Agenda packet — Santa Cruz City Council, May 14, 2024 (part 5 of 5)

As constitutional law expert and civil rights attorney Allen Hopper highlighted in his WAMM support letter before this body, it is bitterly ironic that appellants hang their public health and safety arguments upon the City of Santa Cruz cannabis ordinance modeled on an early County cannabis ordinance, specifically crafted to protect WAMM - while retaining for government the discretion to deny permits for applicants lacking WAMM’s demonstrated history of selflessly providing crucial public health benefits to vulnerable members of the community. 2 The Appeal presents infirm facts and misconstructions of law and is designed to lead this City Council to a result that flouts existing law, will gravely erode confidence in this governing body, and, in the end, will not satisfy the appellant's core concern: abate teen access to legal cannabis.

Since WAMM is a state-licensed cannabis operator engaged in the business of retailing state-licensed cannabis products through the state-mandated and controlled “track and trace” system, teen access to illicit cannabis goods is irrelevant to the City Council’s determination today.

Finding 2 & 4 of the Commercial Cannabis Ordinance (24.12.1350) Appellants argue that Finding 2 of the Commercial Cannabis Ordinance (24.12.1350) of the Santa Cruz County Code (“Code”) concerning adverse effects on the health, safety, and welfare of the community cannot be met. The assertion is not supported by facts or law.

A. Proximity; 600 ft Set Back
Proximity is stated as a general concept in the Code while the 600 foot set-back is a specific provision (See 12.12.1320). The appellant's proposition that general concepts of proximity should prevail over specific provisions of law is deeply flawed as a matter of law.

It is a fundamental legal principle of statutory interpretation that a specific provision relating to a particular subject will prevail over a general provision even where the general statute is broad enough to encompass the subject of the particular legislation. See Cal. Civ. Code § 3534, Cal.

Gov’t Code Sec. § 53080 and RRLH, Inc. v. Saddleback Valley Unified Sch. Dist. (1990) 222 Cal.

App. 3d, 1602.

The appellants argument is equally flawed, as a matter of fact. The legislative history of Ordinance 2000-12 specifically evaluated the very issues presented today. In light of the City of 2 See attached hereto as Exhibit B is Support Letter from Allen Hopper, Esq.

City Counsel Letter
May 10, 2024

Page 3 of 8 ends

San Jose having at that time a 500-foot setback from schools and the County having a 1,000-foot setback from schools, this body determined:

Because our City is very limited in land area and available affordable commercial space, and because we are proposing stringent operating procedures for the use, staff feels that the 600 foot distance requirement between the dispensary and schools, day care facilities, and other sensitive uses, was adequate to mitigate potential impacts while providing sufficient choice in securing sites for the dispensaries [...]. The 600-foot distance requirement was taken from the example of the existing distance requirement for high-risk alcohol outlets, pursuant to Section 24.12.1102 of the Zoning Ordinance. We thought it wise to be consistent with that requirement.
3 (emphasis added)
Furthermore, the relevant legislative history very meticulously evaluated exceptions to the 600-foot setback in the context of reduced setbacks from 600-feet, not the increased setbacks as appellants advocate here:

The section, however, does give the Zoning Board the option to relax these distance requirements, except for schools, if the Applicant can demonstrate that the proposed location for the dispensary would not harm or inconvenience any of those identified uses and the siting of the dispensary at that location would provide a positive benefit to the public health, safety and welfare.

The facts here are that the AUP project site is located approximately 850 feet from Santa Cruz High School, which is 142% greater than the minimum required distance from schools pursuant to 12.12.1320. WAMM’s site location not only meets but exceeds the existing legal mandates.

Finally, appellants stack forward data concerning youth cannabis access that is alarming but then ask the Council to accept a conclusion of conjecture - that adolescents being witness to highly secure legal cannabis dispensaries will increase their use of legal cannabis. This data is contracted by two separate April 2024 research letters from the American Medical Association.4 4 The cited letter concludes: “After Legalization, there was no evidence of an increase in [cannabis] use” nor did the opinion of [cannabis] retail stores seem to impact youth use. Recreational Marijuana Laws and Teen Marijuana Use, 1993-2021 JAMA Psychiatry. Published online April 24, 2024 Recreational Cannabis Legalization, Retail Sales, and Adolescent Substance Use Through 2021 JAMA Pediatr. Published online April 15, 2024.
3 See Santa Cruz City Council Agenda Report, Dated May 21, 2000 re Medical Marijuana Provider Association Production and Dispensing.

City Counsel Letter
May 10, 2024

Page 4 of 8 ends

With all due respect to the appellants and their constituency, when WAMM asked whether the school representatives knew how to distinguish between legal and illicit cannabis or hemp products, they fumbled. They keep no records of the origin of confiscated cannabis goods and frankly were so fixated on their myopic perspective that they rebuffed WAMM’s offer of assistance to help address the true culprit that the entire California cannabis regulatory structure is designed to thwart: the proliferation of illicit cannabis & hemp goods.

Less than 30 days ago, Governor Gavin Newsome directed the California Department of Public Health to address this very issue, stating:

Mislabeled and misleading products do not belong in the marketplace- especially when they put our kid’s health and safety at risk. Today, the state is taking action to protect Californians, especially our kids, as we work to further close loopholes and increase enforcement to prevent children from accessing hemp and cannabis products. - Governor Gavin Newsom, April 26, 2024.

The Governor’s focus on mislabelled and misleading cannabis and hemp goods is the clear problem to be addressed, not the proximity to legal retail outlets. Adolescent exposure to WAMM’s legal cannabis dispensary cannot be said to promote youth use of illicit cannabis; rather, it responsibly teaches by example that there is a difference. The blurred distinction between legal and illicit is a core California state-wide challenge.

B. Compatibility
Appellants argue that Finding 4 of the Commercial Cannabis Ordinance (24.12.1350) cannot be met, alleging the AUP situs is not a compatible use, particularly because people under the age of 18 use the AUP situs as a main path of travel to school and WAMM’S presence will not just encourage teen access, but permit access.

Again, appellants position is simply wrong on the core pertinent facts, which are as follows:

Appellants cannot support with evidence the assertion that the Mission Street & Laurel Street crossing is a main crossing used by students. At no point during commute times to and from school or lunch times is the location frequented or utilized for student and pedestrian foot traffic.5
5 See attached hereto as Exhibit C is Verkata Pedestrian Traffic Data for pertinent periods City Counsel Letter
May 10, 2024

Page 5 of 8 ends

Appellants cannot support with evidence the assertion WAMM will serve students. In fact, WAMM has voluntarily agreed to increase its medical access age from 18 to 19. The applicants' operations plan (and operational history) allows no permitted access or sales to minors.6
Appellants cannot cite a single incident of unauthorized sales to minors at any dispensary in the County or City. (This fact was confirmed at the Planning Commission hearing by Lt. Carter Jones of the Santa Cruz City Police Department and confirmed in separate writing to WAMM by the Santa Cruz County Cannabis Licensing Office.

Appellants cannot support with evidence the assertion legal cannabis dispensary advertising promotes adolescent use of illegal cannabis and hemp products. While appellants posture an argument that WAMM’s proximity would normalize cannabis, the fact is it may well normalize legal cannabis, a well-regarded California state goal, but there is no evidence that the presence of a legal cannabis shop promotes adolescent consumption of illegal cannabis goods.

Appellants cannot support with evidence the assertion that WAMM intends to operationalize a retail cafe at the AUP location, let alone one designed to attract youth.

Finding 1 of the Administrative Use Permit (25.08.050)
Appellants next argue that Finding 1 of the Administrative Use Ordinance (24.12.1350) cannot be met, asserting the proposed AUP conflicts with enumerated tenets of the general plan. Again, the appellants are simply wrong on the facts.

WAMM’S long history and legacy of public service clearly undercuts each appellants bald positions, as follows:

A. CC 7.4 Enhance programs designed to reinforce positive juvenile behavior and prevent delinquency.

There is no quibbling over the question of whether cannabis has a deleterious effect on youth development. In fact, California’s entire cannabis regulatory structure is expressly contemplated, designed and regulated in large part to prevent youth access. Thus, the proper inquiry is what WAMM does to foster that goal.
6 See CP23-0106 submitted Operations Plan on file with the City.

City Counsel Letter
May 10, 2024

Page 6 of 8 ends

As already admitted by staff, presented and discussed at the Planning Commission and evidenced by the record, WAMM is a recognized leader in not just following but promoting strict adherence to youth diversion strategies. (Not in small part, a core reason there is no incidence of cannabis diversion from a legal operator in the County or City is that the issue receives profoundly significant regulatory attention already.) WAMM’s culture of strict adherence to these regulatory structures is for the purpose of avoiding youth diversion, which directly reinforces positive juvenile behavior.

WAMM does not just follow the law, WAMM also leads in avoiding youth diversion. For example, it offers its patrons (i) secure lock boxes for home and (ii) has deployed in its own shops a “Talk it up, Lock it up” messaging campaign with its patrons to ensure they educate minors and ensure against youth diversion in the home. WAMM also promotes an active website dedicated to educating parents, whether patrons or not, and arming them with additional tools to assist in taking action against cannabis youth diversion (See www.safecannabis.net).

WAMM’S specific dedication to this critical issue clearly meets CC 7.4 criteria.

B. CC 7.4.3 Work with Santa Cruz City Schools and Private Schools to provide drug prevention
Again, WAMM does not just follow the law, WAMM also leads in avoiding youth diversion with its“Talk it up, Lock it up” messaging campaign with patrons to ensure against youth diversion at home. Furthermore, WAMM also promotes an active website to assist parents, whether patrons or not, in taking action against cannabis youth diversion. While these programs are not targeted at Santa Cruz City Schools or Private Schools, they are targeted towards the parents of their students.

Furthermore, on its own initiative, WAMM increased the age of medical only patients permitted access to the AUP site to assist the schools in addressing their drug prevention goals.

Much like WAMM’s effort to assist the school in developing a program to eradicate cannabis and hemp vape products from its campus, WAMM’s medical access change was largely ignored.

It is quite rich for appellants, Santa Cruz City Schools leadership to assert WAMM fails to meet general plan criteria when its good faith efforts to engage with Santa Cruz City Schools to meet the specific goal of CC7.4.3 was rebuffed with due prejudice. Notwithstanding the past, if WAMM had the opportunity to work directly with Santa Cruz County School on the crisis issue presented, it would be a strident and willing partner.

City Counsel Letter
May 10, 2024

Page 7 of 8 ends

C. CC 8.4.1 Implement The Safe Routes To School Program where funded It is unclear what appellants intend to convey by referencing CC8.4.1 other than perhaps to assert that student walking and bicycle routes on Mission or Laurel past the AUP site are inherently unsafe. For example, the Bay View Elementary Safe Route indicates that the dangerous hazard being avoided in that case is cycling on Mission Street.

Again, WAMM refutes the bald assertion presented without any evidence that youth walking or cycling down Mission or Laurel and passing a closed-door fully compliant legal cannabis dispensary that prevents access somehow presents an inherent danger to the community.

There are legal cannabis dispensaries of equal or more proximate distance to other schools or youth congregation points, such as Bay View Elementary School, Ice Cream on Fair, or Marianne’s famous ice cream parlor, that present the same challenges. Yet, appellants are silent about those locations as points of reference or anecdotal facts supporting the validity of their “passerby” concerns. The silence reveals the vapor of appellants well-intentioned but perhaps frightened and uneducated pearl-clutching.

D. CC 8.3.4 Work with appropriate agencies to develop aggressive prevention and early intervention efforts toward reducing education failure and other problems for children and youth.

Again, it is unclear why appellants assert these criteria of the general plan is relevant. As stated above, WAMM leads in avoiding youth diversion with its “Talk it up, Lock it up” messaging campaign to ensure against youth diversion at home. It also promotes an active website to assist parents in taking action against cannabis youth diversion. While those efforts are not directly working with City agencies, they are most certainly designed as early intervention efforts to reduce education failure and youth cannabis access risks.

Finally, WAMM has proven itself in the past as a worthy City ally in promoting community-safe cannabis policy. There is simply no sound basis to assert that WAMM would refuse or fail to work with City agencies to continue promoting this policy.

Questionable Compliance with Proper Zoning per 24.12.1320(5) With a circularity of argument that is difficult to follow, Appellants appear to argue that the recent change in zoning of the AUP site from CC to MU-M takes the AUP site out of an City Counsel Letter
May 10, 2024

Page 8 of 8 ends

approved cannabis zone. WAMM has, in the entirety of the license transfer and AUP, followed the guidance and directives of City Planning and Staff. Given the paucity of approved locations within the City map for cannabis retail, WAMM has no reason to believe City Planning or Staff failed to study the issue appellants present to defendable satisfaction with the result.

Conclusion
The City School Board (and appellants) first presented their concern about the AUP situs as one of purely youth access. Once the access argument was soundly refuted, the concern morphed into concern that 18-year-old medical access was bringing cannabis into the schools7 . Once WAMM
increased the medical access age to 19, the concern morphed to its present position - that students viewing a highly secured legal cannabis dispensary will promote youth access to illicit cannabis. When WAMM tried to directly engage the City School Board to work together on joint messaging to address their concerns, its offer was soundly declined.

We have expressed concern about bias. In review of the appeal to the Planning Commission's determination after the hearing, this body assumes a quasi-judicial role that demands fairness and impartiality that is free from actual bias on the part of those with the actual decision-making power. U.S. v. State of Or. (9th Cir. 1994) 44 F.3d 758, 772. While a mere suggestion of bias is not sufficient to overcome the presumption of integrity and honesty, evidence of active advocacy for or against a party to this appeal is a manifest violation of the City Council’s quasi-judicial role. BreakZone Billiards v. City of Torrance (2000) 81 Cal.App.4th 1205, 1236.

We encourage the City Council to weigh the evidence, ignore inflamed conjecture, balance the equities of the entire community, and support the decision made by the Planning Commission after a full and fair hearing. We are confident this will not only lead to a fair result but one that braces the public trust in government.

We thank you,
WAMM members,
Bryce Berryessa,
and on behalf of: Kyle Giorchino and Valerie Corral
7 While appellants baldly assert 18 year old medical access is responsible for the cannabis use among school youth, it admits it conducted no due diligence to confirm the point and refused WAMM’S effort to help administration understand the difference between illicit and legal cannabis goods.

EXHIBIT A
May 8, 2024
The proposed dispensary at Mission and Laurel Streets, formerly Emily’s Bakery, faces a pivotal vote by the Santa Cruz City Council. This moment represents an opportunity for authentic community dialogue, where concerns about children’s safety and drug misuse can be directly addressed.

By relying on evidence over fear, we can foster trust and ensure wellinformed decision-making.

I've known and worked with Valerie Corral, co-founder of the Wo/Men’s Alliance for Medical Marijuana (WAMM), for decades through initiatives like the United Way’s Compassionate Use Initiative and Santa Cruz County's Community Prevention Partners. She is a nationally recognized leader in medical marijuana advocacy, pioneering the path for effective policy. For 33 years, WAMM has set a benchmark in compassionate care, delivering essential services at low or no cost. Should we lose these services, there’s no other organization to fill this void. As a result, low-income patients battling cancer, AIDS, multiple sclerosis, epilepsy, and other serious conditions would lose vital support.

A decision against the dispensary risks stripping our most vulnerable neighbors of critical support, leaving them to fight devastating illnesses alone. Let's not abandon those who need us most. Choose facts, choose compassion, choose WAMM.

Gail Pellerin
Assemblymember, District 28
The following individuals support Assemblymember Gail Pellerin’s letter:

State Senator John Laird, former State Assemblymember; former Santa Cruz City Councilmember and Mayor
Mark Stone, former State Assemblymember; former Santa Cruz County Supervisor John Leopold, former Santa Cruz County Supervisor
Jim Hart, Sheriff of Santa Cruz County
Gail Michaelis-Ow
Les and Nancy Gardner
Dana McRae, retired Santa Cruz County Counsel
John Leopold, former Santa Cruz County Supervisor
Don Lane, former Santa Cruz City Councilmember and Mayor Michael Rotkin, former Santa Cruz City Councilmember and Mayor Emily Reilly, former Santa Cruz City Councilmember and Mayor Andrew Goldenkranz, Public Educator; Chair of Santa Cruz County Democratic Central Committee (for identification purposes only)
Jenni Veitch-Olson, Watsonville Planning Commissioner; Vice-chair of Santa Cruz County Democratic Central Committee (for identification purposes only) Rudy Escalante, retired Capitola Chief of Police
Gary Patton, Environmental Attorney and former Santa Cruz County Supervisor Dr. Arnold Leff, former County Public Health Officer
Craig Reinarman, UCSC Professor of Sociology and Legal Studies Emeritus Dick Wasserstrom, UCLA Professor of Law; UCSC Professor of Philosophy Emeritus Dan Haifley, American Environmentalist; Newspaper Columnist Dr. Michelle Massie and Dana Massie
Miriam Stombler, retired Assistant County Counsel
Peggy Flynn, Nonprofit Consultant
Alan Heit, DDS
Larry Bernstein, founder of Cypress Health Institute
Scott Roseman
Ian Rice, co-founder of Santa Cruz Laboratories; founder and CEO of Envirocann Phil Engfer, co-founder of Strong Agronomy
Pat Malo, Manager of Envirocann
Richard Deutsch, Sculptor
Drew Pieros, retired local Business Owner; Musician
Liz Fowler, Educator; local Business Owner
Tammi Brown, “Artist of the Year” in 2024 by the Arts Commission of Santa Cruz County Tamyra Rice, retired Assistant County Counsel
Ben Rice, retired Criminal Defense Attorney; former attorney for WAMM John Leopold
3435 Gross Road, Santa Cruz, CA 95062 | 831-566-0122 | john@friendsofjohnleopold RE: Support for WAMM Phytotherapies and The Hook Dispensary at 1129 Mission St.

To City Planning Commission and City Council
I am writing in support of The Hook Outlet’s and WAMM Phytotherapies (WAMM) proposed dispensary at 1129 Mission St. I have worked with the principals at the Hook and with WAMM for many years and I can attest to their commitment and care for our community.

While serving as the Executive Director of the Santa Cruz AIDS Project, I first worked with WAMM in 1991. They were helping out people living with HIV/AIDS at a time where there was not a lot of community support. They helped ease the pain and provided support for individuals, some of whom had been shunned by family and friends. Over the years I have seen their services and witnessed their commitment to helping people at some of the most difficult moments in their lives. I worked directly with them in setting County policy over medicinal cannabis and cultivation regulations. For many years they have eschewed profit-making in the world of cannabis and continue to be the gold standard for helping people with medicinal cannabis.

In my role as a County Supervisor, I worked with Bryce Berryesa in creating both policies and tax plans that have served our community well. His businesses are sited in the district that I represented and I never received complaints from others about his operations. I have found that Bryce is rooted firmly in our community – raising his family here, operating business and engaged in the arts community. He has been a good partner who sees the big picture of needs.

The City has developed a solid set of regulations that provide clear boundaries about where retail cannabis establishments can be sited. Dispensaries have strict age guidelines and have a greater level of security than alcohol or tobacco retail stores, which are closer than the proposed cannabis operation. The operators are well known to our community and invested in being part of the community.

The concerns that parents have for their children are real but are balanced by a sound set of zoning requirements and a high level of security at the proposed location. I urge you not to change your wellbalanced regulations out of fear. The City has adopted evidence-based policies, and I want to encourage you to look at the evidence here of committed operators, strong policies and security greater than any other retail establishment in the city.

I recommend that you approve the application for the WAMM/Hook store.

Sincerely,

From: Ben Rice [email protected]
Subject: Fwd: I urge you to support WAMM's application for a dispensary on Mission Street on the former site of Emily's Bakery Date: April 29, 2024 at 9:28PM
To: Bryce Berryessa [email protected], Valerie Leveroni Corral [email protected] Another former mayor!
Sent from Gmail Mobile
---------- Forwarded message ---------
From: Michael Rotkin <[email protected]>
Date: Mon, Apr 29, 2024 at 10:54AM
Subject: I urge you to support WAMM's application for a dispensary on Mission Street on the former site of Emily's Bakery To: <[email protected]>, Renee Golder <[email protected]>, Shebreh Kalantari-Johnson <skalantari[email protected]>, Martine Watkins <[email protected]>, Sonja Brunner <[email protected]>, Sandy Brown <[email protected]>, <[email protected]> CC: Bernie Escalante <[email protected]>
Dear Mayor and City Council Friends,
I urge you to support WAMM's application for a dispensary on Mission Street on the former site of Emily's Bakery. For over three decades now, the Woman’s Alliance for Medical Marijuana has demonstrated that they are not involved with marijuana for recreational or financial gain reasons. The vast majority of their clients are people with medical issues that medical marijuana helps address. They have been more than responsible when it comes to their focus.

When others were focused on recreational issues and profit, before marijuana became legal in California, WAMM was working to make marijuana available to people who needed it for medical reasons. They are not now going to run a dispensary that is irresponsible with respect to letting under-age youth have access to marijuana. There is no evidence that any of the dispensaries in our community are sloppy about allowing under-age youth access to marijuana, but of all of them, certainly WAMM will be the last place to let that happen.

On a more practical level, few students from Mission Hill Junior High and Santa Cruz High School primarily access their schools by passing close to the site proposed for the dispensary. The City Council set up rules about distance of such facilities from schools and I see no reason to demand additional distancing for this dispensary. The City also requires a whole host of other mechanisms to insure that marijuana dispensaries do not become nuisances to surrounding residents and businesses. I am more than a little positive that WAMM will go overboard in its operational compliance with all of the City’s regulations.

No doubt, at the meeting you hold on this issue you will be visited by many of the clients of WAMM. They are primarily disabled in one way or another, and you will witness who, exactly, it is that you would be harming if you turn down WAMM’s application for a dispensary on the site in question. That WAMM plans to combine their operation with a for-profit recreational dispensary is a necessity for financial success of the operation. Valarie Coral, who should be seen as a national hero, will not compromise her integrity to allow this operation to target youth in its advertising, displays visible outside of the business, or, of course, in determining who has access to their products. It is clear that they will use the profit making part of the business to help subsidize the cost of marijuana for those unable to pay for medicine that they need.

It is understandable that you will also get visited by parents concerned that any marijuana dispensary might draw their children into drug addiction. I don’t blame them for their heightened concerns — it is not easy to raise kids in the middle of a drug abuse pandemic that is sweeping our nation. But that does not justify irrational attempts to focus on the location of this dispensary. Other factors are much more likely to impact the relationship that their children have to marijuana, serious hard drugs, and alcohol.

Thanks for your consideration of my comments on this matter, Sincerely,
mike
Mike Rotkin
From: Emily Reilly [email protected]
Subject: support of proposed use 1129 Mission Street
Date: March 1, 2024 at 12:57PM
To: [email protected], [email protected], [email protected] Dear Planning Commission and City Staff,
Thank you for your ongoing work.

I wholeheartedly support The Hook Outlet’s request to open their business at 1129 Mission St.

I rented that space for over 40 years and learned about The Hook’s business practices and relationships during the transition process.

I was impressed with Bryce and Kyle, with their consistent responsible behavior and pleased to witness their serious attention to our local ordinances and processes.

It was great to work with people who had done their due diligence, who knew the rules and were ready to commit their time, money and energy to their project and our community.

They were also sensitive to my needs and open and communicative with our landlord as well.

I was encouraged to learn of their relationship with Valerie Corral, whom I have known and worked with in various endeavors over the past 30 years, and trust without reservation.

I have every confidence that Bryce and Kyle and Valerie, and those with whom they work, will continue to contribute to our community and that their presence at 1129 Mission St. will be a positive addition to my Westside neighborhood.

Sincerely,
Emily Reilly
219 California Street
818-6490, call or text anytime

BECOME A MEMBER

OPINION FROM COMMUNITY VOICES
Laird: It’s a ‘simple act of fairness’ to approve cannabis dispensary at former Emily’s Bakery site

BY JOHN LAIRD
May 3, 2024
Privacy - Terms
The site of the proposed dispensary at Mission and Laurel streets; state Sen. John Laird (inset). Credit: Kevin Painchaud / Lookout Santa Cruz
Have something to say? Lookout welcomes letters to the editor, within our policies, from readers.

Guidelines here.

I’ve been involved in the Santa Cruz community since I arrived as a student at UCSC in 1968, and I realize it gives me a historical perspective that those who have come of age since are not aware of.

It has been almost two generations since the dawn of the AIDS crisis gripped our country and our county, and it is hard to believe that even in the Santa Cruz community it was a very difficult road until the drug cocktail became available that limited the effects of HIV.

Lost to time has been the stigma associated with HIV then. In those early years of the AIDS Project, a woman was fired from her job in Santa Cruz for volunteering with a person with HIV. As a city councilmember at the time, I authored an ordinance prohibiting discrimination on the basis of HIV, so that things like that would not happen again.

In the 10-year period beginning in 1985, roughly 240 Santa Cruz County residents died from HIV. In the mid1980s, six of us formed the Santa Cruz AIDS Project (SCAP), a nonprofit community mobilization to provide education and client services. I was executive director in the 1990s, and at one time during that period, we had 225 clients and 600 regular volunteers. We faced many challenges then. For example, it was almost impossible to find local dental services with people with HIV. Our dental program was transportation vouchers to San Francisco, where such care could be found.

Quick Take
Despite school officials’ opposition, state Sen. John Laird supports the creation of a cannabis dispensary at the former Emily’s Bakery in Santa Cruz. In a Community Voices opinion piece, he outlines his reasoning and his historical connection to some of the partners in the project.

Most of those who died in that period were our clients. Counted among them were many of my friends. But in a community as small as ours, almost no one was not touched by the epidemic. Among those lost were wellknown community members – a letter carrier, local physician, business owner, teacher and many more.

There were many individuals – among them medical personnel, mental health therapists, massage therapists, friends and family – who volunteered to help in some way. I will always remember and be grateful for those individuals and organizations who took the risk to step up in those difficult times.

The disease ravaged those with HIV. A majority considered being diagnosed a death sentence. In the final weeks and months, it was a painful experience. One of the few things that helped with symptoms was cannabis – which, at the time, was not even legal for medicinal purposes. It was a risk to grow and provide cannabis for those it truly helped. It was an incredible act of legal bravery and personal compassion.

One organization in particular stepped up – Wo/Men’s Alliance for Medical Marijuana, known as WAMM. Val Corral, together with her then-husband, Michael, were at the core of the organization. She was in a major automobile accident earlier in her life, which led them to this issue due to her own medicinal needs. They were arrested in this period for their actions.

Why do I write about this today?
WAMM is a partner in an application for a cannabis dispensary in the former Emily’s Bakery in Santa Cruz. The company invested its savings in bringing the property up to speed for this use, and met all the city requirements and made it through the permit process. The application was appealed to the planning commission, which voted 5-2 to approve the application. It will now be in front of the Santa Cruz City Council on May 14.

I am loath to express an opinion on any local planning matter, particularly since I deal with my share of controversies at the state level. But I have always had a special place in my heart for those who stood up in a challenging time, when many did not.
— STATE SEN. JOHN LAIRD
“
© 2024 Lookout Santa Cruz. All Rights Reserved.

Powered by Newspack
It is a simple act of fairness to approve this application, since the owners invested their savings, played by the existing rules, and would quite likely go broke as individuals and an organization if it is not approved.

I am loath to express an opinion on any local planning matter, particularly since I deal with my share of controversies at the state level. But I have always had a special place in my heart for those who stood up in a challenging time, when many did not. I could not live with myself if I remained silent about their history and the fairness in this matter.

FROM APRIL
It is the local school district that has pushed to not approve this application. I sympathize with some concerns.

Last year I authored legislation to require a pamphlet on cannabis to be distributed to first-time buyers, and a second bill to allow for easier access to illegal grows for the state water board, now that there is a legal process for cannabis. With former Assemblymember Mark Stone, I previously authored a successful bill to set up common testing standards for laboratories that test cannabis before its sale. When voters approved the initiative for legalization, it is now up to us to make the system work.

WAMM’s application has adhered to the current city rules, and most of the fears about this location apply to other locations that pre-exist in Santa Cruz.

I hope that the history of WAMM will count for something in the process. They stood up for people in need when not many others were standing up for them. I hope that people stand up for them now.

John Laird is the state senator for District 17.

Keeley’s cannabis pause falls flat with Santa Cruz City Council, business community

EXHIBIT B
1 Allen Hopper, Attorney at Law
3975 Manzanita Drive
San Jose, CA 95117
May 8, 2024
Santa Cruz City Council
809 Center St, Room 10
Santa Cruz, CA 95060
Dear Mayor Keeley and Councilmembers,
I write in support of the cannabis dispensary at the site of the former Emily’s Bakery on Mission and Laurel Streets, proposed in partnership with Valerie Corral and the Wo/Men’s Alliance for Medical Marijuana (WAMM). I intend to offer public comments at the Council’s upcoming public meeting on May 14 and respectfully request that this letter be entered into the public record as additional written testimony/comments and distributed to the Councilmembers.

Thank you for the opportunity to set forth in more detail than will be possible in my public comments at the Council Meeting my background and history with WAMM and as a cannabis law and regulatory expert, followed by specific reasons why the Council should uphold the ruling of the Planning Commission and grant the requested permit.

My Background, Expertise and History with WAMM
Though I now live in San Jose for family reasons, I have lived on and off in Santa Cruz since 2004 and still consider myself a Santa Cruzan at heart. I am an attorney and first moved to Santa Cruz to join the staff of the American Civil Liberties Union as the Litigation Director for the National ACLU’s Drug Law Reform Project, which for a time was headquartered in Santa Cruz.

It was through my work for the ACLU that I first met Valarie Corral and became aware of WAMM. Along with nationally renowned trial lawyer and law professor Gerald Uelmen, the law firm of Bingham McCutchin, local attorney Ben Rice and others, the ACLU assisted with litigation in federal court arising from the infamous 2002 D.E.A. raid of the WAMM garden in which federal agents in combat gear literally held wheelchair-bound patients at gunpoint. In addition to representing WAMM and its patient members in that litigation, I joined Ben Rice and then-City Attorney John Barisone as co-counsel representing the City of Santa Cruz after the City and Santa Cruz County joined the lawsuit as co-plaintiffs.

The City’s strong support of WAMM before and after that litigation is well-documented.

Perhaps fittingly, the Mayor at that time was Emily Reilly, owner of the former bakery at the site of the proposed dispensary now under consideration by the Council. Mayor Reilly and other City officials allowed WAMM to distribute cannabis to patient members from the steps of City Hall shortly after the D.E.A. raid, with many other then-current and past local government officials also in attendance, looking on approvingly. The City’s and County’s support of WAMM in that litigation was crucial and, in fact, an important legal argument upon which we prevailed in 2 federal court was based on the 10th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, which protects state and local governments from improper federal government interference and control. The WAMM litigation against the D.E.A. not only carved out unique protections for WAMM allowing its continued operation despite federal illegality, but moreover was an important step in the evolution of the legal framework that today shapes the national cannabis regulatory landscape. I share this history now because it illustrates the important role WAMM has played not only here in Santa Cruz but nationally.

In the time since that federal litigation, I have further developed expertise in constitutional and local cannabis regulatory matters. I testified as a constitutional law expert at then-State Assembly Member Tom Ammiano’s groundbreaking Public Safety Committee hearings on cannabis legalization in 2009. I co-authored an article published in 2015 in the UCLA Law Review with well-known constitutional scholar and Dean of Berkeley Law School, Erwin Chemerinsky on the topic of federalism and state legalization of cannabis despite continued federal illegality. I was deeply involved in convening the ACLU’s 2015 statewide Blue Ribbon Commission chaired by then-Lt. Governor Gavin Newsom and was part of the six-attorney drafting team for Proposition 64, the 2016 California ballot initiative legalizing adult use cannabis. I have assisted local governments in cannabis regulatory matters, including helping the City of Santa Rosa craft its local cannabis ordinances and representing Pueblo, Colorado in federal litigation defending its local cannabis regulations. I also met with former County Counsel Dana McRea to provide input and legal consultation while the County was drafting early iterations of the County’s cannabis ordinances. The County’s support for WAMM led directly to provisions I drafted as part of Prop. 64 to create a pilot project for a non-profit state licensing pathway specifically designed with WAMM in mind.

The Discretion Afforded by Section 24.12.1300.4.B is Patterned After Early Versions of the County’s Cannabis Ordinance Intended to Protect WAMM.

The early versions of the County cannabis ordinances included provisions to “grandfather” in WAMM to allow it to continue to operate even if unable to meet all of the criteria established under the new ordinance. This was in recognition of the important service WAMM had long been providing to some of Santa Cruz’s most vulnerable—sick and dying patients using cannabis to ease their suffering.

In light of this history, it is sadly ironic that those opposing WAMM’s new dispensary are relying upon a provision of City of Santa Cruz Ordinance 2000-12, Section 24.12.1300.4.B, that appears to be patterned after language in the County’s early versions of its cannabis ordinances that was specifically crafted to protect WAMM by carving out a “grandfathered” status for WAMM while still giving the County broad discretion deny permits for other operations lacking WAMM’s demonstrated history of providing crucial public health benefits to vulnerable County patients.

Section 24.12.1300.4.B imposes a requirement that the hearing body find that “The proposed use will not adversely affect the health, safety or welfare of area residents or businesses, or uses … and will not be located within proximity of an incompatible use, such as a children’s school, day care facility or children’s play area.”
3 Very similar language requiring that a proposed operation would not adversely affect the health, safety or welfare of area residents was included in early versions of the County’s ordinance to ensure that other less scrupulous operators without WAMM’s long history of working closely with local government officials to serve sick and dying patients could not impermissibly shoehorn themselves into the WAMM “grandfather” carve-out. It is outrageous that this Council is now being asked to use that very language to exclude WAMM, especially given that denial of this permit would very likely be an extinction event for WAMM.

The Opponents’ Suggested Interpretation of 24.12.1300.4.B Improperly Grants Unfettered Discretion to the City; That Section Must be Read in Conjunction with the City’s Other Cannabis Permitting Rules.

To avoid vulnerability to litigation and potential City liability, City Ordinance Section

24.12.1300.4.B must be read in conjunction with the City’s other cannabis permitting rules and in a manner such that it does not grant the hearing body unfettered discretion to deny a permit where all of the City’s specific requirements are met. The only sensible interpretation here is that

24.12.1300.4.B is meant to allow denial of a permit based on health and safety concerns not otherwise addressed by the cannabis ordinance or other land use ordinances. Here, the only health and safety concern of the opponents appears to be “proximity” to the high school, but proximity to a school is specifically addressed by the 600’ setback requirement imposed by the City’s ordinance and state law. Indeed, Section 24.12.1300.2.D explicitly allows the City Council discretion to grant a permit even where the site is too close to a school and the applicant therefore cannot comply with the 600’ setback requirement. There is no comparable language granting discretion to deny a permit on the basis of proximity to a school where the proposed location fully complies with the 600’ setback requirement, as is the case here. To deny the permit on the basis of 24.12.1300.4.B under these circumstances would be in effect to grant unfettered discretion to the City and very likely subject the City to litigation and liability.

WAMM’s Partnership with The Hook is Appropriate and Necessary for WAMM’s Survival.

Finally, this Council should reject any suggestion that the proposed project should not garner the benefit of WAMM’s long history of public service and close collaboration with the City and County due to the fact that the proposed project is undertaken jointly with a for-profit licensed operator, The Hook dispensary. The sad truth is that despite efforts by many supporters to preserve and protect WAMM’s pioneering non-profit collective garden model, in fact WAMM and its patient members have been left behind and abandoned by the new multi-billion dollar commercial cannabis market. The economic reality for WAMM is that its only means of survival is partnership with a for-profit benefactor. The Hook and Bryce Berryessa are to be commended for this endeavor and support for WAMM, and WAMM’s partnership with The Hook at the Emily’s Bakery location should certainly not be held against WAMM or serve to justify denying the permit and destroying WAMM.

Respectfully,
Allen Hopper

EXHIBIT C
Date Time Total Passerby Count
(Walking, Biking, Scooter) % OF SCHS | MHMS STUDENTS PASSING BY 7:30-8:30 11:30-12:30 3:30-4:45 FOR ALL 3 TIME FRAMES OUT OF 1670 TOTAL STUDENTS 4/25/2024 10 23 11 44 2.63%
4/26/2024 8 14 14 36 2.16%
4/29/2024 13 11 31 55 3.29%
4/30/2024 15 14 8 37 2.22%
5/1/2024 11 14 18 43 2.57%
5/2/2024 5 15 37 57 3.41%
5/3/2024 7 26 15 48 2.87%
5/6/2024 7 10 13 30 1.80%
5/7/2024 8 15 23 46 2.75%
5/8/2024 2 18 25 45 2.69%
5/9/2024 4 18 13 35 2.10%
5/10/2024 6 9 15 0.90%
TOTAL 8.00 15.58 18.91 40.92 2.45%
Our latest-generation camera models have improved accuracy and reduced duplicate search results. This is made possible by using the computer vision (CV)-enabled chipset on these cameras, which allows for the use of larger and faster CV models. These models can identify the movements of people and vehicles and combine the detections over multiple frames.

Date Time Total Passerby Count with Backpack
(Walking, Biking, Scooter) SCHS | MHMS 1670 Students Total 7:30-8:30 11:30-12:30 3:30-4:45 FOR ALL 3 TIMES FRAMES % OF SCHS | MHMS STUDENTS PASSING BY 4/25/2024 5 20 6 31 1.86%
4/26/2024 7 10 10 27 1.62%
4/29/2024 0 3 8 11 0.66%
4/30/2024 5 8 6 19 1.14%
5/1/2024 7 9 9 25 1.50%
5/2/2024 4 8 17 29 1.74%
5/3/2024 2 5 9 16 0.96%
5/6/2024 4 5 9 18 1.08%
5/7/2024 6 4 13 23 1.38%
5/8/2024 0 5 13 18 1.08%
5/9/2024 2 14 8 24 1.44%
5/10/2024 1 0 1 0.06%
TOTAL 3.58 7.58 9.82 20.17 1.21%
Our latest-generation camera models have improved accuracy and reduced duplicate search results. This is made possible by using the computer vision (CV)- enabled chipset on these cameras, which allows for the use of larger and faster CV models. These models can identify the movements of people and vehicles and combine the detections over multiple frames.
1 Rosemary Balsley
From: Valerie Leveroni Corral <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, May 10, 2024 7:52 PM
To: Ben Rice
Cc: City Council; Arnold Leff MD; Bryce Berryessa; [email protected] Subject: Re: materials for council members and agenda item re. WAMM 5-14-24 Amazing! tThe JAMA studies nail it
On Fri, May 10, 2024, 12:44 PM Ben Rice <[email protected]> wrote:

Hello, please attach this as part of the WAMM materials. I am providing it on behalf of a witness for the Tuesday meeting, Dr. Arnie Leff.
2 Rosemary Balsley
From: Brandon Roque <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, May 10, 2024 9:03 PM
To: City Council
Cc: [email protected]
Subject: Uphold Your Own Rules, Approve Hook Outlet/WAMM To the Santa Cruz City Council:

As a Santa Cruz Resident, I vehemently support The Hook Outlet’s and WAMM Phytotherapies’ proposed dispensary at 1129 Mission St. This project embodies responsible cannabis business practices, bolsters our economy, and uplifts our most vulnerable citizens –– all priorities explicitly outlined in the city’s general plan.

The Hook Outlet’s partnership with WAMM, our nation’s oldest and most revered medical cannabis collective, guarantees compassionate care remains accessible. For over 30 years, WAMM has provided free medicine to our community’s most critically ill. Denying a dispensary in a location that meets all zoning requirements would be a direct attack on their ability to serve those most in need.

The Hook Outlet consistently exceeds regulatory standards. Their robust security plan, discreet storefront, voluntary age restriction policy, and youth prevention outreach via www.safecannabis.net demonstrate that safeguarding our community, especially its youth, is a core value.

Furthermore, this business is a proven asset to Santa Cruz. They generate jobs, bolster our tax base, and actively support local non-profits. The Planning Commission’s recommendation for approval underscores the project’s merit and compliance.

Denying this applicant, despite their community support and adherence to every guideline, would be a profoundly damaging breach of trust. It signals to businesses that investing in Santa Cruz is a fool’s errand, as regulations are subject to arbitrary change.

I demand that the City Council uphold its commitment to transparency and predictability by approving The Hook Outlet and WAMM’s application. Failure to do so sets a chilling precedent with far-reaching consequences.

Sincerely,
A Concerned Santa Cruz Resident
Sent from my iPhone
3 Rosemary Balsley
From: Rob Blanco <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, May 10, 2024 9:05 PM
To: City Council
Cc: [email protected]
Subject: Uphold Your Own Rules, Approve Hook Outlet/WAMM To the Santa Cruz City Council:

Sincerely,
A Concerned Santa Cruz Resident
Sent from my iPhone
1 Rosemary Balsley
From: Ben Rice <[email protected]>
Sent: Friday, May 10, 2024 10:10 PM
To: City Council
Cc: Valerie Leveroni Corral; Bryce Berryessa; Tamyra Rice Subject: material relating to Professor Reinarman's testimony at the WAMM/ Hook Appeal hearing on 5/14 Attachments: AJPH article.pdf
Please add this to the council member's 5/14 packet. Professor Reinarman will refer to the attached study and the speech he gave on April 17th:

Legal Studies Distinguished Speakers Reinarman and Dent .
https://vimeo.com/936443197.

Thank you.
836 | Research and Practice | Peer Reviewed | Reinarman et al. American Journal of Public Health | May 2004, Vol 94, No. 5  RESEARCH AND PRACTICE 
Objectives. We tested the premise that punishment for cannabis use deters use and thereby benefits public health.

Methods. We compared representative samples of experienced cannabis users in similar cities with opposing cannabis policies—Amsterdam, the Netherlands (decriminalization), and San Francisco, Calif (criminalization). We compared age at onset, regular and maximum use, frequency and quantity of use over time, intensity and duration of intoxication, career use patterns, and other drug use.

Results. With the exception of higher drug use in San Francisco, we found strong similarities across both cities. We found no evidence to support claims that criminalization reduces use or that decriminalization increases use.

Conclusions. Drug policies may have less impact on cannabis use than is currently thought. (Am J Public Health. 2004;94:836–842) did examine the proposition that drug policies
affect user behavior and deter use. It is possible that the causal arrow points the other way—that user behavior affects laws and policies, which has been the case with alcohol policies in some countries.17 However, the
Marijuana Tax Act of 1937, which first criminalized cannabis, predated widespread cannabis use in the United States and had clear political origins.18–21 In the Netherlands, de facto decriminalization of cannabis was first forged
in the late 1960s, when use was spreading
among the youth counterculture. But Dutch
policymakers decided that cannabis use was
unlikely to lead to deeper deviance and that
criminalization could lead to greater harm to
users than the drug itself.3 In neither country,
then, was user behavior the effective cause of
laws or policies.

The presumed effects of cannabis policies
have been explored by those who are critical
of criminalization in the United States22 and
by those who are skeptical of Dutch decriminalization.23 However, until now there have been no rigorously comparative studies of
user behavior designed to assess whether
criminalization constrains use or whether decriminalization increases it. Our study compared the career use patterns of representative samples of experienced cannabis users in 2 cities with many similarities but with differThe Limited Relevance of Drug Policy:

Cannabis in Amsterdam and in San Francisco
| Craig Reinarman, PhD, Peter D.A. Cohen, PhD, and Hendrien L. Kaal, PhD ent drug-control regimes—Amsterdam, the
Netherlands (decriminalization), and San
Francisco, Calif (criminalization).

San Francisco was selected as the US comparison city not because it is representative of the United States but because it is the US city
most comparable to Amsterdam. Both cities
are large, highly urbanized port cities with diverse populations of slightly more than 700000. They are financial and entertainment hubs for larger regional conurbations, and they have long been perceived within
their home countries as cosmopolitan, politically liberal, and culturally tolerant.

Law enforcement officials in San Francisco are not as zealous about enforcing marijuana laws as law enforcement officials
are in most other US cities. Nonetheless, San
Francisco is embedded in the drug policy
context of criminalization, which is a markedly different drug policy context than that of Amsterdam. Buying and selling cannabis
are permitted in Amsterdam in 288 licensed
“coffee shops,”24 and public use is permitted,
whereas in San Francisco, buying, selling,
and public use of marijuana remain criminal
offenses. In Amsterdam, there is neither
proactive nor reactive policing of use or lowlevel sales, although police do enforce regulations against coffee shops’ advertising, selling to minors, and creating public nuisances.

There is a trend among Western democracies toward liberalization of cannabis laws. (Cannabis includes both marijuana and
hashish.) In 1976, the Netherlands adopted
de facto decriminalization. Under Dutch law,
possession remains a crime, but the national
policy of the Ministry of Justice is to not enforce that law. After 1980, a system of “coffee shops” evolved in which the purchase of small quantities of cannabis by adults was informally tolerated and was then formally permitted in shops that were licensed.1–3
During the 1990s, Switzerland, Germany,
Spain, Belgium, and Italy shifted their drug
policies in the Dutch direction. Portugal decriminalized cannabis in 2001, and England similarly reclassified cannabis in 2004. Canada and New Zealand are currently considering cannabis decriminalization. These shifts constitute the first steps away from the
dominant drug policy paradigm advocated
by the United States, which is punishmentbased prohibition.4–6 Moving in the opposite direction, the
United States has stiffened criminal penalties
for drug offenses and has increased arrests
for cannabis offenses. Since 1996, voters in
8 states and the District of Columbia have
passed medical-marijuana initiatives, but the
federal government has resisted implementation. In 2001, 723 627 people were arrested for marijuana offenses.7 In 2002, the Drug Enforcement Administration began
raiding medical-marijuana organizations,8
and the White House Office of National
Drug Control Policy launched a campaign
against marijuana.9,10
Such policies are designed to deter use.

The core empirical claim made by criminalization proponents is that, absent the threat of punishment, the prevalence, frequency, and
quantity of cannabis use will increase and will
threaten public health.11–16 The question of
whether deterring use enhances public health
was beyond the scope of our study, but we
May 2004, Vol 94, No. 5 | American Journal of Public Health Reinarman et al. | Peer Reviewed | Research and Practice | 837  RESEARCH AND PRACTICE 
In San Francisco, there is strong proactive
and reactive policing of sales, and there is
moderate reactive policing of use.

These differences in drug policy context
are palpable to users. San Francisco students are suspended from schools and are placed in treatment for marijuana use. San
Francisco users risk citations, fines, and arrests if they are detected buying, possessing, or using marijuana. In Amsterdam, users face none of these risks. The use and
sale of other illicit drugs sometimes used by
cannabis users is proactively policed in San
Francisco. In Amsterdam, police occasionally engage in reactive policing of complaints about open use or sale of other drugs, but they do not proactively patrol in
search of these offenses.

METHODS
We required not merely a random sample
of cannabis users but a random sample of
users who had enough experience (defined as
at least 25 episodes of use during their lifetimes) to answer questions about career use patterns. In Amsterdam, recruitment of users
began as part of a drug-use prevalence survey
of the general population. This survey was administered to a random sample that was obtained from Amsterdam’s Municipal Population Registry. The overall response rate was 50.2%,
which yielded a sample of 4364.25 (The response rate was slightly below the 55% response rate of a 1990 iteration of the survey.

Sampling details and an extensive response/
nonresponse study can be found in Sandwijk
et al.24 or at http://www.cedro-uva.org/lib.)
Comparisons of responders with nonresponders and with known city demographic data indicated no need for weighting. All respondents who reported having used cannabis at least 25 times (n=535; 12.3%) were asked to
participate in an in-depth interview about their
cannabis use. Of these 535 experienced users,
216 (40.5%) were interviewed in 1996.26
This modest response rate necessitated a
check of representativeness. We compared the
216 users who responded with the 319 who
did not on 12 demographic and drug-use
prevalence variables. Respondents had slightly
higher levels of formal education and slightly
higher past-year prevalence of cannabis
use,26,27 but otherwise, they showed no differences compared with nonrespondents and thus were reasonably representative of experienced cannabis users in the general population. Homeless and institutionalized persons were not interviewed for either survey.

Beginning in 1997, the Amsterdam survey of experienced cannabis users was replicated in San Francisco, where there is no population registry. To remain consistent
with Amsterdam, we first drew an area probability sample by randomly selecting census tracts, blocks, buildings, households, and
adults within households. We administered a
brief prevalence survey containing demographic and drug-use prevalence questions.

Unlike the Amsterdam prevalence survey,
which was an extensive study in its own
right, the brief prevalence survey in San
Francisco was principally designed to generate a random representative sample of experienced cannabis users.

The overall response rate of the San Francisco prevalence survey was 52.7%, which yielded a sample of 891.28 Of these respondents, 349 reported that they had used cannabis 25 or more times (39.2% of the population sample and 3 times the prevalence found in the Amsterdam sample) and were
asked to participate in the in-depth interview;
266 (76.2%) respondents were ultimately interviewed in-depth about their career use patterns. As a check on their representativeness, respondents were compared with nonrespondents on 10 demographic and drug-use prevalence variables. No statistically significant differences were found.

The Dutch questionnaire was translated for
use in San Francisco. Non-English-speaking
Asian Americans were excluded because of
the prohibitive costs of translating instruments
and training interviewers in the many Chinese
and other Asian languages found in San Francisco. This exclusion was not consequential, because national prevalence studies show that
illicit drug use among Asian Americans is the
lowest of any ethnic group.29 Also, non–English
speakers are mostly elderly and are thus least
likely to be cannabis users. However, the instruments were translated into Spanish, and bilingual interviewers conducted interviews
when necessary. Homeless and institutionalized persons were not interviewed.

RESULTS
Age at Onset, First Regular Use, and
Maximum Use
The mean age at onset of cannabis use was
nearly identical in both cities: 16.95 years in
Amsterdam and 16.43 years in San Francisco. The mean age at which respondents commenced regular use (≥once per month)
also was nearly identical: 19.11 years in Amsterdam and 18.81 years in San Francisco.

The mean age at which respondents in both
cities began their periods of maximum use
was about 2 years after they began regular
use: 21.46 years in Amsterdam and 21.98
years in San Francisco. Clear majorities in
both cities reported periods of maximum use
of 3 years or less.

Cannabis Use Patterns Over Time
We asked about the frequency and the
quantity of use and the intensity and the duration of intoxication. To assess how these dimensions of use may have changed over time, we asked about each for 4 periods: first year
of regular use (≥once per month), maximumuse period, past year (12 months before the interview), and past 3 months (3 months before the interview).

Frequency of use. Figure 1 shows the frequency of reported marijuana use for these 4 periods; the overall pattern is similar across
both cities. During first year of regular use,
strong majorities reported use of cannabis
once per week or less, whereas small percentages reported daily use. Frequency increased during the period of maximum use but declined sharply thereafter. Amsterdam respondents reported more frequent use than did San Francisco respondents during their first
year of regular use (t=4.019; df=479; P=
.000) and during their period of maximum
use (t=2.979; df=479; I=.003). When the
maximum-use period was compared with the
past year, daily use declined from 49% to
10% in Amsterdam and from 39% to 7% in
San Francisco. This decline was even greater
for the past 3 months.

The basic trajectory of frequency of use
across careers was parallel in both cities. Most
users reported a maximum-use period of 2 to
3 years, after which the vast majority sharply
reduced their frequency of use or stopped al-
838 | Research and Practice | Peer Reviewed | Reinarman et al. American Journal of Public Health | May 2004, Vol 94, No. 5  RESEARCH AND PRACTICE 
7 49
10 9 4
39 7 5
50 40
19 20 35
40 14 15
43 11
32 21
61 20
46 34
38 50
32 46
0 10
20 30
40 50
60 70
80 90
100
FY
Amsterdam
P3M MP
No use
Less than
once per
week
Once per
week or
more
Daily use
San Francisco
MP FY P3M PY PY
Percentage
Note.FY=first year of regular use (≥once per month); MP=maximum-use period; PY=past year; P3M=past 3 months. a All respondents.

FIGURE 1—Frequency of cannabis use for 4 periods, by city (%).a 3 18
8 9 5
18 6
12 2 1 10
18 3 7
24 37
27 27
25 38
21 22
28 17
23 21
24 16
19 17
38 15
40 41 35
10 53 52
0 10
20 30
40 50
60 70
80 90
100
Amsterdam
<2 grams
2–4 grams
4–14 grams
14–28 grams
>28 grams
4 2
FY P3M MP FY P3M PY MP PY
Percentage
San Francisco
Note.FY= first year of regular use (≥once per month); MP = maximum-use period; PY = last year; P3M = past 3 months. a Respondents who still used at time of survey, for past year and past 3 months.

FIGURE 2—Average quantity of cannabis used per month (%).a together. Roughly three fourths of the respondents in each city reported that they had used cannabis less than once per week or not at all
in the year before the interview.

Quantity of use. Figure 2 shows that in the
first year of regular use, few respondents in
either city consumed large quantities of cannabis. Only 3% in Amsterdam and 5% in San Francisco used 28 grams (approximately 1
ounce) during an average month. Amsterdam
respondents used significantly smaller quantities than did San Francisco respondents during this period. When the 2 smallest categories
were combined, two thirds in Amsterdam
(66%) and slightly less in San Francisco
(59%) were found to have consumed 4 or
fewer grams per month during their first year
of regular use. More than one third used less
than 2 grams per month during their first
year of regular use—38% in Amsterdam and
35% in San Francisco.

Quantities consumed during maximum-use
periods were larger and very similar across
the cities. About two thirds of respondents
consumed an average of 14 or fewer grams
per month—69% in Amsterdam and 64% in
San Francisco. Less than 1 in 5 respondents
in each city (18%) consumed an average of
28 grams per month or more during their
maximum-use periods.

During the year before the interview,
consumption among those who still used
cannabis declined sharply. Clear majorities
used 4 or fewer grams per month, although
this proportion was smaller in Amsterdam
(63%) than in San Francisco (72%) (t=

2.207; df=297; P=.028). About 1 in 3 respondents in each city reported no use.

Overall, the patterns were parallel in both
cities; quantities used increased from first
regular use through maximum use but then
quantities used declined steadily or use
ceased altogether over the course of the respondents’ careers.

Intensity of intoxication. Respondents were
asked to estimate “how high or how stoned
you generally got” when they consumed cannabis. Some recalled this occurence with greater consistency than did others, but all of
them were able to make basic ordinal distinctions between more- and less-intense highs.

To increase reliability of respondents’ estimates, we displayed a 6-point scale ranging from “light buzz” (1) to “very high” (6) and
asked them to select the number that best
summarized their highs during each period.

Figure 3 shows that respondents in both
cities generally increased the intensity of their
highs during periods of maximum use but
moderated their highs thereafter (past-year
and past-month figures exclude those who
had quit). Amsterdam respondents were significantly more likely than San Francisco respondents to report milder intoxication during the first year of regular use and during maximum-use periods: mean scores for the first year were 3.5 in Amsterdam and 3.9 in San
May 2004, Vol 94, No. 5 | American Journal of Public Health Reinarman et al. | Peer Reviewed | Research and Practice | 839  RESEARCH AND PRACTICE 
10 9 15 17
7 5
14 24
12 15
20 31
15 11
25 29
21 21
23 31
23 27
24 23
33 28
26 16
32 26
15 9
21 25
12 4
18 22
11 6 10 7 4
0 5 9
0 10
20 30
40 50
60 70
80 90
100
1: Light buzz
2 3
4 5
6: Very high
FY
Amsterdam
P3M MP
San Francisco
MP FY P3M PY PY
Percentage
3 4
Note. FY = first year of regular use (≥once per month); MP = maximum-use period; PY = past year; P3M = past 3 months. a Respondents who still used at time of survey, for past year and past 3 months.

FIGURE 3—Intensity of intoxication during typical occasion of cannabis use (%).a 22 40
11 11 15
28 9 8
57 39
50 50
57 57
53 52
21 21
39 39
28 14
37 41
0 10
20 30
40 50
60 70
80 90
100
Only an hour
2–3 hours
≥4 hours
FY
Amsterdam
P3M MP
San Francisco
MP FY P3M PY PY
Percentage
Note. FY = first year of regular use (≥once per month); MP = maximum-use period; PY = past year; P3M = past 3 months. a Respondents who still used at time of survey, for past year and past 3 months.

FIGURE 4—Duration of high during a typical occasion of cannabis use (%).a Francisco (t=–3.180; df=476; P=.002), and
these scores rose for maximum-use periods to

3.9 and 4.4, respectively (t=–4.932, df=
413; P=.000).

The same pattern was found for the more
recent periods, although the mean scores declined. The proportion of respondents who chose 6 (very high) remained small and was
between 3% and 7% in both cities. For
highs experienced during the past year, Amsterdam respondents were again more likely to report milder intoxication (t=–2.233;
df=310; P=.026). For the past-3-month
periods, majorities in both cities reported
milder highs of 1 to 3 on the 6-point scale.

In short, respondents in both cities reported
less intoxication with use over the course of
their careers.

Duration of intoxication. We also asked
“about how long” respondents were high
during a typical occasion of cannabis use.

Reported durations were correlated with frequency and with quantity but were not a function of frequency and quantity alone.

Here, too, we found a tendency toward moderation over the course of users’ careers in both cities. Figure 4 shows that Amsterdam
respondents reported highs of somewhat
longer duration than reported by respondents in San Francisco during the first year of regular use (t=2.329; df=476; P=.020).
(One reviewer noted a divergence between
San Francisco respondents, who reported
more intense highs during 3 of the 4 periods,
and Amsterdam respondents, who reported
highs of longer duration during 1 period. Because we found no reason to suspect that either sample played up or played down their responses to any of the questions, this divergence may indicate culture-specific consumption styles or cultural grammars of intoxication.30,31) However, during the other 3 time periods there were no significant differences: in each city, a clear majority of users regulated their ingestion so that highs lasted
2 to 3 hours or less. Substantial minorities in
each city reported being high for 4 or more
hours during maximum-use periods, but
these proportions dropped sharply after
those periods. Of those who used cannabis
during the 3 months before the interview,
89% in Amsterdam and 93% in San Francisco reported being high for 2 to 3 hours or less.

Overall Career Use Patterns
We also asked respondents to characterize
their overall career use patterns. We presented a typology of trajectories32 and asked them to identify the 1 that “best describes”
their cannabis use over time (Table 1).

Two career use patterns were dominant in
both cities. Pattern 4—gradual increased use
followed by sustained decline—was the most
common (49.4% of the combined sample).

The second most common was Pattern 6—
wide variation over time (24.4% of the combined sample). Patterns 1, 2, 3, and 5 were each selected by only 6% to 8% of the com-
840 | Research and Practice | Peer Reviewed | Reinarman et al. American Journal of Public Health | May 2004, Vol 94, No. 5  RESEARCH AND PRACTICE 
TABLE 1—Trajectories of Overall Career
Use
Amsterdam, San Francisco,
Pattern No. (%) No. (%)
1: declining 17 (7.9) 18 (6.8)
2: escalating 13 (6.0) 17 (6.4)
3: stable 24 (11.1) 5 (1.9)
4: increase/ 104 (48.1) 133 (50.4)
decline
5: intermittent 7 (3.2) 25 (9.5)
6: variable 51 (23.6) 66 (25.0)
Total 216 (100.0) 264 (100.0)
Note. χ2= 24.047; df = 5; P = .000. Pattern names
listed as shown to respondents.

TABLE 2—Prevalence of Other Illicit Drug Use, Lifetime and During the Past 3 Months Amsterdam (n = 216) San Francisco (n = 264) Significance χ2 LTP P3MP LTP P3MP LTP P3MP
Cocaine 48.1 9.3 73.2 7.5 * NS
Crack 3.7 0.5 18.1 1.1 * a
Amphetamines 37.5 1.9 60.4 4.5 * NS
Ecstasy 25.5 9.3 40.0 6.4 * NS
Opiates 21.8 0.5 35.5 2.7 * a
Note. LTP= lifetime period; P3MP = past 3 months; NS = not significant. a Too few cases in cells to compute statistical test.
*P < .001.
bined sample. Pattern 3—stable use from the
beginning onward—was selected significantly
more often by Amsterdam respondents
(11.1%) than by San Francisco respondents
(1.9%), whereas Pattern 5—intermittent use
(many starts and stops over time)—was selected significantly more often by San Francisco respondents (9.5%) than by Amsterdam respondents (3.2%).

These findings are consistent with findings
on frequency and quantity of use and intensity and duration of intoxication, and they have important public health implications.

Claims that cannabis produces addiction or
dependence13–15 lead one to expect that
many experienced users would report Pattern 2—escalation of use over time. But this pattern was reported by only 6% in both
cities, which means that 94% of respondents
had overall career use patterns that did not
entail escalation across careers.

Other Illicit Drug Use
Another important question about the effects of drug policies concerns the use of other illicit drugs. The “separation of markets,” in which lawfully regulated cannabis distribution reduces the likelihood that people
seeking cannabis will be drawn into deviant
subcultures where “hard drugs” also are sold
is one public health objective of Dutch decriminalization.1–3 The reduction of cannabis use and thereby the reduction of the extent to
which it serves as a “gateway” to “harder”
drugs is one public health objective of US
criminalization.11,12,14,16
Users who had ingested cannabis 25 times
or more during their lifetimes were far more
prevalent in San Francisco than in Amsterdam, and the same was true for users of other illicit drugs. Table 2 shows a significantly
lower lifetime prevalence of other illicit drug
use in Amsterdam than in San Francisco.

During the 3 months before the interview,
prevalence of crack and opiate use also were
significantly higher in San Francisco, but cocaine, amphetamine, and ecstasy use were not significantly different. Thus, rates of discontinuation—the decline from lifetime prevalence to prevalence during the past 3 months—were somewhat higher in San Francisco for cocaine, amphetamine, and ecstasy; however, rates of discontinuation were high
(64%–98%) for all drugs in both cities.

DISCUSSION
Proponents of criminalization attribute to
their preferred drug-control regime a special
power to affect user behavior. Our findings
cast doubt on such attributions. Despite
widespread lawful availability of cannabis in
Amsterdam, there were no differences between the 2 cities in age at onset of use, age at first regular use, or age at the start of maximum use. Either availability in San Francisco is equivalent to that in Amsterdam despite policy differences, or availability per se does not strongly influence onset or other career phases.

We also found consistent similarities in patterns of career use across the different policy contexts. Although a few significant differences were found in some dimensions of use during some career phases, the basic trajectory was the same in both cities on all dimensions of use: increasing use until a limited period of maximum use, followed by a sustained decrease in use over time or by cessation. It is
significant, from a public health perspective,
that clear majorities of experienced users in
both cities never used daily or used large
amounts even during their peak periods, and
that use declined after those peak periods.

Furthermore, both samples reported similar
steady declines in degree and duration of intoxication. Only 6% in each city reported escalation of use over time.

We expected differences in drug policies to
affect the duration of cannabis-use careers
and the rates of cessation. Criminalization is
designed to decrease availability, discourage
use, and provide incentives to quit. Decriminalization is said to increase availability, encourage use, and provide disincentives to quit. Thus, we expected longer careers and
fewer quitters in Amsterdam, but our findings did not support these expectations. Cannabis careers ranged from 1 to 38 years, and 95% of respondents in both cities reported
careers of 3 years or longer. The mean career length was slightly greater in San Francisco (15 years) than in Amsterdam (12 years), but this finding was mostly because of the
somewhat higher mean age in the San Francisco sample (34 years vs 31 years). Similarly, nearly identical proportions of respondents in each city had quit by the time they were interviewed—33.8% in Amsterdam
and 34.3% in San Francisco.

If drug policies are a potent influence on
user behavior, there should not be such
May 2004, Vol 94, No. 5 | American Journal of Public Health Reinarman et al. | Peer Reviewed | Research and Practice | 841  RESEARCH AND PRACTICE 
strong similarities across such different drug
control regimes. Our findings do not support
claims that criminalization reduces cannabis
use and that decriminalization increases cannabis use. Moreover, Dutch decriminalization does not appear to be associated with greater
use of other illicit drugs relative to drug use
in San Francisco, nor does criminalization in
San Francisco appear to be associated with
less use of other illicit drugs relative to their
use in Amsterdam. Indeed, to judge from the
lifetime prevalence of other illicit drug use,
the reverse may be the case.

Our study has limitations and should be
replicated in other cities over longer periods.

While our findings share the limitations of all
self-report studies (e.g., vague or selective
memory, over- or understatements of fact),
we attempted to minimize these limitations by
means of carefully worded questions, extensive pretesting, and use of multiple measures.

The questionnaire is available under questionnaire at http://www.cedro-uva.org/lib/cohen. canasd.html. Our comparable samples and
measures helped isolate the effects of drug
policies, but “all else” is not necessarily
“equal.” Cultural and social conditions in the
United States are different from in the
Netherlands; therefore, cannabis use might increase if the United States were to adopt a Dutch approach. Further studies that examine
prevalence before and after policy shifts
would be illuminating, although previous
studies of the impact of marijuana decriminalization among 11 US states during the 1970s found no increases.33–36
One hypothesis for future research is that
with a widely used drug like cannabis, the informal social controls that users develop as part of their culture30,31,37–39 have more powerful regulatory effects on their behavior than do formal social controls such as drug policies. This possibility emerged from responses to questions about the circumstances respondents found appropriate for cannabis use. In both cities, relaxation was the most common
purpose of use, and majorities from both
cities reported that they typically used cannabis with friends and at social gatherings. Majorities in both cities most often mentioned work or study as situations in which use was
inappropriate. In both cities, 69% reported
negative emotional states as unsuitable for
cannabis use, and 80% reported having advised novices about the virtues of moderation.

CONCLUSIONS
These data suggest that most experienced
users organize their use according to their
own subcultural etiquette—norms and rules
about when, where, why, with whom, and
how to use—and less to laws or policies.

When experienced users abide by such etiquette, they appear to regulate their cannabis use so as to minimize the risk that it will interfere with normal social functioning. This pattern suggests that if formal drug policies
are based on the folk (informal) drug policies
users themselves already practice, drug policies may achieve greater relevance.

About the Authors
Craig Reinarman is with the Department of Sociology,
University of California, Santa Cruz, Calif. Peter D.A.

Cohen and Hendrien L. Kaal are with the Centre for Drug Research, University of Amsterdam, the Netherlands.

Requests for reprints should be sent to Craig Reinarman, Department of Sociology, University of California, 1156 High Street, Santa Cruz, CA 95064 (e-mail:
[email protected]).

This article was accepted June 7, 2003.

Contributors
C. Reinarman assisted in conceiving the study and analyzing the data. H.L. Kaal composed the figures and the tables that form the core of the data analysis. P.D.A.

Cohen proposed the study, led its conceptualization, designed and supervised the data analysis, and assisted with writing the article.

Acknowledgments
The authors would like to acknowledge the generous financial support of the Dutch Ministry of Health and the US National Institute on Drug Abuse (grant 1 R01
DA10501–01A1), which made this research possible.

We thank Manja Abraham, Ira Glasser, Harry G.

Levine, Marsha Rosenbaum, Arjan Sas, and 3 anonymous American Journal of Public Health reviewers for their helpful comments. An earlier version of this article was presented at the 97th Annual Meeting of the
American Sociological Association, Chicago, Ill, August 15–19, 2002.

Human Participant Protection
This protocol was approved by all relevant institutional review boards and funding agencies.

References

1. Engelsman EL. Dutch policy on the management
of drug-related problems. Br J Addiction. 1989;84:
211–218.

2. Leuw E, Marshall IH, eds. Between Prohibition and
Legalization: The Dutch Experiment in Drug Policy. Amsterdam, the Netherlands: Kugler Publications; 1994.

3. Cohen PDA. The case of the two Dutch drug policy commissions: an exercise in harm reduction, 1968– 1976. In: Erickson PG, Riley DM, Cheung YW, O’Hare
PA, eds. Harm Reduction: A New Direction for Drug Policies and Programs. Toronto, Ontario, Canada: University of Toronto Press; 1997:17–31.

4. Musto D. The American Disease: Origins of Narcotics Control. New Haven, Conn: Yale University Press; 1973.

5. Bruun K, Pan L, Rexed I. The Gentlemen’s Club: International Control of Drugs and Alcohol. Chicago, Ill:

University of Chicago Press; 1975.

6. Bewley-Taylor D. The United States and International Drug Control, 1909–1997. London, England:

Continuum; 2001.

7. Federal Bureau of Investigation. Uniform Crime
Report: Crime in the United States, 2001. Washington,
DC: US Dept of Justice; 2002.

8. Murphy DE. California: medicinal marijuana raid.

New York Times. September 6, 2002:A20.

9. Office of National Drug Control Policy. An open
letter to parents about marijuana. New York Times. September 18, 2002:A23.

10. Office of National Drug Control Policy. My child is not an honor student. New York Times. October 7,
2002:A5.

11. Kandel DB, Yamaguchi K, Chen K. Stages of progression in drug involvement from adolescence to adulthood: further evidence for the gateway theory.

J Stud Alcohol. 1992;53:447–457.

12. Center on Addiction and Substance Abuse. Cigarettes, Alcohol, and Marijuana: Gateways to Illicit Drugs.

New York, NY: Center on Addiction and Substance
Abuse; 1995.

13. Hall W, Solowij N, Lemon J. The Health and Psychological Consequences of Cannabis Use. Canberra, Australia: Australian Government Publishing Service;
1994.

14. National Institute on Drug Use (NIDA). Marijuana: What Parents Need to Know. Rockville, Md:

NIDA; 1995.

15.Swan N. Marijuana antagonist reveals evidence of
THC dependence in rats. NIDA Notes. 1995;10:1–2.

16. Office of National Drug Control Policy. Drug Facts:

Marijuana. Available at http://www.whitehousedrugpolicy. gov. Accessed May 16, 2003.

17. Christie N. Scandinavian experience in legislation
and control. National Conference on Legal Issues in Alcoholism and Alcohol Usage, Swampscott, Mass, 17–19 June 1965. Boston, Mass: Law–Medicine Institute, Boston University; 1965.

18. Becker HS. Outsiders: Studies in the Sociology of
Deviance. New York, NY: Free Press; 1963.

19. Dickson DT. Bureaucracy and morality: an organizational perspective on a moral crusade. Soc Problems. 1968;16:143–156.

20. Bonnie RJ, Whitebread CH. The Marihuana Conviction: A History of Marihuana Prohibition in the United States. Charlottesville, Va: University of Virginia Press; 1974.

21. Himmelstein JL. The Strange Career of Marihuana:
842 | Research and Practice | Peer Reviewed | Reinarman et al. American Journal of Public Health | May 2004, Vol 94, No. 5  RESEARCH AND PRACTICE 
Politics and Ideology of Drug Control in America. Westport, Conn: Greenwood Press; 1983.

22. Nadelmann EA. Drug prohibition in the US: costs,
consequences, and alternatives. Science. 1989;245:
939–947.

23. MacCoun RJ, Reuter P. Interpreting Dutch cannabis policy: reasoning by analogy in the legalization debate. Science. 1997;278:47–52.

24. Bieleman B, Goeree P. Coffee Shops Geteld: Aantallen Verkooppunten van Cannabis in Nederland [Coffee Shops Counted: Numbers of Points of Sale of Cannabis
in the Netherlands]. Groningen, the Netherlands: Stichting Intraval; 2000.

25. Sandwijk PJ, Cohen PDA, Musterd S, Langemeijer
MPS. Licit and Illicit Drug Use in Amsterdam Vol II. University of Amsterdam, Centre for Drug Research, 1995.

26. Cohen PDA, Sas A. Patterns of Cannabis Use in
Amsterdam Among Experienced Users. Amsterdam, the
Netherlands: University of Amsterdam, Centre for Drug
Research; 1997.

27. Cohen PDA, Kaal H. The Irrelevance of Drug Policy: Patterns and Careers of Experienced Cannabis Use in the Populations of Amsterdam, San Francisco, and Bremen. Amsterdam, the Netherlands: University of Amsterdam, Centre for Drug Research; 2001.

28.Piazza, T, Cheng, Y. Sampling Methods and Field
Results of the San Francisco Drug Use Study. Berkeley,
Calif: University of California, Survey Research Center; 1999. Technical Report 44.

29. Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA). Preliminary Estimates From the 1994 National Household Survey on Drug Abuse. Rockville, Md: US Dept of Health and Human Services, SAMHSA, Office of Applied Studies; 1995.

30. MacAndrew C, Edgerton R. Drunken Comportment: A Social Explanation. Chicago, Ill: Aldine; 1969.

31. Alasutari P. Desire and Craving: A Cultural Theory
of Alcoholism. Albany, NY: State University of New
York Press; 1992.

32. Morningstar P, Chitwood D. The Patterns of Cocaine Use. Rockville, Md: National Institute on Drug Abuse; 1983.

33. Crusky WR, Berger LH, Richardson AH. The effects of marijuana decriminalization on drug use patterns. Contempor Drug Problems. 1978;7:491–532.

34. Johnston LD, Bachman JG, O’Malley PM. Marijuana Decriminalization: The Impact on Youth, 1975– 1980. Ann Arbor, Mich: University of Michigan, Institute for Social Research; 1981. Monitoring the Future, Occasional Paper 13.

35. Single EW. The impact of marijuana decriminalization. Res Adv Alcohol Drug Problems. 1981;6:
405–424.

36. Maloff D. A review of the effects of the decriminalization of marijuana. Contempor Drug Problems. 1981;10:307–322.

37. Becker HS. History, culture, and subjective experience: an exploration of the social bases of drug-induced experiences. J Health Soc Behav. 1967;8:162–176.

38. Maloff D, Becker HS, Fonaroff A, Rodin J. Informal social controls and their influence on substance use. In: Zinberg NE, Harding WM, eds. Control Over
Intoxicant Use: Pharmacological, Psychological, and Social Considerations. New York, NY: Human Sciences Press; 1982:53–76.

39. Zinberg NH. Drug, Set, and Setting: The Basis for
Controlled Intoxicant Use. New Haven, Conn: Yale University Press; 1984.

American Public Health Association
Publication Sales
Web: www.apha.org
E-mail: [email protected]
Tel: (301) 893-1894
FAX: (301) 843-0159
This unique book highlights the lessons learned from and about AIDS over the past 20 years, and highlights the
knowledge that may advance worthwhile
strategies for combating HIV and AIDS in
the future. The 11 chapters include: The
Virus Versus the Immune System, How
Infectious is Infectious, The Race against
Time: The Challenge for Clinical Trials,
Sex and Drugs and the Virus, and more.

This book is an ideal reference for
Infectious disease specialists ❚ Epidemiologists ❚ Public health practitioners ❚ Clinicians ❚ All those concerned with AIDS.

ISBN 0-87553-176-8
2000 ❚ 350 pages ❚ softcover
$25.00 APHA Members
$36.00 Nonmembers
plus shipping and handling
The Emergence of AIDS
The Impact on Immunology,
Microbiology and Public Health
Edited by Kenneth H. Mayer, MD,
and H. F. Pizer
EA01J7
1 Rosemary Balsley
From: Michael Rotkin <[email protected]>
Sent: Saturday, May 11, 2024 11:16 AM
To: City Council; Shebreh Kalantari-Johnson; Sonja Brunner; Martine Watkins; Fred Keeley; Sandy Brown; Scott Newsome; Renee Golder
Subject: Council agenda item on the dispensary for WAMM at the former Emily's Bakery site May 11, 2024
Santa Cruz City Council
809 Center St, Room 10
Santa Cruz, CA 95060
Dear Mayor Keeley and Councilmembers,
We write to express our strong support for the proposed cannabis dispensary at the site of the former Emily’s Bakery on Mission and Laurel Streets. This project, in partnership with Valerie Corral and the Wo/Men’s Alliance for Medical Marijuana (WAMM), offers a unique opportunity to continue providing crucial services to our community.

Valerie Corral is a highly respected leader in medical marijuana advocacy, and we have worked with her on initiatives like the United Way’s Compassionate Use Initiative and Santa Cruz County's Community Prevention Partners. For more than 30 years, WAMM has provided compassionate care to individuals with chronic or terminal illnesses, offering services at low or no cost. This dispensary will continue this vital legacy and aims to support more than 200 members by the end of 2024.

The facility meets all city zoning and safety requirements, exceeding the minimum distance from the nearest school by a considerable margin. It will operate with limited signage and ensure no cannabis products are visible from the street. Additionally, sales will be restricted to those aged 19 and older, prioritizing safety.

We urge the Council to approve this dispensary, which will ensure that those most in need receive the care and support they deserve while upholding public safety and responsible business practices.

Sincerely,
State Senator John Laird, former State Assemblymember; former Santa Cruz City Councilmember and Mayor
Mark Stone, former State Assemblymember; former Santa Cruz County Supervisor John Leopold, former Santa Cruz County Supervisor
Jim Hart, Sheriff of Santa Cruz County
2 Gail Michaelis-Ow
Les and Nancy Gardner
Dana McRae, retired Santa Cruz County Counsel
John Leopold, former Santa Cruz County Supervisor
Don Lane, former Santa Cruz City Councilmember and Mayor Michael Rotkin, former Santa Cruz City Councilmember and Mayor Emily Reilly, former Santa Cruz City Councilmember and Mayor Andrew Goldenkranz, Public Educator; Chair of Santa Cruz County Democratic Central Committee (for identification purposes only)
Jenni Veitch-Olson, Watsonville Planning Commissioner; Vice-chair of Santa Cruz County Democratic Central Committee (for identification purposes only) Rudy Escalante, retired Capitola Chief of Police
Gary Patton, Environmental Attorney and former Santa Cruz County Supervisor Dr. Arnold Leff, former County Public Health Officer
Craig Reinarman, UCSC Professor of Sociology and Legal Studies Emeritus Dick Wasserstrom, UCLA Professor of Law; UCSC Professor of Philosophy Emeritus Dan Haifley, American Environmentalist; Newspaper Columnist Dr. Michelle Massie and Dana Massie
Miriam Stombler, retired Assistant County Counsel
Peggy Flynn, Nonprofit Consultant
Alan Heit, DDS
Larry Bernstein, founder of Cypress Health Institute
Scott Roseman
Ian Rice, co-founder of Santa Cruz Laboratories; founder and CEO of Envirocann Phil Engfer, co-founder of Strong Agronomy
3 Pat Malo, Manager of Envirocann
Richard Deutsch, Sculptor
Drew Pieros, retired local Business Owner; Musician
Liz Fowler, Educator; local Business Owner
Tammi Brown, “Artist of the Year” in 2024 by the Arts Commission of Santa Cruz County Tamyra Rice, retired Assistant County Counsel
Ben Rice, retired Criminal Defense Attorney; former attorney for WAMM

4 Rosemary Balsley
From: Michael Rotkin <[email protected]>
Sent: Saturday, May 11, 2024 1:28 PM
To: City Council; Shebreh Kalantari-Johnson; Sonja Brunner; Martine Watkins; Fred Keeley; Sandy Brown; Scott Newsome; Renee Golder
Subject: Support for WAMM's application for a dispensary at the corner of Laurel and Mission.

Dear Mayor Keeley and Councilmembers:

Please disregard my earlier email (dated May 11 at 11:15am). I simply meant to provide you with the list of individuals who support Assemblymember Gail Pellerin’s May 8, 2024 letter to you. Kindly see the following list:

State Senator John Laird, former State Assemblymember; former Santa Cruz City Councilmember and Mayor Mark Stone, former State Assemblymember; former Santa Cruz County Supervisor John Leopold, former Santa Cruz County Supervisor
Jim Hart, Sheriff of Santa Cruz County
Gail Michaelis-Ow
Les and Nancy Gardner
Dana McRae, retired Santa Cruz County Counsel
John Leopold, former Santa Cruz County Supervisor
Don Lane, former Santa Cruz City Councilmember and Mayor Michael Rotkin, former Santa Cruz City Councilmember and Mayor Emily Reilly, former Santa Cruz City Councilmember and Mayor Andrew Goldenkranz, Public Educator; Chair of Santa Cruz County Democratic Central Committee (for identification purposes only)
Jenni Veitch-Olson, Watsonville Planning Commissioner; Vice-chair of Santa Cruz County Democratic Central Committee (for identification purposes only)
5 Rudy Escalante, retired Capitola Chief of Police
Gary Patton, Environmental Attorney and former Santa Cruz County Supervisor Dr. Arnold Leff, former County Public Health Officer
Craig Reinarman, UCSC Professor of Sociology and Legal Studies Emeritus Dick Wasserstrom, UCLA Professor of Law; UCSC Professor of Philosophy Emeritus Dan Haifley, American Environmentalist; Newspaper Columnist Dr. Michelle Massie and Dana Massie
Miriam Stombler, retired Assistant County Counsel
Peggy Flynn, Nonprofit Consultant
Alan Heit, DDS
Larry Bernstein, founder of Cypress Health Institute
Scott Roseman
Ian Rice, co-founder of Santa Cruz Laboratories; founder and CEO of Envirocann Phil Engfer, co-founder of Strong Agronomy
Pat Malo, Manager of Envirocann
Richard Deutsch, Sculptor
Drew Pieros, retired local Business Owner; Musician
Liz Fowler, Educator; local Business Owner
Tammi Brown, “Artist of the Year” in 2024 by the Arts Commission of Santa Cruz County Tamyra Rice, retired Assistant County Counsel
Ben Rice, retired Criminal Defense Attorney; former attorney for WAMM 7 Rosemary Balsley
From: Jeffrey Werner <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, May 12, 2024 9:13 AM
To: Fred Keeley; Renee Golder; Shebreh Kalantari-Johnson; Sonja Brunner; Sandy Brown; Scott Newsome; Martine Watkins; City Council
Cc: Jeffrey Werner
Subject: Deny Appeal on Mission St Hook dispensary
City Council
The City should play fair with the Hook dispensary. They followed all the rules and are being a good neighbor.

Regards,
Jeffrey
Jeffrey Werner
[email protected]
831-247-0247
Got Bass?
1 Rosemary Balsley
From: thomas demeo <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, May 12, 2024 9:49 AM
To: City Council
Subject: Hook Outlet
Please oppose the dispensary close to SC high school.

Here is some research on the dangers of cannabis. 4 dispensaries is enough in our small city.

What's Wrong with Marijuana? | 5-Minute Videos
youtu.be
How does marijuana use affect school,
work, and social life? | National Institute
on Drug Abuse
nida.nih.gov
https://studyfinds.org/kids-cannabis-majority-of-parents-say-dispensaries-should-not-be-nearschools/ Sent from my iPhone
1 Rosemary Balsley
From: Ben Rice <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, May 12, 2024 10:27 AM
To: City Council
Cc: Valerie Leveroni Corral; Bryce Berryessa; [email protected] Subject: [CAUTION: Verify Sender Before Opening!] Materials for the 5/14 Agenda Item re: WAMM/ the HOOK dispensary
Attachments: Senator John Laird's WAMM Sentinl Op-ed.docx; Ben Rice's Op-ed .docx Dear Ms. Bush: Please include these two Op-Ed pieces with the 5/14 Agenda Item re: WAMM/ the HOOK proposed dispensary.

Thank you! Call me with any questions, please: Ben Rice, 831 247 1105 By Sen. John Laird
I’ve been involved in the Santa Cruz community since I arrived as a student at UCSC in 1968, and I realize it gives me a historical perspective those who have come of age since are not aware of.

It has been almost two generations since the dawn of the AIDS Crisis gripped our country and our county, and it is hard to believe that even in the Santa Cruz community it was a very difficult road until the drug cocktail became available that limited the effects of HIV.

In the 10-year period beginning in 1985, roughly 240 Santa Cruz County residents died from HIV. In the mid-1980s, six of us formed the Santa Cruz AIDS Project (SCAP), a nonprofit community mobilization to provide education and client services. I was executive director in the 1990s, and at one time in that period we had 225 clients and 600 regular volunteers. We faced many challenges then. For example, it was almost impossible to find local dental services for people with HIV. Our dental program was transportation vouchers to San Francisco, where such care could be found.

Most of those who died in that period were our clients. Counted among them were many of my friends. But in a community as small as ours, almost no one was not touched by the epidemic. Among those lost were well-known community members — a letter carrier, local physician, business owner, teacher and many more.

There were many individuals — among them medical personnel, mental health therapists, massage therapists, friends and family — who volunteered to help in some way. I will always remember and be grateful for those individuals and organizations that took the risk to step up in those difficult times.

The disease ravaged those with HIV. A majority considered being diagnosed a death sentence. In the final weeks and months, it was a painful experience. One of the few things that helped with symptoms was cannabis — which, at the time, was not even legal for medicinal purposes. It was a risk to grow and provide cannabis for those it truly helped. It was an incredible act of legal bravery and personal compassion.

One organization in particular stepped up — Wo/Men’s Alliance for Medical Marijuana, known as WAMM. Val Corral, together with her then-husband Michael — were at the core of the organization. She was in a major automobile accident earlier in her life, which led them to this issue due to her own medicinal needs. They were arrested in this period for their actions.

Why do I write about this today? WAMM is a partner in an application for a cannabis dispensary in the former Emily’s Bakery in Santa Cruz. They invested their savings in bringing the property up to speed for this use, and met all the city requirements and made it through the permit process. The application was appealed to the Planning Commission, which voted 5-2 to approve the application. It will now be in front of the City Council on May 14. It is a simple act of fairness to approve this application, since they invested their savings, played by the existing rules, and would quite likely go broke as individuals and an organization if it is not approved.

I am loathe to express an opinion on any local planning matter, particularly since I deal with my share of controversies at the state level. But I have always had a special place in my heart for those who stood up in a challenging time, when many did not. I could not live with myself if I remained silent about their history and the fairness in this matter.

It is the local school district that has pushed to not approve this application. I sympathize with some concerns. Last year I authored legislation to require a pamphlet on cannabis to be distributed to first-time buyers, and a second bill to allow for easier access to illegal grows for the state water board, now that there is a legal process for cannabis. With former Assemblymember Mark Stone, I previously authored a successful bill to set up common testing standards for laboratories that test cannabis before its sale. When voters approved the initiative for legalization, it is now up to us to make the system work.

WAMM’s application has adhered to the current city rules, and most of the fears about this location apply to other locations that pre-exist in Santa Cruz. I hope that the history of WAMM will count for something in the process. They stood up for people in need when not many others were standing up for them. I hope that people stand up for them now.

State Sen. John Laird represents the 17th District.

Outrage over possible cannabis dispensary at Mission and Laurel SAVE WAMM!
Our City School Superintendent Chris Munro’s Office sent a letter to parents warning of a catastrophe: allowing a cannabis dispensary, partly owned by WAMM (Wo/Men’s Alliance for Medical Marijuana/ WAMM Phytotherapies), to open on Mission Street at Laurel in the now closed Emily’s Bakery. The outrage should be over the misrepresentations contained in the letter which claims that the proposed dispensary is “a block … from Santa Cruz High…,” and “on a well-established walking route to and from- from school and during breaks for both Santa Cruz High and Mission Hill students.” These claims do not reflect reality. I live on the Westside of town, proudly taught Mock Trial for four years at Santa Cruz High and know that the now closed Emily’s Bakery is several blocks away from the schools. And, students neither cross Mission Street at Laurel, (they cross at Walnut Street), nor do they walk or ride their bikes along Mission Street to either school.

The City Council will be voting on this issue on May 14th! My hope is that the Council is not persuaded by these misrepresentations and the letters and phone calls that resulted from them.

Don’t know about WAMM? Our community has appreciated its non-profit work for 30 years. Health professionals, including Arnie Leff, MD, who was both the County and the City’s Health Officer, law enforcement leaders like former Police Chief Rudy Escalante, and many of our most beloved civic leaders, including Senator John Laird, former Mayor, and Supervisor Mardi Wormhoudt, have celebrated and thanked Val and WAMM throughout the years.

WAMM’s story was told all over America after its Medical Marijuana Collective was raided by Federal Agents in 2002. A significant legal battle ensued, and some of the best attorneys in the U.S. helped WAMM. The City of Santa Cruz and the County of Santa Cruz joined WAMM in fighting the Feds because these entities realized the community benefit of WAMM helping the local sick, dying, and poor population. WAMM changed cannabis history for the entire U.S. because the case resulted in the federal government agreeing to leave medical cannabis collectives alone as long as they were complying with local and state laws. Medical cannabis has helped millions of people. You can read about it here:
https://wammphytotherapies.org/about.

The Superintendent and other leaders in opposition to the dispensary are worried about our youth falling into the clutches of marijuana. I get the concern. We need to parent wisely. But what lesson will our youth take away from this process? Answer: if you want to change local laws, it is OK to exaggerate and misrepresent facts to get what you want.

Before drawing a map showing authorized dispensary locations i The City of Santa Cruz dentified a few locations where dispensaries could be located safely and appropriately. Part of that work was looking at government-funded research that addresses the concern about location: yhttps://norml.org/marijuana/fact-sheets/societal-impacts-of-cannabis-dispensariesretail\s/ This proposed dispensary would operate within an approved location under the City’s ordinance. And, the City Planning Department and the City Planning Commission both have authorized the project.
.

Val Corral, with her then-husband Michael, started WAMM more than 30 years ago, and she has put every nickel she has saved into this project. She and the WAMM non-profit, will be lost If the city withdraws their OK. Our citizens who can’t afford dispensary prices will be without the marijuana that has made their lives a little bit easier. They have been limping along working out of their partner’s dispensary, The Treehouse Dispensary on Soquel Ave., for approximately a year. WAMM meetings take place there once per month and WAMM has designated days for the members to pick up their cannabis.

Will the City Council turn its back on WAMM now, when former City and County leaders made national history by supporting WAMM’s efforts to aid the sick and dying? And, where is their concern that the public is being manipulated?

So what is the “ask” here? Before May 14, please contact the City of Santa Cruz at [email protected] or by phone at 831-420-5020 and let them know it would be inexcusable to pull the rug out from under WAMM and the people who rely on its remarkable work. Please share this information, and remember, your text or phone call today may make the difference!
1 Rosemary Balsley
From: Jane Weed-Pomerantz <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, May 12, 2024 11:32 AM
To: City Council
Cc: [email protected]; Tony Condotti
Subject: May 14, 2024 Council agenda item #25: 1129 Mission Street Planning Commission appeal of a cannabis business
Re. May 14, 2024 Council agenda item #25: 1129 Mission Street Planning Commission appeal of a cannabis business
Good day Mayor Keeley and Councilmembers.

I now have a strong position to support the cannabis business at Laurel and Mission after further reading and discussion. I understand the feelings of opponents who believe this type of business is too close to a school. Their concerns have little bearing because if teenagers who want to get marijuana or alcohol they'll find a way. Council policy permits this type of business at this location. Your self-appointed Planning Commission strongly supported approval for this business. Support of the appeal financially penalizes and undermines a business that followed all the rules and policies put forth by the Council. How can you move the goalposts after the business followed everything the City required. This would undermine Santa Cruz as a business friendly city?
Councilmember Golder must recuse herself from voting on this issue. She has a personal and financial interest in opposing this business. Her employer, Santa Cruz City Schools, has taken a vehement position to stop this business. Her job could be jeopardized should she support it. Her administrative bosses, Staff, work colleagues, and parents of her students have strongly influenced her. Should she support denial of the appeal. Ms. Golder could be shunned, harassed, transferred, or even demoted. Ms.

Golder is not always objective on issues before Council, but in this case it’s understandable that she cannot be objective. Make sure the City Attorney advises Ms. Golder to step off the dais when this issue is up for consideration.

I strongly urge you to deny the appeal and support this business.

In an extremely unusual move Senator Laird wrote to support that this business be given approval to proceed. This business will provide an essential service to people suffering, even on a low or no 2 cost basis. Also I believe If you don't they have extremely strong grounds for a lawsuit and they'll win. Save them time and money as well as our precious tax dollars.

Thank you for your time and thoughtful consideration.

Ron Pomerantz
3 Rosemary Balsley
From: Sandra L. Cohen <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, May 12, 2024 12:01 PM
To: City Council
Subject: Cannabis dispensary at Laurel and Mission
Dear Mayor and City Council members…….I am in a state of disbelief about the objections to this business. It been approved by the Planning Commission and meets all the requirements for operation. Have any of these appellants ever been to a dispensary? Have any of you? You can’t get in one or make a purchase without an ID. Plain and simple!
Where are all these appellants when the SCHS students, by the droves, are on break and head to the gas station at the corner of Mission and Walnut to load up on candy and soda? But that’s okay and doesn’t affect the students health? I won’t even pull in there for gas when the parking lot of the gas station is overrun with students. No ID required so they’re free to tank up on sugar, a known inflammatory.

This dispensary deserves to exist. Their business model to relieve pain and suffering far outweighs any perceived risk. And I do mean perceived since it’s baseless.

Thank you.

Sandra Cohen
172 Peach Terrace
Santa Cruz 95060
4 Rosemary Balsley
From: Dominic Romano <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, May 12, 2024 2:29 PM
To: City Council
Cc: [email protected]
Subject: Uphold Your Own Rules, Approve Hook Outlet/WAMM To the Santa Cruz City Council:

Sincerely,
Dominic Romano
A Concerned Santa Cruz Resident
5 Rosemary Balsley
From: Benjamin Medved <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, May 12, 2024 6:08 PM
To: City Council
Cc: [email protected]
Subject: Uphold Your Own Rules, Approve Hook Outlet/WAMM To the Santa Cruz City Council:

Sincerely,
A Concerned Santa Cruz Resident
Ben
Benjamin A. Medved, M.S.

Licensed Marriage and FamilyTherapist #25688
900 North San Antonio Rd, Suite210, Los Altos, CA 95060 6 Cell: (650) 996-4048
Fax: (650) 772-5363
“The Owl of Minerva flies only at dusk.”
G.W.F. Hegel

The information enclosed and attached is protected and confidential health information under California State Law and Federal regulation (HIPAA, CFR, CCR, et seq.) Unauthorized reading of this email is prohibited under both Federal and State laws and regulations (HIPAA, CFR, CCR, et seq.). If you are not the authorized recipient of this email, please discontinue reading this immediately, securely delete this email, call 650.996.4048 ASAP about the misdelivery of this email, and/or contact [email protected]
Sent from my iPhone
7 Rosemary Balsley
From: Isaiah <[email protected]>
Sent: Sunday, May 12, 2024 6:46 PM
To: City Council
Cc: [email protected]
Subject: Uphold Your Own Rules, Approve Hook Outlet/WAMM To the Santa Cruz City Council:

Sincerely,
A Concerned Santa Cruz Resident
1 Rosemary Balsley
From: Joyce Anue Yoga <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, May 13, 2024 10:47 AM
To: City Council
Subject: In Support of WAMM
Dear Council Members,
I am writing to urge you to NOT appeal the previous decision of the City Planning Department which approved WAMM’s application for a dispensary in the old site of Emily’s Bakery on Mission St in Santa Cruz.

WAMM has been supporting some of our neediest patients with obtaining safe and effective medicine for serious health conditions for 30 years.

Sincerely,
Joyce Anue (Felton)
1 Rosemary Balsley
From: Steve McCarty <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, May 13, 2024 10:58 AM
To: City Council
Subject: (Item 25) Please uphold the appeal of the Planning Commission approval, and deny the permit Dear Mayor and City Council Members:

Even though the business owner may have understood the city to be giving permission to proceed, it is very clear that many community members, parents, and Santa Cruz City Schools staff and administration all see the serious flaws in this proposed location. No one thinks that students can walk in the door of a dispensary and come away with gummies, vape pens or weed, but anyone with teenagers or even a snippet of reasonable thinking knows that shoulder tapping does occur, drug dealing does occur, and that proximity to a high school with an open campus policy equals potential problems. Just because it is legal does not make it a good idea. This is not an indictment of WAMM, which has performed a community service for vets and others in medical need, but reflects on location, location, location, and this is a very poor one. WAMM can still conduct its business from the Hook's other Treehouse location, which also has a drive through. Please look beyond the letter of the law to address the common sense (or lack thereof) of this poorly chosen location, and uphold the appeal. Please prioritize the health and well being of our school aged children.

Thank you,
Steve McCarty
1 Rosemary Balsley
From: stephanie kimitsuka <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, May 13, 2024 11:10 AM
To: City Council
Subject: Support for proposed dispensary at 1129 Mission St Attachments: -4473409440143853053.jpg; 2782788563174216865.jpg Hello Council Members,
I want to address the concerns about the proposed dispensary at 1129 Mission Street and the idea that its presence and signage will further normalize cannabis use among our youth.

First, it's important to clarify that the intersection of Mission and Laurel Streets, where the dispensary would be located, is not a primary route for our students. In contrast, California and King Streets, as well as Walnut Avenue, see a far higher frequency of student traffic.

The argument that a single dispensary sign will influence youth behavior seems overstated when you consider the broader scope of what kids are exposed to in today’s world. Most youth have access to smartphones, exposing them to far more significant influences than a storefront ever could.

It’s worth noting that a prominent cannabis company currently has a large 4x6 foot banner blatantly displayed at the Santa Cruz High School Football Field. This raises serious questions about the consistency of the opposition’s stance on cannabis exposure in educational environments.

This banner is not only visible during games attended by hundreds of students, but also during daily physical education classes and numerous athletic activities that take place on those grounds. The existence of this banner in that location highlights a major discrepancy in the opposition’s claimed philosophy.

This inconsistency calls into question the outrage from the opposition to a dispensary sign on Mission Street, suggesting that concerns may be selectively applied and not aligned with a broader, more equitable approach to managing cannabis visibility in our community.

Furthermore, our community faces more visible drug-related challenges, especially near Harvey West Park, which sees a ton of foot traffic from families. The real issues we should be paying attention to are the drug activities in these public spaces, which are far more conspicuous and harmful to our youth than a dispensary sign.

In conclusion, if we are genuinely committed to the well-being of our youth, our focus should be directed towards meaningful and comprehensive drug education and prevention, rather than symbolic gestures that do not address the root of the problem. Let's use our resources and energy to tackle the real challenges, ensuring a safer, healthier environment for all our residents.

Thank you for considering my perspective.

Stephanie Kimitsuka
Resident of Live Oak and concerned parent

1 Rosemary Balsley
From: Doug Huskey <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, May 13, 2024 11:52 AM
To: City Council
Subject: Dispensary Appeal
Please support WAMM and our local process by approving the proposal for Hook Outlet and WAMM to have a dispensary at the former site of Emily's bakery.

WAMM has done so much to help so many in this community, and it is only fair that we follow our own zoning rules in approving the project. If some wish to have a new criteria for approving cannabis dispensaries, then that should be approved and made law. That is how the process is changed, not by simply turning down a project because there is opposition to it.

Thank you,
Doug Huskey
701 Highland Ave.

Santa Cruz
1 Rosemary Balsley
From: Jessica Bond <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, May 13, 2024 12:02 PM
To: City Council
Subject: Regular Meeting: May 14, 2024: Item 25
Hello Mayor and City Councilmembers,
My name is Jessi Bond. I was born & raised in Santa Cruz and I am a former City of Santa Cruz employee. I am writing today to request you adopt a resolution denying the appeal and uphold the Planning Commission’s decision to approve the Administrative Use Permit to establish a cannabis retail facility at 1129 Mission Street.

I am sure you will hear from many people about how cannabis shops are extremely safe,well regulated and are very proactive in not allowing minors into the stores. I completely agree with these statements but hope to provide a different proceptive.

As a city employee for seven years, I helped create APOs, ordinances and policies. I am very familiar with the City's processes. The business owners of The Hook have followed all required laws, policies and procedures to obtain their permit. If there are concerned citizens, council members or other members of the public who wish to change our laws, there are clear paths to do so, this is not it. We should be supporting small businesses and certainly should not be punishing one business because of a few upset people.

The burden of proof of violation is on the appellate and they must file in accordance with rules and regulations of Municipal Code. Unless they show up with new evidence on Tuesday, they have not filled their burden of proof.

Cannabis shops have supplied over $750K in the City's Children's Fund via taxes which will be available to Children's groups in 2025-2026. I think it is obvious but worth noting that these taxes will continue to improve our community and more shops will only be a benefit.

I ask that you adopt the resolution denying the appeal and uphold the Planning Commision decision to approve the Use Permit for The Hook.

Thank you for your time.

Jessi
--
Jessi K. Bond
831-239-0780
2 Rosemary Balsley
From: dan seaseep.com <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, May 13, 2024 12:33 PM
To: City Council
Subject: WAMM Dispensary suppport from a resident of the West Side Dear Santa Cruz City Council,
I don't smoke marijuana and I'm not a big fan of legalization, but I am writing you to urge you to vote against the appeal to, and in favor of, WAMM's proposed marijuana dispensary at Mission & Laurel (the former Emily's bakery).

We live on the West Side of Santa Cruz, and have had kids go through both Mission Hill Middle School & Santa Cruz High; our kids walked to school regularly. I also commute from the Westlake neighborhood to my office on Center Street overlooking the Scott Kennedy soccer fields, so I go past this intersection twice a day.

While I appreciate Superintendent Munro's concerns, I rarely see students at this intersection. There are far more students that use Walnut & Mission.

Her concern about normalization are valid, but this pertains to the entire industry and our state, and does not specifically relate to the proposed location.

My support is for the process, and following the rules. WAMM and their partner have assiduously done this, and I agree with State Senator John Laird & Assemblymember Gail Pellerin that to deny the dispensary application now would be "moving the goal posts". The proposed dispensary follows all city guidelines and has the approval of the Planning Department & the Planning Commission.

WAMM is a strong member of our Santa Cruz community, and has been and continues to be a resource for those who are suffering.

Please deny the appeal, and approve WAMM & their partner's dispensary application for the former Emily's Bakery location.

Respectfully submitted,
-Dan "Dangerous Dan" Orange
120 Rulofson St.

Santa Cruz, CA 95060
p.s.: the one thing I'd request is that the City Council politely request that the dispensary retain the sign painted on the glass above the door, "Relax! You have plenty of time!" In New York City a couple of decades ago I saw a coffee shop with a sign over it that said, "Relax! You're already late", and I realized these 2 signs were perfect encapsulations of their communities.

Dan Orange
3 831-277-7217
4 Rosemary Balsley
From: Pat Emard <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, May 13, 2024 12:52 PM
To: City Council
Subject: Dispensary vote
Hi,
I was treated by Valerie Corral during my stint with breast cancer in 2013-2015 when she provided services for medical marijuana patients in Santa Cruz. Valerie is one of the most caring, careful, and generous people I have ever known, generous with her time, her incredible knowledge about marijuana, and her resources. At that time she was providing many very poor patients with very low cost treatment and clearly did not benefit financially from her work.

Please approve the dispensary she wants to open in Santa Cruz. She is the only one I trust to provide accurate and clear information regarding the use of marijuana for pain, nausea, and sleep.

Thank you, Pat Emard
Sent from my iPad
1 Rosemary Balsley
From: Natasha Varner <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, May 13, 2024 1:14 PM
To: City Council
Subject: Letter of support for The Hook dispensary at 1129 Mission St Santa Cruz City Council,
I'm still shocked that the legality of the new Hook dispensary is even being questioned. Not only have the owners gone above and beyond to make sure the location complied with every single law in place, but they met with school reps very early on to discuss concerns, changed the entire look of their proposed building, agreed to not advertise with signs on site, and even won't sell to legal MMJ cardholders who are 18 (even though this isn't fair to an 18 year old who might actually need their medicine). The time to prevent a dispensary from opening in this location has passed, it was heavily debated when the rules were decided on years ago with legalization. Denying this dispensary, and the very important partnership with WAMM, would negatively impact so many medical patients, and effectively confirm only 4 dispensaries are allowed within city limits instead of 5, but also will call into question the legality of the other already existing dispensaries. There isn't another area within city limits where another dispensary could open, the location rules are so strict, but still were previously agreed upon. Denying The Hook it's application would also call into question all other rules around the locations of other types of businesses (non cannabis) in the future, this means no business owner could make plans based on current rules because in the end the city could change the rules at any moment on a whim. Anyone looking at the current guidelines set in place years ago for new dispensaries could see that this general area is the last remaining spot in town - again, clearly a dispensary would open there eventually, so if anyone was concerned about this, they had their chance to voice it back then.

And just a side note, the city/community should be thrilled to know that The Hook is the proposed dispensary to open. This business is one of the most friendly, helpful, and affordable dispensaries I've ever found. They've never had any incidents, violations, or legal issues in all these years, and even have the support of police. Since the opening of the Capitola location several years ago, my mom and I have almost exclusively shopped there for our medicine (I'm 38, disabled, and suffer severe chronic pain, migraines, and insomnia, and my mom is 73 and suffers from pain and insomnia as well). I always thought that I would never have to worry about losing access to my medicine since I'm lucky to live not only in CA, but in Santa Cruz. But now I'm very disappointed that this conversation about the new dispensary has turned into arguments referencing various myths and outdated stigmas (which hurts a lot), instead of just following the guidelines that were debated and set when Cannabis was first legalized here.

Please approve the Hook's application and ensure WAMM is protected as well.

Thank you for your time and for listening to my comments and concerns.

Natasha
(I used to live in District 3 for 3 years, District 1 for over 5 years, and graduated from UCSC, but now I'm just outside of city limits on Capitola Rd, however, this still affects my life and medical needs.) 2 Yahoo Mail: Search, Organize, Conquer
3 Rosemary Balsley
From: Elaine Bailey <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, May 13, 2024 1:18 PM
To: City Council
Subject: Dispensary at Former Emily's Bakery
Dear City Council,
Please allow the dispensary on Mission St. to open per current regulations. It is the right and compassionate path forward. Its location is central for those most in need.

Sincerely,
Elaine Means
1 Rosemary Balsley
From: Doug Engfer <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, May 13, 2024 1:36 PM
To: Fred Keeley; City Council
Subject: Council Item 25, 14 May 2024 (dispensary appeal) Mayor Keeley and Members of Council –

We write today to express our support for The Hook and WAMM’s efforts to establish a cannabis retail facility at 1129 Mission St (previously Emily’s), and to oppose the appeal of the Planning Commission’s previous approval of same.

Law, facts, or table – what one pounds in a dispute is determined by the strengths of one’s argument. In this case, both the law and the facts support denying the appeal, and allowing the applicants to move forward with the proposed development.

As regards the law, the application is fully compliant with state and local codes, including distance requirements, etc. The applicants have worked diligently, within the City’s system, to gain necessary permits and approvals. Denying them the opportunity to do business at this location amounts to moving the goalposts, which would be poor governance.

As regards the facts, again the applicant holds the strong hand – local law enforcement has no objections based on their documented experience: dispensaries do not sell to minors. And, the applicant has voluntarily raised the minimum age for obtaining medical cannabis above statute, to 19, in order to assuage concerns regarding student access. This dispensary will not encourage under-age or inappropriate cannabis use.

Thus, the appellants are left to pound the table, putting forth emotional appeals and anecdotes.

The path forward seems clear to us: Council must deny this appeal and approve this development – it’s not a close call. In fact, this item provides Council with a rare opportunity to do well by simply allowing a cherished local enterprise, WAMM, to continue to do good.

We urge Council to deny this appeal.

Robin and Doug Engfer
Santa Cruz
1 Rosemary Balsley
From: [email protected]
Sent: Monday, May 13, 2024 2:12 PM
To: City Council
Subject: Tomorrow's vote on the Hook dispensary
HelloI am totally in support of the Hook dispensary that is trying to open on Mission Street.

As a patron of their 41st avenue shop, I want to report that they have the best prices in town, and I am wondering if the other higher-priced shops are trying to undermine the competition. I am really tired of having to drive all the way to 41st avenue, couldn’t the city benefit from the tax revenue? I have owned my house on the west side since 1982 and have been running a small business here since 2005. I’ll vote against the entire existing city council if this dispensary is prevented from opening, because it’s being opposed by only a few groups with questionable motives.

Regards
Teri Morris

TERI MORRIS, OWNER
Peyton Street Pens
www.peytonstreetpens.com
2 Rosemary Balsley
From: steve adams <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, May 13, 2024 2:15 PM
To: City Council
Subject: Wamm testimonial
I am honored to share the remarkable story of my son, Ryan, and his battle with testicular cancer.

Approximately 19 years ago, Ryan underwent extensive treatment at prestigious medical centers like Sloan Kettering in NYC. Despite their best efforts, a particularly precarious tumor persisted, challenging the medical experts at Sloan Kettering, MD Anderson, UCSF, and UCLA.

In a moment of desperation and determination, Ryan delved into alternative cancer treatments and discovered a beacon of hope - Wamm. Upon learning about "Rick Simpson oil" and the potential of CBD in shrinking tumors, Ryan turned to Wamm for guidance and support. With their assistance, Ryan embarked on a regimen that involved using CBD oil.

The results were nothing short of miraculous. After just a month of treatment, a follow-up scan revealed a significant reduction in the tumor's size. Astonished, the doctors at Sloan Kettering inquired about Ryan's breakthrough, which he attributed to CBD treatment. Their response, albeit subtle, reinforced the effectiveness of the approach - "keep doing what you're doing." Ryan's journey with Wamm is a testament to his unwavering determination and the transformative impact of their support. Despite not being a recreational cannabis user, Ryan's dependence on CBD oil for survival underscores the life-saving potential of alternative treatments provided by Wamm.

I am genuinely grateful for Wamm's role in Ryan's life, offering hope, support, and a lifeline in the face of adversity. Advocating for Wamm is a privilege and a duty, knowing the invaluable contribution they have made to Ryan's ongoing battle against cancer.

Thank you, Wamm, for being a beacon of light in our darkest hours and standing by us through every step of this challenging journey.

Steve Adams
1 Rosemary Balsley
From: Carolyn Rudolph <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, May 13, 2024 2:57 PM
To: City Council
Subject: Dispensary Mission St
Honorable Santa Cruz City Council members,
I strongly urge all of you to keep the approval for the dispensary on Mission. It would be highly unethical to change the approval at this point in time. As a member of the neighborhood, I do not understand the complaint of parents, since I have never seen kids at this location. This is a service for ill and low income members of our community and needs to be honor.

Sincerely,
Carolyn Rudolph
1 Rosemary Balsley
From: Denise Varner <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, May 13, 2024 3:25 PM
To: City Council
Subject: Hook/WAAM Dispensary on the Westside
Attn. Santa Cruz City Council:

I am writing in support of the application by the Hook and WAAM for a new dispensary location on the Westside. This business meets and exceeds the requirements for a dispensary in that area, and has more than complied with additional requests by the school board and city. They provided an eloquent, passionate, and professional presentation to the Planning Commission already, which was backed by sound research and supported by many members of the community, including police, educators, neighbors, and medical patients. This was in stark contrast to those who spoke in opposition who were citing outdated information, stigmatizing cannabis use, and attempting to change rules that were already in place.

It is inconceivable that this business is still having to prove themselves fit to open. I am a senior citizen, a UCSC employee, and a medical patient. I live just outside the city limits, but frequent businesses within the city.

I hope you will consider and approve the Hook's application and ensure WAMM is protected as well.

Thank you for your time and for listening to my comments and concerns.

Sincerely,
Denise
2 Rosemary Balsley
From: Tom Langan <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, May 13, 2024 3:25 PM
To: City Council
Subject: Please vote in favor of WAMM
Dear council members,
I am writing today to urge you to please vote in favor of the WAMM dispensary at the old Emily's Bakery site. WAMM has been benefiting our community for 30 years, and they reflect our shared values of compassion and care. I understand the anxieties of Superintendent Kris Munro. But the way to teach, help, and nurture our youth is not by denying care to others.

Sincerely,
Thomas and Paweena Langan
Santa Cruz Residents district 2
3 Rosemary Balsley
From: Lira Filippini <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, May 13, 2024 3:41 PM
To: City Council
Subject: Agenda Item 25; WAMM Dispensary
Dear Mayor Keeley and Council Elect,
I write to you today with concern about what denying WAMM's ability to open at this location signals to our society, as well as to our youth.

A cascade of letters have already made it clear that our community values WAMM and wishes to see them able to move forward at this location -- a location they were told by Planning Staff would have no issues -- the location they have now poured ALL of their funds into.

This includes a lengthy Op-Ed in support of WAMM opening at this location by Senator John Laird, as well as officially submitted written comment by our District 28 Congresswoman Gail Pellerin. I also find it interesting to note that both Gary Patton and Don Lane signed onto Congresswoman Pellerin's letter, showing that forces who are often in opposition about local planning matters are strongly in agreement in their support of WAMM at this location.

I hear and truly understand what is driving the concern of those in support of the appeal. Normalizing recreational cannabis in our youth is problematic and already rampant in our society; and it's important to recognize that this is not what WAMM at this location would do. Look at this concern from a different perspective. Only five dispensaries are allowed in the City of Santa Cruz. If WAMM is allowed to open in partnership with the Hook at this location, the last dispensary slot available will be filled by this cherished organization, allowing them to continue their compassionate care of seriously ill people who actually need cannabis medically, and who need help affording it. This would signal that we support Medical Cannabis and help facilitate compassionate care.

If WAMM dies because they can't recoup the investment they've put into the location where you disallow them to open, it would mean the fifth/last dispensary slot available in the City will likely end up going to another recreational marijuana business instead of WAMM. What does that signal to our society? What does that signal to our youth?
I strongly believe that it's critically important for our youth to be exposed to the medical and compassionate care side of the cannabis industry -- to the historical fight for it as a legal right -- to what amounts to a pivotal legacy created by WAMM and the City of Santa Cruz, historically working together to make that happen.

Exposing our youth to THIS SIDE of the cannabis industry is exactly what we need to restore a little balance in a world in which they are exposed to endless recreational drug paraphernalia through the media and social media -- where the black-market availability is super easy for them to access (unlike at legitimate cannabis stores that actually scan/verify ID's, not just look at them -- unlike bars). 4 Let's face it -- they're already extremely exposed and substances are extremely easy for them to find black-market. It's imperative our youth are exposed to the compassionate care, medical side of this industry and its history as well. Let's restore a little balance, while doing the right thing for WAMM and the critically ill who rely on them.

Thank you for your thoughtful consideration,
Lira Filippini
130 Belvedere Terrace
Santa Cruz, CA
1 Rosemary Balsley
From: Bryce Berryessa <[email protected]>
Sent: Monday, May 13, 2024 4:35 PM
To: City Council
Cc: Bonnie Bush; Ryan Bane; Valerie Leveroni Corral; Kyle Giorchino Subject: Petition of Support WAMM Phytotherapies | Hook Outlet Attachments: support-wamm-a-champion-of-medical-cannabis-access-and-community-safety-in-santa-cruz.pdf Dear City Council,
Please see the attached petition of support for the dispensary project at 1129 Mission St. Signed by 2169 Constituents.

Thank you for your consideration,
Bryce Berryessa
Support WAMM, a Champion of Medical Cannabis Access and Community Safety in Santa Cruz
To: City Council | The City of Santa Cruz
To the Honorable Members of the Santa Cruz City Council, We, the undersigned residents and supporters of Santa Cruz, come together to voice our strong support for the proposed WAMM Phytotherapies (WAMM) and The Hook dispensary at 1129 Mission St. This initiative represents more than just a business proposal; it is a commitment to compassionate care and community wellness which provides WAMM a compliant location to serve westside medical cannabis patients as they have for over 30 years in our community. Federal Court Judge Jeremy Fogel described WAMM (Phytotherapies) as "the gold standard of the medical marijuana movement.”
Background:

WAMM has a long-standing history of providing compassionate care to those in need, offering therapeutic-quality, regeneratively-grown cannabis products to chronic and terminally ill patients.

Their operating partner, The Hook has demonstrated a commitment to responsible retail operations, community education, and the prevention of underage access. Together, they propose to establish a dispensary that upholds the highest standards of community service and compliance with an unwavering goal to Continue WAMM's legacy of compassionate care by providing free medical cannabis to their members. Offer legal access to affordable, tested, cannabis products for the community and Combat the black market with competitive pricing that incentivizes people to choose legal, regulated products.

Community Benefits:

Health and Wellness: Expanding access to medicinal cannabis for patients in need, supporting physical and mental health in our community.

Economic Impact: Creating jobs and generating tax revenue that can be reinvested in local services and infrastructure.

Education and Prevention: Implementing robust education programs about safe cannabis use, contributing to a well-informed community.

Regulatory Compliance: Adhering to all local zoning, setbacks, and city laws, ensuring a safe and regulated environment.

Established Precedent: The proposed project aligns with existing standards for operational dispensaries, which have successfully integrated into the community without incident, demonstrating responsible business practices.

Addressing Concerns:

We acknowledge the concerns raised by some community members and affirm that the proposed location exceeds the required setbacks from schools, with measures in place to prevent visibility and access by minors. Furthermore, studies and data from reputable sources, including the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the American Medical Association, indicate that regulated dispensaries do not increase youth cannabis use or community safety risks. While we agree we as a community need to work together toward educating and discouraging our youth from substance use, there is no evidence supporting claims that legal dispensaries are providing access to minors or encouraging their use. There has not been a single incident of a dispensary marketing to or transacting unauthorized sales in the county, as confirmed by the Santa Cruz Police Department and the County Cannabis Licensing Department.

Call to Action:

We call upon the Santa Cruz City Council to acknowledge the significant community backing for the proposed dispensary at 1129 Mission St. With over 70% of Santa Cruz voters supporting Proposition 64, our community has clearly voiced its approval for regulated cannabis. By greenlighting this project, the Council will not only honor the wishes of its constituents but also uphold a tradition of regulating and overseeing cannabis businesses that have consistently demonstrated safety, reliability, and a commitment to the community.

In conclusion, we earnestly appeal for the City Council's positive endorsement of this proposal.

Such an action would embody the democratic principles and community ethos that Santa Cruz is known for, while further supporting WAMM's invaluable contributions to our community. Let's move forward together, championing health, education, and responsible access to cannabis.

Supporting research can be accessed here: Research
The project, a collaborative effort between WAMM Phytotherapies and The Hook, stands at the forefront of compliance with the city's legal frameworks, zoning regulations, and established setbacks from schools. Despite being fully compliant, it faces significant opposition from the school board, which has embarked on a campaign to thwart its development. The board's push for a 2000ft buffer between dispensaries and child-centric areas such as schools and parks would effectively impose a de facto ban, eliminating all parcels currently eligible for cannabis business operations within the city. This proposed buffer would render the four dispensaries that are currently operating in the city ineligible under the new criteria, despite the absence of evidence suggesting that legal dispensaries contribute to underage cannabis access.

The potential success of this opposition threatens not only the project but also the broader community fabric. It jeopardizes the contributions of two organizations that have been pillars of service in Santa Cruz, adhering strictly to all existing legal standards and regulations. The imposition of such restrictive measures would contradict the community’s values, overlook the democratic processes that have legalized cannabis, and negate the positive impacts these organizations have made. At its heart, this partnership between WAMM Phytotherapies and The Hook promotes responsible cannabis access, prioritizing education and the well-being of the Santa Cruz community, in line with the city's progressive and health-conscious ethos.

Signed by 2,169 people:

Name Zip code
Bryce Berryessa 95076
David Volkland 95010-3555
Rachel Fihn 95010
Jenna Gallant 95003
Cesar Ramirez 95003
Justin Benson 95003
Bijan Sakaki 84103
Samara Esposito 95060
Bayley Logan 95073
Nicholas Griffith 95472
Tamara Keller 95060
Joshua Logan 95073
Melody Grandell 95076
Joshua Krane 91601
Daniel Finkelstein 95060
Name Zip code
Benjamin Slome 10013
Amanda Curtis 95076
Joseph Andreae 92646
Jigar Patel 95472
Jason Osmanski 95060
Karen Lockwood 95005
Johnny Suire 95010
Ann Thomas 95062
Jesse Roseman 95062
Sadie Williams 95060
Rudy Campos 91776
Scott Berryesss 84043
Josh Schmidt 95828
LC Giovanni
Tognazzini
95010
Eric Paulin 96150
Mer Barko 91406
Talia Anders 95060
Genoa Brown 95060
Vanessa Vazquez 95012
Tammy Meck 95065
McKenna Maness 95018
Kyle Giorchino 95003
Laura Jones 95060
Thomas Pedersen 95060
Stuart Carlson 93955
Carly Pick 80303
Penny

HARRINGTON
80526
Nathan
Blackmore
95060
MOLLY JUDD 95018
Alex Redding 95843
Corina Lee 95060
Name Zip code
Lauren McCarthy 94517
Lisa Ferrone 95060
Thomas Jones 95060
Kenny Morrison 90291
Jane Sooby 95060
Chelsea Douglas 95010
Jeffrey Raber 91016
Savannah Hunter 97405
Brynn Raber 90275
Rob Marani 95003
Matthew Chiu 95436
Jannet C 95060
Christopher Carr 95060
Dirk Voss 92240
Eric Hara 96976
Alexander bafia 95060
Asha Tobing 95060
Gavin Kogan 93923
mark drobac 95060
Cethin Stanford 93940
AMY Jones 95073
Mary Thurston 95678
Chris Stover 94103-2813
Joshua Wurzer 95060
Valerie A Leveroni
Corral
95060
James Waggoner 95076
Molly Voigt 80524
Tim Smith 95062
Aimee Grimes 95843
Rielly Brooks 91505
Steve Adams 95076
Tristan Hara 95060
Name Zip code
Collin Lam 94121
Chelby Dufourg 90048
Danielle singh 95076
Holly Blackney 95628
christian martin 95060
RACHEL BARNES 95060
Daniel Quinn 95060
Russel Wilenkin 90045
Phoenyx N 95060
Faby Felix 95003
Andrea (Dre)
Hudson
92882
Jamie Schultze 95073
Darren Story 950769713
michelle bastyr 55403
Ethan Russo, MD 98070
Lupe Montano 95019
Robert Leith 34477
Aj Baddley 90046
Jennifer Cohan 80540
Joshua Mezher 94601
Rick Blackney 95628
Jordan Guzzardo 92879
John Ramsey 28409
Craig Pagano 95017
Joshua Schiffman 84108
Kristina Calvert 95816
Daniel Steigman 94117
Lesley Nickus 92865
Arturo Ayala 95060
Chris Dunn 97405
Kenneth Churchill 92270
Kalle Snyder 95138
Name Zip code
Marcus Martinez 95073
Rita Green 95060
Larry Goldfarb 95062
Sarah Martin 95003
Jaymie Kushi 95060
Lesley-Reid
Harrison
95073
David Talley 94080
Amalia LugoFuentes95062
Gloria Martinez 95008
Daniel Weisberg 94947
wendy Ostrow 95062
John Vitale 95060
Cortland Peterson 95060
Jay Maisey 95003
Marcus
Richardson
90210
Sara Badillo 95020
Rosemarie Yamat 95033-8261
Cortland Peterson 95060
Kaya Johnson 95949
Matthew Johnson 95018
Vanessa Black 95060
Jeff Angell 95006
Thomas
Flinchbaugh
95005
Alejandra
Hurtado
95076
Marilu Cano 95076
Jill Smith 95062
Jason Matthys 95466
Damian Wyzga 95060
Ismael Valladares 95062
Name Zip code
Ryan
Hollingsworth
83705
Robert Jackson 95006
Jason Hdez 95062
Larry Wells 95062
Demetrius A
Daniels
95470
Denny Dicecco 95076
Janeen Simmons 95018
Luna Stower 94577
Carol Hawkins 94513
Ashley Palma 93906
Terry Sardinas 95003
John Palka 95066
Brian Applegarth 92234
Julie Radu 95008
David Doriot 95076
Linda Cover 96060
Tyler Blackney 95816
Brenda
Armstrong
95018
Samuel De La Paz 95472
Jeremy Zachary 92807
Mark Luciano
Ainsworth
94403
Stephanie
Kimitsuka
95062
Dana Martinez 95949
Linda Getz 95060
Heather
Willoughby
95060
Suzanne Lerner 95003
Micah Anderson 92037
Corey Kite 95060
Kevin Wilson 95490
Name Zip code
Robin Macon 95060
erin ames 95138
Doobie Lopez 95060
Don Wirtshafter 45735
Frank Eddy 94608
Suzanne Pfeil 95060
Gerardo Gil 84319
Heather Haglund 94590
Nicholas Blas 95060
Richard Johnson 94102
Michelle Regala 95415
Nick Martinez 95008
Josh Rosenthal 90212
Miguel Chable 92262
Zach Burger 95482
Jurij Kokolskyj 95062
Eddie gomez 95076
Graham Farrar 93109
Mikki Norris 94803
Mark Garver 95018
Gary Poland 95006
Susan Bungay 95628
Brooke Rosel 78217
Amanda GriffinSnyder95138
Max Poswillo 93465
Marielle Basseri 94954
Matt Yount 90504
Rowan Heynes 94087
Arnold Leff 95006
Jack Licursi 95116
Lisa Flynn 95018
Elizabeth Vincent 23452
Name Zip code
Ned Fussell 95472
Jeni D'Aprile 92115
Brandon Rexroad 92649
Valerie Sky 95018
Cheryl Griffin 95138
Jorge B 95060
michael jolson 95060
Stacy Cronk 95003
Robert Orrizzi 95062
Robyn Caywood 95945
Charles Griffin 95138
Michael Small 11730
Alex Daryanani 94511
Deborah
Silverknight
32208
Brandon Vigil 94551
Walia Stone 95060
John Justice 95010
Alexia Jimenez 95076
Sandy
Oppenheim
95005
Liam Cronan 95060
Brandy Hansen 95064
George Rocha 95076
Olivia Crago 95003
Cindy Arent 95003
Mariah
Goncharoff
95060
Misty Booth 95062
Rebecka Hawkins 95003
Rusty Olson 95062
Emily Resnick 90266
Zachary
Woodford
95060
Name Zip code
Gary Herman 95062
James Borawski 95457
Katie Brunius 94762

SHY ANN
Kenwood
95076
shani heckman 94110
Richard Veil 95062
Nikkal Jade Gregg 95076
Sophia GuzmanEvans95073
Quentin Johnston 94303
Rene Ochoa 95060
She’aShaunna
Egling
95063
Ishqa Hillman 90804
Frank Eddy 94608
Moi Galvan 95076
Lindsay Williams 95010
Scott Akrop 95062
Juliette Tocco 95060
Natalie Beck 95064
Oscar Munoz 93907
Gerardo Perez 95012
Natasha Varner 95062
Angelina Miranda 95018
Matt Smith 95006
Danielle Irby 95017
Benedict Lubbon 90277
Kaitlyn
Sanclemente
95010
Remy Jaquez III 95076
Morgan McCreary 95060
Tania Manning 94549
Roderick Johnson 95062
Name Zip code
Lori Hennings 95003
Silvia Ayala 95060
Denise Varner 95062
Ekua Omosupe 95076
Xavier Rodriguez 95019
Linda Tillery 95019
Jennifer CameronSanclemente95010
Jacob Padgitt 95010
Wade Laughter 95959
RICHARD RASA 96094
Amy Barnes 97703
Tina Gomez 95003
Taylor Burdick 95060
Annabella
Sakasai
95060
Haley Nelson 94559
Eric Eggleton 07960
Felicia Andreani 91746
Mariann Ybarra
Williamson
95060
John Grady 95073
Mandy Mohler 95065
Samantha
Stafford
92024
Lacy Caryl 94553
Ben W 94541
Anastasia Welch 95018
Jill Combs 95062
Brandon Hunt 95060
Joan Agostinelli 95060
Carlile Ellis 95062
Jasiah leverenz 95003
Amelia
Scamporrino
95062
Name Zip code
David Hua 94103
Samantha Brown 95073
Vidal MedinaNaranjo95076
Christina bullard 90008
Jeremy Lopez 93420
Annamarie
Caldero
95315
Natalie Corwin 95476

GABRIELLE

FAVREAU
95060
Freeborn Ofiongor 95060
Lisa Matson 95076
Lindsey Hickox 95076
Talula Peterman 95060
Misty Salcedo 95060
Sheila Dedenbach 95765
Ashley Gregory 95062
James Scott 95037
Jacob Salk 94705
makenna
sandidge
95062
Jason Beck 90016
Abigaile
Luckenbach
95065
Mike Elkin 90210
Connie Sands 92129
Octavia Veeder 94610
Brett Colombini 95448
Adam Meyn 90731
Chrissy Varni 95076
Stephen Dorris 96708
Daniel Wacks 94610
Francesca Maina 02840
Adam Barrow 90048
Name Zip code
Lydia West 95062
Emily Reilly 95060
Stacey Muller 95076
Thomas Frye 95076
Sean Williams 95060
Maddy Couvillion 95073
Stephen Taylor 95060
Mark Loving 95060
Erik Thoresen 80304
Jaïr Velleman 90210
Michelle Nicely 95060
Monica Pantinas 95401
Jaymes P 95076
Sarah Rise 95060
Kristian
Andreassen
95949
DAVE KIM 92260
Jan McGeorge 95062
Miles Pless 93036
melissa Carrillo 95060
Kyle Bishop 95060
Daniel Feldman 95060
iesha espinoza 95076
Tyler Kahn 95073
Kyle Remenda 95064
Mary Reynolds 95060
Michael Gruber 60062
Marsea MarcusRotman96753
Sean Kelley 95442
Nancy A
Armstrong
95006
Shane Terry 89104
Erin Gore 95448
Name Zip code
Heather Molloy 10708
David Belsky 90274
Robert Mendola 94115
Max Rudsten 94939
Noah Ortega 95111
Ed Rust 95060
Tamar Maritz 92692
Jamie L Pearson 95064
Gregory Beebe 95003
Josh Bubeck 92110
Blake Ramos 80547
Kristie Wilson 95010
Sydney Ferris 95065
Isabelle Sjahsam 94118
AnnaRae
Grabstein
94951
Aaron Veatch 95814
William Casper 95060
Eric Pearl 95062
Megan Warden 90015
Brennan Craig 95062
Los Arias 92009
Michael Siegel 93023
Amber Roccaforte 95073
Mario Guzman 90291
Jordana Fischer 95060
Jay Evans 95060
Adam Salman 33181
Brian Malin 95959
Amanda Hoschke 95060
Shinae Lee 94110
Justin Boyens 95060
Avraham Sinai 95062
Name Zip code
Eric Durkee 95060
Amber Fields 95073
paola anderson 92656
Christian Kaiser 95066
Jennifer Glickman 95401
Brandon Levine 94931
Leah DiBiccari 95001
Tom Cole 95062
Chelsea guzman 95062
Seth Yakatan 90267
Joshua Bushnell 95050
Inger Airheart 90292
Sophia Pless 93036
Ana Manzella 95060
sabine freudiger 94062
Keith Healy 94920
Rafa Sonnenfeld 95060
Byron Wouk 95062
William Muecke 94133
Claudio Miranda 94606
Anne Boutelle 95060
Maria Alfaro 95073
Michele Pruce 77019
Michael
Steinmetz
94123
Heather Cruz 95005
Charlene Estrada 91406
William McKenzie 94804
Scout Selby 95065
Cara Favilla 95060
Jeff Rick 95060
Chris Smith 95060
Zed Clark 44610
Name Zip code
Emily Paxhia 94117
Michael Citron 00901
Emily Fontana 95060
Ritika Aggarwal 94618
Gunnar
Amundson
95060
Siddarth Gupta 10069
Jeffrey Schultz 11576
Julian Felipe
Barboza
10904
Dan Herer 91367
Kevin Brooks 95746
Lisa Williams 75071
Julie Aguiar 95060
Joe Williams 95062
Mari Oxenberg 91364
Max Simon 93022
Sophia Alarcon 95018
Eluteria Gutierrez 95076
Jared Cohen 90265
Dane Diseth
Chandra
90064
drayton
stephenson
92285
Jim Anstey 90210
Marc Montoya 90250
Adam Graham 80206
Joshua Holdridge 83704
Kieve Huffman 90066
Nanci Ryker-Judd 95018
Morgan Paxhia 92101
Matt
Krishnamachari
95060
Rosie Mattio 07624
Dani Walton 94605
Name Zip code
Michael Beaudry 93109
Scott Parks 94952
Tim Nester 95062
Anne Benveniste 95018
Ronald Tate 33409
Yarrow Kubrin 95473
Shereé Semonich 90803
Lydia Gomez 95018
Tahira
Rehmatullah
10003
Clayton Taylor 95403
George
Vasilopoulos
80033
Erik Ott 94952
Madeline Rons 95062
Rachael Shelton 95062
Aj Culp 95060
Joseph Bryan 95060
Betsy K 90035
Doug Huskey 95060
Pete Rabbitt 95066
Duffy Barrett 95003
Gwenviere
Benjamin
95062
Richard Wang 95006
John Lamb 95062
Danielle Koepke 95076
John Cutler 95060
Bella Brown 95003
Scott Jennings 90266
Scott Brown 95093
Bob Lamonica 95060
Heidi Ferreira 95046
ben kane 08540
Name Zip code
Tony Ferreira 95020
Lucas McCann 10013
Amanda Harris
Altice
95064
Anthony Gonzales 93940
Noah Hamman 20814
Doug McPhie 95073
Mark Messa 95033
Josh Bowers 95490
Hunter Nichols 95060
Bejay Strout 95003
Ashley Elguea 95127
Caroline Perretta 95062
Justina Marquez 95023
Eric Battuello 95403
Marilee Werfhorst 95010
Joyce Cenali 94112
Cathy Gideon 95066
Jackson Kellard 90292
Jason Hamed 95065
Barbara Paley 01238
Sera Passalaqua 94062
Allison Krongard 06840
suzanne wilson 95041
Chris Picardi 95062
Alessandra
Zamudio
95076
Austin Manierre 75201
Adam Taylor 95073
Sara Gibson 93003
Marilyn Headrick 94018
Desiree Garcia 95062
Ed Kilduff 90254
Name Zip code
Kyle Burnett 94520
Samy Sullivan 95076
Leialoha Cail 93101
Justin McIvor 95018
Pam Bailey 95005
Elizabeth Leopold 92688
ROB BOES 95060
Olga Lopez 90094
Dusty Fohs 95060

STEPHEN

MUCELLI
94533
Carter Lawyer 95065
Melody Litt 95060
Juan Aguilar 95023
Austin M 95060
Mark Boolootian 95062
Kevin Hix 93013
Jesse Meighan 91205
Leslie Maggetti 95060
Christina De La
Cruz
95060
Vanessa Holanda 95069
Ronnette Garcia 95062
Ron W 95061
John Chambers 93001
Michel Picard 95066
Jacob De La Cruz 95060
Ruth Coffin 95005
Maureen Rose 95066
Rob Lee 94011
Robert Rodriguez 95003
Brandon Diniz 95062
Phoenix Stephens
combs
95060
Name Zip code
Ruben Fuentes 95076
Marie Jauregui 95061
Kylen
Winterbotham
95003
Jackie a FitzhenryRussell95062
Adam Yader 95060
Sydney Price 98117
Karen Krenis 95060
Christopher
Balbach
95062
Miguel Campos 93012
Elana Tamas 11598
Zachary Brockett 92557
Vanessa Garcia 95060
Erin C 95018
Thomas Meade 92253
Seline Venzon 95630
Mark Merritt 95060
Stephanie Silva 95076
Jasmine Hayes 95060
Schuyler Rieger 95062
Keith Beaudoin 95003
Marv Anderson 95037
Ann Owens 93101
Su Tallarico 95073
moani adams 95060
Elizabeth Mabery 92504
Will Oquinn 93428
Steven Myrdahl 92882
Jadyn B 95060
Brian Hanhart 92804
Kaylee Olson 37062
Luke Olson 37062
Name Zip code
Beau Odom 91941
Adriana Rocha 95076
Brian Mas 95677
Jonathan Bookatz 91604
Angie Heredia 95076
Heidi McCoy 95060
Shane Ferrante 73159
Darrel Hallowell 92821
Chase Ferrante 92240
Kevin Parsells 85251
Rudy Fajardo 91745
Jeff Allgrove 95060
Michael Nagami 90056
Jonathan Dasig 95062
Bodian Roger 94134
Brian MacDonald 95060
John Stefenhagen 94706
Will Walker 95476
Aislyn Weinfeld 95062
Mike Wasmer 92037
Tiffany Watkins 95608
Elizabeth
Anderson
95123
Alexander Ayres 95060
Lynnette Shaw 94930
Shane Dooley 95062
Elizabeth
Warninger
95060
Jade Evan-Cruz 95060
Leslie Ingham 95066
Breana George 93950
Justin Burk 95076
Natalie Orendain 95066
Name Zip code
Mitchell Ayres 95060
Brian Ayres 95060
Rayette Andrews 95003
Lee Reinheimer 95003
Helen Cobb 95401
Gracen Eiland 95062
Mack Hueber 13084
Laura Gossl 95062
Hector Gomez 95060
Marlene Movinski 95060
Lauren Riggins 94044
Michael Doten 94608
Jessica MacDevitt 95404
Brittany Hodges 91605
Eric Schneider 11758
Rhea Hunter 95010
Garrett Richard 95062
Lucy Blackney 94558
Julia Ryan 95062
Don Olufs 95492-9570
Ysabella Donlan 95062
Coral KamstraBrown95062
Melissa
Sutherland
95010
Kerri Accardi 85381
Jackie
Christensen
95060
Samantha
Eccleston
95062
Jj Lemmon 95060
Adelia Carrillo 85338
Jazmine Shepherd 89102
Rosa Avitia 95822
Name Zip code
Dyan Nelms 95076
Coltin Barody 92532
Kirstie Price 95073
William Panda
Pauley
84093
Erin Wood 95060
Danielle Hargate 92260
Zac Mathieu 95542
Gloria Navarro 92626
Clem Peterson 94606
Elizabeth
Maushardt
95065
Adrian Giovenco 94708
Blair Sass 95018
Jake Kuczeruk 90026
Nate Ready 95060
Molly Waite 95003
Nicole Lopez 95076
Sjusan Zachary 93277
Alyssa Flowers 95060
Rehanna Pacheco 92780
Melissa Jamrus 95060
bailey renee 95076
Alec Dixon 95060
Rachel Heberly 95073
Ron Gershoni 94596
Kate Ransom 94117
Will Rudolphi 85050
Michele McDuff 94703
Sara Achenbach 95066
Aaron Newsom 95005
Christel McLean 94805
Ryan Brantley 95065
Name Zip code
Daeja Boggiano 95060
Kiera Gross 95060
Adam Wells 95010
Alsn Dawson 95073
Leslie Evans 95628
Emma Moses
Graue
95062
Rocco Diaz 95062
Jamie Penilla 95062
John G 95060
Chris Ingram 95062
Socrates
Rosenfeld
95062
Jackson Brady 95006
Peter Tejera 90405
susan pratte 95060
Esmeralda
Sanchez
95076
Troy Godfrey 95003
Judith Yokel 95065
Walker Kellogg 95060
Ean O'Reilly 95004
Laura Wilcoxson 95005
Insook Kim 95003
Henry Merring 95018
Natasha Chiu 95436
Nicolette Serpa 95076
Gazelle Parsons 95060
Ana Esquivel 95076
Beth Stephens 55006
James Sclar 95005
Nina Stratton 95060
Katie Johnson 95062
P Reyes 94928
Name Zip code
Marina Stallworth 94605
Marisa Rosas 95403
Megan Stettner 95076
S L Coleman 95073
Robert Rosoff 94118
Ben Yokel 95065
Peter Keyes 95817
Amany Mata 93907
Dale Gieringer 94704-2527
Jose Villafana 95076
Weston Mossman 95060
John Bollaert 95060
Charlie Phillips 94306
Matthew Caraway 95005
Noemi Ibarra 95060
Evan Cicoletti 95060
Chase Hilleary 95062
Cesar Quintana 95076
Judy Durbin 95062
Armando Arias 95062
Laura Specht 93291
Ashley Picillo 10002
Lisa Swift 90041
David Swift 90041
Ben Garcia 94568
Ray Ferreira 93635
Laura SAAVEDRA 93635
Emily Cervantes 95003
Rafael C. 95242
Austin Martindale 95010
Elise Seward 95926
Abigail VIEIRA 94609
Name Zip code
David Goldman 94114
Jenny Brancato 95060
Laura English 95076
Sacha Defoy 95062
Nancy Navarro 91016
Matt and Stacy
McMillan
95062
Alyssa Lonardo 95124
Vanessa Alvarado 95062
Joshua Hernandez 92058
Sarah Borgeson 95060
Jackie Cervantes 92083
Seattle Adams 95076
Katie DiGirolamo 95018
Cierra Daniels 94579
Roy Upton 95073
Marina Bleich 95060
Osiris Santiago 93905
Valerie Miller 95608
Muffin SpencerDevlin92651
Paula Gallant 19475
Teresa Young 95062
Katy Jones 95661
Sunny Winkleman 95062
Holly Johansen 95449
Laurel Hamm 95816
Shay Hubbard 95010
Rosy Weiser 95073-2550
Erika Hay 95073
Sami Weiser 95010
Amber R 95073
Brenda Lopez 95010
Name Zip code
Sofia Williams 90039
Ed Dickie 95017
Todd Marcus 92782
Christine Roberts 95060
Kailey Morgan 95030
Taylor Manning 95010
Leighann C 95003
Denise Nasaire 95076
Andree DiMaggio 85260
Christian Dean 95073
Derek Des
Champs
95060
Zach Granbery 95124
Kai Hoornbeck 95062
Loia Roth 95018
Valerie Phipps 95003
Jerod Riddle 95006
Benjamin Green 95060
Taylor Mezman 95073
Caitlin
Nascimento
95076
Michelle Wan 95014
Nicole H 96067
Victoria Miller 95060
Jase Earl 95060
Cynthia
TorresDuran
93907
Amber Engfer 95062
Lanny Swerdlow 92230
David Hyland 95039
Amanda Franklin 81601
Michael Kamp 95003
Michele DiMaggio 85710
Dai Smith 82225
Name Zip code
Rosalynn Garza 95076
Connor Bryant 95020
Lauren N 94608
Megan Atmavidya 90045
Anna Colbert 95062
Marlee Walker 95005
Kathryn Foster 95060
Chris Conrad 94803
Kyra Moura 93907
Elise McDonough 95472
Fernanda Monroy 94567
Leo Krupnik 94002
Paul Stanford 97213
Jillian Lowry 32751
Evan Senn 28754
Janelle Bode 95003
Mo Alexander 95054
Billy Lardizabal 92562
Robert Bennett 95062
aliyah leilani 95125
Addie Culley 91602
Ethan Brown 95014
Amanda Pate 93561
Meggan Bahm 95407
norastine riley 94605
Tiffany Lewis 90038
Wendy Simonds 30306
Bevin Bell-Hall 11233
Erika rosendale 95076
Erica Tetsworth 92648
Jenny Heth 95062
Trevor Luxon 95062
Name Zip code
Marissa Pockat 95010
Sabrina Foraker 95076
Luis Lopez 95010
Kevin Barry 95120
Brittany Alberto 95077
Patrick Anderson 95407
C L 95008
Lynette Casper 95018
Chandler Escobar 95003
Radhika Kirkman 95060
Nick Drobac 95067
Abraham
Honegger
48910
Annie Sprinkle 95006
VyVy Nguyen 95926
Jay DiMeglio 19958
Rick Cook 95018
Tyler Grosdidier 95003
Kristin Foster 91325
Julia Rousseau 95076
Anna Griffith 95060
Valerie Atha 95062
chelsea Lucich 95401
Isabel Jimenez 95076
William Rose 95062
Chelsey
Earlywine
91354
Hayes Devaney 95060
Chester Malaza 95833
Angela Cervantes 95076
Alexandra Hook 95073
Kayleigh Smith 90805
Joseph Tampas 95003
Name Zip code
Jules Lefmann 95076
Elizabeth Upton 15217
Mark Jennings 10708
Katie Conley 95073
Gaylie Bell 95949
Joseph Meitzler 95076
Kian Sherer 95010
Julia Robledo 95112
Whitney Stone 93933
Jordan Layman 95060
Wendy Frances 95060
Beth Heynen 94085
Diana Cabanas 92805
Bryant Mejia 17603
Samantha F. 92610
Joel Freitas 95076
Shannon
McInerney
94112
Hardip Kalsi 95060
Marcos Vasquez 95076
Pepper St. Clair 93933
Jed Riffe 95060
Lincoln Brown 92651
Eric Essery 95076
Kari Moss 29678
Alan Lefebre 95060
Lizzy Albers 95073
Santiago Rios 95118
Duane Mory 95062
Kayla Gray 95010
Samantha Ash 95066
Christian Asa 95819
Allen Muhammad 94536
Name Zip code
Karina Garcia 95062
Autumn Silva 95062
shane modena 95003
Swen Tyler 95003
Kendra Stocking 90278
Jennifer Michaels 95409
Tovia Anderson 95003
Fred Gardner 94501
Tony Alvarez 95032
Nicole Powell 94704
Dave Saso 95076
Aundre Speciale 94516
Rebecca Olmos 95116
Nina Parks 94044
Nicole Kohen 90230
Sunev C 90019
angus schuurman 94945
Jennifer Vaughan 95076
Michael Daniel 95060
Emily McLaughry 95062
Shawn Grona 95062
Kandice Hawes 92610
monica agudelo 95076
Suzanne Wouk 95060-3645
Gabrielle
Gangitano
95060
Abigail Shaffer 95076
Adrienne
Menduno-Ortbals
95060
LINDA Davies 91950
Dan Parks 92677
Zane Wouk 95060
Manuel Yoro 95076
Name Zip code
Devon Squires 92653
Membrane Jones 95073
Susie Bright 95060
Cheryl Williams 95060
Michael McArdle 03827
Danny DeSmidt 94609
Kirstie Chadsey 94513
Dajana Z 90291
Callie Blackwell 30755
Antonio Sanborn 95003
Katherine
Mullarkey
12202
Thom Nelson 95060
Allison Feduccia 95062
Ivan Guillen 95076
Maya Loveland 95003
Laura Boys 95004
Muhammed
Mentese
96150
Jayne Butler 95062
Manndie Tingler 95661
Ashh sun 95076
Yasmina Porter 95060
Melanie Torres 95472
Izzie Witchel 95076
Ashley Wentworth 95050
Javiera Kostner 95060
Bart Goldstein 95073
Rob Learn 95076
Jocelyn Lozano 95060
Nakyan White 95060
Lauren Banks 95060
Patricia Prince 95003
Name Zip code
Peter Prince 95003
Karli Adams 95062
Scott Mohler 95065
Kat Park 95060
Oso Famoso 95005
David Brown 95006
Els Buts 95128
Sara Huntley 95060
Dwight Oden 95136
Micheal Scotttish 95076
Brad Bogus 94303
Leah Schwartz 95060
Alan Fischer 95060
Shin Light 95076
David
Bienenstock
95056
Sarah Godfrey 94801
John Paul
Gramelis
95060
Fred Della
Santina
95060
Tristan Gianelli 95010
Trinity Daniels 85303
Elena Ascaso 95010
Trinity Roseberry 85303
Annop
hongwathanachai
95076
Brad Hopper 95066
Amy Mayer 95073
Darcy Buckman 95066
Savanna Wright 95065
Chris Wang 95060
Sydney B 95062
Scott French 95065
Name Zip code
David Aquino 95076
Cassie Bos 95062
Christopher
Charlot
95060
Matthew Fauver 95465
Tim Leveroni 95926
heather leveroni 95926
Melissa MorenoEspinosa95060
Amanda Leveroni 95928
Madi Greco 93907
Fredericka Smith 95060
Peter Weiser 95060
Molly A Welch 95073
Diana Hodge 95060
Dhwani Sharma 95060
Lo Nunez 95073
Gerardo Alba 95076
Robert Braswell 93446
Brandon Yaeger 95060
Isabelle Goldstein 95060
Nuvia Brunner 95062
Kristen Hussey 95062
Joshua Kerr 95076
Jason Barry 95018
Briana OBrien 95062
Charlie Castillo 95060
Erick Becerril 95060
Leroy Martinez 95076
David Merg 92806
Carlos Lopez 95076
Lisa H 93517
Seth Brookshire 95926
Name Zip code
Chad DeGarmo 95019
Cici Reyes 93955
Joshlynn Meza 94085
Pete Gibson 97123
Raul Gacia 95060
Danielle Mc
Peters
94547
Diego Ramirez 95060
Cristina Ramirez 95060
Katelyn Tolbert 95062
Eddie Ramirez 95060
Andrew Headrick 95926
James durbin 95076
Mike Rebensdorf 95062
Jennifer Monroe 95060
Anthony Sanchez 95076
Diego Pena 95060
Monica Agudelo 95076
Barbara Duron 95060
Adam Prather 95065
Marina Malikoff 95061
Tiffany Devitt 95407
Eileen Holland 95076
Adrienne Perry 95062
Sam Dunbar 95060
Paige Hollis 95132
Lindsay Milam 95003
Ismael Mariscal 95076
Ashley Stegeman 95062
Alexander Bassi 94519
Jamison Maiden 95060
Oksana Bogatko 95073
Stephen Fuehrer 95062
Name Zip code
Erin Roberts 95062
Matt Wood 95073
Nancy Pierce 95060
Megan Prusynski 95401
T B 95073
sandra chavez 95004
Anna Orans 95062
Laura Greenfield 95060
Cesar Martinez 95076
Rebecca Rapp 95060
Erin Rhoades 95076
Alex Potter 95062
Erin Lee 95060
Krista Canton 95062
mario sanchez 95060
Brandon Damiani 95076
Mike Willigrod 95073
barry simpson 95001
Hawley Lopes 96150
Tom Kerr 95060
Danica Cirerol 95076
Storm Dannet 95073
Jamen Koos 92562
Michael Lozinski 95060
Heather Manus 92037
Clayton Treanor 95019
Nikki Davis 95033
Tony Fitzgerald 95062
Michael Sakellis 95060
Andrew Gruver 97219
Madonna Camel 95076-0538
Rashelle Winchell 95018
Name Zip code
Josh Aguayo 91942
Ellen Gallagher 95062
Lauren Saputelli 95060
Benjamin Fausto 93906
Brian Hart 95062
Scott Sokol 95062
Gabriella Mejia 95023
Justin Marroquin 95060
Kyle Boyar 92107
Jennifer Renteria 95076
Jeffrey Hickey 95062
Selina Reddan 92084
Stephanie A
Roman
95076
M Luke 98004
Aaron Salas 95076
Prema Drew 95062
Serena Watman 80421
Kimberly Sakellis 95060
rebecca kahan 95060
Diane Dobrin
Grunes
95062
Francisco
Berlanga
95076
Maricela
Gibson0p
95462
Jimmy Talavera 95023
Jocelyne Silva -
Rojas
95019
Brianna Yaeger 95060
Danielle Cruz 95018
Sara PayanPehrson94611
Devon Judd 95003
John Bradley 96019
Name Zip code
Sandra Ramirez 95060
Joshua Moran 93950
Sean Flynn 95060
Elisabet Stow 95066
Nina S 95060
Elysa Gaona 95076
Christopher
Bailey
95973
Timmia Elston 95019
Kellianne Frketic 15135
Melanie
Cervantes
95076
Timothy Kensit 95060
Jaime Ramirez 95060
Zoe Aquino 95076
Jenny Jacobo 93291
Leslie Calderoni 95066
Patrick Sullivan 95023
Emily Biagini-Lee 95076
Jared Soares 92028
Kimberly Gomes 95062
Rose Lachance 92065
Jose Rangel 95062
Tarah Taylor 95076
Joshua Baldwin 95076
Angela Bennett 32738
Johnette
Besseling
95060
Veronica Lopez 94533
Jessica Adams 80621
Sarah Armstrong 91362
James Moore 95928
Christine Zecker 01518
Elizabeth Villa 95023
Name Zip code
Julia Gamboa 95076
JC Ellington 97027
sean basalyga 94588
Sydney Slosarik 95124
Stephanie Rossi 80504
Christi Terpening 33146
Kyle Suess 95062
Megan Remington 95110
Ryan Osland 95076
Michelle Ouse 95003
Anna Cummins 95060
Tawnie
Scarborough
95060
R.L. Kincaid 78957
Juan Luis Achirica 95020
Leigh Erickson 95003
Catherine
Simonidis
95060
Alex AlvarezMilch95060
Danielle Sanchez 95076
Tiffany Thisner 95060
Jesse R 91710
Matt Barron 94920
Margaret Quigley 95060
Margo
Montgomery
95060
Rebecca Prete 95076
morgan fay 95060
Sarah Schilz 95076
brent nunn 95003
Juliana Marie 95063
Laurie Sage 95060
Jodi Morgan 95060
Name Zip code
Nicole Hill 95010
Trevor Tomlin 95060
Robert Briano 95004
Natalie Cresci 95010
William Campero 94122
Jaime Longoria 95060
Shannon Page 95060
robert adams 95062
Isabella Rich 95060
te’a shreves 95060
Angela Pih 90024
Barbara Segal 33020
Aly Rozek 80540
Sheila Stoller 95060
victor wright 95076
Luz Howse 95062
Vince Sottile 92694
Kirsten Velasco 60193
norman ayers 95076-0233
Lisa Dahlgren 95076
Joanna Regan 95060
Garrick Roshau 95116
Julie Esteban 95010
T Wiley 95076
Joellen Syth 95020-8218
Jukes F. 70964
Julia Greenspan 95060
Kathy Sparrow 95073
mari Z 95062
Robyn Middleton 95073
Roz Spafford 95062
Ethan Warner 95060
Name Zip code
Briana Jones 95020
Carlton Stewart 93940
Tim Beveridge 95062
Saskia Wade 95060
Katy Perez 95076
Douglass Gilbert 95062
christopher
bonita
95129
Tallulah Blount 91604
Ashley Valdivia 95076
Nicole Mazar 95041
Maria Valencia 95076
Heather Smetana 93955
Ian Davidson 95959
Maria Perez 95076
Michelle Aldrich 94123
Brandon
CárdenasGonzález
95076
Marcel Menard 95062
Andrea Sosa 95076
Bryan Price 80004
Gina Perry 95019
Alexsis Morga 93906
Mikaelah Martinez 95076
Keren Aylon 95062
yadhira holguin 95076
Madeline
Reynolds
95020
Doreen Marshall 95060
Philip D'Andrea 95076
Raijin Ko 95033
Brucecw Werder 95003
Anna Haukness 95010
Name Zip code
Daniel Guzman 95076-2161
Stephanie
Olmsted
95005
Kim Keane 95062
D Nunns 95063
Ted Lichtenberger 78702
Courtney Hughes 95073
James Bushneff 95010
Mari Medina 95062
Carol Hales 95062
Christopher
Rogers
95060
Jon Friesell 95073
Jason Seeber 95403-2841
Jimi Doss 95076
Spooky Ghost 95060
james huang 95060
Ariel DeGrace 95073
Jacob Otero 95076
Aure Robles 95076
Kristine Foster 95006
Adolfo Hernandez 95076
Chloe Cooper 95065
Lori Horton 95004
Yolanda Vazquez 95076
Jason Whipe 95062-2064
Davaryah
Trugman
95062-1708
Graham Sorkin 98282
Desiree Federico 95076
Daphne Contreras 95076
John Perry 95060
Michael Lawler 95010
Carmen Flores 95019
Name Zip code
Jordan White 95073
Rat Liz 95076
Max Nilsen 95060
Hunter Brawley 95018
Kyrie Diantonio 95060
marisol ramos 95003
Warren White 95073
Sheryl Varien 95060
Genise Swain 94930
Nina Martinez
Delgado
95020
Janene Zigman 95073
Michael Ellis 95005
Roman Ortiz 95076
Patricia Bennett 95003
Sarti Padgett 95065
Lisa Dewey 95112
James Mader 95032
Xotchil Herrera 95062
mayra plata 95076
Matt M Paynter 93955
Adriana Rocha 95076
Eden Crane 95003
Thea Serafin 95060
David Pinto 95060
Corey Debord 95007
Yesenia Guzman 95062
Lori Carbajal 93905
Bennie Thackeray 93449
Sara M 95032
Chandler S 95032
Deb Cacy 94538
Gilbert Moreno 95019
Name Zip code
teri morris 95060
Francine Byers 95073
Sharon Paight 95062
Steve Ornellas 95060
LaTishia Jones 95118
Donna Blase 95019
Jade Ismail 95062
Ravyn Bewley 95062
Miguel .OR 95076-5290
Bethsy Bobadilla 85076
Autumn Stevens 95062
Tai Danh 95060
Ruben Morfin 94303
Isabel Casillas 95076
Preston head 92651
Terry Bond 95062
Brad Freedman 92602
Erika Conrad 95076
Leslie Rojas 95076
Gregory Chin 94806
Lourdes Doss 90247
Salvador Sotelo
Romero
95020
Xavier Estrada 95076
Paul Schaafsma 95062
Meggan Stringent 95076
Denise Rubino 95123
David De La Mora 92688-1601
James Dinsmore 95062
Shawn Trujillo 94605
Theresa Gidney 95076
MITCH

WERTHEIMER
95062
Name Zip code
Brittany Lopez 95003
Kenneth
robedeau
95076
Steve Gallegos 95076
Danielle Bennett 95003
Debra Tegebo 93611
Alex Darocy 95060
Raven Wolfe 95060
A K 95060
Melissa Moe 95073
Brandon Diniz 95062
H. Olson 95062
Anita Dennis 95060
Sharlese Mariolo 95060
Edward Estrada 95065
Johnny G 95020
Drew Erskine 95060
Jim Carr 95073
Alina Haug 95126
Kristi FitzPatrick 95018
Sydney Corbin 95060
amanda
Nisewaner
95062
Dale Sky Jones 94619
Dustin S 95060
Citlalli RoblesCuéllar95073
Roger
Stoneburner
95066
Jacqueline Scott 95118
Angel Jara 95065
Michala Broadway 95066
Chris Tadina 95835
Gary Maushardt 95065
Name Zip code
Anthony Flores 95060
Marian Lamon 95076
Anthony Sanchez 95023
Colleen Roffe 95060
Melisa Arias 95076
Toby Schroder 55407
Victor Flores 95004
BIANCA CRUZ 95076
Sebastian Beca 95018
Sarah Todd 78748
Gerry Woodling 95062
Cindy Dalman 95063
Joseph Scanlon 95062
Laura DeFreyne 95060
Nate Ready 95060
Ricky Pierson 93426
Thomas Zabonik 95060
lynda leigh 95062
Heather Miller 95060
Charlie Miller 95060
Beatriz Matias 95076
Isabel Corella 93905
David Duryea 95060
Lindsey Ramirez 95066
Nilo Alvarado 95062
Nicole Alvarado 95062
Pablo Pena 95076
Tyrek Boone 95062
Alina Cueva 95060
Lisa Dunham 95005
Eva Duckler 95076
Tonya Skelton 95019
Name Zip code
Myah Bettencourt 95010
Kristie Wilson 95010
kat kendrick 95076
Sandra Corona 95050
Jesse Mendoza 95065
Craig pratt 95010
Ken Gunville 95062
Judy Cassada 95010
Rachel Sliney 95060
Bug Ruzon 94043
Kylie Pettis 96060
Juliana garcia 95023
Kaylen Carilli 95073
Anthony Santoya 95076
Jill Tipton 95076
Min Kang 90004
Grace Flores 95019
Alex Zee 95060
Antonio PartidaBartoni95076
Bob Nair 95010
Alexis Staunton 95010
Judy Jackson 95060
Patricia Tostes 95076
Kelley Mfn Moss 28083
Stephanie
Bracamonte
95207
Carrie Browde 95062
Katrina Joesten 95076
Steve Giacomelli 95060
Evan Hickey 95121
Cheri Sacks 95062
John Donham 94591
Name Zip code
Naomi
Stensgaard
95003
Avery Champlin 93561
Dawnell Smith 93940
Rosa Valdovinos 95045
Salvador Carrillo 95075
Keith Bishoff 95010
Alec Arteaga 95076
Joselyne Zamora 95076
Timothy Morland 95758
Roger DiFoggio 95062
Ashley Hooten 95062
Rudy Sanchez 95076
Isaac De Armas 95076
Janet Hipolito
Garcia
95076
Sydney Niiyama 95060
Juana Vargas 95976
Carmel Hughes 95010
Grace Chisholm 95060
Brandy Lopez 95003
Elle R. 95060
Phillip Gomez 95062
Stephen Shaver 95060
DEBRA STAAB 95033
G Putnins 93907
Juan Urias 95020
Nate wright 95004
Ed Dickie 95017
Jorge Ruiz 95019
Tristan Hara 95060
Terah Polockow 95010
Elizabeth Metcalf 95076
Name Zip code
nika bagherian 95070
Ruben F 95076
Reyah Chanel 84093
Wade Laughter 95959
Joanne Schultz 95023
ritchard cisneros 93907
Toby Morning 95060
Anthony Sanchez 95076
Marcus McKnight 95008
Thuong Tran 95008
Dominique
Lamproe
95023
Celeste Beautz 95065
Karla Vazquez 95062
Matt Alldridge 95076
Danielle Reader 95076
Amy Soloninka 96003
Maritza Ortega 95064
Glen Schriever 84780
Brandie Folres 94063
Lorena Provencio 95073
Jennifer May 95062
Michael Gorman 95062
Greg Cross 95060
Linda Turner 95005
Ksenia Crow 95060
Erik Kayhart 95003
Mar Sweetman 95007
Tony herr 95062
Justin Smaine 95062
Kirsten Swanson 95003
Samantha Motz 95060
Craig Sadler 95060
Name Zip code
David Larkin 95060
Gabriel Scholl 95018
Patricia Tower 95060
Daisy Gomez 95076
Alix Cardenas 95060
Lanie Overton 95060
Liz Aiello 95060
Noah Annes 90046
Naomi Lieberman 96062

ROSEMARY

DOOLING
95010
Andre Ramirez 95076
Veronica Valadez 95126
Suzanne Rudder 95060
Abigail Ojeda 95008
Erica O 95076
Honey Kealoha 95007
Christopher
Morand
94550
Carrie Walton 95062
Joe Walton 95062
Joanne Parcel 95003
América Trujillo 95020
Catherine
Caldwell
95062
Joe Robinson 95003
Omar Aridi 95062
Julianne Glahn 95060
Karen Menehan 95060
James Himelic 95010
Paul Andrade 95060
Maryellen Olson 95076
Tina Mazzei 95060
James Zoromski 95060
Name Zip code
Linda Martin
Hellyer
93950
Lynne Formigli 95008
Jevan Gray 95060
Michael hinkel 95117
Zena Mena 95062
Nick Watson 95062
Paula Morin 95073
Patricia Rodrigues 93906
Nancy Kensinger 95062
Wendolyn justice 95010
Chris Maddox 95062
Lisa Mazzei 95060-5913
Bodi Tunheim 95060
Robert Van Roo 95949
Vannah Bourne 95064
Ryan Masters 95018
isabel barenoegan95060
Rachael Patterson 95064
Katy Ravazza 95060
Ellie Miller 95060
Jordyn Stotler 95060
Kristen Yoder 90291
Emmy Gonzalez 95062
Nancy Houghtby 95066
Erika Fletcher 94501
Kyle Suess 95062
Ellen Solway 95060
Matty Sandoval 95060
Ana Esquivel 95076
Malka Nagel 95060
Spencer Marshall 95003
Name Zip code
Temo Orta 95076
Tamsin Kennedy 95003
Elaine Peach 95062
Calista
Getzschmann
95020
John Byrnes 95062
Rebecca
Northcutt
95018
Jessica Carrasco 95076
Rosemarie Yamat 95033
Andrew Purchin 95060
Jennifer Thomas 95060
Rebecca Ross 95060
Mollie Sorensen 95003
Eliyahu Goodman 95060
Ismael Valladares 95062
Peter Pietrangeli 95060
Teresa Kelly 95060
Andy Aguilar 95076
Angela Doriot 95076
Bella Brown 95003
Mio KamstraBrown95062
Calarampio
Pascual
95073
ginny stone 95001
Meghan
Henderson
95073
Neera Bhatnagar 95003
Karen Etter 95010
Patty Parle 95006
Dawn Campbell 95060
Kalei Alderman 95076
Michael Deharo 95023
Amy Clarke 95010
Name Zip code
Marissa Medrano 93906
Marisa Ridgway 95060
Zoe R 95006
Sherry
MacFarlane
95006
Michael
Gottsegen
95006
Kyle Schloss 95017
Annika Anderson 95060
Aaron Veatch 95814
Ana C 95060
Shanan Schmitt 95066
Lee Loewy 95073
Elizabeth Serafin 95062
Bernice Castillo 95076
Joshua Wall 95060
Nathan G 95076
John Vitale 95060
Adrian Fischer 95060
Athrva Pannase 94568
Andriana Goodell 95061
Adrienne Kozy 95062
Christine Swan 95060
Jackie Mason 95076
Miguel Gutierrez 95076
Sherida
Robertson
95073
Brent Ruhne 95062
Juan J. Avalos 95076
Tara P 95003
Raquel
Hernandez
95076
Jaqueline Campos 92113
Massiel Lopez 95076
Name Zip code
Ruth Naranjo 95076
Jennifer Rocha 95076
Charlene Romeo 95060
Betty King 95063
April
Shimabukuro
95060
Andrew Siegler 95112
Ted Monohon 95136
gisele mendes 95076
Christina
Shimabukuro
95127
reanna ettelbrick 95037
Michael Lane 95060
Sebastian
Goodwin
95073
Brian Gauthier 95062
Lacey Leon 95076
Aliyah Herrera 93906
Elena Sandoval 95901
Victoria
Villagomez
95050
daniel schroyer 95062
Gabe Carrillo 95010
Anna Gonzales 95062
Chris Roe 95076
Jackie Ayala 95076
Alyssa Diaz 95076
Corwin Ogaz 95033
Alyssa SantanaOliveira95010
josue trigo 95076
Isabel Esveidy 93907
Emily Kenville 95060
Osvaldo Arana 95076
Silvia Gonzalez 95076
Name Zip code
Rachel Barnes 95060
Jacky Medina 95076
Julie M 95076
Victoria M 95076
Andrea Wemmer 94041
Sarahi M 95076
Keana Aragon 89509
Jessica Alvarado 95076
Alejandra
Alvarado
95076
Gloria Melice 95076
Liza Stein 94710
Kevin Heldt 95001
Sam Sternlight 95060
Karl Bischoff 95076
Justin Bergson 95062
John Seniuk 95062
Doug Damico 95062
Annette Mello 95006
Ariana Jones 95010
Melina Gallardo 95010
Quinn Abbey 95018
Andora Futrell 95018
Brittni Yurchak 95066
Sam Corl 95409
Anne Seales 95062
Sean Gleavy 94122
Randie Silverstein 95065
Giovanna
Pastrone
95030
Silka Jewell 95062
Kym Housr 95010
Melody Hoffman
Myers
95062
Name Zip code
Trina Larson 95076
Robert Preite 95060
Erin Nemecek 95060
Gabriel Zamora 95076
Chosita
Wotanedtum
95003
Kathleen Stratton 950605958
Brandy
Warzewick
95033
Mark Mendoza 95010
Andrew Boose 95066
Ricky Pimentel 95060
Kristen Garringer 12546
Ezra Rose 95005
brenton jones 95003
Catherine King 95003
Karina Guillen 95076
Chavez Adriana 95019
Jamison Maiden 95060
allison texeira 95621
Moises Plascencia 95076
Matthew Huse 95033
Angel Diaz 95019
Ricky DiBattista 95062
Malia Oprisko 92116
Jeff Montion 95076
Jose Alvarez 94603
Jose abraham
Becerril cruz
55220
Aldo Sedano 95128
McCay Ruddick 95062-3217
Hylen James 95062
Samuel Mussetter 95062
Samuel S 95060
Name Zip code
marina garcia 95032
paige mallory 95367
Robert Ramos 95073-9568
Steven Lerma 95066
Jocelin
Dominguez
95019
Luis Ortiz 95019
Aaliyah Segura 95019
Chelsea Dickson 95060
Laura Zuleta 95060
Elizabwth
Busnardo
95060
Araceli Tecpile 95046
Serenity Chavero 93901
Leana Rose 95003
Marcus C. 95148
Kevin Smith 95148
Anthonh Bosso 95073
Craig Jones 95076
Heather Ebeling 95076
Athena Flannery 95060
Elijah K 95240
liz asnault 95242
Alexandra
Murphy
95003
Robert Bowen 95062
Michael Spivey 95003
Krista Medina 95076
Salomon Valdez 95076
Elaiyah Holmes 94550
Ronnie R 95076
Cosme Lobato 95076
Salvador
Hernandez
95976
Name Zip code
Sarah Jeffery 95076
Valerie Gunder El
Kharbotly
95033
Carolyn Roberts 95060
Kasey Haines 93675
Dixie Madsen 82420
Alice Crumrine 95062
Colin Skye 95062
Pedro Garcia 95076
Alejandro Nava 95073
James Price 95065
Susan Green 95018
Caroline Delgado 95020
Mark Meacham 95018
Matthew Caraway 95005
Kristina Buchanan 95062
Athena Silva 95076
Attalyne
Gutierrez
95006
Lark Young 95066
Jet Esteban 95076
Susannah Lee
maddox
95003
Sinjin Baust 93950
Cveteslava
Ivanova
95065
Thomas Laxton 95060
Cassidy Wilkins 95065
Anna Silva 95076
Marisa Badu 94123
Mario Quinonez 95111
Victoria Canter 95060
Devyn Swift 95991
Chris Chmelicek 95076
Name Zip code
Brandon Martin 94702
Xochitl Carrillo 95136-2613
Manny Alvarez 95066
nolan klosterman 90027
Claire Lewis 95112
Canille Sobalvarro 95073
Amanda Thomas 95065
Michael Ferre 95076
Crystin Johnson 95060
Bianca Cruz
Leonardo
92106
jamie lafollette 95073
Karla Ricks 95010
Mechon Scoggins 95112
Camille Trujillo 94602
Lola Quiroga 95060
Carol Morgan 95017
Tamo Willsat 95076
Lynne Andreasen 95060-2936
Miles Babcock 95037
Zak Wood 94110
ellie Guzman 93907
Mowgli McKay 92646
Hailey Tagalicud 95050
Kelly Mosley 95004
Brandon
Livingston-Reed
93940
Brandi Manuelcalvo95005
Thomas Frye 95076
Jenny Roberts 94609
Hailey Fernandes 95380
Beth Davis 96010
Isabella Baxter 95076
Name Zip code
Malyk Johnson 95076
Damian Zaragoza 95076
Monica Bales 95006
Salvador Flores 95020
Wendy Ballen 95010
Analisa
Thompson
93601
Robert Braun 95126
Peter Knox 80224
Cory Anderson 50265
Patricio Teran 07036
Rossy Hernandez 95060
Juan Lara 95060
Layla Dulay 95691
Claire Harden 94559
Steve Lieberherr 48858
Isaiah Ruckman 95060
Justin Cox 95060-4849
Alyna Hobbs 95060
Victoria Brago 90034
Leif Bonfils 95945
Hydie Wyatt 95060
Brian Rochq 95060
Ellen Wesley 95111
paul cheatham 95060
Amber Roccaforte 95033
Danielle Cosgrove 95062
Meline Bennett 95018
Joe Valenzuela 95033
David Goldsberry 95018
Hannah Rogers 95018
Mimi Peleg 95062
Kristopher Falk 95076
Name Zip code
jonathan tolbert 95076
Michael Kolar 95060
Robert Finch 95010
Quianna Cress 95018
Kira King 92651
Alyssia Baly 94403
Samson Higareda 91791
Louis Santia 95065
Duncan Gwynne 95065
Noah Schulz 95060
Adam Durden 95019
John Pocock 95018
Zhangir
Botabekov
92653
DAVID NIST 95062
Carina chavez 95060
Maria carina
Chavez mata
95060
Leeann Buck 95010
Eliana Milla 95020
Jackeline
Castorena
95076
Marly Zenger 83687
Kenton Alm 95003
Kiki Callaghan 94507
Devin Fifeld 95010
Lisa Rainer Read 95062
Debi LauriguetKolar95060
Ruby Tennant 98102
Nora Aron 97209
Valerie Phung 77018
Elizabeth Grace 95060
bella blas 95003
Name Zip code
Angel Vaughn 95062
Aidan McComb 95060
Lowry Panttaja 95065
Ruby Monsen 94060
Desmond Aron 97266
Cassady Monsen 94060
logan small 95060
Thomas Daskaloff 95062
Janet Ferrare 95060
Aki'o Nanamura 95062
Nathen Cannon 94551
Logan Wright 94550
David Olmsted 94551
Victor Hernandez 95076
Jennifer Forrest 95062

GERARDO

RODRIGUEZ
95076
Jennifer Ochoa 93905
Christie Kelley 95066
Nancy Graham 95062
Desiree
McCloskey
95062
Leslee Johsens 95033
Star Estrada 95076
Joanna Villegas 95076
Raul Gaona 95012
Tessa Reynaga 95073
DeAndre Warren 95062
Victoria Grose 60655
Margaret Rocha 95076
paris b 95003
Sarah Reagan 95926
Daria Mattly 95062
Name Zip code
Sol Posada 95073
Gracee Pluto 95060
Dr. LeTa Jussila,
DAOM
95003
Luke Dwyer 95062
Christopher
Fredricks
95062
Hayley Miller 95003
Pam Larwood 95001
Robert D Ackerly 95062
Jordan Pierini 95003
Isaac Garfinkel 95062
Jasmon Dugan 95062
Tracey Kahan 92057
Jordan
Koronkowski
95003
Haley Rae
Clemente
95062
Gavin Kindlon 95018
Adali Cortes 95060
Aaliyah Allmon 95124
Rick Menzies 95060
Joy
Schendledecker
95060
Heather Ritzman 94124
Ernestina Saldana 95062
Ashton Alderman 95067
Amithi Chordiya 95060
Luna Bey 95065
Garrett Badano 95060
Alex Cobb 95010
Eva Erickson 95003
Peter Hartshauser 95076
Stephanie Smith 95060
Sjoerd Broeks 95003
Name Zip code
Graham Mitchell 95073
Sherrie Bly 46062
Ryan Calamia 95010
Hollis Buchanan 95003
tanner chel 95060
Noel Pena 95003
Jade Hildreth 95062
Armando ServinFranco95062
Isabella Springer 95060
Wayne Miller 95060
John Calzada 93901
Skylar Harris 95076
Tri Del 95014
Yotzira Flores 95076
Magdalena Kokot 95076
Haley Ruddick 96826
Erica Pittman 95062
Naomi Embernate 95073
Terri Primavera 95060
Lia Aquino 95067
Jennifer Grigsby 95076
Isabel Coss 95003
Jeremy Bandoni 95060
Nathena Martinez 95076
Kali Herrera 95076
Lira Filippini 95062
Melvee Filippini 95062
Stephen Svete 95060
Samuel Valdivia 95062
Kathryn StClair 95062
Robert Duran 95062
Name Zip code
Schaefer
Roemmele
95060
Cady St. Clair 95062
Mary Wilson 49001
Amy Kaskowitz 95062
Lucas Wade 95060
Joyce schmidt 95076
Lee Brokaw 95062
Gary Patton 95062-1501
Elise Soto 95018
Ron Pomerantz 95060
Angela Marie 95060
Carla Mata 95019
Kelly Oppermann 95062
Candace Brown 95062
Rebecca Huth 95065
Pauline McCrea 94952
Karen Warren 95060
Michelle Baker 95060
Darrol Wood 95076
Susan Martinez 95060
Shelley Hatch 95062
Fred Geiger 95060
Sheila Carrillo 95060
Jonathan Sargent 94024
Shawn Hatten 94024
Valencia Deal 95010
Michael Carballo 95060
Michael Puente 95062
Anup Desai 95073
Judy Clark 95073
Denica De Foy 93950
John Pendo 95060
Name Zip code
Samantha
Sommer
95060
Madeline Roe 95060
Adrian P 95076
Christie Kissinger 95010
Alexandra Welch 95003
Erin Roberts 95062
Guy Berryessa 96781
Julia Conley 95010
Desiree Cassel 95076
Sharon Rose 95005
Brenda Greer 95005
Gevan Shavely 95005
Rose Perkins 95006
Dr. Brooke Dix 95003
Arturo Montanio 95018
Doro Moscovitz 95005
Alan Charles
Tawzer
95005
Zach Birkhahn 95005
Jeff Parry 95006
Ed A 95006
Dawn Breese 95005
Dominick Vaughn 95060
Stew Smith 95018
Kevin F. Foehr 95007
Pedro Luna 95060
Jared Houser 95060
David Hanson 95060
Derek Fohs 95060
Terry Walker 95060
Sandra VinesWalker95060
Jarod O 95060
Name Zip code
Nathan Martisius 95060
Lindsay
Stubblefield
95060
Calvin Garitt 95060
Sarah Holub 95061
Anna Zivian 95060
Jen Smith 95060
Stuart Abel 95060
Marco Foreman 95060
Zack Edwards 95060
Mike Knittin 95060
Richard Rodriguez 95060
Mark Hansen 95060
Manny Sanchez 95060
Brett Miller 95060
Adam Bell 95060
Jeyaehandron
Rathagopal
95060
Dan Rock 95060
Paige Roberts 95060
Scott Alberston 95060
Michelle Leira 95060
Emerson HurleyToombs95060
Debi Giorchino 95949
Samaya Cullerton 95060
Charlene Rivera 95007
Lauri Papay 95050
Hector Rivera 95020
John Oler 95062
Sean Rodriguez 95062
Leslie Ledezma 95076
Joseph
Cunningham
95010
Name Zip code
Kelsey Grim 95060
Kevin Huth 95065
Alexis Rojas 95076
Aidan Fann 95062
Enn Louise
Schendledecker
Demos
95060
Nicole Pappas 95060
Angela
Henrickson
95060
Chris Drennen 93933
Michelle Sohnlein 95062
sarah gray 95003
Jeremy Iglehart 95010
Rich Berger 95076
Angelina
Blumberg
95060
Paul Cuccia 95076
Natasha Fabricant 95060
Grant V 95060
Emily Wells 95076
Slim Heilpern 95003
Roman
Davidovich
95060
Desiree Worthy 95060
Haley Kolus 95060
Dominic Romano 95060
Ntina Renales 95020
Susan Worth 95073
Benjamin Medved 95060
Evie V. 95062
Lucille Brayson 95062
Max Rothe 95757
Evelyn Hernandez 95045
Jason Kadilak 95006
Name Zip code
Sina Panahi 96018
Ashley Hawkins 95076
Ami Mills 95060
Jasmine Waite 95060
Jordyn Waite 95060
Will Kahn 95076
Dr. Oshakula 95060
Nasim Mohr 95060
Amdre DalCorso 95060
Jim Wirt 95060
Leah Carroll 95073
Ayo Banjo 95060
Jill Susskind 95060
Alexandra Henry 95060
Christian Lujano 95060
Vincent Luna 95060
Patch Luna 95060
Jessica Heit 95060
Emery Nocasco 95060
Margo Go 95060
Chloe Rickards 95060
Alyvia Sutton 95060
Aaron Fitzgerald 95062
Keoni Akioka 95060
Ana Avalos 95060
Sayanni Mojica 95060
Samantha
Barragan
95060
Merly Barrameda 95060
Doug Damico 95062
Brent Pederson 95005
Naacy Halllmark 95073
Laura Waldog 95062
Name Zip code
Kyle Slavich 95062
Brad Meyers 95062
Katy Link 95062
Maria Hoffman 95062
Wolfgang
Snyweber
95062
Craig A Hyder 95062
Jesus Candelas 95062
Randy Nelson 95062
Gabriel Rocha 95060
Mayra GonralesAdler95062
Manuel Ruelas 95004
David Gonzales 95060
Rovel Magic 95062
Michael Hopping 95060
Justin Beam 95062
Kieran Killburn 95060
Reuben Lopez 95060
Quinn Passantino 95062
Iden Killburn 95060
Isaiah Parva 95062
David White 95060
Meggan Stringent 95060
Jonathan Strasso 95060
Alina Cress 95018
Steven G Berlin 95018
Cindy Well 95062
Justine Leonard 95060
Misty Mcdonald 95062
Alan Nourishad 95060
Phobe Belcher 95062
Tanna Mectluy 95062
Name Zip code
Elizabeth Hillier 95003
Kevin Walter 95062
Barbara Spencer 95062
Elliot Yeuy 95060
Kate Koepye 95062
Lee Menall 95062
Alejandro A 95062
Brendan Brose 95005
Thomas Feldsted 95060
Thalia Garcia 95066
Ryan Sutton 95060
Jole Espinoza 95060
Bobby Delsadu 95112
William Smith 95062
Ace Gastillo 95018
Nula Lerl 95060
Jason Byer 95062
E Gage Reinmar 95060
Grant Rolston 95062
Anthony Deladaz 95062
Isiah Paz 95062
Jorge Arregnia 95060
Milene Freire 95010
Cole Higbea 95060
Savannah Pele 95060
Lauren Potts 95062
Bryan Denton 95062
Naneth DeGarmo 95060
Dorthy DeGarmo 95060
Linda Raevers 95060
Violette Baker 95060
Casey DeGarmo 95060
Name Zip code
Rabrut Maviu 95062
Jesse DeGarmo 95060
Thea Crowbear 95060
Anne Morbid 95062
AJ DeGarmo 95060
Shannon
Macisaac
95076
Claire Camomile 95062
Sabrina
Barrymore
95060
Edwin Gonzolez 95060
Marissa Hill 95060
James Schalin 95005
Geovana Ferro 95060
Mikey Huynh 95060
Pat Milea 95060
Orlando Alvarado 95060
Banesa
Hernandez
95060
Juliana Perez 95060
Gail Williamson 95060
Cheryl Bennett 95062
Naneth Dellamo 95060
Ellie Mae 95060
Thomas Langan 95062
1 Rosemary Balsley
From: [email protected]
Sent: Monday, May 13, 2024 4:58 PM
To: City Council
Subject: Wamm
• Santa Cruz City Council:

I've followed WAMM since the begining and Valerie is a close personal friend for many years, I have volunteered at their almar location and have seen with my eyes how effective THC/CBD is in stopping seizures in children. I'm also a 100% disabled Vietnam combat veteran. I was capture and tortured. I use medical cannabis to treat my PTSD and arthritis. Santa Cruz is world famous for allowing medical cannabis be given to sick ill cancer patients on the steps of city hall. Over the years WAMM has provided at no charge medical cannabis to thousands of cancer patients. Valerie Corral is a hero. Our own mother Theresa. Santa Cruz should be proud and continue to honor and support her!
Gary Poland
13880 Hwy 9
Boulder Creek ca 95006
(510)860-0583
1129 Mission Street
City Council
May 14, 2024
Site Location
Planning Commission
 March 7th PC Hearing
 Approved 5-2 vote
 COAs address concerns
 Meets requirements, bad govt to move the goal posts
 Limited locations available
 Reso finding for denial are weak
 Difficult to reconcile how close to high school and impacts  Proliferation and potency of cannabis today is a concern  600-foot buffer fully vetted at ordinance adoption
 Students are very mobile and can access other
dispensaries
 SC PD has reviewed application, no concerns, no
complaints or service calls at any existing dispensaries  Strict state rules to gain access
Appeal
 Not in conformance with:
 Commercial Cannabis Use Findings
AUP Findings (General Plan
Policies)
 Question if use is allowed in MU-M
Zone District
Administrative Use Permit
(AUP)
 Cannabis Retail Sales Permitted
in MU-M with:
AUP
Cannabis Retailer License
State Cannabis Retailer License
Cannabis Retail License
 Cannabis Retail License Transfer Approved
 The Hook partnership with WAMM
 Free or Sliding Scale Cannabis to low-income
patients
 Cancer, AIDS, MS, Epilepsy
 WAMM Phytotherapies (WO/Men’s Alliance for
Medical Marijuana)
 Compassionate Care
 Therapeutic-quality
 Accessible and Affordable Cannabis products
 Health, Wellness, and Holistic Care
Retail Use
 Hours 9am to 9pm
 Up to 10 employees
 Up to 3 deliveries/day (8:30am to 3:00pm)
 Labeled Packaged Products
 No Cannabis Products Visible From Exterior
Security
 Security Plan consistent with State and
City Regs
 Perimeter Security, Lighting, Video
Surveillance
 High-Security Steel Doors
 Camera and Alarm System
 Security Plan Approved by SCPD
Performance Standards for
Commercial Cannabis
 Security
 Noise
 Odor (Air Infiltration System)
 No Product Use On Site
 Hours of Operation
 No Loitering
 Litter Removal
 Advertising/Signage Limitations
Siting Criteria
 600-foot buffer from;
 Schools
 Parks
 Day Care Centers
 Youth Centers
 Other Cannabis Retail Outlets
 Santa Cruz High – 850 feet
 Mission Hill Middle School – 1,360 feet
AUP Findings
 1. The proposed use complies with all of the mandatory requirements of this section and other applicable sections of this code and applicable policies of the General Plan and local coastal program if located within the Coastal Zone;  2. The proposed use will not adversely affect the health, safety, or welfare of area residents, businesses, or uses; will not result in an undue concentration of cannabis businesses in any one neighborhood or district; and will not be located within proximity of an incompatible use, such as a children’s school, daycare facility, or youth center;
 3. The operational characteristics of the proposed use, including but not limited to hours of operation, noise, odor, amount and location of parking, signage, loitering, and litter, will not have a negative impact upon the surrounding area;
 4. The proposed use is compatible with the sizes and types of other neighboring uses in the surrounding area, particularly those used primarily by persons under the age of eighteen;
 5. The proposed use is not located in what has been determined by the Santa Cruz police department to be a high-crime area, where a disproportionate number of police service calls occur, or where there is currently parking congestion; and
 6. The proposed use shall meet all the building, electrical, and fire code requirements for such occupancy.

AUP Findings
 2. The proposed use will not adversely affect the health, safety, or welfare of area residents, businesses, or uses; will not result in an undue concentration of cannabis businesses in any one
neighborhood or district; and will not be located within proximity of an incompatible use, such as a children’s school, daycare facility, or youth center;
 4. The proposed use is compatible with the sizes and types of other neighboring uses in the surrounding area, particularly those used primarily by persons under the age of eighteen;
Siting Criteria
SCPD Review
 Cannabis Retail License Transfer &
AUP
 Outside Buffer Zone
 Stringent ID Requirements
 No complaints or Service Calls for
Cannabis Sales to Minors

SC School District Concerns
 Dispensary Location Along Common
Route for Students
 Fake IDs and Medical Cannabis
Cards
 Impact of THC on Youth
 Impact of Dispensaries to Schools
 School Data on Marijuana Use
Cannabis Data/Age
Restrictions
 Effects of Marijuana on Young
People
 Effectiveness of ID Policies
 Condition of Approval to Not Sell
Cannabis to Anyone Under 19 Years
of Age
General Plan Designation
 Mixed-Use Medium Density (MXMD)
 “businesses that serve the general needs of the
community, including retail, service, and office
establishments. Typical uses in these areas include
restaurants, grocery stores, furniture stores,
general merchandise, medical and legal offices,
and auto parts stores, as well as mixed-use
projects that include these commercial uses on the
ground floor”
General Plan Policies
• LU3.2.1 – Pursue the expansion of employment-intensive uses that have long-term economic viability.
• ED1.1.1 – Encourage the development of diverse, innovative, and sustainable business enterprises that reinforce Santa Cruz’s position as a regional employment, cultural, visitor, and shopping center.
• ED1.1.2 – Support the development and expansion of
businesses that make a balanced contribution to the cultural, environmental, and economic health of the city.
• ED2.1.2 – Maintain and expand retail sales tax opportunities within the city.
• ED6.3 – Foster and retain locally owned businesses and startups.

General Plan Policies
• “Commitment to education through our schools,
educational systems and programs.”
• CC7.4 - Enhance programs designed to reinforce
positive juvenile behavior and prevent delinquency.
• CC7.4.3 - Work with Santa Cruz City Schools and private schools to provide drug prevention.
• CC8.4.1 - Implement the Safe Routes to School program where funded.
• CC8.3.4 – Work with appropriate agencies to develop
aggressive prevention and early intervention efforts
toward reduction educational failure and other
problems for children and youth.

Mission Street Urban Design
Plan
 Retail Uses Encouraged
 Meets Goals:
Enhance Economic Vitality
Pedestrian Oriented
Local-Serving
Reduction of Auto Use
Recommendation
Consider the Planning Commission’s approval and the information provided and make a determination to:
1) Adopt a resolution denying the appeal, recognizing the environmental determination, and upholding the Planning Commission’s decision to approve the Administrative Use Permit to establish a cannabis retail facility at 1129 Mission Street; OR
2) Adopt a resolution upholding the appeal and denying the Administrative Use Permit to establish a cannabis retail facility at 1129 Mission Street.

End
Marijuana and
Adolescents
MELINDA WHITE D.O. AND SARAH MAUFE M.D.

SANTA CRUZ PHYSICIANS
Research is clear, 100s of studies agree:
marijuana is harmful for teens
 The effect of cannabis 1-2x/wk on a 14-25 year old brain is dramatically different than an adult brain (smoking, vaping or edibles)  Agreed upon by:
 American Academy of Pediatrics
 National Institute of Health
 Center for Disease Control and Prevention
 American Academy of Family Physicians
 U.S. Food and Drug Administration
 American Psychological Association
 American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry
Marijuana stunts brain development
when used during adolescence
 Delays cognitive development
 Impairs memory, ability to focus, judgement, planning and decision making  Alters mood and self-regulation
 Inhibits normal physical development, coordination and reflexes  Fosters unhealthy coping mechanisms, disrupts emotional processing  Disrupts normal sleeping and eating patterns
 Accelerates inflammatory and immune responses
Consequences of altered brain
development:
 More injuries and accidental deaths (car accidents)
 Increases depression, suicidality, and psychosis
 Increases difficulty with relationships
 Increases rate of school drop-out
 Increases truancy, aggression and trouble with the law  Increases risk of substance use disorder (almost 20%) Increased mental illness
 2-5 times the rate of depression and anxiety compared to nonusers
 4x more likely to develop schizophrenia and bipolar-like episodes
 Increased suicidality (thoughts, attempts and death)
Even occasional use had strong associations to
adverse mental health and life outcomes for teens
 Columbia U. study of 68,263 adolescents, 2022
 Frequent and occasional users had similar rates of major depression and suicidality, both higher than nonusers
 Any marijuana use (frequent or occasional) was associated with:
 2-3x more cognitive deficits
 2-4x more likely to have trouble with the law, fighting  2.5-3.5x to report a low GPA
Increased risk of addiction
 Substance use disorder: persistent use despite negative consequences at work, school or home
 In most adults the rate is 9% with cannabis
 When people start using as a teen the rate jumps to 17% The built environment plays a role in
adolescent substance use
 Liquor store density around adolescents’ homes has been correlated with binge drinking
 Tobacco outlet density is correlated with increased cigarette use  Vaping stores near high schools was associated with increased adolescent e-cigarette use
 Multiple studies like these had similar conclusions: Reducing access by limiting retailer density and proximity may lead to reductions in use.  Based on these consistent trends Oregon requires cannabis retailers to be at least 1,000 feet from schools and restricts any signs that might appeal to minors.

Advertising online and storefront signs
increase cannabis use
Seeing advertisements was associated with
 2x increased cannabis use compared to those that didn’t see it
 Perceiving cannabis as less harmful
 Increased intention to use
Proximity to dispensary influences use
 Adults that live within 0.8 miles of a retailer increase their frequency of use (Washington)
 Young adults who live in neighborhoods with dispensaries use cannabis more frequently than their peers (Los Angeles)  11th graders attending a high school within one mile of a cannabis retailer were more likely to use edibles, dab, or smoke cannabis than peers (Oregon)
Increased visibility reduces perceived risks
 Youth living near dispensaries have more positive views about the drug (LA)
 8th graders living near cannabis retailers have a lower perceived harm of cannabis use (OR)
 The perceived risk of harm of weekly cannabis use decreased by nearly half (47.5% to 27.4%) 2012-2022 (U.S. Survey)  As perceptions of cannabis improve, use is expected to continue to increase
Cannabis use is increasing!
So is the amount of THC.
 AACAP: “Teenage marijuana use is at its highest level in 30 years”. 2023  Survey of over 3 million kids in CA: Recreational marijuana legalization was associated with an increase in adolescent marijuana use in 2017– 2018 and 2018–2019. J Studies Alcohol and Drugs
 Survey of 17 studies, 200,00 kids: Vaping pot among school-aged youth increased 7-fold between 2013 and 2020 (from 1.6% to 8.4%), 2022 JAMA  Cannabis use ages 12+ increased 11.6% to 17.9% over last decade, 2022 U.S. Survey on Drug Use and Health
 The average cannabis product has 4x more THC than it did in the 1990s  Higher potency cannabis associated with increased risk of psychosis, addiction, and other adverse outcomes
California Healthy Kids Survey 2019-2021:

Results not reliable due to pandemic
 Reported that current marijuana use had decreased across all ages  Kids were not in school 3/2020-4/2021
 Self-reported data
 Isolated, socially disabled, limited access
 Post-pandemic socialization was extremely atypical
 Low attendance in school, fewer social activities overall for 1-2 yrs  More recent results not yet available
Current marijuana use in SC City schoolson the rise?
 Based on disciplinary data- YES!
 91 incidents that resulted in students being suspended for possession or use of a controlled substance during the school day (2022-2023)  95% involved marijuana
 This number more than doubled from 2021-2022
 Given the national and state trends that demonstrate increased use, and the observed trends seen by parents, teachers, therapists, doctors and administrators, there is concern that the marijuana use among our teens is actually substantially higher than in the past
 More current data is needed before we let down our guard! Mental illness in Santa Cruz County youth
is increasing!
 2021: 44% of SC students in grades 7,9,11 and in nontraditional schools felt persistently sad or hopeless in the past year  13% increase since 2019
 2020: higher rate of hospitalizations for mental health issues among children 5-19
 Santa Cruz County (5.7 children per 1,000 population)  The State of California (4.8 per 1000)
 Studies show depression has strong links to increased substance use, future substance use disorder
 An estimated 1/3 of people with clinical depression engage in substance use as a form of self-medication
Summary
 Multiple studies show the frequency of use increases and the perceived risk decreases when there is closer proximity to a cannabis retailer
 Increasing use of marijuana by adolescents, even occasionally, impairs their social and emotional development, increases school drop out rates and accidents, and increases mental illness and risk of future substance abuse
 We already have a mental health crisis among our kids, which we can expect to worsen with increased marijuana access
 Placement of dispensaries is a matter of public health, and we need proceed cautiously to protect our youth. This dispensary is too close to the schools.

References
Dan I. Lubman, Ali Cheetham, Murat Yücel,Cannabis and adolescent brain development, Pharmacology & Therapeutics, Volume 148, 2015, Pages 1-16, ISSN 0163-7258,
Kateryna Murlanova, Yuto Hasegawa, Atsushi Kamiya, Mikhail V. Pletnikov, Chapter 14 - Cannabis effects on the adolescent brain, Editor(s): Miriam Melis, Olivier JJ. Manzoni, Cannabis and the Developing Brain, Academic Press, 2022, Pages 283-330, ISBN 9780128234907 National Institute on Drug Abuse. (2019). Marijuana DrugFacts. https://www.drugabuse.gov/publications/ drugfacts/marijuana National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine. (2017). The health effects of cannabis and cannabinoids: The current state of evidence and recommendations for research. National Academies Press. https://doi.org/10.17226/24625 Mikos, R. A., & Kam, C. D. (2019). Has the “M” word been framed? Marijuana, cannabis, and public opinion. PLoS One, 14(10). https://doi.org/10.1371/ journal.pone.0224289
National Hispanic Caucus of State Legislators. (2017). Providing a legal framework when jurisdictions decide to decriminalize, commercialize and tax cannabis. https://nhcsl.org/resources/ resolutions/2017/2017-12/ Ammerman, S., Ryan, S., & Adelman, W. P. (2015). The impact of marijuana policies on youth: Clinical, research, and legal update. Pediatrics, 135(3), e769- e785. https://doi.org/10.1542/peds.2014-4147
Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration. (2020). Key substance use and mental health indicators in the United States: Results from the 2019 National Survey on Drug Use and Health. https://www. samhsa.gov/data/sites/default/files/reports/ rpt29393/2019NSDUHFFRPDFWHTML/ 2019NSDUHFFR090120.htm
Center for Behavioral Health Statistics and Quality. (2020). Results from the 2019 National Survey on Drug Use and Health: Detailed tables. https:// www.samhsa.gov/ data/sites/default/ files/reports/ rpt29394/ NSDUHDetailedTabs2019/ NSDUHDetailedTabs2019.pdf American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry. (2017). Marijuana legalization. https://www. aacap.org/ AACAP/Policy_Statements/ 2014/ aacap_ marijuana_legalization_policy.aspx
Casadio, P., Fernandes, C., Murray, R. M., & Di Forti, M. (2011). Cannabis use in young people: The risk for schizophrenia. Neuroscience & Biobehavioral Reviews, 35(8), 1779-1787. https://doi. org/10.1016/ j.neubiorev.2011.04.00 Petrilli K, Ofori S, Hines L, Taylor G, Adams S, Freeman TP. Association of cannabis potency with mental ill health and addiction: a systematic review.

Lancet Psychiatry. 2022 Sep;9(9):736-750. doi: 10.1016/S2215-0366(22)00161-4 Sultan RS, Zhang AW, Olfson M, Kwizera MH, Levin FR. Nondisordered Cannabis Use Among US Adolescents. JAMA Netw Open. 2023;6(5):e2311294. doi:10.1001/jamanetworkopen.2023.11294 National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. Marijuana and actual driving performance. Publication no. 808–078. Washington, DC: US Department of Transportation; 1993. Available at: http://druglibrary.org/schaffer/misc/driving/driving.htm.

Schweinsburg AD, Nagel BJ, Schweinsburg BC, Park A, Theilmann RJ, Tapert SF. Abstinent adolescent marijuana users show altered fMRI response during spatial working memory. Psychiatry Res. 2008; 163 (1):40-51 Silins E, Horwood LJ, Patton GC, et al. Young adult sequelae of adolescent cannabis use: an integrative analysis. Lancet Psychiatry. 2014;1(4):286–293. Available at: www.thelancet.com/journals/a/article/PIIS2215-0366(14)70307-4/fulltext.

Moore THM, Zammit S, Lingford-Hughes A, et al. Cannabis use and risk of psychotic or affective mental health outcomes: a systematic review. Lancet. 2007;370(9584):319–328. Available at: www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17662880.

Shih RA, Rodriguez A, Parast L, Pedersen ER, Tucker JS, Troxel WM, Kraus L, Davis JP, D’Amico EJ, Rand. Associations Between Young Adult Marijuana Outcomes and Availability of Medical Marijuana Dispensaries and Storefront Signage Addiction (2019). doi: 10.1111/add.14711 Hust SJ, Willoughby JF, Li J, Couto L. Youth’s Proximity to Marijuana Retailers and Advertisements: Factors Associated with Washington State Adolescents’ Intentions to Use Marijuana. J of Health Communication. 2020 Jul 2;25(7):594-603. doi:10.1080/10810730.2020.1825568 Firth CL, Carlini B, Dilley J, Guttmannova K, Hajat A. Retail cannabis environment and adolescent use: The role of advertising and retailers near home and school. Health & Place. 2022; Vol. 75, 102795. Available at https://doi.org/10.1016/j.healthplace.2022.102795.

Volkow ND, Baler RD, Compton WM, Weiss SRB. Adverse health effects of marijuana use. N Engl J Med. 2014;370(23):2219–2227. Available at:
www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMra1402309?query=featured_home&.

Everson EM, Dilley JA, Maher JE, Mack CE. Post-Legalization Opening of Retail Cannabis Stores and Adult Cannabis Use in Washington State, 2009-2016. American J Public Health. 2019; 109(9):1294-1301. doi 10.2105/AJPH.2019.305191.

Adams ML, Jason LA, Pokorny S, Hunt Y. Exploration of the link between tobacco retailers in school neighborhoods and student smoking. J School Health. 2013; 83(2):112-118. doi: 10.1111/josh.12006.

Lee JG, Kong AY, Sewell KB, Golden SD, Combs TB, Ribisl KM, Henriksen L. Associations of tobacco retailer density and proximity with adult tobacco use behaviours and health outcomes: a meta-analysis. Tobacco Control. 2022 Dec;31(e2):e189-e200. doi:

10.1136/tobaccocontrol-2021-056717. Epub 2021 Sep 3.

Lopez-Quintero C, Pérez de los Cobos J, Hasin DS, et al. Probability and predictors of transition from first use to dependence on nicotine, alcohol, cannabis, and cocaine:
results of the National Epidemiologic Survey on Alcohol and Related Conditions (NESARC). Drug Alcohol Depend. 2011;115(1-2):120-130. doi:10.1016/j.drugalcdep.2010.11.004
Agrawal A, Neale MC, Prescott CA, Kendler KS. A twin study of early cannabis use and subsequent use and abuse/dependence of other illicit drugs. Psychol Med. 2004;34(7):1227-1237.

Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration (SAMHSA). Results from the 2010 National Survey on Drug Use and Health: summary of national findings.

Accessed March 13, 2023. https://www.samhsa.gov/data/sites/default/files/NSDUHresults2010/NSDUHresults2010.htm Paschall MJ, Garcia-Ramirez G, Grube JW. Recreational Marijuana Legalization and Use Among California Adolescents: Findings From a Statewide Survey. Journal of Studies on Alcohol and Drugs, 82(1), 103–111 (2021). https://doi.org/10.15288/jsad.2021.82.103 Turner S, Mota N, Bolton J, Sareen J. Self‐medication with alcohol or drugs for mood and anxiety disorders: A narrative review of the epidemiological literature. J Depression and Anxiety.2018: Sep; 35(9): 851–860. doi: 10.1002/da.22771 Lim CCW, Sun T, Leung J. Prevalence of Adolescent Cannabis Vaping: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of US and Canadian Studies JAMA Pediatr. 2022;176(1):42-51. doi:10.1001/jamapediatrics.2021.4102 Volkow ND, Swanson JM, Evins AE. Effects of cannabis use on human behavior, including cognition, motivation and psychosis: A review. JAMA Psychiatry. 2016; 73(3): 292-297. Doi: 10.1001/jamapsychiatry.2015.3278.

Burggren AC, Shirazi A, Ginder N, London ED. Cannabis effects on brain structure, function, and cognition: considerations for medical uses of cannabis and its derivatives. Am J Drug Alcohol Abuse. 2019;45(6):563-579. doi: 10.1080/00952990.2019.1634086. Epub 2019 Jul 31. PMID: 31365275; PMCID: PMC7027431.

Chen M, Grube JW, Gruenewald. Community alcohol outlet density and underage drinking. Addiction. 2010; 105(2) :270-278. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1360- 0443.2009.02772.x
D'Amico EJ, Miles JNV, Tucker JS. (2015). Gateway to curiosity: Medical marijuana ads and intention and use during middle school. Psychology of Addictive Behaviors, 29(3), 613–619. https://doi.org/10.1037/adb0000094 DiFranza JR, Wellman RJ, Sargent JD, Weitzman M, Hipple BJ, Winickoff JP. Tobacco Promotion and the Initiation of Tobacco Use: Assessing the Evidence for Causality. Pediatrics (2006) 117 (6): e1237–e1248. https://doi.org/10.1542/peds.2005-1817 Finan LJ, Lipperman-Kreda S, Abadi M, Grube JW, Kaner E, Balassone A, Gaidus A. Tobacco Outlet Density and Adolescents’ Cigarette Smoking: A Meta-analysis.

Tobacco Control. 2019 Jan:28(1):27-33. doi: 10.1136/tobaccocontrol-2017-054065 Giovenco DP, Casseus M, Duncan DT, Coups EJ, Lewis MJ, Delnevo CD. Association between electronic cigarette marketing near schools and E-cigarette use among youth. J Adolescent Health. 2016; 59, 627-634. :https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jadohealth.2016.08.007 WAMM Phytotherapies
& The Hook Outlet
May 14, 2024 Bryce Berryessa
Valerie Corral
Allen Hopper Esq.

Presented by :

Santa Cruz City Council
Presented to :

A Local Legacy of Compassion and Care
X
Introducing a landmark partnership between WAMM Phytotherapies and The Hook at 1129 Mission St., Santa Cruz. This collaboration represents a commitment to compassionate care, community engagement, and access to therapeutic-quality cannabis.

Exceeding Compliance: Setting a
New Standard for Responsibility
The project was overwhelmingly approved by the
planning commission and meets all of the objective
standards laid out in the City Zoning Code, showcasing
compliance for parking, retail use, and security measures as approved by the Santa Cruz Police Department.

Aligning with Santa Cruz's Vision:

Comprehensive Compliance with the
General Plan
The proposed use is consistent with seventeen (17) policies under the City of Santa Cruz General Plan
The proposed use is consistent with five (5) appropriate uses within the Mission Street Urban Design Plan.

The project meets five (5) of the area-wide land use and redevelopment strategy plan objectives and policies for the “Westside Zone” of the city.

Education and Community Initiatives consistent with
general plan policies: CC7.4, CC74.3, CC8.4.1, CC8.3.4
Intended to Protect The Health Safety and Welfare of
Children and Youth
*Estimated annual contribution
Community Prevention Partners Cannabis
SubCommittee
Talk It Up, Lock It Up
Polysubstance Impaired Driving
SafeCannabis.net
Safe Cannabis Season Annual Educational Campaign
$63,000 Annually to the City of Santa Cruz Children's
Fund*
Santa Cruz School District lacks data on the sources of confiscated cannabis. It is unable to distinguish if it originates from the black market, psychoactive hemp market, obtained in the home, or from a legal outlet.

There is no established mechanism to train staff in identifying the differences between legal, illicit, or hemp-derived cannabis products.

The Healthy Kids survey does not include questions about the methods students use to acquire cannabis.

Both City Police and the County Cannabis Licensing Office have confirmed there are no incidents of dispensaries selling cannabis to minors since legalization.

Lack of Data Surrounding Youth
Possession in Schools
Current Cannabis Use | One or more days in the past 30 days Results Disaggregated by: All Students
County: Santa Cruz | Trends Over Time
Santa Cruz Healthy Kids Survey
Very Drunk or High 7 or More Times | Lifetime
Results Disaggregated by: All Students
County: Santa Cruz | Trends Over Time
Santa Cruz Healthy Kids Survey
Lifetime AOD Use on School Property | Lifetime
Results Disaggregated by: All Students
County: Santa Cruz | Trends Over Time
Santa Cruz Healthy Kids Survey

The Federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention's (CDC) Youth Risk Behavior Survey (YRBS) revealed key findings about teen marijuana use in relation to the opening of legal dispensaries.

Decline in Teen Cannabis Use: The study found a consistent decrease in both current and lifetime cannabis use among high school students over the past decade. This decline is notable since it occurred after the uptrend in usage from 2009-2013, before the opening of legal cannabis dispensaries.

Consistent Findings Across Studies: Other studies, including those funded by the National Institute on Drug Abuse and research conducted in states like Colorado and California also found no increase in youth cannabis use post-legalization. Many of these studies indicate a decline or no significant change in adolescent cannabis use.

An April 2024 American Medical Association research letter analyzing results from 207,781 respondents to the Youth Risk Behavior Survey finds that “After Legalization, there was no evidence of an increase in marijuana use,” nor did the opening of cannabis retail stores seem to impact youth use.

An April 2024 American Medical Association (AMA) report reveals that legalizing adult-use cannabis and opening retail stores in U.S. states did not increase youth cannabis use. In fact, these reforms were linked to more young people reporting that they don't use cannabis, alcohol, or vape products. The study drew from 47 states, looking at responses from 898,271 ninth - twelfth-grade students. Passage of recreational cannabis laws (RCL) “was not associated with adolescents’ likelihood or frequency of cannabis use,.” In December, a U.S. health official highlighted that teen cannabis use has not increased despite the spread of state legalization. Marsha Lopez, chief of the National Institute on Drug Abuse’s (NIDA) epidemiological research branch, noted,'There have been no substantial increases at all.' Interestingly, teens also don't report feeling that cannabis is easier to obtain.

Dispelling Myths: The Hook
Westside and Youth Impact
Verkada Camera Data at the premises,
analyzing pedestrian traffic during
school commute and lunch times from
April 25 - May 10, does not support the
claim that the intersection is a major
artery for students on their way to
school.

Average Daily
Foot Traffic*
22 Average
7:30am-8:30am
4 Average
11:30am-12:30pm
8 Average
3:30pm-4:45pm
10 Pedestrian Data April 25th - May 10th 2024
Based on footage of pedestrian traffic by 1129 Mission Street with a backpack:

1.32% of the Santa Cruz High + Mission Hill
Population (of 1,670 Students)
*Pedestrian foot traffic data collected during school commute and lunch period Average Daily
Foot Traffic
43 Average
7:30am-8:30am
8 Average
11:30am-12:30pm
16 Average
3:30pm-4:45pm
19 Pedestrian Data April 25th - May 10th 2024*

2.57% of the Santa Cruz High + Mission Hill
Population (of 1,670 Students)
*Includes all non-motorized traffic at Mission and Laurel Streets and the intersection directly abutting 1129 Mission St.

Strategic Selection Amidst Regulatory
Challenges and Strict Zoning Requirments
The proposed dispensary location is situated 850 feet away from Santa Cruz High School, exceeding the required minimum distance by 250 feet, which represents a 142% increase beyond the mandatory setback distance.

Aligning with Established Precedents:

Current zoning and setbacks work as evidenced by the harmonious operations of Licensed city and county cannabis retailers.

The unique layout of our city means that every dispensary currently operating, due to density and spatial dynamics, is located within a comparable distance by path of travel to sensitive use areas, similar to our proposed location. In fact, one notable dispensary. Kind Peoples was even granted a variance due to its proximity to a sensitive use area.

Reefside is less than 60ft From Mariannes Ice Cream, a popular hangout for youth and families Proactively Addressing Concerns with
Informed Solutions and Compromise
The establishment shall not admit or transact medical cannabis to anyone under the age of 19
Amendment to exterior design to ensure no transactions or cannabis products are viewable from any public right of way
Resubmittal of proposed signage plan decreasing proposed exterior signage to one singular monument sign.

The creation of safecannabis.net an educational repository with resources for the community.

Enhanced security measures utilizing live camera monitoring to detect loitering, shoulder tapping, presence of youth in parking lot or around premises.

Store will open AFTER school is in session on weekdays (9am-9pm proposed operating hours)
The Discretion Afforded by Section 24.12.1300.4.B is Patterned After Early Versions of the County’s Cannabis Ordinance Intended to Protect WAMM.

City Ordinance Section 24.12.1300.4.B must be read in conjunction with the City’s other cannabis permitting rules and in a manner such that it does not grant the hearing body unfettered discretion to deny a permit where all of the City’s specific requirements are met. The only sensible interpretation here is that 24.12.1300.4.B is meant to allow denial of a permit based on health and safety concerns not otherwise addressed by the cannabis ordinance or other land use ordinances.

Here, the opponents' only health and safety concern appears to be “proximity” to the high school, but proximity to a school is specifically addressed by the 600’ setback requirement imposed by the City’s ordinance and state law.

Indeed, Section 24.12.1300.2.D explicitly allows the City Council discretion to grant a permit even where the site is too close to a sensitive use area and the applicant, therefore, cannot comply with the 600’ setback requirement.

There is no comparable language granting discretion to deny a permit on the basis of proximity to a school where the proposed location fully complies with the 600’ setback requirement, as is the case here. To deny the permit on the basis of 24.12.1300.4.B under these circumstances would be in effect to grant unfettered discretion to the City and very likely subject the City to liability.

WAMM’s Partnership with The Hook is Appropriate and Necessary for WAMM’s Survival.

Finally, this Council should reject any suggestion that the proposed project should not garner the benefit of WAMM’s long history of public service and close collaboration with the City and County due to the fact that the proposed project is undertaken jointly with a for-profit licensed operator, The Hook dispensary. The sad truth is that despite efforts by many supporters to preserve and protect WAMM’s pioneering non-profit collective garden model, in fact, WAMM and its patient members have been left behind and abandoned by the new multi-billion dollar commercial cannabis market. The economic reality for WAMM is that its only means of survival is partnership with a for-profit benefactor. The Hook and Bryce Berryessa are to be commended for this endeavor and support for WAMM, and WAMM’s partnership with The Hook at the Emily’s Bakery location should certainly not be held against WAMM or serve to justify denying the permit and destroying WAMM.

Enhancing Community Well-Being
Through Compassionate Cannabis Care
“The collaboration with WAMM will provide financial
security for WAMM, offer a community meeting space
on the westside for members and ensure that a
segment of the sales goes towards providing free or
sliding-scale cannabis to low-income patients suffering from severe medical conditions like cancer, AIDS, MS,
and epilepsy. WAMM has been providing this service to
those in need for decades and with this location and
partnership will continue to do so for years to come”
Our Final Appeal: Championing
Community and Compassion
This initiative represents a collaborative effort between WAMM and The Hook, two organizations dedicated to
enhancing our community's welfare. Our proposal aligns
seamlessly with the city's General Plan and adheres strictly to Santa Cruz's regulatory framework. We respectfully call on the City Council to recognize the Planning Commissions wisdom in regards to the value and compliance of this project and support our mission to advance compassionate care and
continue the legacy of WAMM and its partner The Hook.

Thank you,
Santa Cruz
Proactively Addressing Concerns
with Informed Solutions
The establishment shall not admit or transact medical cannabis to anyone under the age of 19
Amendment to exterior design to ensure no transactions or cannabis products are viewable from any public right of way
Resubmittal of proposed signage plan decreasing proposed exterior signage to one singular monument sign.

The creation of safecannabis.net an educational repository with resources for the community.

Enhanced security measures utilizing live camera monitoring to detect loitering, shoulder tapping, presence of youth in parking lot or around premises.

Store will open AFTER school is in session on weekdays (9am-9pm proposed operating hours)

26.1 26.2

26.3 27.1

27.2 27.3

27.4 27.5

27.6 27.7

27.8 27.9

27.10 27.11

27.12

Santa Cruz City CouncilMay 14, 2024

Santa Cruz City Council
May 14, 2024