Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMINUTES - 03072006 - SD.3 SD.3 THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA Adopted this Order on March 7, 2006 by the following vote: AYES: Supervisors Gioia, Uilkema, Piepho, and DeSaulnier NOES: None ABSENT: Supervisor Federal D. Glover ABSTAIN: None ACCEPTED application for leave to file late claim filed by Transbay Fire Prevention Systems, Inc. I hereby certify that this is a true and correct copy of and action taken and entered on the minutes of the Board of Supervisors on the date shown. Attested:March 7, 2006 John Sweeten,Clerk of the Board of Supervisors and County Administrator By: 0 Deputy Clerk APPLICATION TO FILE LATE CLAIM BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY, CALIFORNIA BOARD ACTION MARCH 07, 2006 Application to File Late Claim ) NOTICE TO APPLICANT Against the County, Routing ) The copy of this document mailed to you is your Endorsements, and Board Action.) notice of the action taken on your application by (All Section References are to ) the Board of Supervisors (Paragraph III, below), California Government Code.) ) given pursuant to Government Code Sections 911.8 and 915.4. Please note the "WARNING"below. Claimant: TRANSBAY FIRE PREVENTION SYSTEMS, INC. Attorney: DOUGLAS A. KROLL Address: LAW OFFICES OF DAVID W. GINN 1981 BROADWAY, SUITE 275 Amount: WALNUT CREEK, CA 94596 By delivery to Clerk on: : FEBRUARY O1, 2006 $480,754.57 Date Received: FEBRUARY 01, 2006 By mail,postmarked on: HAND DELIVERED I. FROM: Clerk of the Board of Supervisors TO: County Counsel Attached is a copy of the above noted Application to File Late Claim. DATED: FEBRUARY 02, -- 06 - JOHN SWEETEN, Clerk, By: DEPUTY II. FROM: County Counsel TO: derk of the;Board of Supervisors (� The Board should grant this Application to File Late Claim (Section 911.6). ( ) The Board should deny this Application to File Late Claim (Section 911.6). DATED: 3— ,4,—(g & SILVANO B. MARCHESI, County Counsel,By: Djd,4 Im EPUTY III. BOARD ORDER By unanimous vote of Supervisors present Check one only) ( This Application is granted (Section 911.6). ( ) This Application to File Late Claim is denied (Section 911.6). I certify that this a true and correct copy of the Board's Or er entered in its minutes for this date. DATE: M., U H N C L'[.,11 E 1 � Clerk, By: DEPUTY WARNING (Gov. Code §911.8) If you wish to file a court action on this matter,you must first petition the appropriate court for an order relieving you from the provisions of Government Code Section 945.4 (claims presentation requirement). See Government Code Section 946.6. Such petition must be filed with the court within six (6) months from the date your apj?jcation for leave to present a late claim was denied. You may seek the advice of an attorney of your choice in connection with this matter. If you want to consult an attorney,you should do so immediately. IV. FROM: Clerk of the Board TO: (1) County Counsel (2) County Administrator Attached are copies of the above Application. We notified the applicant of the Board's action on this Application by mailing a copy of this document, and a memo thereof has be n filed and endorsed on the Board's copy of this Claim in accordance with Section 29703. DATED:' ; 0 JOHN C C1 LL E N Clerk,By: DEPUTY V. FROM: (1) Co my Counsel (2) County Administrator TO: Clerk of the Board of Supervisors Received copies of this Application and Board Order. DATED: County Counsel, By: County Administrator,By: APPLICATION TO FILE LATE CLAIM APPLICATION TO FILE LATE CLAIM BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF CONTRA COSTA COUNTY. CALIFORNIA BOARD ACTION RE-LISTED ON MARCH 07' 2006 AA Application to File Late Claim ) NOTICE TO APPLICANT Against the County, Routing ) The copy of this document mailed to you is your Endorsements, and Board Action.) notice of the action taken on your application by (All Section References are to ) the Board of Supervisors (Paragraph III, below), California Government Code.) ) given pursuant to Government Code Sections 911.8 and 915.4. Please note the "WARNING"below. Claimant: TRANSBAY FIRE PREVENTION SYSTEMS, INC. Attorney: DOUGLAS A. KROLL I FEB O 2 2006 Address: LAW OFFICES OF DAVID W. GINN COUNTY COUNSEL 1981 BROADWAY, SUITE 275 MARTINEZ CALIF. Amount- WALNUT CREEK, CA 94596 By delivery to Clerk on: FEBRUARY 01, 2006 =----$480,754.57 Date Received: FEBRUARY 01, 2006 By mail,postmarked on: HAND DELIVERED I. FROM: Clerk of the Board of Supervisors TO: County Counsel Attached is a copy of the above noted Application to File Late Claim. DATED: FEBRUARY 02, 2khN SWEETEN, Clerk, By: DEPUTY II. FROM: County Counsel TO: Cle of the Board of Supervisors ( ) The Board should grant this Application to File Late Claim (Section 911.6). (V4� The Board should deny this Application to File Late Claim (Section 911.6). DATED: ''�� SILVANO B. MARCHESI, County Counsel,By: O DEPUTY III. BOARD ORDER By unanimous vote of Supervisors present (Check one only) ( ) This Application is granted (Section 911.6). ( ) This Application to File Late Claim is denied (Section 911.6). I certify that this a true and correct copy of the Board's Order entered in its minutes for this date. DATE: JOHN SWEETEN,Clerk,By: DEPUTY WARNING (Gov. Code §911.8) If you wish to file a court action on this matter, you must first petition the appropriate court for an order relieving you from the provisions of Government Code Section 945.4 (claims presentation requirement). See Government Code Section 946.6. Such petition must be filed with the court within six (6) months from the date your avocation for leave to present a late claim was denied. You may seek the advice of an attorney of your choice in connection with this matter. If you want to consult an attorney,you should do so immediately. IV. FROM: Clerk of the Board TO: (1) County Counsel (2) County Administrator Attached are copies of the above Application. We notified the applicant of the Board's action on this Application by mailing a copy of this document, and a memo thereof has been filed and endorsed on the Board's copy of this Claim in accordance with Section 29703. DATED: JOHN SWEETEN,Clerk, By: DEPUTY V. FROM: (1) County Counsel (2) County Administrator TO: Clerk of the Board of Supervisors Received copies of this Application and Board Order. DATED: County Counsel,By: County Administrator,By: APPLICATION TO FILE LATE CLAIM • � . RE: APPLICATION BY TRANSBAY FIRE PROTECTION, INC. FOR LEAVE TO PRESENT LATE CLAIM: TRANSBAY FIRE PREVENTION ) SYSTEMS, INC. ) 3 1 2006 Against the County of Contra Costa ) F`_� CLERK r.':5F§�-,.•'.T,F,Ji'Efivis6As GIM!FlUt COSTA CO. ) The undersigned claimant hereby makes application to.the Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors for leave to present a late claim pursuant to Government Code Sections 911.4 through 912.21. This Application is made by claimant Transbay Fire Prevention Systems, Inc. ("TRANSBAY") in response to the January 20, 2006 "Statutory Warning Pursuant To Government Code Section 911.3"received by TRANSBAY'S designated and assigned agent in the context of this claim, The Law Offices of David W. Gini. A true and correct copy of this January 20, 2006 "Statutory Warning" from the Office of the County Counsel—County of Contra Costa, is attached hereto as Exhibit "I", and incorporated herein by this reference. 1. THE PREVIOUSLY SUBMITTED CLAIM: On January 20, 2006, TRANSBAY submitted a claim ("the Claim") against the County of Contra Costa in the amount of$480,754.57,based on the alleged breach by the County of its mandatory duty under California Civil Code Section 3186 to withhold monies due or to become due to the contractor in an amount sufficient to answer the claim stated in TRANSBAY'S Stop Notice which was served on the County on or about December 14, 2004, and for failure to provide for the public entity's reasonable costs of any litigation thereunder. A true and correct copy of the Claim is attached hereto as l • Exhibit "2", and is submitted herewith in compliance with California Government Code Section 911.4(b). Transbay's Claim expressly asserts that the first official confirmation that Transbay ever received of the County's failure to perform its statutory duties in this context was during the deposition of the County's counsel, David Sclunidt, on July 22, 2005,in the context of currently pending litigation arising out of the Project. During this deposition, Mr. Schmidt testified that the County had not set aside any monies in response to Transbay's Stop Notice because it believed that it was entitled to use all of the construction funds for completion of the Project." TRANSBAY contends that, based on the above, the Claim was timely submitted within one year of their discovery of the County's breach. 2. THE COUNTY'S INITIAL RESPONSE TO TRANSBAY'S CLAIM: In Exhibit 1 attached hereto, the Office of the County Counsel agreed that because Transbay had asserted late discovery of the claim, it was "timely on its face", and would thus be reviewed and acted upon by the Board of Supervisors within the statutory time period. However, County Counsel also warned that because it may ultimately be determined that the claim was not presented within the time allowed by law, it would be prudent for Transbay to preserve its rights by applying,without delay, to the Board of Supervisors for leave to present a late claim under California Government Code Sections 911.4 through 912.2. 3 TRANSBAY'S PURPOSE IN SUBMITTING THIS APPLICATION: Transbay hereby submits this Application to comply with, and address the potential statutory concerns raised by the Office of the County Counsel in Exhibit "1" attached hereto. This Application is expressly intended as a procedural back-up to the Claim, and is not intended as an abandonment or compromise of Transbay's contention that the Claim was timely submitted. Rather, it is intended by Transbay to ensure that 2 they are in compliance with all statutory requirements in this context, so as to ensure that they retain all future rights and options against the County as the process of determination of the Claim progresses. 4. BACKGOUND AND BASIS FOR TRANSBAY'S APPLICATION: As noted in Transbay's Claim, Transbay never received a response from the County to its Stop Notice, or notification that the County, or anyone else involved in the Project, intended to, or had attempted to post a stop notice release bond. The County also failed to notify Transbay that it either rejected Transbay's claim, or that it was refusing to set aside any money to respond to said claim. Thus, Transbay assumed that the County was complying with its mandatory statutory duties under California Civil Code Section 3186, and was withholding the monies necessary to answer the claim in its Stop Notice. The first official infonnation/confirmation received by Transbay that the County had failed to perform its statutory duties in this context was during the deposition of the County's counsel, David Schmidt, on July 22, 2005, in the context of currently pending litigation arising out of the underlying Project upon which the Claim is based. During this deposition, Mr. Schmidt testified that the County had not set aside any monies in response to Transbay's Stop Notice because it believed that it was entitled to use all of the construction funds remaining for completion of the Project. Mr. Schmidt's deposition testimony put Transbay on notice that the County had failed to withhold fiends as required under California Civil Code Section 3186, and of its position that it was not required to do so. Until Transbay received this official confirmation of the County's position and failure to set aside fiends, it had no reason to file a claim in this context. However, once it received this confirmation, the statutory requirement under Government Code Section 911.2, for Transbay to file a claim against the County within one year was definitely triggered. Transbay's claim was filed on 3 January 20, 2006, less than six (6) months after the date of discovery of the County's breach. When Transbay served its Stop Notice on the County on or about December 14, 2004, it reasonably assumed that the County would comply with its statutory duties under California Civil Code Section 3186. This assumption was further supported by the fact that the County never responded to, or rejected Transbay's Stop Notice claim, or notified Transbay that the County or anyone else involved in the Project intended to, or had attempted to post a stop notice release bond. It was not until July 22, 2005, when Transbay took the deposition of Mr. Schmidt, that Transbay received an official response/confirmation that the County had failed to comply with its mandatory duties under California Civil Code Section 3186. Based on the above, the delay in Transbay's ability to file its Claim was caused by the County's failure to respond to, and/or to reject Transbay's Claim in an appropriate and timely manner. That being the case, the County should not now be allowed to reject Transbay's Claim as untimely when they were the ones that caused the delay in Transbay's ability to file it sooner. In addition, the work covered by Transbay's Stop Notice has been the subject of ongoing litigation since March of 2005 in which the County has been a named and participating defendant. Thus, the County has been frilly aware of Transbay's claims, and would be hard pressed to assert that it has been prejudiced by Transbay's alleged late filing of the Clairn. As a result of all of the above, Transbay assert that the Claim was timely filed. In the alternative, Transbay asserts that if the Claim is deemed to have not been timely .filed, it is entitled to an order granting it leave to file a late claim for the following reasons: (1) The County failed to respond to and/or reject Transbay's Stop Notice claire, and thus the deadline for Transbay's filing of their claim should be tolled for the time period between Transbay's service of its Stop Notice and Transbay's receipt of confinnation of the 4 County's official response to said action which occurred on July 22, 2005 at the deposition of Mr. Schmidt. See, by analogy, Government Code §911.4(c)(2)(B)—"in circumstances where the public entity or its agency makes a late report, the claim period shall be tolled for the period of the delay caused by the failure to make a timely report." (2) There has been no prejudice to the County under the facts and circumstances surrounding Transbay's Claim because the County has known of Transbay's claim, and its positions in relation thereto, since in or about March of 2005 when the County was served with Transbay's Complaint in the above referenced and ongoing litigation. See Renteria v. Juvenile Justice, Department of Corrections and Rehabilitation (2006) 6 C.D.O.S. 505, 507. Hereby submitted on behalf of Claimant, Transbay, by the attorneys authorized by Transbay to represent them in this matter, The Law Offices of David W. Ginn. ) Gov. Code Sec. 910.2 provides "The claim ) shall be signed by the claimant or by some SEND NOTICES TO: ) person on his behalf." TRANSBAY FIRE PREVENTION ) SYSTEMS, INC. ) DATED: February 1, 2006 c/o The Law Offices of David W. GINN ) 1981 Broadway, Suite 275 ) Walnut Creek, California 94596 LAW OFFICES OF DAVID W. G By: G� , D000rne as A. 011, Esq. A ys ut orized by T ansbay to Telephone No. (925) 256-4466 ) r6present h in this ter. 5 �xh�b�+ i OFFICE OF THE COUNTY COUNSEL S E L SILVANO B.MARCHESI COUNTY COUNSEL COUNTY OF CONTRA COSTA _o - - Administration Building +; SHARON L.ANDERSON 651 Pine Street, 9'"Floor Martinez, California 94553-1229 r -: ;, CHIEF ASSISTANT (925) 335-1800 A� '+i 11`1�M� =� '� GREGORY C.HARVEY (925) 646-1078 (fax) ®��� % , VALERIE I. PANCHE O ASSisTANTS �Os7A COU1Z�-�• TATUT RY WARNING PURSUANT TO GOVE ENT CODE SECTION 911.3 i I TO: Douglas A. Kroll Law Offices of David W. G nn 1981 Broadway, Suite 275 Walnut Creek,CA 94596 RE: Claim of Transbay Fire Protection,Inc./Transbay Fire Prevention Systems,Inc. Please Take Notice as Follows: The claim you presented to ihe Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors on January 20, 2006 was reviewed by County Coel. The portion of the claim prior to January 20,2005 was not presented within one year after the vent or occurrence as required by law. Because you allege late disc Dvery of the claim,the claim is"timely on its face" and will be reviewed and acted upon by the Board of Supervisors within the statutory time period. To preserve the rights of the County, its departrr.ents and employees to challenge the validity of your late discovery claim,you are warned p suant to statute that if your delayed discovery argument is improper,your claim is late, and is being returned because it was not presented within one ear after the event or occurrence as required y law. (See Gov. Code, §§ 901, 911.2.) Because the claim may not have been presented within the time allowed by law,we warn you that to preserve your right in the event your claim is determined to be late,your only recourse at this time is to apply without delay to the Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors for leave to present a late claim. (See Gov. Code, §§ 911A to 912.2, inclusive, and 946.6.) Under some circumstances, leave to present a late claim will be granted. (See Gov. Code, § 911.6.) Page 1 I Douglas A. Kroll re January 20,2006 Transbay Cl Page 2 SILVANO B. MARCHESI COUNTY COUNSEL By: 6�ZZ Monika L. Cooper Deputy County Counsel i I CERT FICATE OF SERVICE BY MAIL (Code Civ.Proc., § 1012, 1013a,2015.5;Evid. Code, §§ 641,664) I am a resident of the State of Califoraft,over the age of eighteen years, and not a party to the within action. My siness address is Office of the Co ty Counsel,651 Pine Street,9th Floor,Martinez,CA 94553-1229. On 2w' 2.00(1 ,I serve a true copy of this Statutory Warning Pursuant to Government Code Se ' n 911.3 by placing the document a sealed envelope with postage thereon fully prepaid,in the United States mail at Martinez, California addressed to Douglas A.Kroll,Law Offices of David W. Ginn, 1981 Broadway, Suite 275,Walnut Creek,C)L 94596,as set forth above. I am readily familiar with Office of County Counsel's practice of collection and processing of correspondence for mailing. Under that practice, it " would be deposited with the U.S.Postal Service on that same day with postage thereon fully prepaid in the ordinary course of business. I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws f the State of California and the United States of America that the above is true and correct. Executed on a(i G at Martinez,Calif:-a. I 'Kathleen O'Connell cc: Clerk of the Board of Supervisors( 'ginal) Risk Management Page 2 I RE: Claim By: Transbay Fire Protection, Inc. /��y 5rFoo RECEIVED > JAN 2 0 2006 TRANSBAY FIRE PREVENTI N ) c:ERK BOARD OF SUPERVISORS SYSTEMS, INC. ) CONTRACOSTACo. ) Against the County of Contra C sta ) ) The undersigned claimant hereb y makes claim against the County of Contra Costa or the above-named district in the sum of$480,754.57. I. CLAIMANT: TRANSBAY FIRE PREVENTION SYSTEMS, INC. c/o The Law Offices of David W. GINN 1981 Broadway, Suite 275 Walnut Creek, Californi 94596 (925) 256-4466 i 2. STATUTORY BASIS OF TRANSBAY'S CLAIM: Breach of mandatory statutory duty under California Civil Code Section 3186, for failing to withhold monies due or to become due to the contractor in an amount sufficient to answer the claim stated in Tr sbay's Stop Notice which was served on the County on or about December 14, 2004, and for failure to provide for the public entity's reasonable costs of any litigation thereunder. Transbay'.s Stop Notice was served on the County in the context of fire prevention system work performed by Transbay on the County's project to expand the Juvenile all located in Martinez, California(""the Project"). I j 3. FACTUAL BASIS AN BACKGROUND OF TRANSBAY'S CLAIM: Transbay had a direct co tract with the County to perform its scope of work at the Project. This contract was subst quently assigned by the County to the replacement/completion contrac or on the Project, Flintco. As the replacement/completion contrac or, Flintco's subcontractors had the right to assert stop notice claims against the funds c ue or to become due to Flintco. In this instance, followi Transbay's filing and service of its Stop Notice, the County made direct payments o hundreds of thousands of dollars to Flintco. This is undisputedly money that was"d a or to become due"to the contractor(Flintco) as contemplated and defined under California Civil Code Section 3186, and thus the County had a statutory duty to withhold the monies due to Flintco to satisfy the Stop Notice claims of Transbay. Instead, the County never responded to Transbay's Stop Notice,and no attempt has been made by the County, or anyone else involved in the Project, to post a stop notice release bond. The County also J ailed to notify Transbay that it either rejected Transbay's claim, or that it was refusing to et aside any money to respond to said claim. The first indication that Transbay ever re eived of the County's failure to perform its statutory duties in this context was durin the deposition of the County's counsel,David Schmidt, on July 22, 2005, in the context of currently pending litigation arising out of the Project. During this deposition, Mr. Schmidt testified that the County had not set aside any monies in response to Transbay s Stop Notice because it believed that it was entitled to use all of the construction fundE remaining for completion of the Project. 4. TRANSBAY'S CLAI : Transbay's December 1 ,2004, Stop Notice Claim was in the amount of$433, 165.68,together with interest al the rate of ten percent(10%)per annum from December 14, 2004. None of this amount has been paid to Transbay. Based thereon,the current 2 i total of Transbay's Stop Notice c aim is $480,754.57, calculated through January 19, 2006. [Interest calculated as foll ws: $433,165.68 x .10=$43,316.57, divided by 365 = $118.68 per diem x 401 days =$ 7,590.68 in interest, added to principal amount of $433,165.88 equals$480,756.56j 5. ENTITY AGAINST WHOM TRANSBAY CLAIM ASSERTED: County of Contra Costa 6. JURISDICTIONAL NATURE OF TRANSBAY'S CLAIM: Superior Court Hereby submitted on behalf of Claimant, Transbay,by the attorneys authorized by Transbay to represent them in this matter, The Law Offices of David W. Ginn. I DATED: January 20, 2006 THE LAW OFFICES OF DAVID W. GINN By: D uglas IA. Kroll, Es . II I I 3 I I ) Gov. Code Sec. 910.2 provides"The claim ) shall be signed by the claimant or by some SEND NOTICES TO: ) person on his behalf." TRANSBAY FIRE PREVENTI N ) SYSTEMS, INC. ) c/o The Law Offices of David W GINN ) 1981 Broadway, Suite 275 ) FICES OF D ID W. Walnut Creek, California 94596 ) By: I&A Do a. Kr 11, Esq. jAtt rneys a orized y ansbay to I ) r resent th in this matter. Telephone No. (925) 256-4466 ) Against the County of Contra Costa or ) District ) i i 4 i EX h(bt+ 2 TO: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS 6E L- Contra FROM: SUPERVISOR MARY N. PIEPHO Costa DATE: FEBRUARY 22, 2006 `� County OST' COUR� SUBJECT: MARIJUANA DISPENSARY BAN SPECIFIC REQUEST(S)OR RECOMMENDATION(S)&BACKGROUND AND JUSTIFICATION RECOMMENDED ACTION: DIRECT the Community Development Department, in conjunction with the Office of County Counsel, the Sheriffs Office and the District Attorney's Office, to begin researching and drafting an ordinance to prohibit marijuana dispensaries from operating in the unincorporated area of Contra Costa County. DIRECT Supervisor Piepho's office to work with the Community Development Department, District Attorney's Office, Office of County Counsel, the Office of the Sheriff, Health Services and other related departments to introduce such an ordinance prohibiting marijuana dispensaries from operating in areas within the County's jurisdiction. FISCAL IMPACT: Department Staff Costs CONTINUED ON ATTACHMENT: ® YES SIGN TURE: ❑ RECOMMENDATION OF COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR ❑ RECOMMENDATION OF BOARD COMMITTEE APPROVE ❑ OTHER SIGNATURE(S): ACTION OF BOARD ON Co APPROVED AS RECOMMEND OT �K. VOTE OF SUPERVISORS: I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THIS IS A TRUE AND CORRECT COPY OF AN ACTION TAKEN AND UNANIMOUS(ABSENT ) ENTERED ON THE MINUTES OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS ON THE DATE SHOWN. ABSENT: ABSTAIN: ATTESTED: MARCH 7, 2006 Contact: Ryan P.Klobas,Chief of Staff, District III JOHN CULLEN, CLERK OF THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS AND COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR cc: Members, Board of Supervisors John Cullen, County Administrator Silvano Marchesi,County Counsel Bennis Barry,Community Development Director Deputy Robert Kochly, District Attorney Warren E. Rupf,Sheriff William Walker, M.D., Health Services Director Alcohol&Other Drugs Advisory Board BACKGROUND: It has come to the attention of the District III Supervisor's office that two marijuana dispensaries have attempted to operate, or have operated, in Contra Costa County with the intent of furnishing marijuana to residents of the County. On October 14, 2005, Supervisor Piepho convened a meeting of the District Attorney's Office, Office of the Sheriff, Community Development Department, Office of County Counsel, Health Department, and the County Administrator's Office to discuss concerns relating to a marijuana dispensary discovered in Byron and potential options to address those concerns Following further examination of the issue by the District III Supervisor's Office, Supervisor Piepho has determined that it would be beneficial for the County to both study the impacts of marijuana dispensaries and proceed with drafting an ordinance that would prohibit marijuana dispensaries from operating in areas within the County's jurisdiction. CONSEQUENCES OF NEGATIVE ACTION: The absence of local laws governing marijuana dispensaries has created confusion and concern among residents who inquire if such establishments are allowed in the County. Failure to study the issue and establish a clear local directive will prolong the confusion and concern. Moreover, there may exist negative impacts to communities and residents located in close proximity to marijuana dispensaries. Further research on the matter will help to determine what negative impacts may exist for residents and communities, and how those impacts might be avoided or addressed. e ADDENDUM TO ITEM SDA March 7, 2006 On this day, the Board of Supervisors considered directing staff to examine the issue of marijuana dispensaries and to draft an ordinance, under direction of Supervisor Piepho's office, for consideration by the Board to restrict the operation of such dispensaries within the unincorporated areas of Contra Costa County. Supervisor Piepho said that a new dispensary slated to open in Pacheco brings this issue to the fore. She said she seeks direction on how the County can support or manage cannabis clubs, and to determine which, if any, actions the County should take. Supervisor DeSaulnier said he would like for his office to be included in discussions on how to better restrict or control these establishments. Supervisor Uilkema noted that the nature of the Board's discussion was not in alignment with the recommendation put forth in the Board Ordcr, which states that it seeks to restrict the operation of dispensaries. She said she would like for the Board to have more data and guidance from Community Services,the Sheriff, and Health Services on this issue, and that until such information has been considered, it would be appropriate to have a more global perspective incorporated in the language of the Board's direction. Supervisor Gioia suggested the following amendments to the Board Order language: DIRECTthe Community Development Departnrcnt, in conjunction with the Office of County Counsel,the Sheriff's Office, the Departinew Of' Health Services,and the District Attorney's Office to begin researching and drafting aii Fdi eto i,ibicnar-ijuanadispensaries freni operating making recommendations regarding marijuana dispensaries in the unincorporated area of Contra Costa County. DIRECT Supervisor Piepho's office to work rvith Suj)ervisor De,SalflillE'I' ,S office, the Community Development Department, District Attorney's Office, Office of County Counsel,the Office of the Sheriff, Health Services and other related departments to intFeduee sue'• study and make recommendations on marijuana dispensaries€tee*operating in areas within the County's jurisdiction. Supervisor Piepho noted that public input will also be an important part of tire process. Chair Gioia asked for public comment, and the following people spoke: Demetrio Ramirez, MediCarc Collective, said that there are over 2,000 patients in Contra Costa using medical marijuana as an alternative to other prescription drugs, many of which have harmful side effects; Douglas Steinart, Pacheco resident and member of the Pacheco Town Council, said it is important to ensure that these facilities are safe and clean and under the direction of medical personnel. He noted that they can often be the subject of robberies, and suggested security as another issue that should be examined. He noted that the way that marijuana is supplied to the centers from distributors should also be reviewed. Supervisor Piepho clarified that a report is to conte back to the Board before any action is taken on this subject. By a 4-0 vote in favor, with Sripervisor Glover absent, the Boaril of Supervisors took the following action: DIRECTED the Community Development Department, in conjunction with the Office of County Counsel, the Sheriff s Office, the Department of Health Services, and the District Attorney's Office to begin researching and making recommendations regarding marijuana dispensaries in the unincorporated area of Contra Costa County; and DIRECTED Supervisor Piepho's office to work with Supervisor DeSaulnier's office,the Community Development Department, District Attorney's Office, Office of County Counsel,the Office of the Sheriff, Health Services and other related departments to study and make recommendations on marijuana dispensaries operating in areas within the County's jurisdiction. REQUEST TO SPEAK FORM (THREE (3) MINUTE LIMIT) Complete �this form and place it in the box near the speakers' rostrum before addressing the Board. Name: . t oc>,kk > gee Phone.- 9 Address: V elyu / � City: ��C�►`t CC Q (Address and phone dumber are optional; please note that this card will become a public record kept on file with the Clerk of the Board in association with this meeting) N&-eAAt,89 �VbetiG M I am speaking for myself or organization.- C %J P CHECK ONE: U ❑ I wish to speak on Agenda Item # S Date: My comments will be: ❑ General ❑ For EIAgainst I wish t speak on the subject of: 21 '( �lr�, C►�N^ l� Io not wish to speak but would like to leave these omments for the Board to consider: �u ©� Please see reverse for instructions and important information 4 ' REQUEST TO SPEAK FORM (THREE (3) MINUTE LIMIT) . i I Complete this form and pia it in the box near the speakers' rostrum before addressing the Board. Name: °L r 0 VA < <2 GZ Phone: (0i Z5� `{�� Z9 Address: ZI �S C(��T' C City: Please note that if you choose to provide your address and phone number, this information will become a public record kept on file with the Clerk.of the Board along with the minutes for this meeting I am speaking for myself or organization: CHECK ONE: ❑ 1 wish to speak on Agenda Item # Date: My comments will be: ❑ General ❑ For ❑ Against f I wish to speak on the subject of: I��, L CPtI� C-P, N L ❑ 1 do not wish to speak but would like to leave these comments for the Board to consider: Please see reverse for instructions and important information