S., M.A.a, Phillip A. Drum, Pharm. D.b aDUI Deaths Matter P.O. Box 2351 Madison, MS 39109 bSmart Approaches to Marijuana California, U.S.A. Phil liL)L)rurri(y)corneast.net Corresponding author: Al Crancer DUI Deaths Matter http://www.cluicleati�:�1�7��tte,��.oz�?/co�ltac;i_�.�s.11tr�rl 2 ABSTRACT Background: Although identified in 1969, marijuana speeding has not been an area of focus. Researchers have instead focused on under age driving and alcohol factors as causes of speeding during fatal crashes. Methods: The Fatality Analysis Reporting System data was analyzed from 1994 to 2014 for the incidence in speeding in subjects who were marijuana positive, had not alcohol and drugs and alcohol positive drivers. Results: Twenty years of government crash data dispel the slow marijuana driving myth. Drivers in"medical"marijuana(MMJ) states speed more than drivers in completely Illegal Marijuana (IMJ) states. Marijuana drivers speed at a higher percentage than drivers with no alcohol or drugs at both the lowest and highest posted speed limits. Marijuana drivers are more likely to drive off the road in fatal crashes. Finally, the percentage of drivers with 3 marijuana use has nearly doubled in the last ten years, and is more than six times the 1994 level. Conclusions: Drivers in fatal crashes under the hallucinogenic effects of marijuana do speed more than drivers with no alcohol or drugs. The marijuana driver's inability to concentrate on multiple stimuli facing them while driving results from marijuana's hallucinogenic effect of time and space distortion. This altered reality and limited ability to focus their attention are thought to be a major factors in marijuana drivers speeding and leaving the roadway in fatal crashes. Keywords: marijuana-impaired driving, fatal crashes, speeding 4 BACKGROUND Driving slow when impaired by marijuana is commonly accepted as fact. An internet search on this subject reveals numerous simulator driving studies that concur. This myth has been perpetuated in movies by the fictional characters Cheech and Chong. However, the data to support their conclusions are limited in power or do not completely mimic actual current driving situations with it numerous distractions (phone use, music on radio, texting, etc..)to prove their assertions. Data from the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration(NHTSA) Fatality Analysis Reporting System (FARS) helps us answer this question definitively by looking at routine facts collected from actual fatal crash reports for drivers all over the country! In the crash report completed after all fatal crashes is a determination by the investigating officer of speeding as a fatal crash factor. Usually, this is based on the cars' occupant restraint control module which records the car's speed before deployment of airbag technology. This data was used to determine if drivers with marijuana in their system were or were not speeding. Since marijuana drivers may also be driving under the influence of alcohol (DUI, BAC = 0.08 % or above), we have broken out the speeding data to look at speeding while marijuana driving both 5 with and without the effect of alcohol. National fatal crash data for 2014 shows that drivers with no evidence of alcohol or drugs were noted for speeding in 24% of the cases (See Table 1). This is compared to 33% for those marijuana drivers with no alcohol. This is statistically higher than the no alcohol or drug group. Fatal crashes following drinking alcohol when using marijuana is nearly as common as marijuana use without alcohol., Of the 1974 marijuana drivers, 947 were also DUI. Speeding with marijuana and alcohol is common in almost half(49.7%) of the marijuana drivers which is more than the speeding incidence for DUI driving alone at 42.3%. State Data on Speeding Marijuana Drivers State data(Table 2) shows wide variation but statistically significant evidence that speeding is associated with marijuana driving.Nearly 65% of"medical" Marijuana(MMJ) states (15 of 23) had a speeding incidence of 40% or more during fatality crashes. Only 30% of"illegal" Marijuana(IMJ) states (8 of 27) had 40% or more speeding drivers. Three MMJ states (Illinois, New Hampshire, and New York) had 60% or more of drivers 6 speeding during the crash; accounting for 13% (3 of 23) of the MMJ states. Pennsylvania and Utah were the only two IMJ states with speeders at 60% or more; accounting for 7% (2 of 27) of the IMJ states. Speeding may be statistically higher in MMJ states because drivers have a feeling of less caution since the substance consumed is legal and more common place. In IMJ states, drivers may be more cautious because they know that they are driving after using an illegal substance and need to monitor their speed to avoid drawing attention to themselves. Speeding Marijuana Drivers during Peak Marijuana Driving Time As previously reported, about 80% of the fatal crashes involving marijuana drivers are from 4pm to 4am. Table #3 looks at those drivers by posted speed limit for both Marijuana drivers and drivers with no alcohol or drugs. Marijuana drivers are consistently speeding at all speed limits above no alcohol or drugs drivers and at a statistically higher percentage than no alcohol or drugs drivers at both the low and at the high posted speed limits. At the low end where speed limits are at 15-25 MPH the marijuana drivers were speeding 59% of the time and at the 70+posted speed limit they were speeding about 76% of the time. The posted speed 7 of 50-55 MPH had the largest number of marijuana drivers in fatal crashes but only 14.2% more speeders than the no alcohol or drug group. The graph 1 illustrates the statistically higher percentage of marijuana speeders at both ends of the posted speed limits. Marijuana Drivers Found Speeding Since 1994 Speeding data is part of the FARS reporting system allowing a look at data in years past. Table 4 shows that speeding was a problem for marijuana drivers for 20 years, since 1994 when FARS data collection began. The table also shows an increase in marijuana involvement in fatal crashes with the percentage of drivers with marijuana use has nearly doubled in the last ten years, and is more than 6 times the 1994 level. First Harmful Event for Marijuana Drivers in Fatal Crashes Table 5 shows that marijuana drivers in fatal crashes are statistically more likely to run off the road into ditches or objects than drivers with no alcohol or drugs in their system. 8 Marijuana Impairment Related to Driving. The common hallucinogenic effects of marijuana may help explain some of the reasons drivers in fatal crashes are speeding and run off the road significantly more than drivers not using Alcohol and Drugs. One of the effects of marijuana is the alteration (distortion) of time and space perception. When driving, this effect often gives the perception of driving slow. To compensate for this perception, some drivers have a tendency to increase their speed as shown in Table 3. The slow driving marijuana driver was popularized in chronic marijuana users Cheech and Chong's 1978 movie, "Up in Smoke". Cheech was shown driving extremely slow in their van throughout the movie. However in fatal driving cases, this myth is destroyed by the 2014 FARS data. It reveals that speeding occurs in 35.8% of all fatal marijuana driving cases compared to only 25.9% of the No Alcohol or Drug cases. In addition, because marijuana impacts a person's ability to multi- task, a key attribute of safe driving, they are unable to monitor travel speed adequately. This may be the reason marijuana drivers are more likely to run off the road than drivers with No Alcohol or Drugs, as shown in Table 4 above. Finally, some persons using 9 high potency marijuana suffer psychosis which can lead to erratic and dangerous driving behaviors including speeding and running off the road. Monitoring speed when impaired by marijuana was found to be a problem when first studied. Forty-seven years ago in the nation's first marijuana study where the marijuana was supplied to the researchers by the federal government, speed monitoring was found to be a problem with marijuana drivers.2 Marijuana impaired drivers made statistically more errors on speed monitoring in simulator driving than when not impaired. Marijuana used in that study was relatively low dose, about 1% THC, when compared to today's more potent marijuana, at 15 to 20% THC. The study published in Science, also tested the same drivers DUI at 0.10% BAC, which garnered all of the attention, since those drivers were worse at all simulator driving tasks. 10 Funding Neither Al Crancer nor Phillip Drum have any funding for this research to disclose. No funding was provided. Compliance with Ethical Standards Section Conflict of Interests: The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest. Ethical Approval: This article does not contain any studies with human participants or animals performed by anu of the authors. Informed Consent: Informed consent is not applicable. 11 REFERENCES l.National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (2014) Fatality Analysis Reporting System (FARS) Data Retrieved from: h�>_//v,,vow.�llats�l_;�o�/��� «�/ir�jue�/�-�s�flr/cl7/jobl�5c9�u�s/c�arlr�abi 2. Crancer A., Dille, J.M., Delay, J.C., Wallace, J.E., Haykin, M.D. (1969) Comparison of the Effects of Marihuana and Alcohol on Simulated Driving Performance. Science, 164(3881), 851-854. 12 Table 1. US Passenger Vehicle & Light Truck Drivers in Fatal Crashes with Marihuana compared to Alcohol & Other Groups 2014 FARS Data Chi square Test Drivers Not Speed Speeding Total % speed No Alcohol or Drugs 3,526 1,114 4,640 *24.0% p <0.05 Marijuana and No Alcohol 644 317 961 *33.0% All Marijuana 1172 802 1974 40.6% DUI = 0.08+ BAC 1,137 832 1,969 **42.3% p <0.05 Marijuana and DUI 476 1 471 1 947 1 **49.7% * = difference between No Alcohol or Drugs versus Marijuana and No Alcohol ** = difference between DUI versus Marijuana and DUI 13 Table 2. Marihuana Drivers Speeding in Fatal Crashes in States with Medical & Illegal Marijuana, Passenger Vehicle/Light Trucks, 2014 FARS Data Speeding in Medical Marijuana States Speeding in Illegal Marijuana States Percent Percent State Speeding Total Speeding State Speeding Total Speeding Alaska 4 18 22.2% Alabama 23 63 36.5% Arizona 15 26 57.7% Arkansas 10 73 13.7% California 101 232 43.5% Florida 13 84 15.5% Colorado 21 41 51.2% Georgia 24 85 28.2% Connecticut 6 11 54.5% Idaho 2 9 22.2% Delaware 9 16 56.3% Indiana 18 43 41.9% D.C. l 1 100.0% Iowa 3 16 18.8% Hawaii 1 5 20.0% Kansas 5 19 26.3% Illinois 49 77 63.6% Kentucky 22 68 32.4% Maine 1 2 50.0% Louisiana 9 25 36.0% Maryland No Data Mississippi 1 12 8.3% Massachusett 7 20 35.0% Missouri 41 78 52.6% s Michigan 34 71 47.9% Nebraska 2 6 33.3% Minnesota 5 12 41.7% N Carolina No Data Montana 11 27 40.7% N Dakota 1 3 33.3% Nevada 8 24 33.3% Ohio 30 82 36.6% New 11 14 78.6% Oklahoma 5 20 25.0% Hampshire New Jersey 12 38 31.6% Pennsylvan 36 53 67.9% is New Mexico 6 15 40.0% S Carolina 38 75 50.7% New York 32 52 61.5% S Dakota 1 3 33.3% Oregon 4 18 22.2% Tennessee 21 70 30.0% Rhode Island 1 4 25.0% Texas 74 151 49.0% Vermont 3 6 50.0% Utah 11 16 68.8% 14 Washington 33 80 41.3% Virginia 5 34 14.7% Total Med 375 810—[46,31/o W Virginia 7 16 43.8% Marijuana Wisconsin 22 49 44.9% US Total (802/1974) =40.6% Wyoming 3 11 27.3% Total 427 1164 36.7% Illegal MJ Percentages in RED are for states with 40%+ speeding. 15 Table 3. Percent Speeding Passenger Vehicle, Drivers in Fatal Crashes, Marijuana vs. No Alcohol or Drugs, from 4pm to 4am, 2014 FARS Data Speed No Alcohol or Drugs Marijuana Percent Chi Square Test Limit Marijuana Total Speeding % Total Speeding % Higher S eed Speed 15-25 81 30 37.0%* 17 10 58.8% 58.8%* p <0.05 30-35 303 90 29.7% 43 19 44.2% 48.8% NS 40-45 481 137 28.5% 85 34 40.0% 40.4% NS 50-55 694 161 23.2% 117 31 26.5% 14.2% NS 60-65 233 57 24.5% 31 9 29.0% 18.7% NS 70+ 188 37 19.7%x* 26 9 34.6% 75.9%** p <0.05 Total 1980 512 25.9% 319 112 35.1% 35.8% NS * = % speeding difference between No Alcohol or Drugs vs Marijuana at 15-25 MPH ** = % speeding difference between No Alcohol or Drugs vs Marijuana at 70 +MPH 16 Graph 1. Percent Speeding passenger Vehicular Drivers in Fatal Crashes, Marijuana vs. NO Alcohol/Drugs, 2014 FABS Data, from 4pm to 4a s 100.0% C 50.0% 0.0% — --- -- 15-25 30-35 40-45 50-55 60-65 70+ Speed Limit Ranges in MPH NO Alcohol/Drugs Statistically significant by Chi Square test (p <0.05) 17 Table 4. Marijuana Drivers in Fatal Crashes Speeding, 1994, 2004, 2009, & 2014, Test 1 FARS Data Percent Speeding by Year Group 1994 2004 2009 2014 % Marijuana Speeding 61.2% 34.8% 46.2% 42.2% % No Alcohol/Drug 30.6% 31.2% 25.2% 19.1% Speeding Overall % Drivers with 2.3% 7.9% 11.9% 15.3% Marijuana 18 Table 5. First Harmful Event in Fatal Crash for Pass. Vehicle Drivers with Marijuana vs. No Alcohol or Drugs, 2014 FARS Data, Drug Testl for Marijuana Chi Square First Harmful Event Marijuana No Alcohol or Drugs Test # % # % Motor Vehicle on p <0.05 Road 532 35.8% 2,680 57.8% Pedestrian/Bike on p <0.05 Road 80 5.4% 470 10.1% p <0.05 On Road Total 612 1 41.2% 3150 67.9% Off Road, p < 0.05 Ditch/Objects 384 25.9% 651 14.0% Rollover 143 9.6% 252 5.4% p < 0.05 Off Road Total 527 35.5% 903 19.5% p <0.05 Total Selected Items 1139 76.7% 4053 87.3% NS Total First Harmful Event 1,485 100.0% 4,640 100.0% Items selected were the most frequent of the 45+ first harmful events possible. Medical Marijuana Responsible for Traffic Fatalities Alfred Crancer, B.S., M.A.; Phillip Drum, Pharm.D. F !y� Abstract In California,where only 25% of the drivers in fatal crashes are tested for drugs, 252 persons were killed in 2015 in marijuana driver fatalities, with 1,332 killed in the last 5 years. Marijuana was present in 21%of passenger vehicle drivers and is approaching the level of drunk driving in CA which is about 29%of fatalities.Trend of marijuana involvement in fatal crashes is clear evidence that more lives will be lost if ballot Proposition 64 for recreational use of marijuana is approved in November. For so many deaths to be related to the use of a "prescription" drug should sound alarms in the medical community and in the California legislature which is concerned about the overall health and welfare of California citizens. Young marijuana drivers are affected the most with 41%of the marijuana fatalities being under age 25 and they were also speeding in 39%of the cases compared to 27%speeding in all other fatal cases. No evidence that increasing marijuana use reduces opiate involvement in fatal crashes. Opiates are consistently present in about 6%of driving fatalities over the last 5 years. Five Southern California counties are the most involved with marijuana driving fatalities with Los Angeles and Riverside being the top two counties. However California data is incomplete for many counties like San Francisco, where only 1 of 50 drivers in fatal crashes were tested in 2015 for marijuana and other drugs. Table of Contents Medical Marijuana Responsible for Traffic Fatalities 1 Marijuana Related All Motor Vehicle Fatalities 1 Percentage of Fatal Crash Drivers Involved with Marijuana 1 Marijuana Drivers are Young 2 Medical Marijuana Not Resulting in a Reduction of Opiate Use 2 Marijuana Drivers in Fatal Crashes by CA County 3 Marihuana Involvement in Passenger Vehicle Fatal Crashes by State and Marijuana law Status 4 Summary 5 Medical Marijuana Responsible for Traffic Fatalities Medical Marijuana users are increasingly involved in California fatal crashes. The extent of marijuana involvement in fatal crashes should be a factor in deciding to vote for or against Proposition 64 which would increase availability and usage of marijuana for recreational purposes. The following data shows the involvement of marijuana in California fatal motor vehicle fatalities. Marijuana Related All Motor Vehicle Fatalities In 2015, 252 persons were killed in CA fatal crashes where the driver was known to have the psychoactive component in marijuana (THC) in their blood system. In the last five years, 1338 persons were fatally injured in THC-related crashes. For so many deaths to be related to the use of a "prescription" drug should sound alarms in the medical community and in the California legislature which is concerned about the overall health and welfare of California citizens. THC is present in 55%of all fatal DUI cases (found in 252 of the 457 total fatalities) in a state where the drug is not available to the general public. Total Fatalities in CA Marihuana Fatal Crashes,2011-2015 NHTSA FARS Data Year 1 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2011-15 Fatalities 1 187 227 373 299 252 1338 In 2015, 71%of the 226 passenger vehicle drivers with THC were fatally injured. Percentage of Fatal Crash Drivers Involved with Marijuana The gap between use of a single agent involvement of either alcohol or THC in impaired driving cases is closing. In 2015, 21%of the passenger vehicle drivers were known to have THC in their system based on blood test analysis. Delays in blood drawing, more than two hours from driving,will result in a large number of drivers being reported as negative that were impaired at the time of driving. In addition, 75%of passenger vehicle drivers (2,598 of 3,445 drivers)did not even have their blood tested for drugs due to cost of the tests or other factors. So the 21%THC positivity in fatal crashes is a low estimate of actual marijuana use. (Note that a test for alcohol is performed on more than 80%of drivers). If the level of marijuana use in the 75%of untested drivers for drugs was near the level found in the drivers tested for drugs, the number of marijuana fatalities would probably be at least double the 252 found in the 2015 data and would eclipse the number of alcohol related fatalities which is at about 30%of total fatalities for the last 16 years.As was seen in Washington and Colorado following marijuana legalization, the marijuana driving fatalities will likely rise upwards of 50% if marijuana is available for recreational use. Percent CA Marijuana Pass.Vehicle Drivers 2011-2015, NHTSA FARS Data # Pass. Year Drivers Vehicle %MJ MJ Drivers 2011 157 1328 11.8% 2012 255 1270 20.1% 2013 228 1324 17.2% 2014 245 1335 18.4% 2015 179 847 21.1% Marijuana Drivers are Young Marijuana drivers in passenger vehicle fatal crashes are young with 41%under age 25.This concentration of fatal drivers at such a young age conflicts with the common understanding of the age of persons with true need for a recommendation for medical marijuana. This elevated death rate is about twice the level of all drivers in CA fatal crashes under age 25 which is at 21%. Age of CA Marijuana Drivers in Fatal Crashes,2015 FARS Data Driver Age # Drivers % <21 36 15.9% 21-24 57 25.2% Under 25 93 41.15% 25-34 75 33.2% 35-44 16 7.1% 45-54 20 8.8% 55-64 16 7.1% 65+ 6 2.7 Total 226 100.0% Also of interest was that 39%of the marijuana drivers in fatal crashes were speeding compared to 27%for all driving fatalities in California. Medical Marijuana Not Resulting in a Reduction of Opiate Use Many pro-marijuana advocated claim that marijuana availability would result in less opiate related fatalities. The following table shows no reduction in the fatal crash involvement of opiate drivers. In fact,the involvement has risen slightly from 6.1%to 6.8% in the last 5 years. CA Drivers with Narcotics* in Pass.Vehicle Fatal Crashes, 2010 vs.2015, NHTSA FARS Data Groug 2010 2015 Narcotic Drivers 80 58 #Pass.Veh. Drivers 1319 847 %Narcotics 6.1°% 6.8°% Blood test results 2 Marijuana Drivers in Fatal Crashes by CA County 57%of the known marijuana drivers were in 5 southern CA counties: Los Angeles (43), Riverside (29), San Diego (19), San Bernardino (18), and Orange (15). Note the counties in RED are counties with less than 20%of drivers tested for drugs. A drug testing rate of only 24.9%suggests that marijuana use is actually much higher and that the fatality level may be more than double the number where a driver was known to use marijuana. In San Francisco for example,only one of 50 drivers were tested for drugs.. Number and Percent of Marijuana Drivers&Percent Drivers Tested by CA County Where Fatal Crashes Occurred in 2015, NHTSA FARS Data Drivers in Drivers in #M1 No. Fatal %Drivers #MJ No. Fatal %Drivers County Drivers Tested %M1 Crashes Drug Tested County Drivers Tested %M1 Crashes Drug Tested ALAMEDA 4 24 16.7% 117 20.5% ORANGE 15 78 19.2% 232 33.6% BUTTE 0 12 0.0% 37 32.4% PLACER 0 6 0.0% 27 22.2% CALAVERAS 0 1 0.0% 13 7.7% PLUMAS 0 2 0.0% 5 40.0% COLUSA 0 2 0.0% 7 28.6% RIVERSIDE 29 124 23.4% 344 36.0% CONTRA COSTA 5 24 20.8% 97 24.7% SACRAMENTO 5 35 14.3% 168 20.8% DELNORTE 2 2 100.0% 16 12.5% SAN BERNARDINO 18 90 20.0% 360 25.0% ELDORADO 2 6 33.3% 32 18.8% SAN DIEGO 19 68 27.9% 313 21.7% FRESNO 7 18 38.9% 124 14.5% SAN FRANCISCO 1 1 100.0% 50 2.0% GLENN 0 2 0.0% 8 25.0% SAN JOAQUIN 4 32 12.5% 126 25.4% HUMBOLDT 2 10 20.0% 27 37.0% SAN LUIS OBISPO 2 18 11.1% 47 38.3% IMPERIAL 0 5 0.0% 39 12.8% SAN MATEO 1 7 14.3% 51 13.7% INYO 1 1 100.0% 7 14.3% SANTA BARBARA 3 14 21.4% 44 31.8% KERN 10 73 13.7% 173 42.2% SANTA CLARA 5 68 7.4% 156 43.6% KINGS 0 5 0.0% 47 10.6% SANTA CRUZ 0 6 0.0% 26 23.1% LAKE 2 11 18.2% 22 50.0% SHASTA 0 3 0.0% 37 8.1% LASSEN 0 1 0.0% 10 10.0% SISKIYOU 0 1 0.0% 10 10.0% LOSANGELES 43 166 25.9% 838 19.8% SOLANO 3 10 30.0% 57 17.5% MADERA 2 9 222% 41 22.0% SONOMA 5 14 35.7% 72 19.4% MARIN 0 3 0.0% 14 21.4% STANISLAUS 2 15 13.3% 75 20.0% MARIPOSA 0 1 0.0% 4 25.0% SUTTER 0 1 0.0% 28 3.6% MENDOCINO 1 2 50.0% 12 16.7% TEHAMA 1 5 20.0% 20 25.0% MERCED 2 18 11.1% 63 28.6% TULARE 8 31 25.8% 102 30.4% MODOC 0 1 0.0% 4 25.0% TUOLUMNE 1 3 33.3% 14 21.4% MONO 0 2 0.0% 7 28.6% VENTURA 4 13 30.8% 74 17.6% MONTEREY 6 18 33.3% 71 25A% YOLO 1 11 9.1% 34 32.4% NAPA 0 7 0.0% 20 35.0% YUBA 1 1 100.0% 11 9.1% NEVADA 1 8 12.5% 17 47.1% Total 218 1,089 20.0% 4382 24.9% 3 Marihuana Involvement in Passenger Vehicle Fatal Crashes by State and Marijuana law Status The table below shows the involvement of marijuana in fatal crashes for all states and the District of Columbia for 2014 and 2015. The Medical Marijuana states have a 26% higher marijuana driver involvement percentage than the No Medical Marijuana states. Colorado and Washington, both Medical and Recreational use states are higher than California. Oregon opened their Recreational marijuana dispensaries in October of 2015. Alaska has yet to open their recreational dispensaries in 2015. Marijuana Use by State of Passenger Vehicle Drivers in Fatal Crashes by Marijuana Law, 2014 and 2015, NHTSA FARS Data Medical Marijuana States No Medical Marijuana States State M12014 MJ 2015 %Change M12014 MJ 2015 %Change Alaska 28.1% 22.2% -5.8% Alabama 14.8% 14.6% -0.2% Arizona 10.5% 17.6% 7.0% Arkansas 21.9% 22.0% 0.0% California 18.4% 21.1% 2.8% Florida 10.5% 11.6% 1.1% Colorado* 20.5% 23.8% 3.4% Georgia 18.1% 14.6% -3.5% Connecticut 10.8% 11.3% 0.5% Idaho 19.1% 16.4% -2.7% Delaware 35.4% 27.5% -7.9% Indiana 11.6% 9.3% -2.2% DC 11.1% 25.0% 13.9% Iowa 18.6% 19.6% 1.0% Hawaii 16.0% 22.0% 6.0% Kansas 12.3% 12.9% 0.5% Illinois 17.2% 18.9% 1.7% Kentucky 17.6% 13.9% -3.7% Maine 5.3% 20.0% 14.7% Louisiana 21.2% 13.7% -7.6% Maryland 1.9% 0.5% -1.3% Mississippi 6.4% 16.0% 9.6% Mass 19.6% 26.7% 7.0% Missouri 24.5% 25.2% 0.7% Michigan 20.8% 21.7% 1.0% Nebraska 13.0% 25.8% 12.7% Minnesota 8.5% 15.0% 6.6% N Carolina 0.0% 7.1% 7.1% Montana 21.5% 18.2% -3.3% North Dakota 3.8% 4.1% 0.3% Nevada 15.4% 16.8% 1.4% Ohio 18.0% 21.7% 3.8% New Hamp. 18.7% 24.4% 5.7% Oklahoma 8.4% 11.9% 3.5% New Jersey 13.7% 14.1% 0.5% Pennsylvania 10.3% 11.8% 1.4% New Mexico 17.5% 13.8% -3.7% S.Carolina 21.2% 25.3% 4.2% New York 13.7% 23.5% 9.8% South Dakota 6.1% 7.7% 1.6% Oregon* 21.7% 17.2% -4.5% Tennessee 14.5% 12.4% -2.1% Rhode Island 23.5% 26.1% 2.6% Texas 15.3% 17.3% 2.0% Vermont 26.1% 36.0% 9.9% Utah 11.6% 13.9% 2.3% Washington* 27.7% 24.4% -3.2% Virginia 11.1% 16.9% 5.8% Ave.MJ states 17.6% 20.3% 9.8% West Virginia 12.1% 17.8% 5.7% *Also Recreational Use Wisconsin 1 17.5% 1 21.8% 4.3% Total US 15.7% 17.3% 1 1.5% Wyoming 15.9% 29.3% 13.4% Ave.NO MJ St 13.9% 16.1% 1 15.7% 4 Summary • THC is present in 21%of CA fatal crash drivers blood in 2015 and the percentage is climbing (was 18%in 2014). • 1,332 killed in CA with marijuana present in over 5 years, 252 killed in 2015 in fatal crashes and the percent in fatal crashes is increasing. • Since only 25%of drivers are tested for drugs,the number of fatalities that are THC related may be as much as twice the known level of 252 found in 2015 data. • Marijuana involvement percentage may reach DUI alcohol level if trend continues and with increased availability. • Clear evidence that more lives will be lost if recreational use (Prop 64) is approved • Young marijuana drivers are affected the most with 41%of the marijuana fatalities being under age 25 and they are also speeding in 39%of the cases compared to 27%speeding rates in all other fatal cases. • No evidence that increasing marijuana use reduces opiate involvement in fatal crashes. Opiates are consistently present in about 6%of driving fatalities over the last 5 years. • Five Southern California counties are the most involved with marijuana driving fatalities with Los Angeles and Riverside being the top two counties. However the data is incomplete for many counties like San Francisco, where only 1 of 50 drivers in fatal crashes were tested in 2015 for marijuana and other drugs. • Colorado (23.8%) and Washington (24.4%), both Medical/Recreational use states have higher marijuana fatality driving rates than California (21.1%)—the longest medical marijuana state in the nation. Additional marijuana driving fatalities would be expected if Californians approve Prop 64 the marijuana legalization proposition in California. 5 Most WA State Marijuana Driving Fatalities Occur while Speeding After Work: Nearly Equal Alcohol Fatalities Alfred Crancer, B.S., M.A., Phillip Drum, Pharm. D. Abstract The trend of marijuana drivers involved in WA fatal crashes is increasing.Three successive years show marijuana fatalities at about 25%and have become a larger proportion of fatal crashes. The 2014 and 2015 NHTSA Fatality Analysis Reporting System (FARS) data show no statistical difference between the percent of marijuana driving fatalities and percent of alcohol driving fatalities in WA. Time of day of marijuana fatal crashes differ from DUI fatalities with the after work period (4 to Bpm) having 30%of the marijuana fatalities, compared to DUI fatalities which peak midnight to 4am. In addition about half of marijuana drivers were speeding in these peak evening travel times. Phillip Drum, Pharm. D. one the authors of the report states, "This data shows that a higher risk of fatal driving from marijuana use commonly occurs in the evening after a normal work day on a daily basis and on Saturdays probably in attempt to reduce the risk of an employer testing them positive for marijuana. A steady decline in blood testing for marijuana since 2013 probably masks the true extent of marijuana fatality problem. 48%of the drivers were not tested,with less testing during the day and in large western WA counties along Interstate 5. "With the national spotlight on Washington following approval of marijuana for recreational use, it is deplorable that the state has no test results for 377 fatal crash drivers in 2015, while simultaneously experiencing an increased number of marijuana driving fatalities" states Al Crancer, lead researcher. Alcohol use is heavily involved in marijuana driving fatalities with more than 40%of marijuana drivers also DUI. Table of Contents Trend in Marijuana Drivers in WA Fatal Crashes Increasing 1 Time of Day&Day of Week of Marijuana Fatal Crashes Differ from DUI 2 Alcohol Use Heavily involved in Marijuana Driving Fatalities 3 Testing Decline in Western Counties Probably Masks True Extent of Marijuana Fatality Problem 3 Testing by Time of Day Differs Widely 5 Marijuana Drivers Don't Drive Slow 5 Summary 6 Most WA State Marijuana Driving Fatalities Occur while Speeding After Work: Nearly Equal Alcohol Fatalities Alfred Crancer, B.S., M.A., Phillip Drum, Pharm. D. Background Recreational marijuana was approved by the voters in the state of Washington in November 2012. Licensed recreational marijuana businesses opened in July 2014. Following a year and a half of sales,the marijuana driving fatality percentage has nearly reached alcohol driving fatalities for 2014 and 2015. Trend in Marijuana Drivers in WA Fatal Crashes Increasing As shown in Table 1, in 2014 the driving fatality rate was 30%for alcohol and 25.4%for marijuana—a 4.6%difference. In 2015,this margin between the two was reduced to a little over 1%(24.3%for alcohol and 23%for marijuana). The difference in driving fatality rates between alcohol and marijuana while marijuana was illegal for recreational sales and only available for medical sales was previously 13.3%. Three successive years of driving fatality statistics demonstrate marijuana fatalities have become a larger proportion of fatal crashes. The last two years show no statistical difference between the percent of marijuana driving fatalities and percent of alcohol driving fatalities. The WA state toxicologist, Dr. Fiona Couper,for the State Patrol's laboratory reported in 2014 that virtually all 2013 blood samples were monitored for drugs, in addition to alcohol. Historically, drug tests were not often performed if blood-alcohol levels came back at 0.10 percent or higher, thus underestimating the true occurrence of marijuana and other drugged driving in the past.' Interesting, despite the testing for both alcohol and drugs when tests are performed on drivers in fatal crashes, the actual percentage of blood tests for alcohol and marijuana has been on the decline over 2014 and 2015. There has been a statistically significant reduction in alcohol blood testing from 64% in 2013 to only 52.3% being tested in 2015,and for marijuana from 62.5%to 50.8%during the same time period. At the same time there has been a statistically significant increase by 33% (from 592 to 788) in the number of total drivers in fatal crashes in WA In 2013 the state toxicologist changed the level of detection for THC from 1 ng/ml to 2 ng/ml.'This falsely lowered the number of marijuana positive individuals in 2013. In 2014, the toxicologist reduced the THC limit back down to 1 ng/ml. There was a 32% increase in marijuana fatal drivers from 2013 (66 deaths)to 2014(88 deaths) after only 6 months of recreational dispensaries being open in 2014. Table 1. WA State Comparison of Marijuana and DUI Fatal Crashes, 2013,2014,& 2015, NHTSA FARS Data Group 2013 2014 2015 Comment Total Fatal Crash Drivers 592 623 788 Increase* Alcohol Tested 379 347 411 %Tested 64.00% 55.70% 52.20% Decline* 08+found 118 104 100 % 08+ 31.10% 30.00% 24.30% Drug Tested 370 342 400 %Tested 62.50% 54.90% 50.80% Decline* MjFound 66 87 92 % Mj 17.80% 25.40% 23.00% * student t test,Statistical difference, p< .05 Time of Day& Day of Week of Marijuana Fatal Crashes Differ from DUI It is well known most alcohol fatalities (34.3%) occur in the early morning hours(Midnight-3:59 am)following bars closing on the weekend days. This is true for alcohol positive fatal crashes in Washington in 2015-Fridays accounted for 19.2%of all driving fatalities for the week,Saturday(20.2%) and Sunday(28.3%). However,this is NOT true for marijuana positive fatal crashes. The time AFTER the end of a normal work day(4 pm-7:59 pm) is the highest percent (28.4%) of fatal marijuana crashes during a day. Like alcohol, marijuana consumption occurs primarily after work due to consequences of consumption before and during working hours. Plus there is the ability for employers to check for presence of drugs use. Unlike alcohol,the incidence of day of the week of marijuana consumption is not concentrated around any day or group of days. Marijuana use is more of a daily routine. There is a slight increase, but not statistically significant, in marijuana crashes occurring on Saturdays(19.3%)versus an average of 14.3%for equivalent daily usage. Table 2. WA Marijuana (Mj) Drivers in Fatal Crashes by Time of Day& Day of Week,with DUI Comparison, 2015 FARS Data Crash Hour Mon Tues Wed Thurs Fri Sat Sun Total %Mj %WA DUI Mid-3:59am 2 1 1 2 2 3 5 16 18.2% 34.3% 4am-7:59am 2 1 3 0 1 3 0 10 11.4% 6.1% 8am-11:59am 0 2 1 1 1 1 0 6 6.8% 2.0% Noon-3:59pm 2 1 1 2 2 1 0 9 10.2% 7.1% 4pm-7:59pm 4 2 2 5 2 6 4 25 28.4% 23.2% 8pm-11:59pm 4 1 4 2 2 3 5 21 23.9% 25.3% Unkn. Hours 0 0, 1 0 0 0 0 1 1.1% 2.0% 100.0 Total 14 8 13 12 10 17 14 88 % 100.0% % M1 15.9% 9.1% 14.8% 13.6% 11.4% 19.3% 15.9% 100.0% %WA DUl 7.1% 7.1% 9.1% 9.1% 19.2% 20.2% 28.3% 100.0% As shown in Table 3,when DUI alcohol is not present, about 30%of the marijuana fatal crash drivers are concentrated in the peak evening travel time period (4 pm to 7:59 pm)and less in the mornings, late evening(8pm to 11:59 pm), and in the Midnight to 4am DUI drinking period. In addition, data in Table 3 shows similar results for Colorado,another recreational use state. Table 3.WA&CO Marijuana Drivers in Fatal Crashes with NO DUI by Time of Day, 2015 FARS Data WA Mj Drivers CO Mj Drivers Crash Hour %4 Hr. %4 Hr. No. Drivers period No. Drivers period Mid-3:57am 5 11.4% 4 8.2% 4am-7:59am 8 18.2% 7 14.3% 8am-11:59am 4 9.1% 9 18.4% Noon-3:59pm 8 18.2% 12 24.5% 4pm-7:59pm 13 29.5% 12 24.5% Bpm-11:59pm 6 13.6% 5 10.2% Total 44 100.0% 49 100.0% 2 Alcohol Use Heavily involved in Marijuana Driving Fatalities Shown in Table 4 is the heavy use of alcohol by drivers testing positive for marijuana. More than 1/3 of the drivers testing positive for marijuana were with a DUI of 0.08 or more. Only slightly less than half, 46.7%, of the marijuana drivers had not been drinking alcohol. Marijuana use is combined with alcohol (BAC 0.01+) in 53.3%of marijuana driving fatality cases. R Hartman, et. al. displayed that moderate amounts of both marijuana (blood 5 ng/ml THC+ BAC 0.05) create equivalent lateral movement (lane weaving) as being legally drunk (BAC=0.08).2 Table 4. WA State 2015 Data for DUI and Marijuana (Mj) Involvement in Fatal Crashes, FARS Data Group Number Drivers Percent Tested for Alcohol 411 DUI Known 100 24.3%* Tested for Drugs 399 Mj 92 23.1%* Mj +0.08 BAC 39 42.4% Mj+0.05 BAC 44 47.8% Mj+0.01+BAC 49 53.3% Mj+No Alcohol 43 46.7% Testing Decline in Western Counties Probably Masks True Extent of Marijuana Fatality Problem Testing of Fatal Crash Drivers for Marijuana and Alcohol is less in counties where most of Marijuana crashes occur and where marijuana use is most prevalent. As shown in the map and Table 4 below,the high fatal crash counties in Western WA test blood generally less than 50%of the fatal crash drivers.This is in sharp comparison to Spokane in Eastern WA where the fatal crash numbers are high and the percentage of not tested is low at 37%. Selected WA Counties,Percent Fatal Drivers Tested for AlcohotiDrugs, Bel(>%v 50,10 tia« se N t v:.om 0 0 lsr,.t s � Fcr.ti etc. ch.-Ctr (Ixllaro i1�. �.,,Mvanfl Je A2rux3r _. —_._- nfi (ils)x h4aaxtt ' Rtk — t ry K1tt rY.Ss (i.5el !}s ii?wi R S v \4 Itx\i II v{J`l tikrrn:ma:. - < 3 Note that as shown in Table 5 below, Columbia County, one of the larger counties with fatal crashes, had 18 of 19 drivers tested for alcohol. Skagit County, with the same number of fatal crashes, tested only 11 of 19 drivers. Table 5.WA State Counties with 10+ Fatal Crash Drivers by Alcohol Drivers Tested , 2015 FARS Data Count Total Noel Total %Not Y tested Drivers Tested Tested KING(33) 67 64 131 48.90% PIERCE(53) 37 42 79 53.20% SNOHOMISH (61) 34 29 63 46.00% SPOKANE(63) (East WA) 27 16 43 37.20% YAKIMA(77) 25 11 36 30.60% KITSAP(35) 10 12 22 54.50% SKAGIT(57) 11 8 19 42.10% COLUMBIA(13) (East WA) 18 1 19 5.30% THURSTON (67) 9 9 18 50.00% GRANT(25) 10 8 18 44.40% CLARK(11) 4 9 13 69.20% WHATCOM (73) 5 8 13 61.50% LEWIS(41) 8 5 13 38.50% ISLAND(29) 9 4 13 30.80% MASON(45) 5 6 11 54.50% CLALLAM(9) 6 5 11 45.50% KITTITAS(37) 6 5 11 45.50% STEVENS(65) 6 5 11 45.50% ADAMS(1) (East WA) 7 3 10 30.00% State Total 356 289 645 44.80% 4 Alcohol Testing by Time of Day Differs Widely Testing for drugs and alcohol also vary widely by time of day. Midnight to 4 am has the best percentage of drivers tested for alcohol with 8 am to 11:59 am the worst, with about 45%of fatal drivers not tested at all for alcohol. Clearly testing should be consistent by both time of day and day of week for the results to reflect the true impact of marijuana and alcohol use in fatal crashes. Table 6. WA State%Alcohol Drivers Tested by Fatal Crash Hour, 2015 FARS Data Total Total Not Total % Not 4 Hour Time tested Tested Drivers Tested Midnight to 53 27 80 33.8% 3:59 am 4am—7:59am 35 25 60 41.7% 8am-11:59 am 46 55 101 54.5% Noon-3:59 pm 74 68 142 47.9% 4pm-7:59 pm 85 73 158 46.2% 8pm-11:59 pm 59 41 100 41.0% Total Drivers 352 289 641 45.1% Marijuana Drivers Don't Drive Slow Contrary to popular belief, marijuana drivers in fatal crashes do speed and about as much as drivers who are DUI and about twice the percentage of all WA drivers in fatal crashes.This is important to note since the prime marijuana driving fatality time is 4 to 7:59 pm, the period of high density traffic.This compares to DUI driving fatalities occurring most often from midnight to 3:59 am when traffic volume is lowest. Table 7. WA State Speeding of Marijuana Drivers by DUI level, 2015 FARS Data Not Total Percent Group Speeding Speeding Drivers Speeding All WA Fatal Drivers 584 204 788 25.9% Mj no BAC 41 12 55 47.4% Mj and 0.08+BAC 18 20 38 52.6% All 0.08+BAC 45 55 100 55.0% Drivers 5 Summary The nation is watching the state of Washington for its marijuana driving fatalities following approval for recreational marijuana use in 2012. The most recent data from 2015 shows a decline in testing for both blood alcohol and marijuana in driving fatalities, blood testing down to 52%and 50.8%of the time only, respectively. This will probably leads to less information about marijuana driving fatalities. Current data displays the time of day(4 pm—7:59 pm) and daily occurrence with a slight increase on Saturdays of spiked marijuana driving fatalities. Marijuana driving fatalities with or without alcohol continue to show speeding occurs nearly as frequently as speeding with alcohol driving alone. References 1. Johnson, Gene. More drivers positive for pot in Washington. Associated Press. Originally published March 7, 2014 at 4:51 PM I Page modified March 8, 2014 at 3:30 AM. itt : settietirnes.coi htrl Ic���lnewsOZ307967 xrr�ari'�aar��drivir7�wasl7ir� .tn.htrnl 2. Hartman, R, et al. Cannabis effects on driving lateral control with and without alcohol. Drug Alcohol Dependence 2015;154:25-37. 6 Medical Marihuana Involved in CA Fatal Crashes Al Crancer, M.A. Phillip Drum, Pharm.D. Abstract In the Medical Marihuana state of CA, marihuana was found in drivers which resulted in 1,551 fatalities in the last 5 years. Nationally, in the 23 states and D.C.with state-approved Medical Marihuana, there were more than 1,000 fatalities in the single year of 2014. In the 27 states with no legal marihuana of any kind there were 1,619 marihuana related fatalities. If CA marihuana use increases from the 2014 level of 18.8%to the level of WA and AK (two recreational marihuana states) at 31%,we could expect an additional 223 CA fatalities each year,for about 565 fatalities a year. Alcohol is also heavily involved in the marihuana fatalities with 46%of the marihuana drivers were also impaired by alcohol at 0.05%and 38% legally DUI at 0.08+ BAC. Despite the heavy use of alcohol by marihuana drivers, alcohol involvement in fatal crashes has increased less than 1%in the last 5 years. Drivers with marihuana in Medical Marihuana states had a 29% higher involvement in fatal crashes than No Medical Marihuana states. Every percent increase in CA driver marihuana involvement in crashes will results in 19 more fatalities. The growing legalization of marihuana for recreational use, along with the present Medical Marihuana use will cause a tidal wave of motor vehicle fatalities and injuries. This has already happened in Washington State where the level of drivers with marihuana is almost equal to the level of drivers DUI,the No.1 preventable traffic safety problem. Table of Contents CA Fatalities for Marihuana Involved drivers 1 Alcohol Involved in Marihuana Driver Fatal Crashes 2 Increased Marihuana Involvement not Increasing Alcohol Involvement 2 Medical Marihuana states vs. NO Marihuana States 3 19 Fatalities per 1%increased Marihuana involvement 4 Summary 4 Medical Marihuana Involved in CA Fatal Crashes Al Crancer, M.A. Phillip Drum, Pharm.D. Medical Marihuana Involved in CA Fatal Crashes CA Fatalities for Marihuana Involved drivers Marihuana is found in CA fatal crashes with 1,500 killed in the last 5 years. Since 1996, marihuana is only available legally in CA as Medical Marihuana. Government data suggests the number of deaths is under reported since less than half of drivers involved in fatalities are tested for,marihuana and other drugs.The actual number is probably much higher than 1,500 since less than 1/2 (43.2%)of the drivers in fatal crashes were tested in the five year period. In 2014, 19%of the drivers used marihuana compared to only 12% in 2010, up 52%in 5 years. Also note the large increase in marihuana fatalities in CO and WA the first full year following recreational sales. Table 1. Drivers in Fatal Crashes with Marihuana in Blood,2010 to 2014, NHTSA FARS Data Group 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2010-14 (5 yrs) CA Fatalities, Driver Mj* 227 254 336 385 349 1551 WA Fatalities, Driver Mj 94 61 64 69** 109** 397 CO Fatalities, Driver Mj 47 60 44 53** 71** 275 CA Driver with Marihuana 208 233 301 326 307 1375 CA Drivers Drug Tested 1689 1749 1715 1786 1634 8573 Percent Marihuana 12.30% 13.30% 17.60% 18.30% 18.80% 16.00% CA Drivers in Fatal Crashe446.20% 3654 3781 3965 4222 4225 19,847 %Drug Tested 46.30% 43.30.9 42.30% 38.700% 43.20% *Mj found in driver's blood. **WA and CO had recreational use legal in 2013 and 2014(Numbers in RED.) 1 Alcohol Involved in Marihuana Driver Fatal Crashes As shown in Table 2, alcohol is also heavily involved in the marihuana fatalities with about half, (46%) of the marihuana drivers were also impaired by alcohol at 0.05%and more than 1/3 (38%) legally DUI at 0.08+ BAC. Table 2.CA Drivers in Fatal Crashes with Marihuana and Alcohol, 2014 FARS Data Group All Mj drivers Mj and DUI (0.08+) Mj and Impaired(0.05+) Marihuana 2014 Only mj Mj with 08+ Only mj Mj with 05+ MJ Fatalities 349 217 132* 190 159 Percent 100% 62.2% 37.8% 54.4% 45.6% Drivers w Marijuana 307 195 112 179 128 Drug Tested _ 1634 1634 1634 -1634 1634 %Marijuana 18.8% 11.9% 6.9% 11.0°% 7.8% *Of the 349 drivers with mj(18.8%of all drivers), 132(more than 1/3,37.8%)were also DUI at 08+SAC. Even more,45.6%were impaired at 0.05+BAC. Increased Marihuana Involvement not Increasing Alcohol Involvement As evident from Table 1 above, the incidence of CA and WA fatal drivers having marihuana in their blood is increasing every year. This is in contrast to the stable level of alcohol involvement in CA driving fatalities. CA data shows that alcohol involvement in fatal crashes averages about 28%and has increased less than 1% in the last 5 years. Table 3.CA Alcohol Related* Fatalities 2010 to 2014, NHTSA FARS Data Group 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 Total Fatalities 2,720 2,816 2,966 3,107 3,074 Alcohol Related(0.08+BAC) 774 774 829 883 882 % Fatalities Alcohol Related 28.5% 27.5% 1 28.0% 1 28.4% 1 28.7% *Fatalities in which the driver BAC was 08+or higher. 2 Medical Marihuana States vs. NO Legal Marihuana States Table 4 compares Medical Marihuana and No Legal Marihuana states for percentage of drivers in fatal crashes known to have marihuana in their system. Medical Marihuana states had 29% higher incidence of fatal drivers, with wide state variation. Nationally, in the 23 states and D.C. with state-approved Medical Marihuana, there were more than 1,000 fatalities in the single year of 2014. In the 27 states with No Legal Marihuana of any kind there were 1,619 fatalities. Table 4. Known Percent of Drivers in Fatal Crashes with Marihuana for States with Medical Marihuana vs.States with NO Legal Marihuana, 2014 NHTSA FARS Passenger Vehicle& Light Trucks Data Medical Marihuana States NO Legal Marihuana States State Total mj #Drivers %mj State Total mj #Drivers %mj Alaska 18 59 30.51% Alabama 63 480 13.13% Arizona 26 234 11.11% Arkansas 75 338 22.19% California 233 1207 19.309/o Florida 84 818 10.27% Colorado 44, 220 20.00% Georgia 86 508 16.930 Connecticut 11 86 12.79% Idaho 9 63 14.29% Delaware 17 48 35.42% Indiana 43 368 11.68% D.C. 1 12 8.33% Iowa 16 88 18.18% Hawaii 5 1 32 15.63% Kansas 19 166 11.45% Illinois 77 596 12.92% Kentucky 68 391 17.39% Maine 2 87 2.30% Louisiana 25 291 8.59% Maryland 0 157 No Data Mississippi 12 198 6.06% Massachusetts 20 102 19.61% Missouri 80 309 25.89% Michigan 72 383 18.809/o Nebraska 6 47 12.77% Minnesota 12 143 8.39% North Carolina 0 31 No Data Montana 28 133 21.05% North Dakota 3 87 3.45% Nevada 24 158 15.19% Ohio 82 510 16.08% New Hampshire 14 75 18.67% Oklahoma 20 237 8.44% New Jersey 38 279 13.62% Pennsylvania 53 669 7.92% New Mexico 15 101 14.85% South Carolina 75 361 20.78% New York 52 366 14.21% South Dakota 3 63 4.76% Oregon 18 83 21.69•% Tennessee 72 510 14.12% Rhode Island 4 19 21.05% Texas 151 986 15.31% Vermont 6 23 26.09% Utah 17 150 11.33% Washington 81 262 30.929/o Virginia 34 288 11.81% Total 1 839 4708 1 17.82% West Virginia 16 142 11.27% Med mj states 28.5%higher Wisconsin 49 313 15.65% USA Total 15.3%,about 1/2 of DUI level of 31% Wyoming 11 71 15.49% Total 1172 8452 13.87% States in RED are higher than their group average. WA,CO have legal sale for recreationa I use in 2014. 3 19 Fatalities per 1%Increased Marihuana involvement Using 2014 California data from Table 1, every percent increase in driver marihuana involvement in fatalities results in 19 more fatalities (349 fatalities/18.8% marihuana drivers=18.6 fatalities per 1% marihuana drivers ). A 10%increase would kill about 190 more persons. If CA marihuana use increases to the level of WA and AK at 31% (Table 4),we could expect an additional 223 fatalities,for a total of 565 fatalities a year. Up from the 349 in 2014. The probable ballot initiative for recreational use of marihuana in CA increases the importance of the 19 fatalities per 1% increase in Marihuana drivers. Summary Ever since 2006, marihuana has been the leading drug, after alcohol,found in US driving fatalities. Currently,there are 23 states and D.C. that have some form of legalized marihuana sales allowance despite the Controlled Substance Act of 1970 stipulating that marihuana is a highly addictive substance with no medical indication. Many states avoid the legal issue of having physicians prescribe marihuana for medical purposes by instead allowing them to "recommend" marihuana. Four states(AK, CO, OR, WA) and D.C. will have recreational use approved in 2016. Most states have non-medical personnel providing marihuana without complete proper warnings, including not operating heavy machinery or automobiles following use,attached to the containers as required by FDA-approved pharmaceuticals. Without proper education and warnings regarding avoiding operating vehicles as required with other prescribed drugs that effect one's ability to drive,this places the entire public at risk due to the increased prevalence of marihuana and marihuana drivers being on the roadways. Normally any drug with so many deaths, injuries and associated problems would be seriously reviewed by the Food and Drug Administration (FDA). However, since medical marihuana is NOT ordered by prescription and under the authority of the FDA,the marihuana industry is thriving and not being held accountable for the damage that is being done. We believe that the strict laws for prescription drugs including Medical Marihuana must be enforced along with swift law enforcement assessment to protect the safety and security of the American public. The increased legalization of marihuana for recreational use, along with the increased presence of Medical Marihuana will cause a large increase in the number of motor vehicle fatalities and injuries in the United States. The rate of marihuana involvement in fatal crashes will soon rival alcohol as the No.1 preventable traffic safety problem. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Data: NHTSA FARS encyclopedia: http://www-fars,nhtsa.dot ov Mairi index.aspx 4 Lea Stefani LATEMAI .4 ,2'sAs From: Dan Watrous Sent: Wednesday, May 03, 2017 3:37 PM To: Lea Stefani; Scott Anderson Subject: Fwd: Second had smoke and other current in-home growth hazards Important info for May 3rd meeting of Town Council Attachments: Social Justice Truths Feb 2017.pptx;ATT00001.htm Sent from my iPhone Begin forwarded message: From: PHILLIPDRUM <phillipdrumgcomcast.net> Date: May 4, 2017 at 1:34:58 AM GMT+8 To: "Fox, Lynn" <foxl, nn c,me.com> Cc: Jim Fraser<JSFraserI a,comcast.net>, <emmettc,vikingind.com>, <franka standingstone roup.com>, <askalicenow Qa usa.net>, <erin20000(cz g!ndl.com>, <lynnfox a,me.com>, Dan Watrous <dwatrousgtownoftiburon.org> Subject: Re: Second had smoke and other current iri-home growth hazards Important info for May 3rd meeting of Town Council Please note: the POT industry has had 20 years to perform placebo-controlled, double- blind SCIENTIFIC studies (without the need for the US Government - based on the CA Compassionate Use Act in 1996) to show the medical benefits of POT. WHERE IS THAT DATA? Their information are case reports NOT SCIENTIFIC studies. They are NOT in SCIETIFIC JOURNALS - it is in their own biased POT literature. I STRONGLY URGE you to challenge each and every statement the POT personnel say. Ask for documented evidence. I can and HAVE provided my references. Have they? If not, everything that is just "said" is suspect unless PROVEN with evidence from non-biased resources. P Drum, PharmD, FCSHP From: "Lynn Fox" <foxlynn .me.com> To: "Jim Fraser" <JSFraser1(D_comcast.net>, emmettC@vikingind.com, frank standingstonegroup.com, askalicenow(Dusa.net, erin20000(q�`gmail.com Cc: IVnnfox me.com, "Dan Watrous" <dwatrousa)-townoftiburon.org> Sent: Wednesday, May 3, 2017 8:56:35 AM Subject: Second had smoke and other current in-home growth hazards Important info for May 3rd meeting of Town Council Re: In-Home Growth of 6 pot plants Dear Tiburon Town Council, i Marijuanc Business NEEDS cddicts to sustcin their profits ... Creating Marijuana ADDICTS in Colorado Reported Marijuana use in past 30 days, by number Of reported days Of use in CC), 2007-14 60% 52% 0 50°i° 36®/ 0 36% 40% 30% o 22%.� 20% 13% 13°/013% 15% W t 1 f& 1 Z t�A 10% r a� 1-7 clays 8-14 days 15-21 dyas 22 days or more a 2007 m 2008 2009 2010 ■ 2011 mi 2012 102013 2014 Source: Colorado Department of Human Services, Office of Behavioral Health, Drug/Alcohol Coordinated Data System. Colorado Emergency Room Visits due to Marijuana — by Race/Ethnicity Emergency Department 2000 NA s Pa n �. .'tA ed f ti.w'"`, a'�iy�a.P �,I a ti,..a'�e F*��. iff i...F n k n%., uv`.'amu 2001-2009 dd N. 2010-2013 6,76 Medical dical ma ij la Rai 871 2014-Sept 2015 < LIOFalized 1 ,743 0 50-0 1 .00o 1 ,500 Rates Per 100,000 ZS'5-4-...'4S ,Awe.' ^. w.,_.._.* -.o .mete-T,'„2.F':nau E 'ar'a"�'t to^.,a-t' -:. e. 3;:.., 4...-,"kse� an'd 2�.,y..g.. r.�:^"�;, k.,�fi��:�'kv��x z 8 3'.o-,�w s� ' :,��--,.. ,--«*�'.,;,„.r.;��.^.� �.;_> ,e�+��i:r.„D�"T^.' $"'8 M..A at4=a.. Colorado Hospitalizations due to Marijuana — by Race Ethnicit v Hospitalizations 547 o i e =711 w 851 K, pric"3�r 870 "I"i ed i ca I Ji�L oo 745 200 1- ICY 941 t z z� 4=3 r. 1 ,6 S3 1 ,'z56 - . : °, fzc- I ,000 2,000 3,000 41,CK30 51.000 k Rats Per 100,000 -ft q frorn ate-,, ;v—�-- � - .e,7-�- _, to 6—et , "ne Marijuana Arrests Down In CO For White Teens, U� For Hispanic & African-American Teens • A new state report shows that the total number of marijuana arrests in Colorado for juveniles increased after legalization — and racial disparities within those arrests grew worse. o Colorado Juvenile (10 - 17 yo) Marijuana Arrest Rate (per 100,000) by o Race/ethnicity, 2012 -2014 - 1 1376 600 Q 1400 N 1200 (�J®4 1000 0 800 686 624 489 598 600 ,;�•:; t 400 200 0 . m, White Hispanic African-American E 2012 2, 2013 2014 Colorado Bureau of Investigation, National Incident-Based Reporting System; U.S. Census Bureau, Population Estimates, available from http://www.census.gov/popest/data/state/asrh/2014/SC-EST2014-ALLDATA6.htmi. MARIJUANA FACILITY NUMBER OF MARIJUANA MEDIAN HOUSEHOLD TYPES BUSINESSES INCOME MARIJUANA IN DENVER : Stare 011110 'Ex OCultivationtacifity SOME AREAS SATURATED i Manufacturing taciliti Testing tac€titi A Denver Post analysis of marijuana-related business license records shows there are more than 600 entities operating:thin city-limits,including medical and retail stores,cultivation centers: edible manufacturers and testing facilities.Businesses are concentrated in the northern and western areas of the cite,mainly due to zoning restrictions and available warehouse space for cultivation operations_The three neighborhoc�ls that house the highest nuruber of businesses are + Elyria Swansea(78),Niortheast Park Hili(67)and�t�S�el�?C�-). + �+ E _.0 a <w ......... Majority of Denver marijuana businesses V � • `� located in low income, minority neighborhoods ` Written Bv Emil Gra}' Posted:01:04,'2016:11:23am MARIJUANA �a Delivers pot businesses mostly ill ..� ,� ��� ���► # low-hicoillea minority4 tt neighborhoods Afterhvocearsofretailmarijuanasales.Derntcommunitisofcolorandlocve ,*0 � " income sat they bear disproportionate number of pot licensees ...,,....w . ' � x nYn Or N , w g� "Criminalizing MJ is filling the courts and jails e loo Percent of State Prisoners, 2004 6% 6% _. 5% bn 4% to a-+ N i 3% a. 2% 1.40% � 4 1% 6 0.40% 0.30% 0.10% 0% Drug possession Crimes involving MJ-only drug MJ-only possession MJ-only possession; only MJ offenders; no prior no prior sentences sentences Source: Bureau of Justice Statistics, 2004 "We are imprisoning or giving jail sentences to young people who are smoking marijuana." — Bernie Sanders on Tuesday, October 13th, 2015 in a Democratic presidential debate in Las Vegas We must STOP the BIG Lie THE TRUTH: • 1. The Justice Department periodically carries out surveys of inmates in state and federal correctional facilities, the last of which was from 2004. According to this study, only about three-tenths of 1 percent of state prison inmates were there because of marijuana possession alone, without a more serious charge. (0.3% of state inmates in jail for possession alone) • 2. The data shows that among the roughly 67,600 offenders sentenced to prison in federal criminal cases between Oct. 1, 2011 and Sept. 30, 2012, only 28 of them were incarcerated on drug-possession charges alone -- roughly four one- hundredths of 1 percent of all incarcerations. And that includes all drugs, not just marijuana. (0.04% Federal inmates due to all drug possession — not just marijuana) • 3. Looked at another way, the same report found that 99.9 percent of those sentenced to federal prison for any drug-related crime during that year-long period were sent to prison for something more serious than simple possession. > 99.96% of Federal inmates are in for something other than smoking marijuana) Accessed 10/15/15: http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2015/oct/14/bernie-s/bernie- sanders-says-people-are-getting-prison-sent/ { Ate,. A rP.MEM�h a i w t � 1 w w w y E A • 1 r. G x'i Crime Wave in Seattle,. WA since MJ Legalization TOTAL CRIMES PROPERTY CRIMES 45,000# F 41,000 e 43,000 39,000 41,000 _ 37,000 F 39:000 35,000 E 37,000 33,000 4 35,000 N 31,000 N N N N N 0 c3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O .�. _" _& ...a _" p 0 -a M (0 0 N W � • Total Crimes and Property Crimes WERE decreasing/stable from 2009 thru 2012 • Crimes increased 13% from 2012 to 2013, up by 24% to 2014 • Property crimes increased 14% from 2012 to 2013, up by 26% to 2014 • Increase also seen in violent crime (8%), burglaries (10%), larceny thefts (27%) and vehicle thefts (54%) http://www.seattle.gov/seattle-police-department/crime-data/crime-dashboard Cannabis, Psychosis, and Mortality: A Cohort Study US life expectancy of 50,373 Swedish Men Ec"yOr"M­­"c;'U4" Ga,­_,a,WD-(>r-'I)-Antor�ao Ponce o�_,Leon, declines for first time in 20 Sve,­A7,creassor_M.D., PnD_ P��Lr Aiubuc� M D_Pr,,LX years ObJ*ctVw 7'tv a"Ithors as-sezed 1i Of& PSK Of death psycho-v`da',or'Ziers,b'A the e'edkn aramokamok cax tis Laers corned with norxsemand theeyten, 'wa t .cry of cannabis,Use�'ever X'em:ha- -drat"c'-3 j-chms'±fecrz excess rnortAlty;-1)rr-oa�gV among 95'/CI-2.8,5,0r�"y vsers:hazard ti, 3.8 95% persons with psycry't'r-d ie and*"I)e extent m wn''&'c.zr- 62T'd vno�.e wthc_r S'Jch a hstory!�Zzard ratio-37'_5% nabts,.5paffecisexcess rnorta,ury,and 3)thentefw,-iwi effectof C,-.a-2 4•) No nteract,7,n'4was ob se,s-_d lbetwee.n can nIXIIF 8 December 2016 o'In�- s Lr'e arcs dagnosr,of^y tr d-sonck"m an nv'rtaoty ,jse and dagnc­.s of ds der_. vez,11 rega'd c, 'nortw, V. Life expectancy in the United States has Method:7its,vas a�rgtjzirz,sd=07573&v h rnae Conclusions:7��' suggest thst 'md�v�iias w"th an Cais,P of r-Yoth Regzsterap t>aro��md age GO.Ia­'x.prQ-PoT-,r,,',aA earty hisloryol teavyuse of'camacssa'eat ahghernsk of declined for the first time in more than two nsmwd modetr.gAes Lv�d to asse-z�of delh in relzaton to death than those W a h„zlcry of no"se of cannabis K­ base�ce cartnatxs,me andidagnosis of psyctmc dscrders lrrFjgn -,'* a�uthors ad�js-,ed for �evera� conf-.jr�d,�rs a-, decades. base'.ne,,Ne resj�ts sh,%id be n.Te-fpne-,ed wVh cautucn be- Results:1&4ge=wth a wase~; e history of heavy carrabz. case of a z ack,of nforrnatxun on confc'_Mde—, n ttw,per r.-a L)F,-,had a lvqher risk of death€hamrd rat,0-1,4, after con scr�p ,)S% 1 8� *ban tnose eathoItniatory T -, Data from the National Center for Health he a'.1the"s found an excess rnoroa�y among subecb; wh Azn J Statistics showed a drop for men from 76.5 years in 2014 to 76.3 in 2015, and from 81 .3 to 81 .2 for women. 9 Swedish study Men, Death rates have risen for eight out of 10 of the marijuana use., followed up leading causes of death: heart disease (0.9% to age 60 (Am J Psych rise), chronic lower respiratory diseases (2.7% 2016; 175:790-98) rise), unintentional injuries (6.7% rise), stroke 9 Found 40% increase risk of (3% rise), Alzheimer's disease (15.7% rise), mortality in heavy users diabetes (1 .9% rise), kidney disease (1 .5% (used > 50 times in life), no rise) and suicide (2.3% rise). association with psychosis Cannabis Addiction — Mortality Rate compared to other substances • Those treated for addiction to cannabis ( marijuana) had a higher mortality rate ( 3.85 times higher than controls ), higher if compared to death rate risk of cocaine use disorder ( 2.96), alcohol use disorder ( 3.83), but lower than opioid use disorder (5.71) or methamphetamine use disorder ( 4.67). • The study demonstrates that individuals with cannabis ( marijuana) use disorders have a higher mortality risk than those with diagnoses related to cocaine or alcohol, but lower mortality risk than persons with methamphetamine Or opioid —related disorders. • Callaghan et al., All-cause mortality among individuals with disorders related to the use of methamphetamine: Acomparative cohort study. Drug Alcohol Depend. 2012 Oct1:125(3):290-4. MEDICAL ACCESS MEDICAL ACCESS MEDICAL ACCESS MEDICAL ACCESS ff—once you have hundreds of thousands of people using marijuana under medical supervision the whole scam is • going to be bought. Once there"s medical access...then we will get full- legalization," ---Runrd Cowman. former director -of NORML https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ccjLM4-4U2k LATE MAIL #PRwZ Lea Stefani From: Dan Watrous Sent: Wednesday, May 03, 2017 3:37 PM To: Lea Stefani; Scott Anderson Subject: Fwd: Second had smoke and other current in-home growth hazards Important info for May 3rd meeting of Town Council Attachments: Economic Cost of Vehicle Accidents Resulting in Fatalities.pptx;ATT00001.htm; murderer victims crash scenes.pptx;ATT00002.htm Sent from my iPhone Begin forwarded message: From: PHILLIPDRUM <philliPdrum(a�comcast.net> Date: May 4, 2017 at 1:36:20 AM GMT+8 To: "Fox, Lynn" <foxlynn a me com> Cc: Jim Fraser <JSFraser I gcomcast.net>, <emmettc,vikingind.com>, <frank standin s�tonegrouP.com>, <askalicenow u,usa.net>, <erin20000cr gmail.com>, <lynnfox me.com>, Dan Watrous <dwatrousgtownoftiburon.or > Subject: Re: Second had smoke and other current in-home growth hazards Important info for May 3rd meeting of Town Council From: "Lynn Fox" <foxlynn(c_me.com> To: "Jim Fraser" <JSFraser1(a)-comcast.net>, emmett(@_vikingind.com, frank(a--)standingstonegroup.com, askalicenow( usa.net, erin20000(a-_)gmail.com Cc: lynnfox(@_me.com, "Dan Watrous" <dwatrous(c-)_townoftiburon.org> Sent: Wednesday, May 3, 2017 8:56:35 AM Subject: Second had smoke and other current in-home growth hazards Important info for May 3rd meeting of Town Council Re: In-Home Growth of 6 pot plants Dear Tiburon Town Council, Here are a few articles you may wish to review before the meeting tonight on IN-HOME GROWTH. Hope this helps. New Research data is coming to me daily and I would gladly pass along to you. Please think about postponing your decision making on regulations for in-home growth in Tiburon until September and maybe again in November when the most current research will truly show what we are working to PREVENT negatives results. A quick I Economic Cost of Vehicle Accidents Resulting in F & DUI - 2010 • 321999 fatalities, 3.9 million injured, 24 million vehicles damaged in US in 2010 • Each fatality resulted in ave discounted lifetime cost = $1.4 million • Economic cost of all 2010 crashes = $242 billion Property Damage — 31% Medical — 10% Legal — 5 Market Prod - 24% Household Prod - 8% Workplace — 2% Congestion — 12% Insurance — 8% • First driving-under-the-influence offense — est $10,.270 US Department of Transportation National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. The Economic and Societal Impact Of Motor Vehicles Crashes, 2010 (revised) — accessed 9/30/15: http://www-nrd.nhtsa.dot.gov/pu s 12013. � Colorado 2015 • FY 2015 Colorado marijuana tax • 2015 marijuana driving fatalities revenue — $125-128 million = 115 • Cost per fatality $1.4 million + 3- 4% incr in costs per yr x 5 yrs = $1.6 million/life lost in driving fatality • 115 X $1.6 million = $184 million TELL THE POT INDUSTRY TO PAY COLORADO - $56 MILLION DOLLARS MORE - JUST FOR THE DRIVING FATALITY COSTS IN 2015 LATE MAIL # Lea Stefani From: Dan Watrous Sent: Wednesday, May 03, 2017 3:38 PM To: Lea Stefani; Scott Anderson Subject: Fwd: Second had smoke and other cur th_hazards Important info for May 3rene' 'lig o Town Council Attachments: Monitoring_Health_Concerns_Report_FINAL Colorado State Report 2017.pdf; 00001.htm available upon Sent from my iPhone Begin forwarded message: ((JJ From: PHILLIPDRUM < hid ltip&grn(a eomcast.net> Date: May 4, 2017 at 1:23:29 AM GMT+8 To: "Fox, Lynn" <foxl, nn ingme.com> Cc: Jim Fraser<JSFraserl a,comcast.net>, <emmettkvikingind.com>, <frank cr,standin sg tonegroup.com>, <askalicenow(aPusa.net>, <erin20000Agmai1.com>, <lynnfox a,me.com>;Dan Watrous <dwatrous(a,townoftiburon.or ,> Subject: Re: Second had smoke and other current in-home growth hazards Important info for May 3rd meeting of Town Council Please look at what the "experts" in Colorado are saying. Look at the hospitalization section and the driving section (starts are page 145) From: "Lynn Fox" <foxlynname.com> To: "Jim Fraser" <JSFraser1(�comcast.net>, emmett(a-)-vikingind.com, frank@standingstonegroup com, askalicenow(a).usa.net, erin20000(a).gmail.com Cc: lynnfox me.com, "Dan Watrous" <dwatrous()_townoftiburon.org> Sent: Wednesday, May 3, 2017 8:56:35 AM Subject: Second had smoke and other current in-home growth hazards Important info for May 3rd meeting of Town Council Re: In-Home Growth of 6 pot plants Dear Tiburon Town Council, Here are a few articles you may wish to review before the meeting tonight on IN-HOME GROWTH. Hope this helps. New Research data is coming to me daily and I would gladly pass along to you. Please think about postponing your decision making on regulations for in-home growth in Tiburon until September and maybe again in November when the most current I LATE MAIL #?M 20 Lea Stefani m From: Dan Watrous Sent: Wednesday, May 03, 2017 3:38 PM To: Lea Stefani; Scott Anderson Subject: Fwd: Second had smoke and other current in-home growth hazards Important info for May 3rd meeting of Town Council Attachments: Second hand mj smoke 3 times as dangerous Springer UCSF 2016 J Am Heart Assoc.pdf, ATT00001.htm; Butane Hash oil explosion Walnut Creek 10_31_14.docx;ATT00002.htm; Denver mayor blames mj for violent act June 2016.docx;ATT00003.htm; Fifth Grader Brings Marijuana Laced Cereal To School.docx;ATT00004.htm; Mother Lode Fires due to MJ grows 2016.docx;ATT00005.htm; Snacks Laced With Marijuana Raise Concerns.docx; ATT00006.htm; One in six children hospitalized for lung inflammation positive for marijuana exposure.docx;ATT00007.htm; Prov RI edibles in school Oct 2015.docx; ATT00008.htm Sent from my iPhone Begin forwarded message: From: Lynn Fox <foxlynn2cme.com> Date: May 3, 2017 at 11:56:35 PM GMT+8 To: Jim Fraser<JS Fraser I Acomeast.net>, <emmett a,vikingind.com>, <fiank ci,standin stonegroup.com>, <askalicenowgusa.net>, <erin20000a gmail.com> Cc: <lynnfoxL&me.com>, Dan Watrous <dwatrousntownoftiburon.org> Subject: Second had smoke and other current in-home growth hazards Important info for May 3rd meeting of Town Council Re: In-Home Growth of 6 pot plants Dear Tiburon Town Council, Here are a few articles you may wish to review before the meeting tonight on IN-HOME GROWTH. Hope this helps. New Research data is coming to me daily and I would gladly pass along to you. Please think about postponing your decision making on regulations for in-home growth in Tiburon until September and maybe again in November when the most current research will truly show what we are working to PREVENT negatives results. A quick ruling can undermine us ALL later. As I surveyed reps from CA cities, most are just starting to look at what to do and what the problems will be. See you tonight. Dr. Lynn Fox Co-Author of TEXTBOOK: Creating Drug Free Schools, Homes and Communities:A Comprehensive Approach. See below for recent TV shows i Here are a few articles you may wish to review before the meeting tonight on IN-HOME GROWTH. Hope this helps. New Research data is coming to me daily and I would gladly pass along to you. Please think about postponing your decision making on regulations for in-home growth in Tiburon until September and maybe again in November when the most current research will truly show what we are working to PREVENT negatives results. A quick ruling can undermine us ALL later. As I surveyed reps from CA cities, most are just starting to look at what to do and what the problems will be. See you tonight. Dr. Lynn Fox Co-Author of TEXTBOOK: Creating Drug Free Schools, Homes and Communities: A Comprehensive Approach. See below for recent TV shows Here are articles that help regarding second hand smoke exposure and other disasters caused by in-home growth disasters. Dr. Fox's TV SPECIAL: Marijuana and Adolescents: YouTubes:watch both parts Part 1: Intro to problems https://Youtu.be/OK708XcB7J4 Part 2: Solutions :f Check out PowerfulTeachersandParents.com MJ research&effects on youth READ: Make a Difference in a Day:A Pocket-Size Handbook for Beginning and Substitute Teachers WATCH: Fox&Elliot new 5-part TV Series:Teacher Expectations&Student Success(TESA) airing now and on youtubes. To order a copy of our book or to go to website for YouTubes: www.substituteteacherhandbook.ora for all 15 interactions. 2 Here are articles that help regarding second hand smoke exposure and other disasters caused by in-home growth disasters. 2 American American Heart I Stroke Association Association. One Minute of Marijuana Secondhand Smoke Exposure Substantially Impairs Vascular Endothelial Function Xiaoyin Wang, MD; Ronak Derakhshandeh, MS; Jiangtao Liu, MD; Shilpa Narayan, BS;* Pooneh Nabavizadeh, MD; Stephenie Le, BA;I Olivia M. Danforth, BS;1 Kranthi Pinnamaneni, MD; Hilda J. Rodriguez,AS; Emmy Luu, BS; Richard E. Sievers, BS; Suzaynn F. Schick, PhD; Stanton A. Glantz, PhD; Matthew L. Springer, PhD Background—Despite public awareness that tobacco secondhand smoke (SHS) is harmful, many people still assume that marijuana SHS is benign. Debates about whether smoke-free laws should include marijuana are becoming increasingly widespread as marijuana is legalized and the cannabis industry grows. Lack of evidence for marijuana SHS causing acute cardiovascular harm is frequently mistaken for evidence that it is harmless, despite chemical and physical similarity between marijuana and tobacco smoke. We investigated whether brief exposure to marijuana SHS causes acute vascular endothelial dysfunction, Methods and Results—We measured endothelial function as femoral artery flow-mediated dilation (FMD) in rats before and after exposure to marijuana SHS at levels similar to real-world tobacco SHS conditions. One minute of exposure to marijuana SHS impaired FMD to a comparable extent as impairment from equal concentrations of tobacco SHS, but recovery was considerably slower for marijuana. Exposure to marijuana SHS directly caused cannabinoid-independent vasodilation that subsided within 25 minutes, whereas FMD remained impaired for at least 90 minutes. Impairment occurred even when marijuana lacked cannabinoids and rolling paper was omitted, Endothelium-independent vasodilation by nitroglycerin administration was not impaired. FMD was not impaired by exposure to chamber air, Conclusions—One minute of exposure to marijuana SHS substantially impairs endothelial function in rats for at least 90 minutes, considerably longer than comparable impairment by tobacco SHS. Impairment of FMD does not require cannabinoids, nicotine, or rolling paper smoke. Our findings in rats suggest that SHS can exert similar adverse cardiovascular effects regardless of whether it is from tobacco or marijuana. (J Am Heart Assoc. 2016;5:e003858 doi: 10.1161/JAHA.116.003858) Key Words: artery • cannabis • endothelium • flow-mediated dilation marijuana • nitric oxide synthase • secondhand smoke • smoking • vasodilation here is widespread belief that, unlike tobacco smoke, each year,with X46 000 from cardiovascular disease,G-8 and marijuana smoke is benign,' While the psychoactive implementation of laws prohibiting smoking in public places substance in marijuana is tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) rather and workplaces is followed by drops in hospital admissions for than nicotine, marijuana smoke is still the result of biomass acute myocardial infarction, other cardiac events, stroke, and combustion and contains many of the same toxins as tobacco pulmonary diseases.9 However, due to the illegality of mark smoke,Z including fine particles that cause cardiovascular juana,it has been difficult to prospectively study the effects of morbidity and mortality.3-5 Tobacco secondhand smoke(SHS) marijuana smoke, and the rare secondhand marijuana smoke alone is responsible for X50 000 deaths in the United States studies have focused on whether exposed people test positive From the Cardiovascular Research Institute(X.W.,R.D.,S.N.,O.M.D.,K,P.,S.A.G.,M.L.S.),Division of Cardiology(l.L.,S.N.,P.N.,S.L.,HJ.R.,E.L„R.E.S.,S.A.G.,M.L.S.),Eli and Edythe Broad Center of Regeneration Medicine and Stem Cell Research(HJ.R.,M.L.S.),and Division of Occupational and Environmental Medicine(S.FS.),Universityof California,San Francisco;Department of Cardiovascular Surgety&Electro-chemotherapy, China Japan Friendship Hospital,Beijing,People's Republic of China(l.L.), 'Ms Shilpa Narayan is currently located at Drexel University College of Medicine, Philadelphia, PA. rMs Stephenie Le is currently located at Albany Medical College,Albany,NY. fMs Olivia M. Danforth is currently located at Rush Medical College,Chicago,IL. Correspondence to:Matthew L.Springer,PhD, Division of Cardiology, University of California,San Francisco, 513 Parnassus Ave,Box 0124,San Francisco,CA 94143. E-mail: matt.springer@ucsf.edu Received May 6, 2016;accepted June 2, 2016. (�)2016 The Authors.Published on behalf of the American Heart Association,Inc.,by Wiley Blackwell.This is an open access article under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs License,which permits use and distribution in any medium,provided the original work is properly cited,the use is non-commercial and no modifications or adaptations are made. DOI:10.1161MAHA,116,003858 Jot nai of the Amoiicran Hem Association 1 Vascular Impairment by Marijuana Secondhand Smoke Wang et a/ 0 z on drug tests.10_.12 The increasing number of states legalizing 200 to 250 g. Rats were anesthetized under ketamine/ z medicinal and recreational marijuana,and increasing potential xylazine with intraperitoneal injection. Starting doses were r for corporate expansion within the cannabis industry,13 make it ketamine (100 mg/kg)/xylazine (5 mg/kg). Repeated injec- important to understand the health consequences of second- tions were required with one third to one half doses at a time hand exposure to marijuana smoke. (approximately every 30 minutes). Experiments were terminal. x Vascular health can be evaluated by measuring arterial flow- All procedures were approved by the University of California, mediated dilation(FMD),the extent to which arteries vasodilate San Francisco Institutional Animal Care and Use Committee. in response to increased blood flow.l'"6 FMD ensures sufficient blood flow to peripheral tissues and the heart. Decline in FMD precedes the development of atherosclerosis FMD Measurement and is likely important in its pathogenesis.14,16-19 FMD is FMD was measured in living rats as we have described quantified in humans by ultrasound as the percent vasodilation previously in detai132 by an investigator blinded to the of the brachial artery in response to restoration of blood flow exposure condition when 2 or more groups were compared. after transient occlusion.14 Brachial artery FMD is a well- As described in the Results section, some groups were added established clinical prognostic indicator of endothelial function to the experiment afterward for confirmatory purposes and that correlates with endothelium-dependent vasodilation of the those could not be blinded, but the diameter measurement coronary arteries 17 and other measures of cardiovascular was performed by an automated system. Briefly,after surgical health.14.16,19,20 Decreased brachial FMD correlates with isolation of the common iliac artery, an arterial loop occluder adverse cardiovascular outcomes that are increased by consisting of a 5-0 Prolene filament was positioned under the cigarette smoke, including myocardial infarction and artery and passed through 15-cm PE-90 tubing to enable atherosclerosis.21-23 FMD is impaired in tobacco smokers transient occlusion of blood flow. After a 15-minute equili- relative to nonsmokers.24 People who report frequent SHS bration, the artery was transiently occluded for 5 minutes, exposure exhibit poor FMD even when smoke is not present followed by release of the occluder and reperfusion of the during the testing,24,25 and a 30-minute exposure to SHS at artery. A series of diameter images'of the femoral artery and real-world levels impairs FMD in humans.26-28 The nicotine in accompanying Doppler blood flow images were recorded with tobacco is not responsible for the entire adverse effect of a 35-MHz ultrasound transducer (Vevo660, VisualSonics, tobacco smoke on FMD,29 and vasodilatory function is also Toronto, Canada) before transient surgical occlusion (base- impaired by diesel exhaust and by smoke from incense and line),immediately after blood reflow,and then every 30 s until candles.3o,31 These observations,along with the similar chem- 5 minutes. Diameter measurement was performed offline ical composition of tobacco and marijuana smoke,2 led us to from the recorded loops using an automated system (Brachial hypothesize that marijuana smoke would also impair FMD. Analyzer 5; Medical Imaging Applications, Coralville, IA).3' All We developed an animal model that uses micro-ultrasound diameter readings were taken at diastole. FMD was calculated and a simple reversible surgical occlusion of blood flow to the leg as % change: (peak diameternostischen,la—diameterbaserne)/ to measure FMD in the femoral arteries of living rats,32 diameterbasei;nex 100. The rats were kept at 37°C on a analogous to the measurement of brachial artery FMD in thermal blanket throughout to avoid inconsistent vasodilation humans.We extensively validated this technique physiologically from anesthesia-induced hypothermia. and used it to demonstrate age-related changes in the mech- anisms underlying FMD,32 and the beneficial vascular effects of pharmacological preservation of bioavailable intracellular nitric Marijuana Cigarettes, Approvals, and Security oxide.33 Subsequently,we showed that 30 minutes of tobacco Considerations SHS exposure at real-world levels impairs FMD in rats,and that Acquisition and possession of marijuana was approved by the even 1 minute of SHS impairs FMD.34 We observed similar Drug Enforcement Agency,the Food and Drug Administration, impairment from exposure to tobacco SHS from little cigars.35 the Research Advisory Panel of California,and the University of We, therefore, used this rat model to determine whether California, San Francisco Office of Environmental Health and marijuana SHS also has adverse effects on the vasculature. Safety.Marijuana cigarettes(regular marijuana at 4.5%tetrahy- drocannabinol [THC] and "placebo" THC-free marijuana at 0.01% THC, each weighing 0.9 g) were supplied by RTI Methods International (Research Triangle Park,NC),contracted through the National Institute on Drug Abuse. Marijuana was from Animals sinsemilla(seedless)plants with stems removed,and consisted Female Sprague-Dawley rats (Simonsen Laboratory,CA; n=8/ of leaf fragments,small leaves,bracts,and buds,and was grown group)were used at 9 to 10 weeks of age,with body weights of in the absence of pesticides.The cigarettes were machine rolled DOI:10.1161/JAHA.116.000858 .Journal of the American Newt Association 2 Vascular Impairment by Marijuana Secondhand Smoke Wang et a/ 0 with the same dimensions as standard tobacco cigarettes and fit in our cigarette smoking machine without further modifica- F��y� pMp Fea� y tion. Upon arrival, marijuana cigarettes were individually wrapped in plastic wrap and numbered, and were stored in �, � > E DIAMETER- --C I � airtight containers at—20°C. In accordance with requirements e x from the Drug Enforcement Agency,the cigarettes were stored in a padlocked freezer with high-security lock and a code- .....sound ulUYso nd ew ulva5 tl deactivated open-door alarm that communicated with the °" " d- " t.° d .11110.11 University of California Police Department,physically attached to a heavy Steelcase desk,in a controlled-access room outfitted Figure 1. Experimental design for FMD measurement and with a solid door with high-security lock, and hinge pins that smoke exposures. FMD was measured by micro-ultrasound were nonremovable from the outside.Prior to each experiment, measurements of femoral artery diameter before and after transient (5 minutes) surgical occlusion of the common iliac marijuana cigarettes were humidified overnight at room artery. Anesthetized rats were exposed to SHS for varying temperature by placing them in an airtight container over durations and FMD was measured 3 times (before exposure, 50 mL of saturated sodium chloride solution as per instructions 10 minutes after end of exposure to evaluate impairment, and on use from RTI, in a locked desk drawer. Logs documenting 30 minutes later to evaluate recovery). As described in the removal of cigarettes from the freezer and desk were kept as Results section for specific experiments,the smoke exposure was either for 30 minutes or 1 minute, and initial FMD impairment or required by the Drug Enforcement Agency. Cigarettes were baseline diameter changes were measured either within 10 min- used within 5 minutes after humidification. utes or 25 to 30 minutes after the end of exposure. In some cases, FMD recovery was assessed every 30 minutes over a total duration of 90 minutes. FMD indicates flow-mediated vasodila- Tobacco Cigarettes tion; SHS, secondhand smoke. Marlboro Red cigarettes were humidified overnight by place- ment over 16% glycerol in water, as in our previous tobacco duration once/min). Marijuana cigarettes were smoked using studies.34,35 the same protocol, with the exception that the puff duration was 1 s for our initial 30-minute exposure experiment due to an instrument calibration error discovered afterward. The Exposure of Rats to SHS difference between a 1-s puff and a 2-s puff is not expected to We used a modified cigarette smoking system described have a substantial effect on the sidestream smoke generated. previously for tobacco SHS experiments.34 Briefly,the system For each experiment, a single cigarette was lit, smoked for collects sidestream smoke from the burning tip of the 3 minutes,and extinguished, and particle concentration in the cigarette in a 21-L Plexiglas exposure chamber as a ventilator exposure chamber was adjusted until the desired RSP starting pump simulates human puffing. (Sidestream smoke com- concentration was reached (Figure 1). At that time, an prises the majority of SHS and is a well-accepted laboratory individual anesthetized rat, after baseline FMD measurement, model for it, and is referred to as SHS here.) A Sidepak was exposed for the specified duration and was then returned AM510 personal aerosol monitor (TSI, Shoreview, MN), to the ultrasound system for postsmoke FMD measurement. calibrated for cigarette smoke particles and excluding those Negative controls consisted of the same duration of exposure >2.5 µm,monitors the concentration of respirable suspended to nonsmoky air in the exposure chamber. As in our tobacco particles (RSP) in the exposure chamber and exhausts back stud Y'34 it took roughly 10 minutes after the end of the into the chamber. Smoke is collected in the chamber and the exposure period to prepare the rat for an initial postexposure cigarette is extinguished, and excess smoke is then vented FMD measurement. For some experiments, we measured from the chamber to obtain the desired starting concentra- FMD again 30 minutes later to evaluate recovery, tion. Air in the chamber is mixed with a small fan. The wall of the chamber contains a gasket through which the nose of an anesthetized rat is inserted to breathe the smoky air. Because Generation of Marijuana Smokein the Absence of the system requires the cigarette to be extinguished before Paper Smoke exposure of the rat, adsorption of smoke particles to surfaces We wrapped a piece of stainless steel mesh (0.0055-inch wire in the exposure chamber causes a continued progressive diameter, 80 x 80 openings/inch,0.007-inch opening width; decrease in the levels over time; thus, most of the exposure McMaster-Carr, Los Angeles, CA) around a marijuana occurs over the first several minutes. cigarette, then opened the piece of mesh with the cigarette Tobacco cigarettes were smoked according to standard remaining on top of it, sliced the paper longitudinally, and slid conditions (ISO Standard 3308:2012, one 35-mL puff of 2-s the paper out while keeping the rod of marijuana intact, DOI:10.1161/JAHA.1 16.003858 Joumai of the American Heart Assr dation 3 Vascular Impairment by Marijuana Secondhand Smoke Wang et al 0 preventing the packed marijuana rod from loosening so that Statistics " z the burning of the mesh-rolled cigarette would be as similar as r Power calculation based on standard deviations from within- possible to that of a paper-rolled cigarette. The mesh was group comparisons in several of our previous repeated- then rewrapped around the marijuana and the resulting rod measures FMD experiments determined that n==8/group was was inserted into the cigarette hole in the smoke system. The sufficient to detect FMD change of 3.5 percentage points x regular protocol for smoking cigarettes was used from that (absolute values) at a power of 0.8 and significance level of point. 0.05. For comparisons involving multiple groups and times, we fit a 2-factor (exposure condition and time) repeated- measures analysis of variance to all the data at once using a Endothelium-Independent Vasodilation Induced mixed model estimated with restricted maximum likelihood by Nitroglycerin estimation with an unstructured covariance matrix of resid- Endothelium-independent vasodilation was induced by intra- uals, then tested for differences over time and across venous injection of nitroglycerin at 8.8x 10-5 mol/L as a 0.1- exposure conditions using contrasts and pairwise compar- mL/100 g bolus into the tail vein. isons, adjusted for multiple comparisons using the Sidak A 80o B Low dose High dose THC-free Chamber air I Low dose(n=8): € !: Ave.starting conc.:209x29 pg/m' P<.001 P_901 P<.001 Po.998 P<s001 P-.644t-:-9-80, L=-9-8-6t � 600 20 20 20 20 Ave.cont.overtime: 39.2x13.3 pg/m' P=.009 P<.001 P=.005 P=.935 4001 Total exp.(AUC): 1106x424lig/ml-min i g IS 15 15 15 < = 200 c 0 awF..L 10' P 30 30 30 w ! 800° High dose(n=8): 800 t Ave.starting conc.:667x62 pg/ml 5 5 5 5 Ave.conc.overtime: 63.2x10.1 pg/m3 W Total exp.(AUC): 1622x291 pg/ml-rnin j cc 400 E 200 14, �}Q cQpSw Qoyw ��}Q' Qpy` Qpyti e�}Q. QQy`44 Qpy` ee}Q Qoy` Qoy` j rn 3 t r- 0 _. ..,e:,, ..... .,.�.n.......z.... s-,-�-,' O�` OAC` O�` OAC` O�` O(�` OAC` 0 0 N 0� N is Boo = THC-free(n=7) 9 600 �Av'a A .startingconc.:671x49pg/rn' C 6 Low dose B High dose 6 THC-free 6 Chamber air sC .conc.overtime: 66.6x16.2 pg/m3 E 0 400Total exp.(AUC): 1727x491 pg/ml-min _ g � � .5 '""_...� .5 Sat 200 . m .a 4 "` a p� I .3 .3 .3 .3 800: Chamber air(n=8): C r 2 .2 .2 .2 600' Ave.starting conc.:1.8x0.7 pglml ch I Ave.conc.over time: 3.9x2.2 pg/m' fl 400, Total exp.(AUC): 121±67 pg/m'-min ? 0) 0 0 0 0 200: Q }Q' , y� }Q' S� }Q ys 5� i y o o Z O O 0 O O O O O jo�� �. ad�a� �.< Qpm !. 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 OO O O O O O O time(min) a ^ ' Figure 2. Impairment of FMD by exposure to marijuana SHS at declining levels over a 30-minute period, A, RSP levels over 30 minutes for each rat. Mean starting concentration,mean concentration over time,and total exposure derived from the area under the curve(AUC)are listed for each group 1rSD.670 and 210 µg/m3 correspond roughly to high and moderate levels of tobacco SHS in restaurants that allow smoking. B, Impaired FMD and (C) unchanged baseline artery diameter. Each line corresponds to an individual rat; colors track individual animals through panels A,B,and C.See Table for mean FMD values.There were no significant differences between the extents of FMD impairment by high-dose, low-dose, and THC-marijuana smoke exposure, and no significant differences between the baseline diameter levels for the different exposure groups. FMD indicates flow-mediated vasodilation; RSP, respirable suspended particles; SHS, secondhand smoke;THC, tetrahydrocannabinol. DUI: 10.1161/JAHA,116.003858 Journal of the Amodcan Heart Association 4 Vascular Impairment by Marijuana Secondhand Smoke Wang et a/ 0 z method. Residuals were tested for normality using normal directly, which might interfere with a functional assay based z probability plots. Calculations were done with Stata 13.1. on vasodilation, we included an extra control group exposed r Simple comparisons of pre-exposure to postexposure mea- to SHS from THC-free marijuana (in which cannabinoids were N surements were analyzed using Student paired t test. removed) at X670 ftg/m3 RSP. y Marijuana SHS at both doses, but not control chamber air, x significantly and substantially impaired FMD (Figure 2B, Results Table). FMD had not recovered at 40 minutes postexposure. Marijuana SHS With and Without THC Impaired Exposure to THC-free marijuana SHS impaired FMD as much FMD as exposure to regular marijuana SHS, confirming that the impairment was not caused by THC. As in our tobacco cigarette SHS study,34 we exposed groups Mindful of the potential vasodilatory effects of THC,37 we of rats to 30 minutes of marijuana SHS at 2 starting also compared the baseline (pre-occlusion) artery diameter concentrations 0670 and X210 ftg/m3 RSP), typical of high before and after smoke exposure to detect any vasodilation and moderate tobacco SHS levels in smoky restaurants,36 and not due to the transient occlusion and restoration of flow. to smoke-free air in the exposure chamber as a negative Significant baseline vasodilation was not observed in any control (Figure 2A). Because THC can cause vasodilation group (Figure 2C, Table). Table. Group Means for Graphs in Figures 2 Through 6 o %Vasodilation(FMD or NTG) Baseline Diameter(mm) ;Condition Pre Exp. 10 Minutes Post 40 Minutes Post' i Pre-Exp. 10 Minutes Post i 40 Minutes Post _ . .._. ..: 30 minutes exposure Figure 2B and 2C i Marijuana(low level) j 9.1±1.3 1 4.6±1.6-*--- 611.0* 5 3±0 8* i 0 4210 003 0,46±0.02 0.4710 02 __. .... _ -i W..._ _....._._. . ... . Marijuana 7 5±0 9 2 4±0 5* 2.2±0.8* 0 41 t0 02 0.43±0.03 0 42±0 02 . THC free 9.9±1.4 4 3±0.6* 5.5±1.3* 1 0.40±0.01 0 44±0 02 0.42±0.02 1_1_11111-_--'-_--——--------------------- Air 11.0±0.6 11.4±10.7 11.7±0.9 1 0.42±0.02 0 44±0 02 0.45±0.02 .... ., . .._... __... I ., ._ ...._. ... _. .. . _.. -- t 30 minutes exposure Figure 36 __ _ — _._ _. _ _ _. THC free high(paperless) 13.2 t 3 3 2 5 l 1.0* 0 37 i 0 009 0 39+0 014 — 1-minute exposure, Figure 4A I Air 12.9±1.3 12.3±11 0.38±0.015 0.39±0.017 Marijuana 13.7±1.3 8.1±1.6* — 0.38±0.015 0 4110 017* .... C ._ THC free 15.1±1 4 7.7±0Y — 0.38±0.017 0.41±0.017* € 1 minute exposure Figure 46 --- Marijuana high delayed 15 631 7 .6,.-4±, 1.3* 0.36-1-0.011 0 38±0.020 ( Condition pre-Exp ) 30 Minutes 60 Minutes a 90 Minutes Pre-Exp 30 Minutes60{Minutes 90 Minutes i... 1 minute exposure, Figure 4C Marijuana 15.9±1.7 8.3±1.7' 8 71 2 0* 10'711 3* 0.41±0.02 0 43±0 02 mi 02 1 0.42±0.02 Condition_ � Pre-Exp,FMD � Post-Exp FMD s,NTG Post-NTG PMD 1-minute exposure, Figure 5 I' Marijuana 28A_±2.5 9.8±3.0* 23 3±4 2 8.9±2.8 s' Condition Pre-Exp s 10 Minutes Post 30 Minutes Post 4.». .......... .. . _ 1-minute exposure Figure 6 Tobacco8.5 L2 5 l _. �_. _ �. Marijuana 12.5±1.3 4.910.9* 3.411.3* is Air 11 2±1 7 10.8+1.5 11 1 t1 6 t Errors are SEM.FMD indicates flow-mediated vasodilation;NTG,nitroglycerin;THC,tetrahydrocannabinol. 'P-'0.05 vs pre-exp. DOI:10.1161/JAHA.116,003858 Journal of the American Heart Association 5 Vascular Impairment by Marijuana Secondhand Smoke Wang et al 0 z exposed to 30 minutes of declining RSP levels that fell to 1 t B Hlgh dose , i zs w1opaper roughly zero before postexposure FMD was measured, with r P=.04 ri no observed smoke-induced vasodilation. To reconcile this N 20 apparent contradiction, we exposed another group to marl- y ( 1 uana SHS and waited a total of 25 minutes after the 1-minute 15 ( x p exposure before measuring FMD. This allowed the baseline 10 vasodilation to subside, but FMD still decreased (Figure 46, I Table), confirming that 1 minute of marijuana SHS exposure 5 causes endothelial dysfunction that persists beyond any transient vasodilatory effects of the marijuana. ° Pre Posstt` All cannabinoids are missing from the THC-free marijuana, c and we did not observe significant baseline vasodilation after Figure 3. Rolling paper is not required for FMD impairment. A, 1 minute of tobacco SHS in our previous report34 (P=0.23; Stainless steel mesh used for paperless cigarettes with a normal data not shown). The identity of the noncannabinoid vasodila- cigarette for comparison. B, FMD impairment in rats exposed to for in marijuana is unknown. paperless THC-free marijuana SHS. FMD indicates flow-mediated vasodilation;SHS,secondhand smoke;THC,tetrahydrocannabinol. Marijuana SHS-Induced Endothelial Dysfunction Lasted for at Least 90 Minutes SHS-Induced Impairment of FMD Did Not Require In our previous studies with tobacco SHS, FMD recovered Rolling Paper completely by 30 minutes after the initial postexposure Our hypothesis that FMD is impaired by combustion measurement.34 In contrast, when we exposed rats to THC- products common to smoke from burned plant material free marijuana SHS for 1 minute and then measured FMD at raises the question of whether FMD is impaired by smoke 30-minute intervals, FMD remained depressed in most of the from burned rolling paper, rather than the tobacco or rats until at least 90 minutes later (Figure 4C, Table). marijuana. The question is relevant because some people smoke marijuana in pipes. We tested the hypothesis that Impairment of FMD by Marijuana SHS Did Not impairment is dependent on paper smoke by assembling prevent Endothelium-Independent Vasodilation marijuana cigarettes in which the paper was replaced by a fine stainless steel mesh (Figure 3A) to mimic the proper- To determine whether the substantial impairment of FMD ties of rolling paper, which is ventilated. In a confirmatory involved functional or physical inhibition of vascular smooth group of 4 rats, FMD was significantly impaired to a similar muscle function, we performed a separate experiment in extent as that by regular marijuana cigarettes (Figure 3B, which FMD was impaired by 1 minute of marijuana SHS as Table). Since these mesh cigarettes were prepared using before, and then after impaired FMD was confirmed, an the THC-free marijuana, the results confirm that FMD is intravenous bolus of nitroglycerin was injected to induce impaired by SHS from marijuana lacking both THC and endothelium-independent vasodilation. This injection caused rolling paper. vasodilation even while FMD was still impaired, as confirmed by a subsequent FMD measurement after the nitroglycerin effect had subsided (Figure 5, Table). Therefore, the impair- One Minute of Marijuana SHS Impaired FMD ment of FMD by marijuana SHS was mediated by an Because most of the exposure during our 30-minute period endothelium-dependent mechanism, not a direct effect on occurred during the first 10 minutes, the question remained the smooth muscle of the vessel wall. of whether a very brief exposure impairs FMD. We previously reported that tobacco SHS exposure for 1 minute at the high restaurant level 0670 ftg/m3 RSP) impairs FMD'34 so we Recovery of FMD Impaired by Marijuana SHS Was repeated that experiment with marijuana SHS at comparable Slower Than Recovery From Tobacco SHS particle concentration. FMD was substantially decreased by We previously observed that impaired FMD recovered within 1 minute of marijuana SHS with and without THC (Figure 4A, 30 minutes after exposure to tobacco SH S.34,35 In contrast, Table). Measurement of pre-occlusion baseline diameter 1 minute of exposure to marijuana SHS in the experiment revealed that the marijuana SHS directly induced vasodilation, shown in Figure 4 caused impairment of FMD that lasted even with the THC-free marijuana. This result was in contrast for at least 90 minutes. To follow up on this historical to our previous experiment (Figure 2) in which rats were observation with a direct comparison, we exposed 3 groups DOI:10.1161/JAHA.116.003858 Journal of the American Head Association 6 Vascular Impairment by Marijuana Secondhand Smoke Wang et a/ C z of rats to 1 minute of chamber air, tobacco SHS, or that marijuana SHS exposure may cause more cardiovas- z marijuana SHS, with SHS in the latter 2 groups at cular harm than tobacco SHS. r 600 Etg/m3 RSP as before. As shown in Figure 6 and N the Table, tobacco and marijuana SHS both reduced FMD to comparable levels at 10 minutes after the end of Discussion exposure (absolute FMD values of 4.0±1.4% and There is growing awareness that marijuana use in general may 4.9±0.92%, respectively; P=0.97) and by comparable per- lead to cardiovascular complication S,38-40 an effect normally cent reduction (relative reduction from baseline by ascribed to THC, but little attention has been paid specifically 68.3±10.2% and 58.5±8.0%, respectively; P--0.46). How- to the effects of the generic biomass combustion compo- ever, recovery of FMD to pre-exposure values was essen- nents. Our inclusion of control groups exposed to SHS from tially complete by 30 minutes postexposure to tobacco, marijuana lacking cannabinoids confirms that THC was not consistent with our previous results,34,35 whereas recovery required for the impairment of FMD. Similarly and notably,the from marijuana SHS exposure had not yet occurred at finding that FMD is impaired by exposure to marijuana SHS, 30 minutes, consistent with the results in Figures 4 and 5 which is chemically similar to tobacco SHS but does not that marijuana caused impairment that persisted for as long contain nicotine, confirms that the decrease in FMD caused as 90 minutes. The similar initial impairment of FMD by by tobacco SHS is not dependent on nicotine. Together, our marijuana and tobacco SHS, coupled with the longer time results demonstrate that in rats, FMD is impaired by 1 or to recovery from marijuana SHS exposure, together suggest more constituents of smoke not specific to marijuana or ...............a ....... A s Marijuana, c THC-free marijuana, I THC-free measurement recovery monitored Air Marijuana marijuana delayed P<.0005 25 P=.193 25 P=.0004 25 P=.0009 25 P=.0035 25 all P>.6 zo zo 20 20 zo 15 """` 15 1S 15 15 LL 10 " "r 10 10 e 10 10 5 5 5 5 5 o pre post o pre post o pre post o pre post o pre 30 min 60 min 90 min 'E? post post post l; E .e P=.128 6 P=.0026 6 P=.0084 .6 P=.111 6 P>.2 for all .5 .5 I y .4 4 .4 .4 .4 } N .3 .3 .3 3 .3 .2 .2 .2 .2 .2 I; - e N I m o pre post 0 pre post 0 pre post 0 pre post 0 pre 30 min 60 min 90 min y' I post post post 1. , ,- ,- -, . ,.-- ,- --..,._,,-., .. .., -11-1-1- ,, Figure 4. Impairment of FMD by 1 minute of exposure to marijuana SHS. See Table for group mean FMD and diameter values. A, FMD and baseline artery diameter in rats exposed to chamber air(0.73±0.055 lug/m3;n=8),high-dose marijuana SHS(584±16 lug/m3;n=10),or high- dose THC-free marijuana SHS (608±13 pg/m3; n=8); errors are SD. Because smoke levels did not decline substantially over 1 minute, the average concentration over time is listed. Colors track individual rats through the FMD graphs and corresponding diameter graphs. FMD in rats exposed to SHS from regular marijuana or THC-free marijuana decreased,whereas baseline diameter increased significantly by 8.2%for regular marijuana and 9.2%for THC-free marijuana. B,Waiting for 25 minutes post-end of exposure before FMD measurement(562-L 16 pg/m3; n=7) revealed substantial impairment of FMD without concomitant baseline vasodilation. C, FMD impairment for at least 90 minutes(617 -10 pg/ m3; n=8) with no significant improvement. Removal of 1 potential outlier (red line) would result in a significant partial improvement at 90 minutes postexposure relative to 30 minutes (P=0.019), but all postexposure values would still be depressed relative to pre-exposure with P<0.0005. FMD indicates flow-mediated vasodilation; SHS, secondhand smoke; THC, tetrahydrocannabinol. DOL 10.1161/JAHA.116.003858 Journal of the Amarican Head Association 7 Vascular Impairment by Marijuana Secondhand Smoke Wang et al 0 r 40TE" ?� Q9 €S�SANCF(aftNFA7EkW1R ,: n 35 P=-715 a y� > 0 30 0 25 i I 0 20 \ I; y ►+ 1 j 10 I k, c' 5 0 Q Q e+ 5`'e� i QR rip . ra MAN S Figure 5. Endothelium-independent vasodilation is not impaired by SNS. Percent vasodilation is reported for 4 time points consisting of pre- exposure re exposure FMD, postexposure FMD (impaired), Figure 7. Smoke exposure chamber showing lack nitroglycerin-induced endothelium-independent of visible smoke. Yellow arrows designate the dilation (NTG, not impaired), and subsequent FMD corners of the exposure chamber, Double-headed (still impaired). FMD indicates flow-mediated orange arrows show depth of chamber, X30 cm. vasodilation; SHS, secondhand smoke. tobacco, either the products of combustion or other generic similar effects, is incompletely understood. Chronic exposure plant chemicals that persist after combustion. to tobacco smoke results in changes in the serum that can The mechanism by which tobacco smoke impairs endothe- directly lower the activity of endothelial nitric oxide synthase lial function, and by extension, how marijuana smoke exerts in cultured endothelial cells, thereby lowering the production of nitric oxide, in a manner involving increased oxidative stress.41`a2 However,the mechanism by which smoke induces z Tobacco Marijuana Chamber air these changes,and the identity of the mediators of the effect, P<0005 P�.00a P<.0005 P_sza P=.986P_992 are unclear. Given the chemical similarity between marijuana P=4065 P<.0005 P1.999 . and tobacco smoke,z it is likely that the chemicals or the ,4 20 20 20 ultrafine particles leading to these changes in the endothelium are common to both kinds of smoke. a zs is "" The gaps in our knowledge about how tobacco smoke to 0 10 1010 exerts its adverse cardiovascular effects have not prevented U. the findings that tobacco SHS is harmful from having a s s s s considerable impact on public health policy, smoke-free laws, \ physician advice to their patients, and individual behavior. As 00 — 0 legal marijuana use increases, public exposure to marijuana +Q o�` oy o+Q oy` oy` +Q o" oy` F' SHS may also increase. This demonstration that marijuana Q`o FqFq Fq 10 Q`o icy F`Q� SHS exerts adverse effects on endothelial function in rats that are similar to effects of tobacco SHS on both rats and humans should help to inform similar policy and behavioral Figure 6. Impairment of FMD from 1 minute of marijuana SHS discussions. Recent policy debates in municipalities such as persists longer than impairment from tobacco SHS.Impairment of Ontario, which initially proposed to allow people with FMD recovered by 30 minutes after 1 minute of exposure to tobacco SHS (591±28 pg/m), but not after 1 minute of prescriptions to smoke marijuana in enclosed locations exposure to marijuana SHS (572±32 pg/m3; n-8/group), FMD including theaters43 and then reversed the policy,44 exem- indicates flow-mediated vasodilation; SHS, secondhand smoke. plify the risks of assuming that marijuana SHS is harmless, DOI: 10.1161/JAHAJ 16.003868 Journal o/the American Head Association 8 Vascular Impairment by Marijuana Secondhand Smoke Wang et al 0 z and illustrate the importance of evidence that marijuana SHS to secondhand marijuana smoke. The similarity of the z shares at least some adverse health physiological effects chemical composition of SHS from tobacco and marijuana, r with tobacco SHS. along with our observation that both kinds of smoke can While the public health community has strongly advised impair endothelial function, indicate that marijuana SHS has a people to avoid tobacco SHS for many years, it has not made adverse cardiovascular effects in rats and suggest that it may x comparable pronouncements about marijuana SHS, primarily have similar adverse effects in humans. It is important that because the evidence has not been available that it could the public, medical personnel, and policymakers understand elicit similar adverse effects. The public's perception of risk that exposure to secondhand marijuana smoke is not from marijuana SHS has thus been limited to a few publicized necessarily harmless. Our findings suggest that SHS should studies. Marijuana SHS exposure was recently reported to be avoided whether the source is tobacco or marijuana. lead to minor increases in heart rate and mild impairment of cognitive function in humans, but only under unventilated Acknowledgments conditions with high smoke levels,45 presumably due to the THC. Mittleman et a138 reported that active marijuana use We thank Neal Benowitz for helpful discussion about the manuscript. increased the risk of experiencing a heart attack roughly 5- fold within the next hour. Because THC has direct effects on heart rate and blood pressure, the authors focused on the Sources of Funding potential link between the elevated heart attack risk and the This work was funded by NIH National Institute on Drug Abuse THC. It is also possible that the increased heart attack risk R21 DA031966 to Springer and by generous support of the was caused by the adverse effects of smoke on endothelial Elfenworks Foundation. function. A limitation of the study is that the typical ambient levels of marijuana SHS have not been systematically measured in real- Disclosures world situations, in contrast to what is known about tobacco None. SHS. The exposure levels of tobacco SHS on which our conditions were based can reasonably be expected to exist for marijuana SHS at parties, rock concerts, and other References situations in which multiple people are smoking marijuana at 1. Johnston LD,O'Malley P, Bachman JG.Monitoring the Future National Survey Results on Drug Use, 1975-2001.Volume l: Secondary school students(NIH any given time, but this remains unconfirmed. Our under- Publication No. 02-5106). Bethesda, MD: National Institute on Drug Abuse; standing of the relative risks of exposure in different social 2002. 2, Moir D,Rickert WS,Levasseur G,Larose Y,Maertens R,White P,Desjardins S. situations would benefit greatly from a comprehensive study A comparison of mainstream and sidestream marijuana and tobacco cigarette of particle levels under these circumstances. Nonetheless,the smoke produced under two machine smoking conditions. Chem Res Toxicol. 2008;21:494-502. smoke concentrations in our study were low enough that the 3. O'Toole TE,Hellmann 1,Wheat L,Haberzettl P,Lee J,Conklin DJ,Bhatnagar A, smoke was not visible during the exposures in the clear Pope CA III. Episodic exposure to fine particulate air pollution decreases circulating levels of endothelial progenitor cells.Circ Res.2010;107:200--203. exposure Chamber (Figure 7). 4. Brook RD,Rajagopalan S, Pope CA ill,Brook JR,Bhatnagar A, Diez-Roux AV, Since this was a rodent model,specific parameters such as Holguin F,Hong Y,Luepker RV,Mittleman MA,Peters A,Siscovick D,Smith SC Jr,Whitsel L,Kaufman JD. Particulate matter air pollution and cardiovascular the exposure times and exact durations of impairment may disease: an update to the scientific statement from the American Heart not completely match the corresponding properties of Association.Circulation.2010;121:2331-2378. exposure in humans. However, the process of FMD in rats 5. Pope CA 111, Burnett RT, Krewski D, Jerrett M, Shi Y, Calle EE, Thun MJ. Cardiovascular mortality and exposure to airborne fine particulate matter and as we measured it shows great similarity to FMD in humans, cigarette smoke: shape of the exposure-response relationship, Circulation, as shown by extensive physiological and pharmacological 2009;120:941-948. b. California Environmental Protection Agency. Proposed identification of envi- validation as we have described previously.32 Moreover, rats ronmental tobacco smoke as a toxic air contaminant.Part B: health effects. and humans show cam arable res onses to similar tobacco Sacramento, CA: California Environmental Protection Agency, Office of p p Environmental Health Hazard Assessment;2005. smoke exposure conditions.26-28,34,35 Because our under- 7. Barnoya b Glantz SA.Cardiovascular effects of secondhand smoke:nearly as standing of human cardiovascular consequences of marijuana large as smoking.Circulation.2005;111:2684-2698. use has been limited to retrospective association stud 8. U.S.Department of Health and Human Services.The health consequences of involuntary exposure to tobacco smoke: a report of the Surgeon General, our ability to perform prospective, controlled rodent Atlanta,GA:U.S. Department of Health and Human Services;2006. experiments fills a crucial gap in Our understanding of the 9• Tan CE,Glantz SA.Association between smoke-free legislation and hospital- izations for cardiac, cerebrovascular, and respiratory diseases: a meta- rapid consequences of marijuana SHS exposure that can analysis.Circulation.2012;126:2177-2183. be extrapolated to humans. 10. Law B,Mason PA,Moffat AC,King U,Marks V.Passive inhalation of cannabis Increasing legalization of marijuana makes it more impor- smoke.J Pharm Pharmacal. 1984;36:57&-581. 11. Hayden JW. Passive inhalation of marijuana smoke:a critical review.J Subst tant than ever to understand the consequences of exposure Abuse. 1991;3:85-90. DOI:10.1161/JAHA.116,003858 Journal of the.American Meart Association 9 Vascular Impairment by Marijuana Secondhand Smoke Wang et al 0 x 12. Cone E),Bigelow GE,Herrmann ES,Mitchell 1M,LoDico C,Flegel R,Vandrey R. 29, Li Z, Barrios V, Buchholz JN, Glenn TC, Duckles SP. Chronic nicotine Non-smoker exposure to secondhand cannabis smoke.I.Urine screening and administration does not affect peripheral vascular reactivity in the rat. J confirmation results.l Anal Toxicol. 2015;39:1-12. Pharmacol Exp Ther. 1994;271:1135-11.42. r 13. Barry RA, Hiilamo H, Glantz SA. Waiting for the opportune moment: the 30. Weber LP, AI-Dissi A, Mart 1S, German TN, Terletski SD. Role of carbon tobacco industry and marijuana legalization.Milbank Q. 2014;92:207--242. monoxide in impaired endothelial function mediated by acute second-hand Cn 14, Celermajer DS,Sorensen KE,Gooch VM,Spiegelhalter D1,Miller 01,Sullivan tobacco, incense, and candle smoke exposures. Environ Toxicol Pharmacol. > ID, Lloyd JK, Deanfield JE. Non-invasive detection of endothelial dysfunction 2011;31:453--459. in children and adults at risk of atherosclerosis. Lancet. 1992;340:1111- 31. Mills NL,Tornqvist H,Robinson SD,Gonzalez M,Darnley K,MacNee W,Boon x 1115. NA, Donaldson K, Blornberg A, Sandstrom T, Newby DE. Diesel exhaust 15. Pyke KE,'fschakovsky ME.The relationship between shear stress and flow- inhalation causes vascular dysfunction and impaired endogenous fibrinolysis, mediated dilatation:implications for the assessment of endothelial function.J Circulation, 2005;112:3930-3936. Physiol. 2005;568:357--369, 32, Heiss C, Sievers RE, Amabile N, Momma TY, Chen Q, Natarajan S, 16. Flammer A1, Anderson T, Celermajer DS, Creager MA, Deanfield 1, Ganz P, Yeghiazarians Y, Springer ML. In vivo measurement of flow-mediated Hamburg NM, Luscher TF, Shechter M, Taddei S, Vita JA, Lerman A. The vasodilation in living rats using high resolution ultrasound.Am 1 Physiol Heart assessment of endothelial function: from research into clinical practice. Circ Physiol. 2008;294:H1086-H1093. Circulation. 2012;126:753-767, 33. Chen Q, Sievers RE,Varga M, Kharait S, Haddad D), Patton AK, Delany CS, 17. Anderson T1, Uehata A, Gerhard MD, Meredith IT, Knab S, Delagrange D, Mutka SC,Blonder 1P,Dube GP, Rosenthal G1,Springer ML.Pharmacological Lieberman EH,Ganz P,Creager MA,Yeung AC,Selwyn AP. Close relation of inhibition of S-nitrosoglutathione reductase improves endothelial vasodilatory endothelial function in the human coronary and peripheral circulations.l Am function in rats in vivo.J Appl Physiol. 2013;1 14:752-760. Coll Cardiol. 1995;26:1235---1241. 34. Pinnamaneni K,Sievers RE,Sharma R,Selchau AM,Gutierrez G,Nordsieck El, 18. Ganz P, Vita IA. Testing endothelial vasomotor function: nitric oxide, a Su R,An S,Chen Q,Wang X,Derakhshandeh R,Aschbacher K,Heiss C,Glantz multipotent molecule.Circulation.2003;108:2049-2053. SA,Schick SF,Springer ML. Brief exposure to secondhand smoke reversibly impairs endothelial vasodilatory function.Nicotine Tob Res,2014;16:584-590. 19. Widlansky ME, Gokce N, Keaney 1F Jr, Vita JA. The clinical implications of 35. Liu),Wang X, Narayan S,Glantz SA,Schick SF,Springer ML. Impairment of endothelial dysfunction.l Am Coll Cardiol. 2003;42:1149-1160. endothelial function by little cigar secondhand smoke. Tob Regul Sci. 20, Nabel EG, Selwyn AP, Ganz P. Large coronary arteries in humans are 2016;2:56-63. responsive to changing blood flow: an endothelium-dependent mecha- nisnr that fails in patients with atherosclerosis. J Am Coll Cardiol. 1990; 36, California Environmental Protection Agency.Proposed identification of environ- 16:349--356, mental tobacco smoke as a toxic air contaminant.Part A:exposure assessment. Sacramento,CA:California Environmental Protection Agency,Office of Environ- 21. Yeboah 1,Crouse JR,Hsu FC,Burke GL,Herrington DM.Brachial flow-mediated mental Health Hazard Assessment ed: California Environmental Protection dilation predicts incident cardiovascular events in older adults: the Cardio- Agency;2005. vascular Health Study. Circulation. 2007;115:2390-2397. 37. Ashton CH. Pharmacology and effects of cannabis: a brief review. B'J 22. Yeboah J,Sutton-Tyrrell K,McBurnie MA,Burke GL,Herrington DM,Crouse 1R. Psychiatry. 2001;178:101-106. Association between brachial artery reactivity and cardiovascular disease 38. Mittleman MA, Lewis RA, Maclure M, Sherwood JB, Muller JE, Triggering status in an elderly cohort:the Cardiovascular Health Study.Atherosclerosis. 2008;197:768-776. myocardial infarction by marijuana.Circulation. 2001;103:2805-2809. 23. Yeboah 1,Folsom AR,Burke GL,Johnson C,Polak JF,Post W,Lirna JA,Crouse 39. Jouanjus E, Lapeyre-Mestre M,Micallef 1, Cannabis use:signal of increasing 1R, Herrington DM. Predictive value of brachial flow-mediated dilation for risk of serious cardiovascular disorders.J Am Heart Assoc. 2014;3:e000638 incident cardiovascular events in a population-based study: the Multi-Ethnic doi: 10.1161/JAHA.113.000638, Study of Atherosclerosis.Circulation. 2009;120:502.-509. 40. Thomas G, Kloner RA, Rezkalla S. Adverse cardiovascular, cerebrovascular, 24. Celermajer DS,Sorensen KE,Georgakopoulos D,Bull C,Thomas 0,Robinson 1, and peripheral vascular effects of marijuana inhalation: what cardiologists Deanfield JE.Cigarette smoking is associated with dose-related and potentially need to know.Am J Cardiol.2014;113:187-190. reversible impairment of endothelium-dependent dilation in healthy young 41. Barua RS, Ambrose)A, Eales-Reynolds LJ, DeVoe MC, Zervas JG, Saha DC. adults.Circulation. 1993;88:2149-2155. Dysfunctional endothelial nitric oxide biosynthesis in healthy smokers with 25. Celermajer DS, Adams MR, Clarkson P, Robinson 1, McCredie R, Donald A, impaired endothelium-dependent vasodilatation.Circulation.2001;104:1905- Deanfield JE. Passive smoking and impaired endothelium-dependent arterial 1410' dilatation in healthy young adults.N Engi J Med. 1996;334:150-.154. 42. Barua RS,Ambrose JA,Srivastava S,DeVoe MC,Eales-Reynolds LJ.Reactive 26. Frey PF,Ganz P,Hsue PY,Benowitz NL,Glantz SA,Balmes JR,Schick SF.The oxygen species are involved in smoking-induced dysfunction of nitric oxide exposure-dependent effects of aged secondhand smoke on endothelial biosynthesis and upregulation of endothelial nitric oxide synthase:an in vitro function.l Am Coll Cardiol. 2012;59:1908-1913. demonstration in human coronary artery endothelial cells. Circulation. 2003;107:2342-2347. 27, Heiss C,Amabile N, Lee AC, Real WM,Schick SF,Lao D,Wong ML,Jahn S, Angell FS, Minasi P, Springer ML, Hammond SK, Glantz SA, Grossman W, 43. Ferguson R.Using medical marijuana now OK in publicplaces in Ontario under Balmes JR, Yeghiazarians Y. Brief secondhand smoke exposure depresses new regulations. Toronto Star.2015. November 25,2015. endothelial progenitor cells activity and endothelial function: sustained 44. Ferguson R, Ontario government taking medical marijuana plan back to the vascular injury and blunted nitric oxide production. J Am Coll Cardiol. drawing board. Toronto Star. 2015.November 26,2015, 2008;51:1760--1771. 45. Herrmann ES,Cone EJ,Mitchell 1M,Bigelow GE,LoDico C,Flegel R,Vandrey R. 28. Kato T,Inoue T,Morooka T,Yoshimoto N,Node K.Short-term passive smoking Non-smoker exposure to secondhand cannabis smoke II: effect of room causes endothelial dysfunction via oxidative stress in nonsmokers. Can J ventilation on the physiological,subjective,and behavioral/cognitive effects. Physiol Pharmacal. 2006;84:523-529, Drug Alcohol Depend.2015;151:194-202. DOI: 10.1161/JAHA.116.003858 Journal of the American Heart Association 10 3 injured in Walnut Creek hash-oil lab explosion htt�://cla corc6.co���/�014/10/31/t� �ciate �ltotos �t��RdAna� c n-waInut-creels-mtulti)le- �nota ri es/ a r One person was rnissin.,and at least two people were hurt in an explosion and fire that tore apart a Walnut Creek apartment complex on Friday, Oct. 31, 2014. The incident was reported at the complex on the 1500 block of'Sunnyvale Avenue west of'Intertate 680 about 10 a.m., accorrlino to the Contra Costa County Fire Protection District. By Carolyn Jones An explosion caused by a butane-fueled hash oil lab ripped through a Walnut Creek apartment building Friday morning, critically burning two people, injuring a third and forcing 50 others to evacuate. http://www.denverpost.com/2016/06/30/16th-street-ma II-video-attack/ Denver mayor says violence won't be tolerated on 16th Street Mall 32-year-old Clarence Seeley is being held for investigation of aggravated assault By Noelle Phillips I nphillips@denverpost.com PUBLISHED: June 30, 2016 at 12:29 pm I UPDATED: July 1, 2016 at 8:16 am Another video of people behaving badly on the 16th Street Mall led Denver Mayor Michael Hancock to blame marijuana for an increase in "urban travelers" and to renew his message that assaults and other violent behavior will not be tolerated. "This is one of the results of the legalization of marijuana in Denver, and we're going to have to deal with it," Hancock said. The latest incident involved a man swinging a large pipe at pedestrians near the McDonald's at the intersection of Cleveland Place and the 16th Street Mall. A video of the wild behavior was posted online and received hundreds of thousands of views. On Thursday, police identified the man arrested in connection with the attack as 32-year-old Clarence Seeley of Indiana. He was being held for investigation of aggravated assault. The incident happened around 6 p.m. Wednesday, and deputy police chief David Quinones said police believe Seeley was involved in at least four other incidents within a few minutes of the attack caught on video. Quinones said people had called 911 to report someone "acting up." Police described the weapon as a plastic, PVC-type pipe, in a Thursday news release. One victim suffered a head laceration, according to the news release from Denver Police, but all victims refused medical treatment. Other victims left the scene before police arrived, and Quinones urged them to call to speak with investigators. The video was the second in two weeks that showed people being assaulted on the mall. Last week, KDVR aired a report about a downtown business worker being assaulted by people on the mall. Four people were charged in connection with that attack. On Monday, Denver police and the Downtown Denver Partnership announced beefed up security plans that include the addition of private security guards and increased police foot patrols. During a news conference, Denver Police Chief Robert White urged downtown pot shops to stop selling single joints. Although the mayor blamed recent trouble on "urban travelers" and marijuana, police do not know whether Seeley was on drugs or in the middle of a mental health crisis, Quinones said. Still, Hancock stood by his insistence that the so-called travelers are a source of trouble. He said he personally talked to some and they were candid about the attraction of marijuana. Earlier this week, Hancock called them a "scourge of hoodlums" during a news conference to announce the new security measures on the mall. There are about 150 urban travelers in the city this week, Hancock said. They also hang out at Commons and Confluence parks, and they wander in and out of various homeless shelters. "They're taking beds from our chronically homeless people," he said. Most get to Denver by hitchhiking or hopping cargo trains, Quinones said. He defined the travelers as people who have been in Denver for a very short time and have no where to go. When asked if Seeley was a traveler, Quinones said he fit the description. Seeley had been in Denver for nine days, he said. Security is expected to be high on Friday as presumptive Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump speaks at the Western Conservative Summit at the Colorado Convention Center. Multiple protests are expected as tourists arrive for the July 4 weekend. Hancock said officials also expect a record-number of tourists this weekend. On Thursday, he tried to assure the public that the mall is safe. "These incidents are not Denver," Hancock said. "That's why we are moving quickly to deal with them." Denver Post staff reporter Yesenia Robles contributed to this report. { a "AhLlt Drugs in Marin: What You Need To Know NOW What You Should Know About Marijuana TODAY: ' THC is the mind altering chemical:The potency is 10-40% A . stronger today. Hash Oil (BHO) is about 90% concentrate of THC. BHO is used in Edibles and Vaping,two favorite ways of ingestion of marijuana by youth. Marijuana use Can Cause or Contribute to: Dr.Lynn Fox • Permanent Brain Damage and IQ loss; Irreversible IQ loss up to 8 points by heavy users. • Health Problems: Lungs, Heart, Immune&Reproductive Systems • Mental Illness or Psychological Problems: Depression, Psychosis, Schizophrenia • Contributes to Aggression, Crime&Violence • Kill or Permanently Harm a Fetus: lower birth weight,addiction,birth defects,cancer,and other illnesses. • DNA Damage • Addiction- easier with Developing Youth and their"trends" • Double the Risk of Traffic Deaths and 1 out of 8 traffic fatalities in Colorado are marijuana related. (Dr Phillip Drum will speak on this and more) MYTHS: • Marijuana is the same as Tobacco... N0, Marijuana is Worse Than Tobacco • Marijuana is Safer than Alcohol... N0, Marijuana is Not Safer than Alcohol BIOGRAPHY: C. Lynn Fox, Ph.D., San Rafael Elks Drug Awareness Chairman,is a national expert in the areas of drug awareness &prevention,adolescent development,classroom management, self-esteem enhancement, and Special Education.She has trained over 100,000 K-12 teachers &others in the past 30 years, and has been a professor of Education at both San Francisco State and San Diego State Universities. Dr. Fox has authored&co-authored 11 books, including a Textbook with Dr. Shirley Forbing for HarperCollins entitled: Creating Drug Free Schools and Communities:A Comprehensive Approach. She has produced or starred in four recent TV Shows that are airing throughout CA during 2015-2016, and two relate specifically to Marijuana.Along with Dr. Shirley Forbing, she has developed, researched and implemented three NATIONAL MODELS for the Federal Government: • Project STOP: Standing Together to Offer Prevention • Project CODE: Collaborating on Drug Education for Parents • Project ACE: Activating Community Efforts to Fight Drug Abuse SUGGESTIONS FOR PARENTS TO HELP PREVENT YOUTH DRUG USE,especially the use of the extremely HIGH POTENCY Marijuana sold today(25-90%THC). GET EDUCATED YOURSELF! The most dangerous forms of MJ (and have the highest level of THC) are Edibles. • Talk to your children. Have short and frequent discussions (hopefully at a family dinner meal) about the real situation that they are confronted with at school and with friends. • Pay attention to what is going on with your children,their friends and ask questions. Listen to answers and what they are sharing or avoiding to talk about. • Be a positive role model. Children watch what YOU do,not always what you say. If there is a party at your home for youth, do not allow drinking or areas for them to separate from the crowd.Again KNOW what is going on and intervene if necessary. • Go to Powerfulparenting.com website for more information FILMS and TV SERIES: • Marijuana&Adolescents: Dr. Fox interviewed by Mark Dale - Part 1: Intro: https://youtu.be/OK7O8XcB7j4 • Marijuana&Adolescents: Dr. Fox interviewed by Mark Dale- Part 2: Solutions: https://youtu.be/6ijc57wQNhU • CMCM Channels 26 &99: go to http://www.powerfulparenting.com/ for YouTube Channels • Then and Now: Industry Playbooks &Addiction Marketing: http://www.edventi.com/#company • The Other Side of Cannabis:Negative Effects of Marijuana on Our Youth: Understand the Risks, Make informed Decisions by J. Belsher: http://www.othersideofcannabis.com/ • Teacher Expectations&Student Success(TESA)with Fox&Elliot, new 5-part TV Series: airing now and on YouTube.To order a copy of our book or to watch the 2016 TV Series,go to website for times&YouTubes: http://www.substituteteacherhandbook.org/ RESOURCES: • Elks Drug Awareness Program for Youth: free materials,programs&games for kids &schools [see below]: http://www.ellcs.org/dap/ • Californians Against Legalization of Marijuana, Carla and Brook Lowe, CA phone: 1-916-708-4111: http://calmusa.org/ • Californians for Drug Free Youth: http://www.cadfy.org/ • List of Drug&Alcohol Rehab Centers in Marin County, California: http://www.addicted.org/directory/category/marin-county.html • DARE PROGRAM,teaching student decision making for safe&Healthy lives: http://www.countyofnapa.org/sheriff/dare/ • MJ research&effects on youth: http://www.powerfulparenting.com/ • Make a Difference in a Day:A Pocket-Size Handbook for Beginning and Substitute Teachers �rrrrwrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrwrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrarrr� What You Should Know About Marijuana TODAY: THC blood levels following smoking marijuana leave the blood stream rapidly. Marijuana's high feeling and impairment effects last hours. Marijuana has been the leading illicit drug in US vehicular homicides since 2006. Marijuana alone doubles the risk of vehicle crash,and with , alcohol leads to an eight-fold increased risk. Dr.Phillip A.Drum • The THC blood level (13.1 ng/ml) to cause a driver to create similar car weaving to 0.08 BAC has been determined,as well as,what those THC blood levels will be 1.4 hours (3.6 - 6.8 ng/ml) and 2.3 hours (1.8 - 3.2 ng/ml) after driving. • DRE officers can accurately predict with 96.7% accuracy the presence of cannabis in a driver. • Those fatal drivers under the influence of marijuana,like alcohol and speed,tend to overturn,hit guardrails and trees at a higher rate than non-impaired fatal drivers. Marijuana fatal drivers,like non-impaired drivers,tend to be six years younger (median age= 26 yr) than alcohol impaired drivers. • Legalized marijuana states (CO,WA, OR,AK) have a 55%increased rate of marijuana driving fatalities over medical marijuana states. CA had a 19.3%and a 21% marijuana driving fatality rate in 2014 and 2015,respectively. • In Colorado in 2014,THC alone was present in one-third of marijuana driving cases,with 37% being marijuana + alcohol, 15% mj + alcohol + other drugs and 15% mj +other drugs (no alcohol). Over 75% of CO DUIs had THC present in the blood in 2014. • Blood and oral saliva tests are available to detect marijuana in drivers,with breath testing currently under investigation. BIOGRAPHY: Phillip A Drum, Pharm,D.,FCSHP received his doctorate in Pharmacy from the University of California -San Francisco. He is a 30 year licensed pharmacist who has had a wide range of experiences-from community pharmacy practice,a residency in Hospital Pharmacy,practice as a hospital-based Oncology pharmacist, Pharmacy Administration work as a Clinical Coordinator and later a Regional Manager and leader of regional pharmacy training and patient safety programs. He has been active in Pharmacy Associations and has spoken state-wide and nationally on various pharmaceutical topics. As a result of a family tragedy,he has been active in research on driving and marijuana and educating the public over the dangers of marijuana in society. He has produced and starred in a Y2 hour TV Special airing throughout CA entitled: Marijuana and Drugged Drivers. Californians Against Legalization of Marijuana-Advisory Board Member Smart Approaches to Marijuana (SAM) NoMorePotLies@email.com 414-768-2256 SUGGESTIONS • Friends do not let friends drive high or drunk. One of the last major NHTSA effective impaired driving campaigns used social pressure to assist in lowering DUIs in the 1990's. Let's bring social consciousness and action back. Prevent impaired driving of all kinds. • Marijuana works on the brain at different speeds depending on how introduced into the body. Inhaled marijuana will begin affecting the brain within minutes. Edibles containing marijuana will take hours before affecting the brain. THC is fat-soluble and stays in the brain and fat stores for several hours, even if THC is negligible in the water-soluble blood stream. Airplane pilots following smoking a marijuana cigarette (19 mg) were impaired for up to 24 hours later. (Newman DG. Cannabis and its Effects on Pilot Performance and Flight Safety:A review Australian Transport Safety Bureau. March 2004.) • If planning on using marijuana also plan on using alternative, easily available methods such as Uber, Lyft,taxis or have a responsible driver who is not impaired. Driving is a privilege,not a right. No one has the right to injure another by driving impaired. WEBSITES and TV SPECIALS: • Interview with Dr Drum Marijuana and Driving, Part 1: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9IA2XkOUIMU • Interview with Dr Drum Marijuana and Driving, Part 2: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uVLs4wRj4-4&feature=youtu.be • DUID Victim Voices: http://www.duidvictimvoices.org/ • Stopped Drugged Driving: http://stopdruggeddriving.org/news.htmi • DUI Deaths Matter: http://www.duideathsmatter.org/ RESOURCES: • AAA Impaired Driving and Cannabis: https://www.aaafoundation.org/impaired-driving-and- cannabis • Hounds Lab breathalyzer being studies in field- https://www.1-t.com/usa/359292-marijuana- breathalyzer-cali fornia-police/ • Marijuana Drug-Impaired Laws-from the Governors Highway Safety Association- http://www.ghsa.org/html/stateinfo/laws/dre_perse_laws-litml • National Highway Traffic Safety Administration- Drugs and Human Performance Fact Sheets- Cannabis/Marijuana/delta-9 tetrahydrocannabinol - http://www.nhtsa.gov/people/injury/research/job105drugs/cannabis.htm rrrrmmmrrrmmrrmmrmmarrrrmrmrrrrrrrmmmrrrrrmmrmmmmmmra a rrrr a mmmrrrrrrmrrmrrrrmrmmrrmr■ Elks National Drug Awareness Program: DAP www.elks.org/dap 773-755-4700 ruenes qq0WAre1eSV 2750 North Lakeview Avenue Chicago, IL 60614-1889 Dr. Lynn Fox, DAP Co-Chairperson,San Rafael Lodge of Elks#1108; foxlynn@me.com The Elks National Drug Awareness Program strives to teach all children and parents about the dangers of illegal drug use and prevent the abuse of legalized and prescription drugs.As the largest volunteer drug awareness program in the United States,the program relies on state,district and Lodge volunteers to promote a drug-free lifestyle. By taking pride in America's communities and youth,the program takes action against youth drug use through education and inspiration. Materials Available: Books,Videos, Red Ribbon Items, Materials for Parents and Teens, Coloring Books, Contests and "Kids Zone." �mmremmrmrrrrrrrrmmrmrrmrrrmrmrmrmrmrmrmrrrrmrrrmmrrrrrrrrrrrrrrmrrrmmrrrrrrmrrrmrrmrrre What You Should Know About Prescription Drugs TODAY: Alcohol and medications can kill you! Access is incredibly easy for everyone,especially youth. " Clean out your medicine cabinet regularly.Dispose of at local �. predetermined safe sites,such as Police Department. Talk with your kids! Unfortunately,they probably know much more than you do! , Families 4 Safer Schools Marin County Prescription Drug Abuse Task Force .3 BIOGRAPHY: Mark Dale Mark Dale is a married father,with two sons and a daughter in Marin County. After nearly losing his second son a total of four times,due to substance abuse dynamics, Mark founded Families For Safer Schools. He then became a sworn member of the AOD Advisory Board for the Marin County Board of Supervisors. In addition,Mark is the organizing member of the Marin County Prescription Drug Abuse Task Force and has been working on several PDA efforts around the state, along with April Rovero of the National Coalition Against Prescription Drug Abuse. Most recently, Mark is a member of the Marin County Prescription Drug Misuse&Abuse Initiative Design Team,which has reached-out to numerous community partners&members,to build a three- year strategic plan.The Design Team is comprised of the Marin County Public Health Officer, several HHS officials,the Marin County Office of Education,the Marin County Prescription Drug Abuse Task Force, Healthy Marin Partnership&Kaiser. Mark is a USAF veteran and previously worked in the entertainment industry on the following shows: Unsolved Mysteries (NBC) &Murphy Brown (CBS/Warner Bros.) Here is the short list of the efforts &organizations: Marin County Prescription Drug Abuse Task Force, organizing member,Families For Safer Schools, Founder,AOD Advisory Board for the Marin County Board of Supervisors, sworn member,Marin County Prescription Drug Misuse&Abuse Initiative, Design Team member,Novato Blue Ribbon Coalition for Youth,member,Twin Cities Coalition for Healthy Youth, member, CA Medical Board PDA Task Force, participant, CA Pharmacy Board PDA efforts,participant via MCPhA&PPSI, CA Dept. of Health Care Services PDA Working Group,member, National Coalition Against Prescription Drug Abuse,affiliate. WEBSITES and TV SPECIAL: • Chasing the Dragon (DEA&FBI): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lgdmWRExOkQ • Behind the Orange Curtain: http://behindtheorangecurtain.net/ • The Overtaken Documentary: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e9oj3E-NPti RESOURCES: • RxSafe Marin (Marin County Prescription Drug Misuse&Abuse Initiative): http://www.rxsafemarin.org/ • National Coalition Against Prescription Drug Abuse (NCAPDA): http://ncapda.org/ • US Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA): https://www.dea.gov/index.shtml • Partnership for Drug Free Kids http://www.drugfree.org/ • CDC Up &Away Program: https://www.cdc.gov/features/medicationstorage/; httn://unandaway.om/ -----------.................■.....■■............■■.■.............................. AMBASSADOR Sex Trafficking in Marin: What You Need To Know NOW What You Should Know About Sex Trafficking TODAY: Slavery was not abolished in 1865,only legal slavery. Human Trafficking,including Sex and Labor Trafficking is illegal modern day Slavery. Sex Trafficking happens everywhere in the world,including here in Marin. California has 3 of 13 FBI identified hotspots for trafficking: SF Bay,LA Bay,San Diego Bay. The DHHS says human trafficking is the fastest growing criminal enterprise in the world today,second only to drug trafficking. Sex Trafficking earns traffickers the major portion of$150 billion per year[source IL01,with an average of$450,000 per year per victim Laurel Botsford • Trafficked victims come from every demographic,without discrimination. Money is the object, every-body is at risk. • Trafficking is a high profit business and follows a precise business plan. • No handcuffs,no visible means of restraint-but fear,intimidation,threats against their own person and more effectively against someone they know, physical, emotional,psychological abuse are the invisible chains every trafficking victim wears for years and years, even after rescue. • The average age of entry into the commercial sex industry is 12-16 years -recruiters target this age group through observing, choosing,stalking,and befriending youth. • Pimps/Traffickers can be anyone; men,women,youth, every demographic-however,the majority are male; many are people known by the victims, oftentimes family members. • Purchasers/Buyers can be anyone; men,women,youth, every demographic-however,the majority are male. • Traffickers are shifting from drugs to trafficking humans as it is more lucrative: IE.You need to find new drugs, new arms to sell,but a human body can be resold multiple times. MYTHS: • It is easy to spot a Pimp NO, today Pimps/Traffickers look like regular people • Buyers of sex are single,lonely guys NO, many buyers have families, stable relationships • Only a small number of people purchase sex with a child or view child pornography N0, Demand for young children for sex draws higher revenue for the trafficker; )-of 5 pornographic films produced in the USA [the highest producer] is of a child • Watching porn is harmless N 0,watching porn leads to violent and aggressive sexual behavior through the normalization of brutality and objectification of women and children depicted in porn BIOGRAPHY: Laurel Botsford, San Rafael Elks Drug Awareness Co-Chairperson has a BA in languages, is a Universal Energy Healer, Doctor of Acupuncture and Alternative Practitioner and has published two books on Consciousness. In January 2014 Laurel became a trained Volunteer Ambassador of Hope for Shared Hope International [SHI], working to prevent, restore and bring justice to victims of sex trafficking. SHI partners in sheltering and restoration of survivors, both nationally and internationally and, in the USA, Laurel focuses on DMST-Domestic Minor Sex Trafficking through prevention and legislation. By exposing the targeting, stalking and recruitment and grooming tactics of traffickers she seeks to protect our children and youth and prevent them from becoming the next victims of this terrible crime. Laurel is a member of the Marin County Coalition to End Human Trafficking on their Public Awareness, Legislative and Victim Services Committees and the Bullying Prevention Committee of the Novato Blue Ribbon Coalition For Youth. Most recently, Laurel has volunteered to become a member of the newly formed Sex Trafficking Prevention Sub-Committee of the Marin County Office of Education helping to create a curriculum for sex trafficking prevention education for Marin's Middle and High Schools. 415-819-0417; laurel.SHIAoH@gmaii.com WEBSITE: Shared Hope International [SHI]: http://sharedhope.org FILMS and VIDEO CLIPS: • Chosen Trailer: https://vimeo.com/63413165 - survivor told stories • Chosen Gang Trailer: https://vimeo.com/90362853 - survivor told story This is the SHI community outreach.The Spanish versions, Eligidos and Edicion Sobre Pandillas are dubbed and come with all of the usual resources. Speaker Presentations of the videos in full are available by contacting Laurel or,if you are out of the SF Bay Area,by our online 'Request a Speaker' form: http://sharedhope.org/join-the-cause/request-a-speaker/. • Brianna's Story (KGW News Channel 8) - 2012: https://vimeo.com/51479269 ® Do You Know Lacy?- 2012: https://vimeo.com/53178554 ® American Trafficking Markets- 2012: https://vimeo.com/57704194 • Demanding Justice- 2014: https://vimeo.com/84898391 • Buyers Beware- 2015: http://sharedhope.org/2015/07/buyers-beware-mobilizing-to-end- demand/ ® DEMAND. Documentary- 2013: https://vimeo.com/70637039 • Defending the Chosen - Interview with John and Gordy- 2013: haps://vimeo.com/65689541 - • The Shared Hope Story- 2012: https://vimeo.com/51476424 RESOURCES: • https://sharedhope.org/aoh/aoh-resources/ • Infographic 2016: http://sharedhope.org/the-pioblem/what-is-sex-trafficking/ • Signs of Trafficking poster(English): https://sharedhope.org/appealforms/what-is-warning- signs/ • Become an Ambassador of Hope [male and female]: http://sharedhope.org/aoh/ • Become a Defender [male only]: http://sharedhope.org/join-the-cause/become-a-defender/ • 1-888-373-7888, [Text 2337331 National Human Trafficking Resource Center Hotline • 1-800-THE-LOST National Center for Missing and Exploited Children Hotline Human Trafficking in Marin-through Law Enforcement eyes BIOGRAPHY: Dori Ahana, Chief Deputy District Attorney overseeing the \GI AT SVU -Special Victim's Unit which includes domestic violence, sex assault,human trafficking, child and elder abuse,and gang cases. Q In 2014 Dori was voted Outstanding Prosecutor of the Year 2014 an ���r 2 honor she shares with her colleague, Rosemary Slote, Chief Deputy District Attorney, in the prosecution of serial killer Joseph Naso Case. oUNTY - This award is given by the California District Attorney Association. �rrrmrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrmrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr a rrrrmm� "Marin's Hidden Human Sex Trafficking Challenge-It's Happening In Our Backyard" Marin County Civil Grand Jury Report,June 23, 2016 BIOGRAPHY: Vaughan Acton -is a communications and marketing consultant with over 20 years of experience and expertise in branding, digital and online communications, strategic and tactical plan development, social media, and integrated multi-media campaigns.She was Vice President of brand management,marketing,and internet communications for several major corporations, specializing in healthcare marketing and communications. Vaughan Acton In June,Vaughan completed her term as a juror on the 2015-2016 Marin County Civil Grand Jury,an independent"watchdog" investigative arm of the Superior Court. Her primary focus was as lead investigator and report writer for the jury's Human Sex Trafficking Report. She led the group in evaluating Marin County efforts at combatting human trafficking and providing services for survivors, making recommendations to Marin County,towns and cities to strengthen their efforts. Vaughan and the team conducted over 50 interviews or surveys with all Marin police departments, all Marin fire departments, Marin Sheriff's Office, Marin&Alameda District Attorneys, Marin and Oakland Vice Squad Units,the FBI, Marin Probation Department,victim advocate organizations, and Marin County Children&Family Services to determine the state of human sex trafficking in Marin and how it was being addressed.Since her tenure, she has become a member of the Marin County Coalition to End Human Trafficking. Vaughan is a member of the Board of Directors and Secretary for the Seva Foundation, a global non-profit that restores eyesight and prevents blindness is underserved communities,has an MBA in Marketing from Columbia University and a BA in History from Georgia State University. vaughan.acton@gmail.com trrrrrrmrrrrmmrrrrrrrrrrrrrrmrmmmmmrrrrrrrrrrmrrrrrremrrrmmmrmrrrrrrmarrrrrrrmrrrrrrmrrrr� Participating Exhibitors: Smart Approaches to Marijuana[SAM] http://www.learnaboutsam.org 703-665-1410 400 N. Columbus St., Suite 202,Alexandria,VA 22314 Jeffrey Zinsmeister; jeff@learnaboutsam.org; info@learnaboutsam.org Smart Approaches to Marijuana (SAM) is a nonpartisan,non-profit alliance of physicians, policy makers,prevention workers,treatment and recovery professionals, scientists,and other concerned citizens who oppose marijuana legalization and want health and scientific evidence to guide marijuana policies. RxSafe Marin http://www.rxsafemarin.org/ 415-473-6731 1600 Los Gamos Drive, Suite 350, San Rafael, CA 94903 RxSafeMarin@gmail.com Our goal is "To reduce harm from prescription drug misuse and abuse, and to save lives." RxSafe Marin is a coalition of community members&experts collaborating to tackle the local prescription drug misuse and abuse epidemic. Building on the work of community activists,the Marin County Department of Health and Human Services (HHS),the Marin County District Attorney's Office, the Marin County Public Defender's Office, and the Marin County Office of Education each have officials co-leading RxSafe Marin Action Teams alongside families,youth,pharmacists and health providers. Parents opposed to Pot[POP] http://www.popPot.org/ https://www.facebook.com/poppot.org Twitter: Poppotorg Group@PoppotGroup 916-300-5200 PO Box 459, Lincoln,CA 95648 Roger Morgan; rogermorgan339@gmail.com "Bursting the Bubbles of the Marijuana Hype." Poppot is a group of parents opposed to marijuana industries marketing campaign to children and young people.They are designed to educate in order to prevent a nation of young marijuana users,encouraging life enjoyment without a crutch or escapism.We provide articles,videos,memes and podcasts to publicize the problems and dangers of marijuana,and release current information. CITIZENS AGAINST LEGALIZING MARIJUANA http://calmusa.org/ 916-708-4111 PO Box 2995, Carmichael, CA 95608 Carla Lowe; carladlowe@aol.com CALM is an all volunteer organization dedicated to educating parents,youth,educators and communities about the negative effects of marijuana since 2010. Our materials are based on scientific research done by recognized experts from all over the world. CALM provides trainings, media and brochures in numerous areas of concern, such as: the effects of marijuana on the brain, environmental damage, drugged driving,increased teen use, physical health problems, and crime statistics,etc. Shared Hope International http://sharedhope.org https://www.facebook.com/search/top/?q=shared%20hope%20international 1-866-HER-LIFE/ 1-866-437-5433 PO Box 65337/Vancouver WA 98665 sa-,,eli,,,es@sharedhope.org 415-819-0417; Laurel Botsford,Sausalito,CA; Iaurel.SHIAoH@gmail.com We work to prevent,restore and bring justice to victims of sex trafficking both nationally and internationally. [See above] Ambassadors of Hope and Opportunity(AHO) http://ahoproject.org http://www.facebook.com/ahobayarea 415-381-7173 P.O. 2278, Mill Valley, CA 94942 Zara Babitzke, MA; zarab@comcast.net We are a 12-year old Marin County nonprofit providing a comprehensive safety net of housing support,guidance and community connections for teens and young adults ages 18 to 25 who are homeless or at-risk of becoming homeless due to Drugs&Sex Trafficking. Flowering Hope www.floweringhope.org https://www.facebook.com/floweringhope https://twitter.com/floweringhopeUS https://www.instagram.com/floweringhopeorg/ 415-686-6511 P 0 Box 2397, Mill Valley, CA 94901 Mary Ann Ellison, Founder/Executive Director; maryann@floweringhope.org Flowering Hope is an awareness and support organization for Survivors of gender-based violence, providing a venue for a voice and an opportunity for healing through creative means. Our #FHMaskProject for survivors,#hopestories postcard quilt campaign,and #Shero2Shero campaign,all come together as an awareness art exhibit,bringing information,hope and vision to the general public.Our Hiking for Hope program and Summer Empowerment Educational Program for female youth feature discussions on goal setting,communication,media imaging of women, healthy relationships and birth control. Community Violence Solutions www.cvsolutions.org 415-259-2850 -San Rafael Office 510-237-0113 - Main Office 1-800-670-7273 - 24hr Crisis Line 2101 Van Ness St, San Pablo, CA 94806 Lucia Ray-Guillen,Anti-Human Trafficking Program Manager; Tray@cvsolutions.org Community Violence Solutions' Rape Crisis Center is a collaborating partner in the county-wide Anti-Trafficking project.Victims of sexual and/or labor trafficking receive crisis intervention services, support,referrals, counseling,and case management services. Community Violence Solutions provides services to victims/survivors from Contra Costa and Marin Counties.We also provide presentations and trainings on this very important topic to bring awareness to the issue of human trafficking. MOMS STRONG littp://momsstrong.org/ 805-300-2447 MomsStronginfo@gmail.com To make the public aware of Marijuana harms by sharing the stories of how our youth are experiencing devastating mental (and physical) health effects from using marijuana.We are parents who know the dangers and losses first hand. Ritter Center www.rittercenter.org 415-457-8182 16 Ritter Street, San Rafael, CA 94901 communications@rittercenter.org Ritter Center is Marin's critical safety net for the homeless and working poor.Services include a downtown San Rafael Health Center, Case Management&Counseling, Food Pantry,and Day Service Center. Buckelew Programs www.buckelew.org 415-457-6964 415-499-1100 - Suicide Prevention Hotline - 555 Northgate Drive, Suite 200,San Rafael, CA 94903 info@buckelew.org Mental Health &Addiction Services, includes the Helen Vine Recovery Center, Family Service Agency of Marin,Jeanette Prandi Children's Center,Teen Screen, Marin Suicide Prevention Hotline and Community Counseling. Center for Domestic Peace www.centerfordomesticpeace.org 415-457-2464- offic; 415-924-6616-hotline 734 A Street, San Rafael, CA 94901 administrator@c4dp.org The Center for Domestic Peace provides transformational services and programs that protect and enhance victim safety, and ultimately engage the community in permanent change. There are three interlocking strategies: Safety and Empowerment, Coordinated Community Response and Social Transformation. Marin Advocates for Children www.marinadvocates.org 415-507-9016 30 North San Pedro Road, Suite 275, San Rafael CA 94903 30 N San Pedro Rd#275, San Rafael, CA 94903 Kay Randolph-Pollard; kay@marinadvocates.org Marin Advocates for Children's mission is to stop and prevent child abuse in Marin County through two programs: The Marin Court Appointed Special Advocates (CASA) Program,and the Marin Child Abuse Prevention Council (CAPC). New Day For Children http://www.newdayforchildren.com/ contact@newdayforchildren.com New Day for Children provides education, restorative care and therapeutic services to girls' ages 10+who have been victimized by Commercial Sexual Exploitation (CSE). Our goal is to care for the girls and help them recapture their childhoods,while building their self-esteem and confidence. 2016 has been a year of growth for New Day with the opening of a new adolescent safe house and transitional lifeskills home for our graduates both located in Napa. We are committed to their well- being and making a lasting difference in the lives of these young women,saving one life at a time. Canal Alliance http://canalalliance.org/ 415- 454-2640 91 Larkspur Street, San Rafael, CA 94901 David Parada, Marketing Manager; dparada@canalalliance.org We teach clients how to access resources to address immediate challenges while developing critical skills; support students in grades 6-12 by providing academic support classes,tutoring,and homework help to ensure students graduate from high school college-ready and complete an undergraduate degree; help adults acquire new skills, achieve their education and career goals, and improve their lives; and provide low cost immigration legal services to eliminate the legal barriers to legal integration for Marin's low-income immigrant populations;T-visas,U-visas. JoyLoveServe https://www.facebook.com/joyLoveServe/ Gina Vucci; gina@joyloveserve.com We exist to serve and support women affected by poverty,violence and trafficking- that every woman would know she is LOVED and never alone.We host women's pampering days and boutiques with much-needed seasonal items as well as accessories to make every women feel beautiful. We organize drives for specific supplies and always include a meal that we share together or a meal to-go. Everything we do is rooted in RELATIONSHIP... it's not enough to offer needed items, we want to break down barriers and build relationships with those in our Marin County and San Francisco communities. Freedom House http://www.freedomhousesf.org/ Tina Beauchamp; Tina@freedomhousesf.org Freedom House is a non-profit organization with a mission to bring hope, restoration, and a new life to survivors of human-trafficking by providing a safe home and long-term aftercare: The Monarch, the first safe house in Northern California for adult female survivors of human trafficking, and The Nest, residential shelter for minors located in Santa Clara County.Working closely with law enforcement and community partners to identify survivors of human trafficking,we provide the care and services they need to rebuild their lives, and continuing with our innovative aftercare model, breaking the cycle of exploitation and creating new futures for survivors. Rising international http://risinginternational.org/ 831-429-7473 300 Potrero St.Santa Cruz Ca 95060 Andrea Parker, Community Outreach Coordinator; andrea@risinginternational.org The Safe and Sound Program is a local human trafficking prevention program for foster youth and homeless adults who are often the most vulnerable to exploitation.The program uniquely combines an earned income opportunity with entrepreneurial skill building and trafficking prevention training. Special Thanks to Everyone who has made this evening run so smoothly: Sydney Fairbairn, Past Exalted Ruler- Master of Ceremonies Attorney at Law at Sydney E. Fairbairn since January 1986, Civil Litigation in business,personal injury, real estate,finance, construction defect and insurance.Jury Trials, Court Trials,Arbitrations,Mediations, Law and Motion. Past Exalted Ruler of Elks Lodge#1108 and Junior Past President of the Mission San Rafael Rotary. • Travis Jones, Exalted Ruler of Elks Lodge#1108 • Constanza Perry- flyer design • Loring Piper- Elks Booster announcement and website notice • Lynn Fox- Elks Lodge#1108 Drug Awareness Program [DAP] Co-Chairperson,event committee • Laurel Botsford- Elks Lodge #1108 Drug Awareness Program [DAP] Co-Chairperson,event committee • Stewart Munson, Past Exalted Ruler Elks Lodge #1108 - event committee • Katharine Whipple, Elks member-event committee • Elks Vounteers-yay crew! Andrew Davidson Veronica Sherrod John Zeravich Nancy Zeravich Paula Gonterman Leigha Fromm Terry Graham • Monica McMullin- Elks Secretary • Mark Moelter, Elks helper-set-up • Alicia Fernando and her crew, Elks member-Menu and Food preparation • Dennis McNell- for the use of his projector NOTES: F z AMBASSADOR sl A hor. Elks Lodge#1108 with Shared Hope International and Take 18 Entertainment Present: 'PLAYING THE GAME' Film- an INTERNET SAFETY [I'Vl O'N't 1--' ' r Friday, May 12th, 2017 --- 6:00 - 7:30 pm @ Elks Lodge 1312 Mission Avenue, San Rafael, CA 16-year old film director Ethan was approached by his friend, 20-year old Maya, saying, "I want you to do a film - about my story." Thus PLAYING THE GAME was born. Filmed locally, Maya relives her story: that of one 12-year-old Petaluma teen and how she was tricked into sex trafficking by the lure of a promising modeling career. "Does this really happen?"Come watch, learn and ask your questions of those who have lived this reality. Learn about the stalking and recruitment of our teens via the Internet with an increasing number of unsuspecting kids lured right from under the noses of their parents and guardians. A not to be missed Educational and Informational evening of Teen Empowerment [in a multitude of ways] For Teens and all Adults (Elks and non-Elks welcome) 12 years+ only, please. Join us for this Special Elk Event only days before Ethan heads to the Marche du Film at the Cannes Film Festival 2017 to screen his full length,Point 453. Ethan Paisley,Writer, Director, Producer, Actor, Take 18 Entertainment Maya Babow, Producer, Actor, Take 18 Entertainment, Survivor Advocate Laurel Botsford, Volunteer Ambassador of Hope, Shared Hope International N • Casual Dinner available at minimal cost • Contact: Laurel Botsford, 415-819-0417 orlaui-el.SHIAoH@gmail.com • Please RSVP for Event, [plus Dinner, if desired]: rsvp@elksl 108.org DON'T BLOW UP FAMILIES, SCHOOLS, AND COMMUNITIES IN SMOKE! By: Andrea Silvera Dear California Voters, We have a rising issue:the increase in marijuana usage especially among youth. San Francisco has the highest rate across the country of marijuana smoking,that percentage being over 15%. On a national scope, 7.7%of people,which is approximately 20.3 million Americans over the age of 12 have reported using the drug once a month or more. Imagine the unreported data. Those percentages would be even higher. This issue is very upsetting due to its health implications, increase in D.U.I. and a historical precedent demonstrating a increase in drug use. The main health effect of marijuana is in the frontal lobe part of your brain. It affects the frontal lobe and the ability to make rational decisions,to problem solve, and to learn. What you may not know is that the marijuana today contains up to 25%of THC,the active chemical ingredient in the drug, compared to 1-2%THC in the marijuana used in the 1970s and 1980s according to Dr. Lynn Fox,Emeritus Professor of San Francisco State University with a Ph.D. in educational psychology and special education. Extensive studies have shown that marijuana users are much more vulnerable to disorders such as schizophrenia,paranoia, and psychosis. Although proponents of Proposition 64,which allows the legalization of marijuana for recreational use may argue that this is being done the right way,this does not represent success in implementing certain regulations. For example, it proposes that children will be protected by not allowing marijuana businesses to be near schools and that purchasers have to be at least 21 years of age. However,there is no guarantee that marijuana industries would actually follow through with those promises. When marijuana was legalized for recreational use in Colorado,the situation has not improved. Automobile accidents have risen by 34% since then.In the state of California,the number of these accidents is approximately 300 annually. Interestingly, during the Reagan presidency in the 1980s, drug-free policies and programs have been executed by the federal government in schools. One such program was initiated by First Lady Nancy Reagan called"Just Say No"and it worked! This has prompted teachers, counselors,psychologists, staff members, and students to be educated.As a result, drug use within youth decreased by 45%. However,the success and maintenance were lost when succeeding presidents such as Clinton,Bush,and Obama had different focuses and decided to cut funding on programs and resources that have tackled substance abuse.In the Marin County Schools, including Del Mar Middle School where I attended, little information was provided to students and teachers. At Redwood School,there are many students who use and abuse of marijuana and other drugs. Is this the type of future you would want for yourself,your family,your school, and your community?Marijuana industries have no sympathy towards anyone;they will try to fool customers as marijuana being"medical"just to create dependency on their products. It is time to stand together and say no to paying for an industry that deteriorate one's health and well-being. You can start by voting NO on Proposition 64. Thank you for your attention. References: Dexter, Katie. "Legalizing Recreational Marijuana Hurts Youth, Families." The San Diego Union-Tribune. The San Diego Union-Tribune, 15 July 2016. Web. 27 Oct. 2016. Goldstein,Diane. "Prop. 64 Legalizes Recreational Marijuana The Right Way." The San Diego Union-Tribune. The San Diego Union-Tribune, 15 July 2016. Web. 27 Oct. 2016. Henry Harry. "FP1 1920 29f." Online Video Clip. YouTube. YouTube, 8 May, 2016. Web. 18 October 2016. Henry Harry. "FP2 1920 29f." Online Video Clip. YouTube. YouTube, 8 May, 2016. Web. 18 October 2016. Ingraham, Christopher. "This Map Shows How Many People Are Getting High Near You." Washington Post. The Washington Post,26 July 2016. Web. 30 Oct. 2016. May 3,2017 Dear Mayor Fraser and Council Members, I have read the Public Notice and the Ark articles and would like to comment on your proposed text and regulations regarding implementation of Proposition 64. I want to thank you for starting the process and developing good preliminary guidelines. After reviewing the content,I would strongly recommend that you add up-to-date research to back your decisions. There is no urgency and waiting for the "newest and greatest" information that is coming this summer will provide you with what other towns and cities are doing or not! Bringing another draft back to the citizens in September and again in November will educate citizens, and at the same time give you more practical insights. An enormous around of research and data is coming out DAILY and need to be carefully considered before the Final Ratification. Please consider that growers apply for and post their permit to help the Police Department, Paramedics and other service providers who will be the first responders. I have been in the drug prevention field for over 25 years, written a textbook for HarperCollins entitled Creating Drugs Free Schools and Communities, developed three award-winning Federal Models for implementation: STOP for Schools: CODE for Families and ACE (Activating Community Efforts) for Communities. I have dedicated the last two years learning the ends and out of Prop 64. Professionals and researchers like myself(from all over CA and the USA) cannot keep up with the research and statistics that continuously clog our emails, PO boxes and minds. In the near future there will be a massive amount of data for you to use in protecting your citizens, our schools, our homes and children. Please do not try to move this process too quickly. You still have some time to make changes that benefit us all. Education of our teachers, parents and children are also a priority in whatever you decide! In this letter I would like to address Section "C" of your plan. IN-HOME GROWTH AND CULTIVATION OF 6 PLANTS: Please review these 10 facts as you continue refining your draft for your final Regulations: 1. Marijuana (MJ) is called Skunk for a reason: it stinks when it is smoked and when it is cultivated and growing. 2. One MJ plant can grow the size of a tree and is basically a WEED. 3. MJ plants can take up to 6 gallons of water per day , 4. Pesticides and fertilizers can harm the inhabitants and our water streams. 1 5. MJ fumes can create second-hand smoke and lead to illnesses and even death to others. I send a lot of research to you in an earlier email. 6. Robberies, explosions from Butane Hash Oil products(which will happen) and even murder for the money has to be regularly monitored and prevented. 7. Having MJ in houses, apts., and condos give YOUTH the idea that MJ is harmless and encourages their underage use. If available, most will use it. 8. Six plants grown hydroponically can potentially have 4 harvests a year and produceas much as 24 lbs which is equal to about 24,000 joints.The MJ excess crop will become a commercial operation, not just for personal consumption. 9. Growth and Use in homes will increased access for young children (i.e. 1-4 year olds) and pets to have access by touch,tasting and ingesting,which is one of a leading cause of emergency hospital visits in states where MJ is legal. 10. Research shows: Given the high THC levels of today(25-9070)vs. the 1970- 90s (1-370), Marijuana smoked,napped or dapped can lead to depression, psychosis, schizophrenia,violent acts,suicides,mental degeneration and more for both adults and youth. WE MUST PROTECT OUR COMMUNITY, CHILDREN AND FUTURE! In your packets that I will deliver, you will find current data that supports my 10 facts. I am a resident of Tiburon and willing to help in many ways to make our Ordinance one of the best and easiest for monitoring violations and decreasing the desire to grown at their homes. By working together, we can protect the safety and security of Tiburon residents and visitors. Sincere! a C. Lyn �Fo , D. Note: E AWARE that mar�juana is still a Federally haimed SCHEDULE 1 DRUG. The Trump Admiriistratioti is cinorchig federal laws, as is their respo isiPeople who are growi ig, selling and sharijag could lose their homes as-id face prosecutioll. Please Watch some of my videos about MJ and its effects on our lives: Dr. Fox's TV SPECIAL:Marijuana and Adolescents: YouTubes:watch both parts Part 1: Intro to problems https://youtu.be/®K708XcB7'J4 Part 2: Solutions htt.ps.//youtu.la qqi a7wf lVh�J 2 From: Lynn Fox foxlyrnnsLme.com r� Subject: New Study Finds More Marijuana Use,Higher Rates of Marijuana Addiction in States w/MMJ Laws Mato: April 26,2017 at 4:08 PM To: Bcc: Dan Watrous dwatrous@townoftihuron.org, Frank Lee frlee@)att.net, delfinafung8@netzero.net, Jim Fraser jsfraserl(s1comcast.net New Study Finds More Marijuana Use, Higher Rates of Marijuana Addiction in States With Medical Marijuana Laws Contact: Anisha Gianchandani anishag +1 (703) 828-8182 [Alexandria, VA, April 26, 2017] - A new study_released today by JAMA Psychiatry found that rates of marijuana use and marijuana addiction increased significantly more in states that passed medical marijuana laws as compared to states that have not. Examining data from 1992 to 2013, researchers concluded that medical marijuana laws likely contributed to an increased prevalence of marijuana and marijuana-addicted users. "Politicians and pro-pot special interests are quick to tout the benefits of medical marijuana legalization, but it's time to see through the haze — medical marijuana has gone completely unregulated," said SAM President Kevin Sabet. "More people in these states are suffering from an addiction to marijuana that harms their lives and relationships, while simultaneously more have begun using marijuana. No one wants to see patients denied something that might help them, but this study underscores the fact that"medical' and "recreational" legalization are blurred lines. Smoked marijuana is not medicine, and has not been proven safe and effective as other FDA-approved medications have." The study's researchers wrote that increases in marijuana use in states with medical marijuana laws "may have resulted from increasing availability, potency, perceived safety, [or] generally permissive attitudes." They conclude that"changing state laws (medical or recreational) may also have adverse public health consequences." Evidence demonstrates that marijuana —which has skyrocketed in average potency over the past decades — is addictive and harmful to the human brain, especially when used by adolescents. Moreover, in states that have already legalized the drug, there has been an increase in drugged driving crashes and youth marijuana use. States that have legalized marijuana have also failed to shore up state budget shortfalls with marijuana taxes, continue to see a thriving black market, and are experiencing a continued rise in alcohol sales. BRAIN E RUINS LIVES: MENTAL AND PHYSICAL ILLNESS. Marijuana is asso- TTL F PLANET ® ciated with psychosis, schizophrenia, bipolar disorder BRAIN DAMAGE from fat soluble marijuana results in and major mental illness. It can induce psychosis in One marijuana plant consumes 6 gallons of water per permanent structural and chemical changes causing vulnerable people. Because marijuana stays in the body day,averaging 1 to 5 lbs of produce at 1200 joints per impaired memory, motivation, maturation and cogni- longer than any other drug, it can cause testicular can- Ib. Pot plantations in California,all producing marijua- tion. Heavy adolescence use has resulted in loss of IQ cer, strokes, heart attacks and bronchitis in vulnerable na under the guise of medicine, are diverting water by an average of 8 points by mid-adulthood. Quitting individuals. Roughly 30% of people are considered vul- from streams causing irreparable damage to ecosys- nerable. Jails nationwide are full of mentally ill people tems that are categorized as "globally outstanding" use as an adult is unlikely to reverse the damage.The g g Y g" brain isn'tfullydeveloped under age 25.The adolescent who can't work,waiting for non-existent beds in mental In rural and residential communities,the stench from brain is much more vulnerable to harm. Brain damage institutions.Marijuana use is associated with lower grad- marijuana is ruining the quality of life and diminishing during adolescence can have life-long consequences. uation rates, higher unemployment and greater reliance property values.To serve the insatiable appetite of 8% on public assistance. of Americans who want to get high, and provide an PSYCHOTIC EPISODES-Roughly 500,000 people are ad- easy buck for people who don't care about the social mitted to Emergency Rooms annually due to psychotic ADDICTION- Recent information (JAMA Psychiatry Oct of economic impact they impose of the other 92%, 21,2015) indicates addiction to marijuana has risen from America is Bufferin enormous damage to the brains breaks.Voices tell them to do heinous acts of murder,and/ g g or commit suicide. Marijuana has been a factor in most 9% to 30.5% in current (past year) users. Addiction is a of our youth, and to our precious natural resources. mass murders, including Tucson, Aurora, Boston Bomb- life-long condition that enslaves people,escalates crime, It has to stop,or we have no future as a nation. ers,Chattanooga and more. Eddie Routh killed American diminishes academic achievement and productivity and Sniper Chris Kyle and friend after a morning smoking pot. ruins entire families. Most of the 122 Americans who die A 23 year old mother in Ohio decapitated her 3 month old every day of overdose of other drugs,started their drug with marijuana. baby.Numerous people have committed suicide. journey s� , BIRTH DEFECTS - Children prenatally exposed to THC are more likely to show gaps in problem-solving skills, �� James Holmes killed memory, and ability to remain attentive. (NIDA) Even ' 12 people and injured low concentrations of THC can have profound and 70 others at a Century long-lasting consequences for brain and behavior of This bladder holds 500,000 gallons of ` water diverted from streams,a 1 day movie theater in Aurora, offspring. Marijuana use during pregnancy or breast supply for this pot plantation. a"• Colorado,on July 20,2012. feeding is associated with adverse consequences for the child which can persist well into adulthood. TRAFFIC FATALITIES DOUBLE - One in eight (12.6%) Y of drivers in America are impaired by marijuana to Jared Lou hnerkilled 9 varying degrees.Traffic deaths owing to drugged driving mr. 6 people and injured now rival alcohol (40%), with marijuana being theme 13 others in Tucson,Arizona, predominant drug. Traffic fatalities owing to marijuana on January 8,2011. impairment have doubled in states that allow marijuana for any reason. Marijuana mixed with alcohol escalates the problem by eight times. r "If a child reaches age 21 MARIJUANA HAS CHANGED Potency has gone from 1/2 to 2%THC to 20 to prior to smoking,abusing ' i _ alcohol or using drugs, 30%in smoked form,and up to 96%as Butane they virtually never will. Hash Oil (BHO) extracts and oils which are 21 DRUFREE (Califano,CASA) � G n used in edibles and vaping. Edibles are sold CHALLENGE ' � in quantities and potency that have proven And Addiction Have No s lethal. Vaping, with no smoke or odor, is the Drugs new threat for inflicting mental and physical Religious Or Party Preference. harms including addiction, particularly to (Bishop Ron Allen,International Faith Based Coalition) T F adolescents. No longer a "soft" drug, the Addiction to alcohol, drugs and tobacco is the root IN, adverse impacts have risen in relation to the cause of more pain and suffering, social destruction, potency.The greatest harm is BRAIN DAMAGE. economic cost and death than all events in recent �� ' history. If America is to have a future, we must take 4 . MARIJUANA EDIBLES AND VAPING action to protect the brains of our youth,and stop they devastation of our environment.We cannot succumb . ` Marijuana edibles are now sold under the guise of medicine, packaged to be of interest to the 8%of people who use marijuana to get high,or to children, in quantities and potencies that profit from those who do, at the expense of the 92% of people who don't. If we allow them to destroy our y;z are potentially lethal.E-Cigarettes and vaping x youth, and inflict irreparable harm on our natural have now eclipsed conventional cigarettes, � > resources,they have no future,nor do we as a nation. with no smoke or odor. They are widely used for cannabis with potencyas high as 96%with Marijuana is a very dangerous drug that has the the potential to adversely affect the brains ofTHIS �S NOT A WAR potential to destroy this nation. If you can help by anyone under 25 years old, but particularly making a small donation, it will help us sustain and ON DRUGS, BUT A BATTLE adolescents. grow our effort to achieve a safer, healthier, drug-free TO PROTECT THE B RA N 5 state and nation.We thank you in advance for doing so. OF OUR YOUTH. Donations can be mailed to: TBAC,P.O.Box 459,Lincoln,Ca 95648;or on-line The human brain holds our at www.tbac.us or for a tax-free donation visit our Prevention Partner at Parents Opposed to Pot humanity—how we think, feel, and act. www.poppot.us,a 501(c)3 With our minds we learn, create, compose, connect and remember. We love, feel ' empathy,sorrow and loss. We care for ,- Heavenly Father,thank you for the gift of our children il� and planet. We pray for your love and protection for others and give unconditionally. Our both,so that they may grow and flourish. reward is the essence of our humanity. �! We are united in the defense of our most vulnerable. The brightness of our shared We Encourage You To Learn A future depends on our promise and o5b, More About Marijuana www.drugabuse.com / stoppot2016.com commitment to protect and defend the mental health of our youth. n POPPOT.org / #stoppot / CALMca.org / IFBC.us y 1 s e RIJUAN e15 NO JOKE , a Gateway t0 Other Drugs Think Marijuana is harmless? You don't know POT! Crime - Marijuana works on the same receptor site system in the brain as heroin. POTENCY: - 50% of men and 30% of women arrested for any crir - Marijuana primes one's brain to seek stronger drugs. -70% of inmates are addicted to drugs and/or alcohol - Most drug addicts in treatment began their drug journey with marijuana.3 Marijuana (a.k.a. Cannabis) today is - Guns and other weapons are common at both large Butane Hash Oil (BHO) Marijuana and the Braiin'9 stronger Increases THC potency to 90% 21 Causes and exacerbates: , -As dangerous to make and consume a Depression, Psychosis, Schizophrenia than 40 years ago - Easily causes explosions and fires in - Psychotic breaks/Violent acts/Suicides ' neighborhoods where it is cooked. 10 40x - Loss of memory, perception, motor skills Wouid you take 40 - Mental degeneration at one time?. Edibles / Vaping Drugged DrivingTHC (the mind-altering chemical in marijuana that gets a - BHO used in "Vaping" devices (aka e-cigarettes) crea gg user high)is stored in fat tissue and is slow) released back - BHO is used in the manufacture of candy, brownies, - Driving tests show marijuana impairs reaction times, divided-attention tasks, � g ) Y -Va In and Edibles are favorite ways for youth to ii lane-position variability (weaving), peripheral vision, cognitive function & coordination.' into the blood stream keeping that THC in the body for P g y y - 1 of every 8 traffic fatalities in Colorado are marijuana related (+32% increase).22 many days, even weeks after the pot is used. This THC - BHO is not overseen by any regulatory body. There a - Marijuana driving deaths more than doubled in one year after legalization in Washington.23 continues to negatively affect memory and emotional' no limits on potency, or limits on contaminates. - Marijuana was found in drivers of 1,500 traffic fatalities in California in the past 5 years.' processing, organs and bodily systems. - Combining marijuana with alcohol increases impairment up to 8 times.' TETRAHYDROCANNABINOL Marijuana is Big Money (but not for the col -One plant can bring $2,000 to $4,000 to a grower/distributor. Teen use (THC concentration) .' e - Black Markets still thrive after legalization.18 - Increases dramatically wherever marijuana is legalized. -Tax revenues from pot sales do NOT cover increased crime, crime, - Causes irreversible IQ loss up to 8 points and higher services. Revenues are projected to be less than .003% of to 13 -Cost of law enforcement increases, not decreases with legali: - 1 in 6 teens who try marijuana will become addicted. likelihood of Amotivational Syndrome. 2 I -CA already has 50,000 illegal cultivation sites that supply 60% Heavy Users are less likely to graduate.15 ®,PMarijuana is NOT Earth, Big Marijuana's goal—teen users today become 2%lifetime consumers tomorrow. � _ - 1 plant uses 6 gallons of water per day -Streams diverted to grow sites kill flora Fetal Risk Pot Pot Wax Hash Oil - Poisons and illegal fertilizers contamin; Marijuana use during pregnancy crosses (1970's) (Today) (BHO) the placental and blood/brain barrier and "First,Do No Harm" t Marijuana is harmful 0 increases the baby's susceptibility to:5 - Lower birthweight Physical Health Impacts Is Marijuana really Medicine? c? A' -Addiction later in life LUNGS: Smoke from marijuana contains 4-5x the Whole plant marijuana and THC oils are not medicine: - Birth defects &cancers toxins, irritants & carcinogens as tobacco smoke; - Components may have medicinal value, i.e. CBD (Cannabidiol)11 940 An - Problem solving and learning difficulties later in life 20 times more ammonia.1' -To protect the public, the FDA testing and approval process determines Studies show genetic changes in offspring of heavy users.' HEART: increases likelihood of heart attack drug safety, dosing efficacy, side effects, potency, duration, interactions, etc. www.CALMca.org •916-708-4111 •916-270-2675 IMMUNE SYSTEM is weakened -The potential for marijuana-based, FDA approved drugs does NOT Negatively impacts REPRODUCTIVE SYSTEM require marijuana "legalization." Permission to reprint is granted,calmca.org•Email CarlaDLowe@aol.com for Print-Ready PDF. g Y p q � g e 0 P Sn, o CAN HELP ,EGALIZATION PLAN TO ® ® ® ® Citizens Against LION TO WIN. The "Regulate and Control"policy attempt has failed—yielding huge increases in underage .• ,P TO DEFEAT THEM.. and adult use, poisonings, and drugged driving Legalizing Marihuana (CALM) i4 NOVEMBER 8,2016, DON'T LET THIS HAPPEN IN CALIFORNIA - VOTE NO ON PROP. 64 join YOU. Colorado legalized recreational use in 2012 and now has more marijuana use than any other state in the nation. Jzens Against Legalizing Colorado" s below.Even$5.00 helps. Age Vs. National National "We are not making any extra revenue from this [legal MARIJUANA]...we've spent millions and millions of dollars at CALMca.org Avg Rank and we still haven't gotten [people]to realize you're taking at efforts to legalize marijuana. 12-17 +74/0 #1 .� % some serious risk [when consuming marijuana],certainly � u er campaign ID 1326759 18-25 +62% #1 as a teenager,when your brain is still growing so rapidly." _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ 26+ +104% #1 -John Hickenlooper,Governor of Colorado(Oct 2015) v on is required by the Colorado The Future of our Children and butions of$100 or • In 2015, drug crimes rose 12.5%in the city and county of Denver. Homicides were up over 74%. Country is in your hands • Marijuana poisonings were up 148%in Colorado;up 153%among children 0 to 5 year olds. • Minority and disadvantaged communities are disproportionately impacted in Denver,with one vote NO on Prop. 64 lower-income neighborhood reporting a marijuana business for every 47 residents. November 8, 2016 • Illegal drug traffickers and cartels hide among the "the State's flourishing legal marijuana industry." 1e i Source:2015 Rocky Mountain HIDTA Data PROPOSITION 64, written by the Marijuana Industry, serves its interests over ALL others h and mail to: Washington including public health and safety: GALIZI NG MARIJUANA • One-third (33%)of all DUI cases now test positive for THC, up from 19%in 2012. • Increases teen use of marijuana through increased )X 2995 • Drivers in fatal accidents with THC in their blood increased over 120%from 2010 to 2014. access,unlimited advertising and a minor fine for I, CA 95608 ; • 49%of young adults (ages 18-25)who used marijuana in the past month had driven a car within three selling to youth. ' hours of getting high. For 16%of those young adults, it was a behavior they had repeated six or more • Increases drugged driving through increased 1 use only) times that same month. availability while setting no impairment levels for are yourname. • Marihuana driving fatalities nearly match alcohol driving fatalities (27%and 29%, respectively).' identifying DUls. - - - - - - - - - J • Kids ages 12-17 accounted for 74%of all state marijuana seizures in 2014(up from 28.9%in 2010). • Expands the black market for marijuana as every u.CALMca.org to: home can be an unregulated pot farm. ' In Seattle public schools, 77%of all drug and alcohol disciplinary violations in alive-month period • Reduces home values greatly and ruins neighborhoods to send to your friends (9/2014 to 1/2015)were related to marijuana: g y g nd educational flyers due to property damage,growing stench,increased • Marijuana poisoning calls to the State Poison Center rose 54%from 2012 to 2014. traffic,noise and drug dealing. )n in your community • State authorities have yet to criminally prosecute any marijuana businesses for attempting to sell pot to • Establishes another expensive State bureaucracy ;THER LEGALIZATION: minors, despite documented violations that entail felony liability. with tax payers and the General Fund responsible for • Washington State now has nearly 200 more recreational marijuana dispensaries than Starbucks outlets any shortfall. our group to the list) fuelingmassive increases in consumption.p "No amount of taxing,regulating or legislating will change the highly- ornia Police Chiefs Association, Source:Northwest High Intensity Drug Trafficking Area(HIDTA)office in Seattle potent,long-acting,mind-altering THC in marijuana that damages rotective League,Association of the developing brain."-Carla Lowe,Founder/Co-Chairman,CALM "As with Big Tobacco,the pot industry knows that hooking kids while they're young is the best way to generate the heavy users :alifornia Hospitals Association their business model needs." -Jeffrey Zinsmeister,SAM EVP "How many more people can get stoned and still have a Dn,Take Back America,California "The'regulate and control'model legalizers promised is simply a corporate free-for-all,"-Dr.Kevin Sabet,President of SAM. great State or Nation?"-Governor Jerry Brown California Sheriff's Association, "It's profits before public health and safety,in all these states." � irijuana(SAM),National Families Permission to reprint is granted,calmca.org • 'Email CarlaDLowe@aol.com for Print-Ready PDF. CALMca.o , g Cares,Courage to Speak Paid for by CALM Campaign ID 1326759 July 2016 No.CA 916-708-4111 So.CA 916-270-2675 . Rc LIME C. p a an vranrip_A RE , �> rdauy bA ShaledhORej, EN u ,,, PREVENT TAKE ACTION TRAINING BECOME AN AMBASSADOR OF HOPE -_ .. ,� c , , ,. 1 ,. MCI, VUIUIILCCI YUU1 LllfIC LV byfCdU - aferie - r� acs awar�nc ss in u I I I .,, your community/ sharedhope.org/aoh BECOME A DEFENDER C z. • �- ,. �.. r . ommit to stand against the commercial • ��� ;�• �._ �- sex industry th d fend ersusa. rg-1 RAISE AWARENESS Share the signs of trafficking through the AWARENESS film Chosen / sharedhope.org/chosen ,,1 ",,j!- �!j, EMPOWER P ER YOUR FAITH COMMUNITY r rOrder Toolkit V i '� j� I� ,fy`,.�_ Y a Faith In Action sharedh r o e or /stote .•l v.a c H.P.. �, vd; ,> > CHI w� <� REQUEST A SPEAKER d wd��> http://sharedhope.org/join-the-cause/request-a- )1-,- 1,( r p speaker/or savelives@sharedhope.org g RAISE YOUR STATE GRADE RESEARCH ` �� �� _ ��.�, al �r I �' on child sex trafficking laws I� u �( I t> � ,C�tl I, _ ��- �,J5., r sharedhope.org/reportcards _ a -., i i �7t �rl w, DONATE sharedhope.org/don ate , i lit L`s"Ci �; �:1: SHARED HOPE INTERNATIONAL OUR MISSION WHAT IS SEX TRAFFICKING Shared Hope International's mission is to Sex trafficking occurs when someone uses force, fraud or coercion to cause a commercial prevent, restore and bring justice to women sex act with an adult or causes a minor to commit a commercial sex act. and children victimized and vulnerable to sex trafficking. We envision a world passionately opposed to sex trafficking and a community committed to restoring survivors to lives of purpose, value and choice — one life at a time. ; 3 Fuels the market OUR VISION with their money. Our early efforts targeted the international .. sex trafficking industry.ustr . As we became -' established leaders in the international Exploits victims to earn Includes both girls and movement to end slavery, our eyes were revenue from buyers boys who are bought opened to sex trafficking in the U.S. and sold for profit We could not ignore this injustice and expanded our impact to bring hope to American women and children victimized in TraffickerfNd iti thr®ugh the commercial sex industry. Today, we lead I ISI prevention strategies, restoration programs 1 1 ' The and justice initiatives to combat trafficking HOME NEIGHBORHOOD in the U.S. and abroad. a child enters sex trafficking I CLUBS 1 . BARS We believe we can create a world where every survivor is surrounded by trained professionals, an alert community, just law and policy, knowledgeable service SCHOOL providers and appropriate shelter options. And lure them through promises of: ° 1 • Protection Love Adventure Home Opportunity shared hope INTERNATIONAL ` r ! a� . ! SKUNK ALERTI. (aka Potent Pot) i BRAIN DAMAGE. PSYCHOSIS. ADDICTION. F i What every teacher,parent and student should know about marijuana. i MARIJUANA IS NOT SAFER THAN ALCOHOL. Unlike alcohol which consists of one chemical that is excreted from the body in a matter of hours, marijuana is fat-soluble, one half of which stays in the body and brain for a month, compounding with each additional joint; longer than any other drug. It consists of 483 chemicals that turn into over 2,000 when smoked and 61 cannabinoids all of which are bioactive and some arepsY choactive. l The main psychoactive drug is THC (delta 9 tetrahydrocannabinol).The THC content of marijuana has increased from 1/2 to 2% in the 60's and 70's to as high as 40% in smoked form, and 95% as wax or BHO (Butane Hemp Oil). While alcohol in moderation can even be beneficial, as with a glass or two of wine, today's high potency pot, called Skunk, is primarily consumed just to get high, and with it are many serious harms to adolescent brains. I MARIJUANA CAN CAUSE PERMANENT BRAIN DAMAGE by physically altering the brain before it reaches full maturity at or about age 25. Marijuana reduces the amount of white and grey matter by as much as 80%, and shrinks the hippocampus, the learning, cognition and memory center of the brain causing a loss of 6 to 8 points of IQ by age 38. (NIDA) The damage is age and dose related. The younger one starts and the more they use the greater the toxic effect on the brain. Quitting later doesn't reverse the damage. Adolescent marijuana use diminishes academic achievement, leads to more dropouts, less life satisfaction and fewer opportunities for higher paying jobs. Parents should be aware that there is a huge difference between an adolescent and a j mature brain. Brain damage during adolescence can have life-long adverse consequences. MARIJUANA IS NOT MEDICINE While isolated components of the plant, like CBD, appear to have therapeutic value for certain illnesses, and marijuana has some value in suppressing vomiting and nausea and stimulating appetite in AIDs patients, the whole plant is classified by the FDA as a Schedule I drug because it j has no accepted medicinal use, has the potential for harm, and cannot be administered properly under supervision. Real medicines must have known compounds, potency and dosage and be reproducible in a uniform manner (like pills). That isn't possible with smoke, and the consistency of marijuana plants varies widely, often with fungus and insecticides that are very harmful. The term "medical marijuana" was coined by people who want to legalize drugs to give it a good name as a first step toward full legalization. CBD, the component that can help offset the psychoactive effects of THC, has been largely bred out of today's marijuana being sold as medicine, as "patients"just want to get high. Synthetic THC has been produced in pill form called Marinol, and is legally available through pharmacies. MARIJUANA CAN CAUSE MENTAL ILLNESS In vulnerable individuals (about 30%) it has and is causing psychotic breaks leading to violent acts, mass murders and suicides, as well as other mental health disorders including schizophrenia, paranoia, anxiety, depression and bi-polar. The problem is people don't know they are vulnerable until they j experience the problem, then it may be too late for some and a question of long term recovery for others. Psychotic episodes have led to a dramatic increase in emergency room visits. Daily users are 5 times more likely to develop mental health disorders; weekend users 3 times more than non-users. A UK study showed that Skunk was responsible for 1/4th the new cases of schizophrenia. Studies from Australia and New Zealand showed that teens who use marijuana were 7 times more likely to commit suicide. i i i i MARIJUANA IS ADDICTIVE One is six (17%) of adolescents who use marijuana will become addicted; one in eleven (9%)of those who start after age 18. Recovery from marijuana addiction is particularly difficult because it remains in the body for so long. Marijuana is a gateway to other drugs that kill by overdose, such as heroin, cocaine and meth. Of 120 Americans who die every day of drug overdose, roughly 90% started their drug journey with pot. Addiction will ruin the addict's life, and all those in the circle of family and friends. MARIJUANA CAN KILL OR PERMANETLY HARM A FETUS Today's high potency pot can cause fatal brain damage to a fetus only two weeks after conception, before the mother even knows she is pregnant. (Psychoyos, U of Texas) Research from forty years ago, when the potency of pot was a fraction of today's pot, showed an increase in still births from 12% normal to 44%. Babies that survived child birth often had physical deformities and brain alterations that altered behavior and caused learning deficits well into the teens. Babies of mothers who smoked pot during pregnancy had an 11 fold increase in nonlumphobiastic leukemia. Young people approaching or in their child bearing years should be acutely aware that marijuana use at conception, during pregnancy and/or when breast feeding can directly affect a baby when they are most vulnerable. I MARIJUANA CAUSES HEALTH PROBLEMS INCLUDING CANCER Marijuana can cause cancer of the head, neck, bladder, brain and testis. It can cause chronic bronchitis and other respiratory problems and elevates the risk of heart attack by 4.8 times within 1 to 3 hours after smoking. Recent studies in the UK show that it is a major cause of strokes as well. It affects the pituitary gland, a pea size structure at the base of the j brain that is the control center for sex and reproductive hormones and in turn, sexual dysfunction. Studies done long ago showed that marijuana caused more DNA damage than even heroin (Miroshima), resulting in mutations to sperm and chromosomal abnormalities that can affect future generations. Because marijuana attaches to the fatty exterior of all cells, it blocks healthy protein and weakens one's immune system. j MARIJUANA DOUBLES THE RISK OF TRAFFIC DEATHS Traffic deaths have doubled where I marijuana has been legalized. In a Maryland Trauma Center, 27% of injured drivers tested positive for pot. 50% of drivers under 21 tested positive for pot compared to only 33% for alcohol. Intoxication from either alcohol or marijuana are a major cause of injury traffic accidents; mixing the two is particularly dangerous. Traffic accidents are the leading cause of death of teenagers. Don't drive or ride with anyone who uses pot. i MARIJUANA IS WORSE THAN TOBACCO The long term effects of smoking tobacco lead to illnesses that claim 480,000 lives a year, so the harms of tobacco cannot be minimized. However, for all of the reasons cited above regarding brain damage and loss of IQ, impaired memory and motivation, j mental illness, driver safely, depression, anxiety, suicidal tendencies, and myriad health problems, the short term harms are far worse and still have lasting impacts, like tobacco. What is worse, more teens are smoking pot today than tobacco, and in many cases concealing it by using e-cigarettes which don't emit smoke or an odor. Random or suspicion based drug testing can be used Healthy Kids. j for early identification of a problem, and as a deterrent. Hair analysis in Healthy Nation. particular, with a 90 day window of detection, is highly recommended, albeit s urine and saliva should be used as well. The intent is not to catch and punish, but to protect and keep kids in the system, safe and drug-free. STOPPOT2016.COM info@stoppot20l6.com FOLLOW US ON FACEBOOK ADDITIONAL RESOURCES WE ENCOURAGE YOU TO LEARN MORE ABOUT THE HARMS OR MARIJUANA www.drugabuse.gov/publications www.dea.gov www.ibhinc.org www.whitehouse.gov/ondcp www.nationalfamilies.org www.CASAColumbia.org www.drugfree.org www.TBAC.us/Editorials www.CALMca.org www.teens.drugabuse.gov/drugfacts www•poppot.org ,bwrl WrA Cc�;t r . SOCIAL NETWORK PEOPLE, PLACES, AND PARTIES POT of COLD Carol Mack—interior designer,Palm Beach } hostess,wife of diplomat and business r tycoon Earle Mack, and...mother of a marijuana mogul? A c 1 { x if 7FRI INSIDER INFORM IION T DA PU __Uou c cu.lt'izrc. Cannabis sativa L. x ar� w"' A MOTHER , c WAS SHOCKED very November my husband's horse Inside,a lone young woman sat in WHEN HER I VY- racing interests take us to an event in front of a laptop,ready to do business. .LEAGUER SONsedate and suburban Pasadena.This After a 40-second Skype interview with year the trip was particularly welcome, a doctor who was located,fittingly,in WENT INTO THE as I had a mission I needed to accomplish Malibu,I paid the$66 state administra- MARIJUANA while in California:obtain a prescrip- tion fee and,as simple as that,had a very .BUSINESS THEN tion for medical.marijuana.After we official-looking document granting me SHE SAW THE arrived,a quick Google search revealed access to the state's multibillion-dollar several nearby clinics whose websites also medical marijuana market. NUMBERS. provided anticipated waiting times at As a teen in the late 1970s,I didn't take By Carol Mack each(why can't restaurants do this?).GPS part in the popular college marijuana cul- directed me along a wide boulevard dotted tune.I disliked being high and never bad a with CVSs and car dealerships to an unas- positive experience with pot.Fast-forward suming storefront in a generic strip mall. to 2015 and my opinion hadn't changed.In MARCH 2017 55 _ T,OWNANDCOUNTRYMAG.COM SOCIAL NETWORK INSIDER INFORMATION could be used both medicinally potential benefits,including relieving and recreationally. chronic pain and certain kinds of seizure, 3 To be honest,my husband and and possibly helping with insomnia, I were aghast at the idea that our depression,and numerous other condi- very conventional and buttoned-up tions.And now,thanks to plant science, son was embarking on a career in many strains have been developed that s the marijuana business.Whenever deliver very different and specific effects.I someone asked us what he was always thought that"getting high"meant ' doing post-college,we always strug- one thing,but there are specialized variet- ` ` Bled with an explanation.What ies that give a"body high"(i.e.,relief from r� ... genuinely surprised me was that Pain)without the head high.Other kinds - : rather than making Willie Nelson apparently help amplify mental focus,spike jokes,our friends were almost unan- creativity,and enhance athletic activity. a � = imously supportive.Many offered Currently,most medically prescribed to introduce Andrew to potential mariluana is smoked,vaped,or eaten. ' n : investors,lawyers,and other people Andrew is developing a product in a new they knew in the business. category that he calls"ingestibles,"which Even more startling,nearly falls into the broader class of edibles but everyone had a personal anecdote, will hopefully offer consistent,predict- from older friends with serious able,and faster-acting results.An added 101N f IIENI LIRE medical conditions,who told benefit is that the dose isn't mixed into 00"W"o us they had sought pain relief brownies or other sweets,so you don't heal sT��> marijuana,h thmedical to have to consume a lot of calories to take it. ani t6�Di�icr�t oir g 4 CulUmh�a tales of Upper East Side moms He hopes to have his brand on the market hoovering up marijuana gum- by late spring. mies at their kids'sports practices, Personally,I will always choose a fact,I believed that marijuana had become and—my favorite—a report from an vodka tonic over marijuana,but I have a relic,replaced by craft beer,mixology, Aspen resident we know who told us that come a long way,in my opinion of can- and club drugs whose names I didn't even marijuana-infused vaginal cream had nabis.My journey has been driven by my know.So when my son Andrew told me become a popular hostess gift! son's commitment to this newly emerging that his senior year economics thesis at industry and by the things I've learned Harvard would analyze fluctuations in he legal marijuana market is projected about marijuana's potential health bene- the price of legal medicinal cannabis,I 1 to be more than$20 billion in 2020. fits.My trip to Pasadena to get a prescrip- thought he had lost it.Really,I wondered. This despite the fact that under federal law, tion was part of an odyssey to learn the Who cares? using or possessing pot is still illegal.And arcane,complex,and bizarre processes I was even more surprised when after the 2016 election 28 states plus the of obtaining permits for manufacturing he announced that after he graduated he District of Columbia have laws legalizing and distributing a substance that once planned to develop what he hoped the drug in some form.Why all this sud- smelled up the hallway of my_college would be a groundbreaking form of the den acceptance?Anecdotal evidence and dorm and kept the late-night pizza deliv- drug,based on science and research,that numerous studies have shown marijuanas ery place in business. High SOCIETY ANNA NY ANDD TETRA BALANCE PIPE HOW THE RICH GET STONED. BOX($380), ($65),SHOP-TETRA.COM SHOP-TETRA.COM Ilk JOE DOUCET 24K FETISH ASHTRAY as ($2,000),SHOP- TETRA.COM SNIRE 24K GOLD ROLLING PAPERS($55) `: ) SHINEPAPERS.COM PAX 3 VAPORIZER ($275), ER MARCH 2017 TOWNANDCOUNTRYMA6.00 / At Lea Stefani I AMC 11 A 11 91 From: Greg Chanis LM I F= WIN L iti" Sent: Tuesday, May 02, 2017 12:29 PM To: Lea Stefani Subject: FW:Input to Town Council regarding View Ordinance agenda item Greg Chanis,Town Manager Town of Tiburon 1505 Tiburon Boulevard Tiburon, CA 94920/(415)435-7383 From: Bob Austrian [rnaiIto:baustrian(c�hotmaiLcom) Sent:Thursday,April 27, 2017 11:35 AM To:Greg Chanis<Pchanis a townoftiburon.org>; Jim Fraser@ MarinlsMyHome.com; Greg Chanis <Rchanis(@townoftiburon.org> Cc: Lalita Waterman<lalita.waterman@grnail.corn> Subject: Input to Town Council regarding View Ordinance agenda item Dear Greg- Because of an obligation I have in New York next Wednesday evening, I'd like to provide additional written input in anticipation of the May 3d, 2017 Council meeting. I understand that during the meeting changes to our View Ordinance will be on the Agenda. Please include this in the packet provided to Town Council Members in preparation for the May 3`d meeting. As a resident of our community since 1996, and member of a group of neighbors that has struggled with aspects of our View Ordinance for more than a decade, I strongly support the Town staff recommendations that mandatory private arbitration provisions be eliminated from our View Ordinance. Town Council will recall that I and other immediate neighbors have attended several Council meetings over the years with respect to this topic. I believe I speak for many when I share our expectation that the proposed changes will help relieve us of a procedural burden that has prevented our neighbors from fully resolving view/tree "issues" we have struggled with. Thank you very much for your thoughtful consideration of this important topic. Bob Bob Austrian 45 Southridge West Tiburon, CA (415) 794-1199 i