The URL can be used to link to this page

CC 2018-06-26 Items Rec'd at Mtg. Q.ecv d l//i2//g' vg g_fy7 5 Fret 5kir'5 June 3, 2018 City of Arroyo Grande, • The subdivision on Launa Lane was built in 1961. It is a cul-de-sac and it needs to stay closed. We bought our homes here because it is a closed street, quiet and no thru traffic and safe for children who live here. It does NOT need to be opened and bollards put in for emergency vehicles. The Japanese Association will be putting on their property a Japanese Heritage/museum with gardens. They want to be separate from the new subdivision that will be built just west of their property. We want the fence and large trees on the dead-end of Launa Lane to stay as is. We do not want people going , in the Japanese Gardens coming thru to our housing area, we want our privacy to stay as is. It is not necessary to open. They will have their own road/access in and out along with their own fire hydrants. There are 4-5 fire hydrants down Cherry and one on the corner of Railroad Ave. During the past two years the city has not wanted to work with the residents that surround this new subdivision and upgrade of the Japanese Association property. This was a surprise that we just heard about having the end of Launa Lane opened to possible traffic. This letter has the signatures of the following Launa Lane residents. We hope that you will strongly consider our great opposition to having Launa Lane changed so that it can be accessible by foot or vehicle traffic. Please leave the fence and trees not cut for privacy and most of all do not install bollards. 6 / /aau Loi/2e- 5U( U 4t1'73—v\.c\f'\-Pr - 6\a„,„PI Li, 5/7 Z,441 /-----bi) a� If ---)1VI 52-Lf �: e� 7 _ 5- & Cker / CAthy Onlatid- SO7 L�J+� L_ DAN-4 0 -DON g(a jZ %1 ' / v 1 16-60 Uututil,AANI JL4a 506. 4,„0,4, LAr_w,4- Zok,VA L € 14140 di° t2el/: (' /c2/ig /2. a_ . Todd Mitchell Eamon Lacy Eye N Eye LLC Todd@EyeNEye.org 805 440 1976 Good Evening Mayor Hill, Caren Ray, Tim Brown, Kristen Barneich, and Barbara Harmon My name is Todd Mitchell. I am a local parent and currently reside in Grover Beach. I am the father of 2 beautiful children. One of my children is a Cannabis patient who benefits from medicines made from cannabis.They positively affect his neurological system, most likely through the endocannabinoid system. He has autism and cannabis helps with his social anxiety,focus, and sleep. My sister is a cancer survivor. I have friends with other diseases, handicapping conditions, and cancer. I believe that your council's unanimous vote to approve medicinal cannabis delivery service was spot on as well as being in line with your constituents. I have applied for a Cannabis(Marijuana)Delivery Service Permit with the City of Arroyo Grande twice.The first application was submitted with my partners in Medicinal Greens.This is the same group that are considered one of the qualified 7 by the City of Grover Beach. I am unsure of the reasons why we, or any three delivery services weren't selected at that time. Since that time There are 2 delivery services that have been approved by the AGPD to operate delivery services. Elite Care, Cynthia was provided a local authorization/ permit and then received the first temporary state license in SLO County. Eye N Eye(formerly Medicinal Greens/Trident)has been approved by the AGPD who have asked us to file for a temporary state license without a local authorization/permit. AG's current ordinance allows for up to 3 delivery services. The City Staffs recommendation is to rescind their current ordinance allowing delivery&to just open up to all licensed retail/delivery services from outside of AG. How many licensed delivery services are there in a 30 mile radius? We are putting forth our request and recommendation to allow up to 3 type7 retail non-storefront delivery businesses to operate in AG and deliver to other municipalities.This way the city will gain tax revenue.We also request consideration to license deliveries from outside of Arroyo Grande to vet the operators and receive tax revenue from sales within the city limits. Thank you, Todd Mitchell 805 440 1976 . at The City Council of Arroyo Grande has previously approved Medicinal Cannabis Delivery by unanimous vote. The vote came after months of discussion and informative education February to August 2017. The constituents of Arroyo Grande voted in support of AUMA, legalizing Adult Use and Medicinal Cannabis. Now the City Council NEEDS to amend their Cannabis Ordinance to fit the more recently adopted state regulations allowing Cannabis Delivery Services to operate within the City of Arroyo Grande. We recommend the City Council Approve the amendment,to grandfather the 2 approved delivery businesses, as well as increasing access,while gaining revenue from sales tax: "RECOMMENDATION: It is recommended that the City Council: 1. Provide direction related to the City Council's intent to prohibit all commercial cannabis activities in the City other than approved delivery from businesses that have a legally established premises located outside inside of the City Limits; and 2. Provide direction to allow any state licenses cannabis retailer to deliver into the city with a local City issued permit or license 3. Provide staff direction to amend Chapter 16.62 of the Arroyo Grande Municipal Code (AGMC) and repeal the City's Cannabis Delivery Service licensing provisions in AGMC Chapter 5.95 of Title 5." There are currently no legal delivery services operating in the City of Arroyo Grande.That means there is NO Legal Access to Cannabis Patients. Elite Care and EyeNEye have ceased operations pending the City Council's decision.This is limiting access to medicine and costing thousands to these already approved operators. Cannabis is a plant that can improve and save lives. Additional information: AG City Council Agenda/Packet June 27,2017,Link:http://www.arroyogrande.org/AgendaCenterNiewFile/Item/5575?filelD=9422 BACKGROUND:In November 2016,California voters approved Proposition 64(57.1%Yes and 42.9%No),the Control,Regulate, and Tax Adult Use of Marijuana Act(AUMA). Deliveries To date,the City has nearly approved one medical marijuana mobile delivery permit as currently regulated.Up to three such permits may be allowed under the City's current regulations.A significant amount of Police staff time has gone into ensuring the regulations are feasible to enforce.While currently restricted to medical marijuana operations,the regulations could be modified to apply to non-medical operations as well.Additionally,the number of permits can be increased;however,it has been indicated by law enforcement agencies that it is more difficult to track and enforce regulations with a large number of operators,and if mobile delivery operators do not distribute from a facility inside the jurisdiction. Staff Recommendation 8—Allow limited deliveries to be permitted in a manner similar to the current process and rules in place for medical marijuana deliveries.Rationale—Limited deliveries are not likely to create adverse impacts as currently regulated. Additionally,the generally less restrictive AUMA language for non-medical use should be applied to medical users so they are not held to a more restrictive standard. Aekd oizutir pa,td with anew.davi0ww...writ lfwilweR+ent r._- F,..- ._"-._ • ' -e- - -- :..!'_-' r- .4L wf_.-.a-+r!_a r__fafl i.r-%i r. ..4. s a vu{uus.aa.v..u•.0 vuVyGiiiGl ii.a,afiGl�i iVi life ma)to import G,VVY AFY�}� Y�G►LGI from the City of Santa Maria to the NCSD. There was no time frame specified, but the NCSD ir±nneind to im n t riw ntunh nwr nn fnwt nn or.P.nnihIn to rnli�••�thn nrn.a+...4tawa+nr rte. water was imported,the NCSD was bound to reduce groundwater pumping byan equal amount. After the Sunniemnntni lkm4=e.°reject!MP)was funded,the delivery rate was negotiated between the City of Santa Maria and the NCSD to fit the phased funding and buildout of the SWR The details of that contract are shown in the following table. Supplemental Water Delivery Schedule Contracted between the City of Santa Maria and the NCSD -,c„ :x sne ez'-"- - :.fin .zcv. Ziff .aa.-s�v�`4� R'-_--'�-'�c�.4.'� �a-s.Y� - .e��ty.'{'aN ,��,��=LOW Fe C-k,rxa`f`+ t.X, .+-_. �_-;�,a fir_T r:'s"r_ a r >, ,"la.:��✓wkm �f�.,��s;,#�"z=°' y, '""`+ ��{ ';��'� .�. „�.�. �.:�h: �In� ��..iil�` r1lQIH �. ,. tr=�r � ;�::�'-�',: a, --�:, t s-.;��x`rt .- 3 "9'r Ci-'�:, °�'dr;.=.-;�.::r_�:._.�"-__ "s, '' 4 x 1,-r � �.r.e L - 1.E.s. ..5 Y 3,t *,.**.,.1Hs..�o -,:C 3s..,xy+ �ka.-,'.-s'b%; rF.? r tis k' -"^�A''`- n� ki5; ;C .�r_'c' r_`.<$s -kw�.'�' #'.'�r:: �" X'-.'' .a :_�r.ee�: s-+;A�� :�-.�:�;_..?� d„�- dih ,..<v.v�'� ar`#t,�.la.�av_:�- >`��r ,-,�'.-.'-r.-,. .,. .�s.�"�.;r.-.r.+�^:t fs.a .�' 'xrr_..:s' w.sv.. - -- July 2015-June 2016 645 2-5 July-2016-Jane 2020 $00 = July 2020-June 2025 1,000 ;£_°_<: _ - -.__:July 2025-Tert n 2`50.0 _ _ s Although Santa Maria is capable of delivering the maximum amount at any time,the SWP is limited in its capacity to bring in water. In the first phase,the pipeline delivered water to the NCSD pump station at 645 AFY but was limited until a storage tank on the Mesa was completed. Then 800 AFY was brought on line. Next,the NCSD bought a larger pump that increased the capacity to 1,000 AFY. In April 2018 the NCSD board authorized importation of 960 AFY,an increase of 20%and two years earlier than the June 2020 minimum delivery required. Plans are under way to divert internal NCSD reserves to the SWP and receive additional grants to complete the SWP years before the July 2025 requirement. Although this will increase rates to NCSD customers sooner than anticipated,the NCSD is most interested in relieving groundwater pumping to preserve the aquifer. It will even allow the NCSD to eliminate groundwater pumping entirely for some periods. Meanwhile,the Pesky Litigation Costs Divert Funds from Completing the SWP Since July 2015,when the Motion to Enforce the Stipulation and Judgement was filed by the NCMA,the NCSD has spent over$193,000 in court costs for the litigation. There is no end in sight. This money is diverted from the SWP Fund that otherwise could have been used to accelerate completion of the SWP and sooner reduce groundwater pumping. It is interesting that the City of Arroyo Grande has spent at least$93,000 on its litigation to attorneys Baker, Manock&Jensen PC. Similarly,the City of Pismo Beach has spent at least$43000 on its litigation to attorneys Baker, Manock&Jensen PC. How much more in staff time and other attorneys has not been established. To date the only positive action by the Court has been to entertain the search for a water consultant for the Court. To date,there is no tangible evidence that the$329,000 spent on legal fees has benefitted any of the parties except the attorneys. Certainly the NCSD's and the cities' budgets can be better employed . 2017 https://ballotpedia.org/Modesto, California, Marijuana Tax, Measure T (November 2 017) https://ballotpedia.org/Rio Dell, California, Marijuana Tax, Measure X (November 2 017) https://ballotpedia.org/Palm Springs, California, Marijuana Tax, Measure E (Novem ber 2017) https://ballotpedia.org/Pacifica, California, Marijuana Operation Tax, Measure G (N ovember 2017) https://ballotpedia.org/Cotati, California, Marijuana Tax, Measure G (November 201 D. https://ballotpedia.org/Modesto, California, Marijuana Tax, Measure T (November 2 017) https://ballotpedia.org/Farmersville, California, Marijuana Tax, Measure Q (Novemb er 2017) https://ballotpedia.oralWoodlake, California, Marijuana Tax, Measure S (November 2017) 2016 https://ballotpedia.org/Hayward, California, Marijuana Tax, Measure EE (November 2016) https://ballotpedia.orq/San Leandro, California, Marijuana Business Tax, Measure N N (November 2016) https://ballotpedia.org/Pittsburg, California, Marijuana Business Tax, Measure J (No vember 2016) https://ballotpedia.org/Carson, California, Marijuana Business Tax, Measure KK (No vember 2016) https://ballotpedia.org/Long Beach, California, Marijuana Business Taxes, Measure MA (November 2016) https://ballotpedia.org/Long Beach, California, Regulation of Medical Marijuana Busi nesses, Measure MM (November 2016) https://ballotpedia.org/Point Arena, California, Marijuana Business Tax, Measure A E (November 2016) https://ballotpedia.org/Del Rev Oaks, California, Marijuana Business Tax, Measure A (November 2016) https://ballotpedia.org/King City, California, Marijuana Business Tax, Measure J (N ovember 2016) https://ballotpedia.org/Gonzales, California, Medical Marijuana Tax, Measure W (No vember 2016) https://ballotpedia.org/Greenfield, California, Marijuana Business Tax, Measure 0 ( November 2016) https://ballotpedia.org/Salinas, California, Marijuana Business Tax, Measure L (Nov ember 2016) https://ballotpedia.org/Coachella, California, Marijuana Tax, Measure II (November 2016) https://ballotpedia.org/Adelanto, California, Marijuana Excise Tax, Measure R (Nov ember 2016) https://ballotpedia.org/Stockton, California, Medical Marijuana Business Tax, Measu re Q, (November 2016) https://ballotpedia.org/Grover Beach, California, Marijuana Tax, Measure L (Novem ber 2016) https://ballotpedia.org/Watsonville, California, Marijuana Business Tax, Measure L ( November 2016) https://ballotpedia.org/Dixon, California, Marijuana Business Tax, Measure K (Nove mber 2016) https://ballotpedia.org/Cloverdale, California, Marijuana Business Tax, Measure P ( November 2016) SAN LUIS OBISPO COUNTY ACTIVITY SCHEDULE FOR PLACING A MEASURE ON THE BALLOT FOR THE NOVEMBER 6, 2018 CONSOLIDATED GENERAL ELECTION NOTE: THE DEADLINES FOR SUBMITTAL OF ARGUMENTS, IMPARTIAL ANALYSIS AND OTHER DOCUMENTS FOR ACTUAL MEASURES WILL BE DETERMINED ONCE A MEASURE IS PLACED ON THE BALLOT. THE CALENDAR FOR EACH BALLOT MEASURE WILL BE POSTED ON THE WEBSITE. June 18, 2018 LAST DAY for Governing Boards to submit their resolutions (E-104) calling for and placing a measure on the General Election ballot. EC Sec 9140, 9342 The resolutions must contain the FULL TEXT OF THE MEASURE and the EXACT FORM OF THE QUESTION as it is to appear on the ballot. If the question is the Full Text of the Measure, this needs to be stated in the resolution. File the original resolution with the Elections Official June 19-29, 2018 PUBLIC EXAMINATION' PERIOD — Ten day examination EC Sec 9190, 9380 period begins the day/after,the adoption of the resolution by the Governing Board ,/ \\.\ June 22, 2018 BY THIS DATE the' Elections Officiallshall send the Notice EC Sec 9163, 9316 Calling for SuIbmission of arguments, FOR or AGAINST the measure to be'published. ) July 20, 2018 PRIMARY ARGUMENTS DUE — The dates for Impartial EC Sec 9161-9163, 9315- Analysis., Statements;, 'Arguments and Rebuttals will be 9316, 9501-9503, 9600-9601 established-,once a resolution is filed with the County Elections Official.\.,LT�• ASDAY for proponent(s) to change or withdraw -.primaryArg'urnents:.,�`� July 20, 2018 { r„ IMPARTIAL\ANALY,SISN-D,UE from County Counsel. FISCAL EC Sec 9160, 9313, 9401„ \ IMPACT STATEMENT DUE'from Auditor (if directed by B.O.S.) 9500 ."\� TAX RATE STATEMENT DUE (Bond Measures only) July 21-30, 2018 ,� \PUBLIC'-EXAMINATION PERIOD - Primary Arguments, EC Sec 9190, 9380, 9509., , Analysis. Tax-Rate,Statement& Fiscal Impact Statement. July 31, 2018\ \ \\ ,REBUTTAL ARGUMENTS DUE - File with the County Elections EC Sec 9167, 6\317;9504, \Official.NLvAST DAY for proponent(s) to change or withdraw 9600-9601 \ Rebuttal Arguments. August 1-10, 2018 '�. fPUBLIC EXAMINATION PERIOD - For Rebuttals Only. August 10, 2018 `-1 LAST DAY for Governing Boards to submit their resolutions \'requesting consolidation of their election with the November 6, 2018, General Election. The resolutions must contain the FULL TEXT OF THE MEASURE and the EXACT FORM OF THE QUESTION as it is to appear on the ballot. If the question is the Full Text of the Measure, this needs to be stated in the resolution. File the original resolution with the Elections Official. September 27, 2018 SAMPLE BALLOT BOOKLETS MAILED (E-40) * October 8, 2018 VOTE BY MAIL BALLOTS PERIOD BEGINS (E-29) EC Sec 3001 October 22, 2018 VOTE BY MAIL BALLOTS PERIOD BEGINS (E-15) EC Sec 2107 * denotes a date that falls on a county holiday or weekend. Deadline extends until the next business day. }Jr�.� F `6 1/ // r/ }� i • '\ \\ f / f r. \` '\ t f , \\\ `, \�\ t t ,, f �i \ \ ( fit\ '\. 1 __ _ /✓ \\ {,---� ` --'_ ' \\ ,} �. r r -.\ \ .,\ \ .,,\ .. \ \ \ \ _ �\ , ,` `\\ \\ \\'s. \ 1\ _ \l \ \ I \ t