sarah price - sananselmo-ca.granicus.com

1

Sarah Price

From: Richard Bolds

Sent: Tuesday, October 01, 2019 8:13 AM

To: Sarah Price

Subject: WEST GREENFIELD (THE BLOCK FROM SIR FRANCIS DRAKE BLVD. TO LINCOLN PARK)

Hi Sarah- I received the notice regarding the use change at 34 Greenfield (from Ross Valley Crossfit to Element 7 Cannabis). A few things: 1. I don’t see that they have plentiful off-street parking, or any off-street parking. Without significant off-street parking, it will turn this block of Greenfield (from Sir Francis Drake to Lincoln Park) into a mess. 2. The proposed change is directly next door to my property, and lack of adequate off-street parking will cause Cannabis customers/vehicles to use my parking lot – both to park and to pass through for access. 3. Signage will not prevent Cannabis customers from parking in my lot – I have been through this, everyone will say “I am just going to be 5 minutes”. 4. Lack of off-street parking, causing Cannabis customers to use my lot, will impact every one of my tenants and their visiting clients. They will continually have their parking spots used by Cannabis customers, resulting in confrontations. 5. Even if there are a few spaces of off-street parking it wouldn’t be enough. A business like this needs probably 20 spaces (employees and customers), and even then cars coming west on Greenfield would have difficulty accessing it. 5. The issue of loitering/smoking is also concerning on Greenfield Ave., Smith Lane, and my parking lot. Signage is ignored and policing won’t be effective, they can’t be there all the time. I will have to remove park benches as well, as this business may create vagrancy issues as well. 6. Significant traffic coming west on Greenfield will be forced to turn left on Lincoln Park and drive through the narrow Lincoln Park/Bank Street area to Sir Francis Drake and back around to Greenfield (residents won’t care for this). 7. Alternatively, the traffic coming west on Greenfield will turn left on Lincoln Park, then right on the very narrow Smith Lane. Then they will either turn into my parking lot, park, or cut through, or park behind 34 Greenfield, and ultimately go through to Bank Street. 8. There are also serious concerns about the proximity to the Stapleton School (300 feet away). The upshot is that this location cannot handle such a high-traffic business and the parking, traffic and inevitable smoking/loitering/vagrancy issues. It will be bad for the businesses and bad for the Lincoln Park/Bank Street neighborhood. It is a congested area with a series of one-way streets, which will cause the resulting high traffic to negatively impact the entire area – including the Lincoln Park residential area, and cars cutting through both Smith Lane and my parking lot. Weekends and afternoons/evenings will be particularly troublesome with no only parking/traffic, but also loitering/vagrancy. Considering this request, in this area, seems very ill-advised – and has not considered all the consequences – both obvious and unintended. Thanks ! Richard Bolds (owner) 40-52 Greenfield Ave (six addresses, 40, 42, 44, 46, 50 and 52) Tel: 415-493-2166 Cell:415-747-0992 [email protected]

From: Sarah Price [mailto:[email protected]] Sent: Friday, September 28, 2018 10:44 AM

October 2, 2019

Gabriel Turner 27 Longview Ave. San Anselmo, CA 94960

Dear San Anselmo City P lanning:

I am a proud resident of San Anselmo along with my wife Lauren Nelson, who runs an interior design business

on San Anselmo Avenue. We have two daughters, aged 6 and 4, both of whom attend local schools -‐ public and

pre-‐school.

As engaged community members, we want to see San Anselmo continue to serve as a wonderful, safe and

enjoyable place to live. We also want to see the town thrive both economically and socially, particularly in this

era of fast change and ever-‐evolving social norms.

The legalization of Cannabis has created one of those societal changes, and California is now ground-‐zero of its

ensuing industry. What was once considered taboo and illegal, is now viewed with a very different lens: one

that offers users a more sustainable, less toxic adult experience than that of bars/alcohol/etc. It has also

proven to create plenty of new jobs and tax revenue for participating cities. This was evidenced in a recent trip

we took to Los Angeles, where on Abbot Kinney Blvd. -‐ the main artery in the Venice Beach neighborhood – the

various cannabis dispensaries are mixed alongside retail and restaurant venues, and they are as appealing with

their well-‐designed, welcoming storefronts. The shops were buzzing with customers, old and young, and

smiling employees ready to educate curious patrons. I encourage you to visit and see what is possible for the

future of San Anselmo’s downtown.

We are eager to see our town develop in a progressive, yet safe, direction. We are therefore avid proponents

of the project proposed at 34 Greenfield Ave. I have come to know Nick and Stephanie through my joining Ross

Valley Crossfit, and I couldn’t be bigger supporters of them and their vision. They have built a loving

community with their business, and I imagine they will continue to do so with any venture they pursue.

Sincerely,

Gabr ie l Turner

LETTER OF SUPPORT FOR 34 GREENFIELD AVE CANNABIS STOREFRONT

October 2, 2019

Town of San Anselmo525 San Anselmo Ave.San Anselmo, CA 94960

To whom it may concern on the Town Council of San Anselmo,

I am writing to voice my support of a retail cannabis storefront at 34 Greenfield Ave. I believe that under the direction of Nicolas Pommier and Element 7, this particular storefront will deliver vital funding to our town through the taxation of cannabis products, while insuring that all state laws and community expectations are honored to the highest degree possible. I trust Nicolas and Element 7 to operate an exceptional business that supports the service needs of our town, the health of our individuals, the security of our families, and the priceless nature of our community’s character.

Sincerely,

Michele Johnston40 Meadow WayFairfax, CA 94930(415) 847-2169

Founder &

Artistic Director:

Virginia Stapleton

Board of Directors:

Karen Dunn, President

Phil Gutierrez

Eugene Phillips III*

Kathleen Slaught

Robert Vallas*, Treasurer

*San Anselmo Residents

P.O. Box 331

San Anselmo, CA

94979

415.454.5759

[email protected]

A non profit 501(c)3 organization #68-0202381

Oct. 3, 2019

Dear Town of San Anselmo Planning Commission,

The Board of Directors of the Stapleton School of the Performing Arts (“Stapleton”),

together with founder Virginia Stapleton, hereby formally and strongly oppose the applica-

tion to re-zone Ross Valley Cross Fit at 34 Greenfield Avenue as a cannabis dispensary.

Stapleton has serious concerns and reasons to oppose this application. First and

foremost, the Town Council has not decided whether to allow storefront sale of cannabis so

this application is very premature. Secondly, Stapleton should be considered a school as it

instructs nearly 500 children in dance, music and theatrics, operating Monday through Sat-

urday, 9:00 am to 9:00 pm. As a school, any cannabis dispensary must be at least 600, and

Stapleton would argue should be 1000 feet, away. Given that 34 Greenfield Avenue is steps

away from Stapleton, the application should be denied on that basis alone. The thought

that children could be exposed to second hand cannabis smoke is particularly alarm-

ing. Additionally, the area around Stapleton is under construction with housing currently

being constructed in the lot adjacent to Stapleton’s building. Certainly the future occupants

of that housing should be allowed to comment on a dispensary in their immediate vicinity.

When word of this application spread amongst the Stapleton community, Stapleton

received many complaints from parents regarding the potential negative ramifications for

the school if a dispensary were operating next door. Parents expressed concern for their

children’s safety due to increased adult foot and car traffic from persons potentially under

the influence of cannabis. Many students walk from the bus stop near the hub to the

school, a path taking them directly past 34 Greenfield Avenue. We are concerned that par-

ents will withdraw their students due to the proximity of this proposed dispensary.

For the reasons articulated above, Stapleton urges the Planning Commission to deny

this application without leave to re-submit it should the Town Counsel ultimately decide to

allow the sale of cannabis in San Anselmo.

We thank you for consideration of our opposition.

Sincerely,

Karen Dunn, Board President, on behalf of Stapleton School of Performing Arts

1

Sarah Price

From: Emily Martin

Sent: Thursday, October 03, 2019 11:09 AM

To: Matt Brown; Ford Greene; Brian Colbert; John Wright; Alexis Fineman; Elise Semonian;

Planning; Sarah Price; Dave Donery; Peter Martin

Subject: Our Vote AGAINST Cannabis Dispensary in San Anselmo

Dear Town Council Members, Planning Commissioners, and Town Staff,

As active voters, residents of our family-friendly town of San Anselmo, and parents to two very impressionable boys (ages 11 and 14), I am writing in strong opposition to allowing cannabis storefront businesses to operate within the town limits.

We all know that under current law, access to cannabis is not an issue. Why then make it more readily available when taking into consideration the countless other issues that a storefront in San Anselmo would create?

• Storefront sales can increase youth access through diversion and use of fake ID’s. • A storefront could bring increased traffic and increased risk of impaired drivers (in a time when we are

already battling highly distracted drivers) • The cost implication for tax revenue and education

• The issue of regulating and enforcing public consumption

• The door that this opens for future products

• The need for armed guards to avoid crime - that will raise red flags and fear for youth

Our greatest fear is that opening the doors to cannabis dispensary in San Anselmo could change the safe, family-friendly, quiet town that we are proud to call home. Please, please hear and heed our concerns.

Thank you. Emily and Peter Martin

45 Sais Avenue, San Anselmo

1

Sarah Price

From: Mark Lee <


To: Sarah Price

Subject: Element 7, San Anselmo Planning Commission Meeting October 7, 2019

Dear San Anselmo Planning Commission,

As a home owner and resident of Greenfield Avenue, San Anselmo, I urge the members of the Planning Commission to recommend that the San Anselmo Town Council deny a Conditional Use Permit, Design, Review, and Sign Permit for a cannabis dispensary at 34 Greenfield Avenue.

I believe the proposed Element 7 cannabis retail and delivery dispensary presents serious and profound risks to the San Anselmo community that far outweigh any marginal benefits that the town may receive from this heavily marketed, private equity owned marijuana dispensary.

Let me explain the potential risks:

1) The Element 7 marijuana dispensary site shares Greenfield Avenue with many Youth activity oriented businesses that are very popular with San Anselmo and Marin County families, youth,, and children. Play-Well Marin Activity Center, 216 Greenfield Avenue, is located just two short blocks from the proposed Element 7 marijuana dispensary site. Play-Well has after school, weekend, summer and winter break LEGO classes for

Children and Youth. Next door to the proposed Element 7 site, is The Stapleton School of Performing Arts at 70 Greenfield Avenue, which has hundreds of children and youth that take dance classes there year round. Why would we want to place a marijuana dispensary so close to these two de-facto Youth Activity Centers?

2) Element 7 marijuana marketing is among the most aggressive in the cannabis industry as they cater to long term marijuana users which include convicted drug crime offenders, some with multiple drug crime offenses. Element 7 offers “Education” and “Expungement Clinics” that provide free legal aid to get drug convictions expunged (erased) from the drug offenders’ criminal records. Do we want to invite convicted drug offenders and long term marijuana drug users into San Anselmo for “Expungement Clinics” and Education, especially when these convicts are so close to our youth at The Stapleton Dance Center and Play-Well LEGO classes? By inviting convicted drug users and dealers from outside of San Anselmo to attend marijuana “Expungement Clinics” and Education are we inviting the possibility of more criminal elements and crime to San Anselmo?

Please look at Element 7 website at Home | ELEMENT 7

2

Home | ELEMENT 7

California's fastest growing cannabis retail company focused on

education, customer experience, and patient access.

Where Element 7 boast it is A”one of California's fastest growing cannabis companies. With over 12 retail locations under development across the state, we are expanding operations across the Golden State at a pace that will continue to scaleA.With a mission of becoming the largest cannabis retailer in the State of California, we are well on our way to achieving our mission and disrupting the industryA” And see their webpages associated with “Justice Reform” and the Expungement Clinics. Great marketing for the long term, habitual marijuana user with multiple criminal convictions for drug use.

3) By allowing a heavily marketed, marijuana dispensary in San Anselmo we run the risk of inviting more crime and potential violent crime. See articles from TheHill.com, University of Colorado at Denver.

Is marijuana legalization driving increases in violent crime?

Is marijuana legalization driving increases in violent

crime?

Jason C. Johnson, opinion contributor

Legalizing marijuana has unintended economic and social

consequences.

Do marijuana dispensaries increase neighborhood crime? - CU Denver News

3

Do marijuana dispensaries increase neighborhood

crime? - CU Denver News

Ten states and the District of Columbia now allow the sale,

possession and use of marijuana for recreational pur...

4) By allowing a heavily marketed, marijuana dispensary in San Anselmo we increase the risk of increasing the number of lazy, psychologically troubled, and chronically psychotic residents of San Anselmo that are more likely to use publicly funded social services, medical care, and emergency rooms. These are hidden but real net drains to our Town budget and Marin County Budget. See articles from DrugAbuse.gov and the National Institute of Health (a Federal Government Agency).

Marijuana

Marijuana

National Institute on Drug Abuse

A plain-language research summary about marijuana, including

how people use it, its effects on the brain and ove...

4

Adverse Health Effects of Marijuana Use

Adverse Health Effects of Marijuana Use

-d

5) As a gateway drug, regular marijuana use generates a higher likelihood of heavier illicit drug use. A habitual marijuana smoker looks for a bigger high and may start to try cocaine, meth, heroin, etc. See the article from Drugabuse,gov.

https://www.drugabuse.gov/publications/research-reports/marijuana/marijuana-gateway-drug

Marijuana Has Proven to Be a Gateway Drug - NYTimes.com

To help protect your privacy, Micro so ft Office prevented auto matic download of this pictu re from the In ternet.

Marijuana Has Proven to Be a Gateway Drug -

NYTimes.com

6) 6) Possessing, buying, or selling marijuana remains a Federal Crime. Despite the liberalization of

state laws across the country due to Cannabis Industry big money lobbyist , federal law still treats marijuana as a controlled substance, just like cocaine or heroin. Do we want to allow the Town of San Anselmo to knowingly and willfully violate Federal law? This nation was founded on the rule of law are we flouting this basic concept of civil society to the enrich the marijuana industry business lobby ? See article from Findlaw.com.

https://criminal.findlaw.com/criminal-charges/federal-marijuana-laws.html

Sincerely,

5

Mark Lee

1

Sarah Price

From: Carla Kacmar


To: Elise Semonian; Sarah Price

Subject: FW: Online Form Submittal: Board, Commission & Committee Email

Best,

Carla Kacmar

Town Clerk

Town of San Anselmo

525 San Anselmo Ave

San Anselmo, CA 94960

(415) 258-4660

From: [email protected] <[email protected]>


To: Carla Kacmar <[email protected]>

Subject: Online Form Submittal: Board, Commission & Committee Email

Board, Commission & Committee Email

Which Board or

Commission would you like

to contact?

Planning Commission

Your Name Marsha C Hallet

Your Email

Your Phone

Subject Element 7

Your Message The hub is already a nightmare traffic wise. If the property on

Greenfield Ave. were to be approved as a marijuana

dispensary it would be worse. Either time the lights or time the

dispensary to be open evenings only or between 10 am - 2 pm.

1

Sarah Price

From: Daniel Reid

Sent: Wednesday, October 02, 2019 1:57 PM

To: Sarah Price

Subject: 34 Greenfield Avenue

Follow Up Flag: Follow up

Flag Status: Flagged

Dear Sarah, We are opposed to the proposed cannabis dispensary at 34 Greenfield Avenue. Although the proposed location is outside the 600 foot exclusion zone around schools and similar sites, it is close to other local community businesses which serve children, such as the ballet school and the Playwell activity center. Despite the legalization of cannabis in California, research still shows that it is detrimental to brain development in children. We don't think that such a business should operate in proximity to places where children will be. More broadly, we don't see a compelling reason for having a cannabis dispensary in San Anselmo at all, and town residents who may wish to obtain cannabis would still have plenty of other options to do so. Sincerely, Daniel and Ashley Reid 21 Yolanda Drive

1

Sarah Price

From: Carla Kacmar



Subject: Fwd: Online Form Submittal: Board, Commission & Committee Email

Sent from my iPhone

Begin forwarded message:

From: [email protected]

Date: October 2, 2019 at 12:47:11 PM PDT

To: [email protected]



Which Board or


to contact?

Planning Commission

Your Name Richard Bolds

Your Email

Your Phone

Subject 34 Greenfield - proposed change in use to allow Cannabis

Retail/Delivery

Your Message I own the property at 40-52 Greenfield Ave., directly next door

to 34 Greenfield Ave.

I recently received the notice regarding the use change at 34

Greenfield (from Ross Valley Crossfit to Element 7 Cannabis).

A few things:

1. I don’t see that they have plentiful off-street parking, or any

off-street parking. Without significant off-street parking, it will

turn this block of Greenfield (from Sir Francis Drake to Lincoln

Park) into a mess.

2. The proposed change is directly next door to my property,

and lack of adequate off-street parking will cause Cannabis

2

customers/vehicles to use my parking lot – both to park and to

pass through for access.

3. Signage will not prevent Cannabis customers from parking in

my lot – I have been through this, everyone will say “I am just

going to be 5 minutes”.

4. Lack of off-street parking, causing Cannabis customers to

use my lot, will impact every one of my tenants and their

visiting clients. They will continually have their parking spots

used by Cannabis customers, resulting in confrontations.

5. Even if there are a few spaces of off-street parking it

wouldn’t be enough. A business like this needs probably 20

spaces (employees and customers), and even then cars

coming west on Greenfield would have difficulty accessing it.

5. The issue of loitering/smoking is also concerning on

Greenfield Ave., Smith Lane, and my parking lot. Signage is

ignored and policing won’t be effective, they can’t be there all

the time. I will have to remove park benches as well, as this

business may create vagrancy issues as well.

6. Significant traffic coming west on Greenfield will be forced to

turn left on Lincoln Park and drive through the narrow Lincoln

Park/Bank Street area to Sir Francis Drake and back around to

Greenfield (residents won’t care for this).

7. Alternatively, the traffic coming west on Greenfield will turn

left on Lincoln Park, then right on the very narrow Smith Lane.

Then they will either turn into my parking lot, park, or cut

through, or park behind 34 Greenfield, and ultimately go

through to Bank Street.

8. There are also serious concerns about the proximity to the

Stapleton School (300 feet away).

The upshot is that this location cannot handle such a high-

traffic business and the parking, traffic and inevitable

smoking/loitering/vagrancy issues. It will be bad for the

businesses and bad for the Lincoln Park/Bank Street

neighborhood. It is a congested area with a series of one-way

streets, which will cause the resulting high traffic to negatively

impact the entire area – including the Lincoln Park residential

area, and cars cutting through both Smith Lane and my parking

lot. Weekends and afternoons/evenings will be particularly

troublesome with no only parking/traffic, but also

loitering/vagrancy.

Considering this request, in this area, seems very ill-advised –

and has not considered all the consequences – both obvious

and unintended.

Thanks !

3

Richard Bolds (owner)

40-52 Greenfield Ave (six addresses, 40, 42, 44, 46, 50 and

52)

Tel: 415-493-2166

Cell:415-747-0992

[email protected]

1

Sarah Price

From: Amy Smith


To: Sarah Price

Subject: 34 Greenfield Ave.

Dear Ms. Price,

I received the notice regarding the use change at 34 Greenfield (from Ross Valley Crossfit to Element 7

Cannabis).

This proposed change is directly behind my property - my home, that I own, along with my two

children. My home, and several others, is less than 30 feet from the proposed dispensary. It

would become a part of our neighborhood.

The traffic around the Lincoln Park neighborhood, Smith Lane and the hub has long been an issue

and a sore spot for the town who has tried to come up with solutions (none adequate up until this

point). I am concerned that the proposed dispensary will lack enough off-street parking and cause

even more congestion in our neighborhood. I am also concerned with the potential loitering and

increased crime that a business like this may attract (many studies linking cannabis stores to

increase crime in neighborhoods are available on the web).

Finally, my daughter attends Stapleton Ballet school 4 days/week. We are very concerned that,

although it is not a “childcare,” the cannabis dispensary is well within 600 feet of a school that has

children going in and out all day and well into the evening. Not to mention, Play-Well just down

the street from Stapleton also has children going in and out of the store all day.

Although CA has legalized the sale of cannabis, it is still a drug and not legalized by the federal government. It

remains a very controversial subject. Please take the neighborhood concerns to heart. The surrounding

businesses and residents are questioning the fact that all consequences – both obvious and unintended – have

not fully been realized.

Amy

1

Sarah Price

From:

Sent: Tuesday, October 01, 2019 7:19 PM

To: Sarah Price

Subject: Cannabis Dispensary

https://www.latimes.com/california/story/2019-10-01/poll-californians-marijuana-sales

Yet another concise insightful article regarding the cannabis industry, from a well -respected, widely circulated award-

winning news source - The Los Angeles Times. Los Angeles, a county comprised of many family friendly towns where

their children are just as important as our children here in San Anselmo and all communities in Marin County.

Thank you for your time,

Martin Bryce

An interested citizen from a neighboring town

1

Sarah Price

From: Linda Allison


To: Sarah Price; Elise Semonian

Subject: Comments for 10/7/2019 planning meeting


We are out of town when the planning meeting is scheduled, but as we live nearby we wanted to add our perspective to

the question of Element 7’s request for an amendment to the town regulations.

While worse businesses than a marijuana store could be added to San Anselmo, it doesn’t seem like the best match for

our town. San Anselmo has done a good job of restricting businesses to locally owned enterprises. Element 7 is trying to

be the largest cannibis busness in the state. If this town needs a cannabis shop why not a locally owned and operated

one? Do we want a chain pot shop in our town?

Do we want keep company with towns like Antioch, Blythe, Chula Vista, Firebaugh? Also, we wonder whether it is

appropriate to have their “expungement” activities with convicted drug users just down the street from the ballet studio

full of young girls.

Lastly, the design of their facade looks like they rubber stamped it from some clip art and really haven’t given much

thought to appropriate looks for this town. Let’s take a step back before adding this to our San Anselmo.

Sincerely,

Linda Allison, Bill Wells

Sent from my iPad

Planning Commission Attention: Sarah Price Town of San Anselmo San Anselmo, CA 94960 Re: Amendment to Zoning Map / 34 Greenfield Avenue “Element 7” Request Dear Ms. Price and Planning Commissioners: Please clarify in the staff report if a “medicinal and adult use cannabis retail and delivery dispensary” is currently permitted in any zoning district in San Anselmo. From what I can tell, such a use is currently not permitted, and therefore the request from the applicant required that the Zoning Code be amended to conditionally permit: 1) a retail cannabis operator and 2) a cannabis delivery dispensary. In the short-term, Planning Commission should deny the request, maintaining the existing permitted and prohibited uses. Planning Commission could, however, request additional information to further explore cannabis retail and/or delivery in Town. (I believe this was already done, so the staff report may wish to also provide background on previous discussions and Council direction). In discussing the application request, it should be noted that Stapleton Ballet is 350’ from the proposed storefront. It could be argued, depending on the definition of “Youth Center” that Stapleton ballet is primarily geared toward youth (18 years or younger) with ALL of its daytime programs from 10AM to 4PM (18 Classes with at least 12 children per class) for the youth. Middle School kids and High School kids walk from the Hub bus stop Stapleton via Greenfield. Planning Commission should consider Stapelton Ballet an active facility geared toward the youth, with more children and teens connected to the Studio than licensed Preschool. Should Council provide direction to develop policy allowing for commercial retail cannabis use and/or delivery, Planning Commission should request additional information, including:

➢ A review of other ordinances that allow retail cannabis, such as Fairfax and the City of Alameda.

➢ Consider adding library, park playground and drug/alcohol recovery or licensed sober living facility to the 600 foot buffer. These categories are similar to other ordinances.

➢ Defining “youth center” and considering adding martial arts and dance studios. See the City of Alameda (11/27/18) for hearings to revise the definitions taking into account other private “youth centers”.

➢ Review of buffer zones. Some jurisdictions, such as Alameda, provide a buffer zone of 1,000 ft.

➢ Develop a map based on buffer criteria (above) and the distances of 600 and 1,000 feet to determine area that may provide opportunities for cannabis retail; conduct public hearings; and THEN rezone accordingly.

Sincerely, Danielle Staude 2 Jordan Avenue San Anselmo, CA

1

Sarah Price

From: Elise Semonian


To: Sarah Price

Subject: FW: San Anselmo Cannabis Ordinance

From: Brendan Hickey <


To: Planning <[email protected]>

Subject: San Anselmo Cannabis Ordinance

I grew up in San Anselmo, and live here today with my wife and children. I am writing with a specific concern regarding

potential cannabis businesses in San Anselmo: advertising. Take a drive through San Francisco or Oakland and you will

see dozens of large billboards containing cannabis advertisements. These are typically in fashioned in bright colors,

attractive logos, and are obviously designed to appeal to children. I wish that we as a state had applied the lessons we

learned with tobacco advertising - companies selling addictive products inevitably market those products to children to

cultivate a larger user base - to cannabis, which has the exact same problem. Instead have decided to rush headlong

into profiteering with little regard for the harm that openly marketing these products to children will inevitably bring.

Any storefront cannabis retail operation in San Anselmo should be strictly prohibited from making any references -

direct or indirect - to cannabis in its signage, design, and storefront. No one should be able to tell from looking at the

store what it is that they sell. Any lesser restrictions will result in a big bright sign down the street from my children that

sends the message that cannabis use is harmless, which it isn’t. IF the council decides to amend the ordinance, I ask that

new language be added prohibiting (1) any references to cannabis visible from the exterior of the store, so that there is

no way to know by looking at the store what it sells, and (2) prohibiting advertising by such a retail operation in any

public forum or media where the advertisement is likely to be viewed by children. These simple restrictions will mitigate

one of the most significant public health impacts of allowing retail cannabis operations in our community.

Sincerely,

Brendan Hickey

Brendan M. Hickey, Esq. Pier 9, Suite 100 San Francisco, CA 94111 Tel: (415) 494-8444 www.Defender-Services.com

1

Sarah Price

From: Sarah Price


To:

Subject: RE: NO Retail Cannabis PLEASE!

Thank you - I will add this to the Planning Commission packet.

Have a good day!

Sincerely,

Sarah Price

Assistant Planner

415-258-4617

[email protected]

From: Oxenham, Shawn


To: Elise Semonian <[email protected]>

Subject: NO Retail Cannabis PLEASE!

Elise,

I am a San Anselmo resident, husband and father of two young daughters who attend St Anselm school. I am deeply

troubled by the news that our town is considering the approval of retail cannabis within our community. There is

absolutely no need for our town to become a destination for those seeking recreational marijuana. My children attend

school just blocks away from one proposed site of sale. THC has extremely detrimental effects on the adolescent brain

and behavior development. What message are you trying to send to our kids? While I’m in the camp that all

recreational cannabis users are not bad people, the retail establishments flourishing in SF do attract many undesirable

customers. Do you want that for our beautiful town? Forget the potential financial gains that a retail cannabis industry

could provide to San Anselmo and please focus, instead, on the peaceful family environment our little town offers. Think

of our kids.

I urge you to please keep families and children first & foremost in your decision making process. The families of San

Anselmo do not want this. Many of those I have spoken to are entirely unaware of this proposal. It’s your job to protect

our town so, at the very least, do not rush this vote. Instead, give the citizens forewarning and the time it takes to voice

our opinions.

My family is in STRONG opposition to this proposal and would consider legal action.

Sincerely,

Shawn Oxenham

Shawn Oxenham Managing Director Global Fixed Income, Currencies & Commodities

BMO Capital Markets

2

One Market Plaza, Spear Tower, Suite 1515 San Francisco, CA 94105

[email protected] T 415-591-2107 M 415-412-9998 View important Disclosure Statements at http://www.bmonesbittburns.com/economics/disclosures.

This e-mail and any attachments may contain confidential and privileged information. If you are not the intended recipient, please notify the sender immediately by return e-mail, delete this e-mail and destroy any copies. Any dissemination or use of this information by a person other than the intended recipient is unauthorized and may be illegal. Unless otherwise stated, opinions expressed in this e-mail are those of the author and are not endorsed by the author's employer

1

Sarah Price

From: David Finnane


To: Elise Semonian; Planning; Sarah Price

Cc: Dave Donery

Subject: San Anselmo and Marijuana

Dear San Anselmo Planning Commission Members,

My understanding is that you will be considering different options for marijuana storefronts for San Anselmo and I

wanted to weigh in with my input. I am writing as a father of four kids in San Anselmo, a former teacher at Wade

Thomas, and a former principal at Brookside and White Hill. I am currently the principal of Bayside MLK Academy (TK-8)

in Marin City.

My sense is that if Fairfax has a medical marijuana dispensary (or two now that they have approved two) 1-2 miles away

that SA may not need one but I am honestly open to a dispensary as long as it is very discreet and doesn't advertise it's

storefront in a way that says "Marijuana here". I want kids and adults to appreciate that marijuana can and does

support many people who are ill but I also think we need to be very careful about how we roll this out. Sense of harm in

our community is much less than in other communities and the issues Drake is seeing with vaping, marijuana use/abuse,

etc. is off the charts. We need to be mindful of what message we send our young people. I appreciate that Fairfax has a

dispensary and that it's very very discreet - one would never know it's there if they were walking by from a ball game at

Central Field or in the area at Scoop.

Other idea - what about medical/recreational delivery only and skip the storefront idea altogether? Do we need

storefronts? Wouldn't it be more convenient and private if we only authorized delivery services? Is there a way to take

advantage of the tax revenue if we have delivery services only? Can we get tax revenue if a SR business sells and

delivers in SA? If that were possible we may have the perfect outcome - access for those who need it, discreet, private,

and tax revenue for SA.

As I share my thoughts in this email I think I am inclined to support my last idea. I think it's good for everyone. It

maintains our town's character, recognizes the child and family friendly nature of our town, and satisfies the need for

medical marijuana for those who need it. Delivery can be efficient, private, and readily available.

Good luck as you move forward. Please keep kids and families on your radar as you make your decisions.

David

--

David Finnane

Principal

Bayside MLK

1

Sarah Price

From: Kelsey Fernandez


To: Elise Semonian; Planning; Sarah Price; Dave Donery

Subject: Opposition to cannabis storefronts in San Anselmo

Dear Planning Commissioners, I am writing about the upcoming hearings on October 7th on whether to amend zoning regulations to allow cannabis storefronts at 805 Sir Francis Drake Boulevard and 35 Greenfield Avenue. I hope you will have the opportunity to listen to the public testimony from the September 24th Town Council Meeting where the majority of residents spoke in opposition to cannabis storefronts - and to read all the letters that have been submitted. I think it is important to note that 7 of the 8 people who spoke in favor of cannabis businesses are in a position to receive personal financial gain and are not necessarily looking out for the overall wellness of our community. As I’m sure you know, marijuana use was normalized in Ross Valley long before Prop 64 passed and, consequently, our youth use rates are among the highest in the county, state and country. Medical professionals, law enforcement, parents, teachers, administrators and community organizations are working hard to tackle this issue and protect the health and safety of our local youth. Allowing a cannabis storefront in San Anselmo will not help. While marijuana has valuable and valid medicinal properties – the recreational market is a different story. I think we really need ask ourselves whether prioritizing the “convenience” of a retail storefront for adults, when it is already a serious problem for our youth, is within our values. Prop 64 did not ask voters if they wanted a retail storefront in their community. Voters explicitly voted for marijuana to be legal – the freedom for adults 21 and over to carry, purchase and consume without legal repercussions. They were not asked to endorse a local outlet with a variety of big corporate brands with flavors and styles that would be enticing to youth. Most could not have imagined that THC vape cartridges would be preferred over flower. And that THC levels would be up to 99%. Larkspur and Corte Madera, with whom we share a police department, continue to ban cannabis storefronts. They join every other jurisdiction in our county that has either a permanent or temporary ban on these types of outlets. The exception is our neighboring Fairfax which allows medical dispensaries (which are close and convenient for San Anselmo residents seeking this type of service). If a commercial cannabis outlet were to be considered in the future, at the very least, please maintain the state recommended 600 foot buffer zones around schools and youth centers and include a buffer zone around tutoring centers (as was done in Fairfax).

Thank you for your time and service to our community.

Sincerely,

2

Kelsey Fernandez Sais Ave

1

Sarah Price

From: Gina Logan

Sent: Thursday, October 03, 2019 12:21 PM

To: Matt Brown; [email protected]; Brian Colbert; John Wright; Alexis Fineman; Elise

Semonian; Planning; Sarah Price; Dave Donery

Subject: PLEASE DO NOT PUT CANNABIS and VAPING IN OUR COMMUNITY AND MAKE IT

MAINSTREAM

Dear Town Council Members, Planning Commissioners, and Town Staff,

As an active voter and resident of San Anselmo, I am writing in opposition to allowing cannabis storefront businesses to

operate within the town limits!!!

There are a number of issues documented below, however, I think the MAIN REASON is that we have to protect our

youth and by mainstreaming this they will will think that marijuana and vaping are NOT harmful which is completely the

opposite that we are trying to teach them. We are going to end up with a completely addicted youth in our community

and then what are we gonna do?? Are we gonna do more school assemblies trying to teach them that they are

harmful….or put up more posters suggesting that our youth not use drugs or alcohol and to make all kids events

substance free …BUT yet we are putting stores right in there faces making it look and seem like it isn’t a big deal and

making it easier for them to get? WHERE IS THE LOGIC???

1. The current rate of cannabis use among local teens is already much higher than the state average - 37% at Drake

High School vs. 32% in Marin and 20% in California. It is a problem that several local entities are working hard to

address. Cannabis Use Disorder is the number one reason youth seek substance abuse treatment in Marin.

Storefront sales can increase youth access through diversion and use of fake ID’s.

2. A storefront could bring increased traffic and increased risk of impaired drivers. If a retail storefront is

permitted, San Anselmo will be the first municipality in Marin to allow it and will likely become a destination.

There is currently no standardized test for cannabis impaired driving other than the subjective field sobriety test.

3. Tax revenue will be needed for the administrative costs, regulation and enforcement of cannabis activity.

Funding is also necessary to provide education, public health awareness and treatment options to mitigate the

inherent risks and harms. The burden of these costs on a small town could counter any potential financial gain.

4. There is the question of how public consumption will be regulated and enforced. How will the police

department handle the increased resources needed to avoid increased second hand smoke violations, illegal

“shoulder tapping”, impaired driving and other unintended consequences?

2

5. There are no guaranteed consumer protections for high THC commercial products that have no FDA oversight

and have not undergone long term testing on the health impacts. Will THC vaping products be allowed? Will

there be restrictions on flavored products similar to the flavored tobacco ban?

6. At the last Town Council meeting, it was reported that some stores have armed guards to deter criminal activity.

Do we want to bring a business to town that requires that level of precaution to avoid crime? Particularly at the

current potential locations near a tutoring center and other youth-centered locations?

7. While there are legitimate medicinal benefits to cannabis, there are also proven risks including physical

dependence, addiction, cannabis induced psychosis, and lasting damage on the developing adolescent brain.

Unfortunately, store owners and staff are not bound by legal or ethical guidelines similar to other healthcare

professionals. The profitability and success of their business relies on selling products - many that come from

large corporations backed by Big Tobacco.

8. If San Anselmo becomes a cannabis destination, it could forever change the family-oriented small town

character we enjoy.

Considering all the uncertainties and potential for negative impacts, allowing retail cannabis is simply not worth it.

Please ensure that San Anselmo continues to maintain its wonderful small town character that we all love and enjoy by

prohibiting cannabis storefronts.

Thank you.

Sincerely,

Gina

http://www.ginaloganphotography.com

[email protected]

3

415 485-9283

Yelp Reviews | Google + | @GinaLoganPhotography

1

Sarah Price

From: Larry Salk

Sent: Friday, October 04, 2019 7:53 AM

To: Sarah Price

Subject: Proposed Cannibis Store

Hi Sarah

I office near the proposed store and would rather not see it happen.

Sincerely

Larry Salk

--

Larry Salk

1+415-590-0463

www.ventanasi.com

1

Sarah Price

From: Abraham Aljundi <


To: Sarah Price

Subject: 34 Greenfield Avenue

Hi Sara, I'm sending this letter on behalf of my father. Please see below.

____________________________________________________________________________


I am writing this letter in opposition to the Element 7 cannabis dispensary and urge you to deny the application. I also

ask the city change it guidelines and not allow cannabis dispensaries in our city, as most cities in Marin County have

done.

My front door is only 40ft away from the proposed location at 34 greenfield Ave and with all the children and youth in

the neighborhood I just don't see how building a dispensary is a fit for the area. You have my house and all the

neighboring houses with families, Stapleton Studio of the Performing Arts, United Studio of Self Defense and Play Well

Marin Activity Center which all bring hundreds of youth to the area every day.

My grandchildren are often coming and going and I have a teenager living at my house who walks to school. Not only

will this have a negative impact on my family but it will negatively impact the hundreds of other youth who are in the

area after school and on the weekends.

I often walk past a marijuana dispensary in San Francisco and am constantly assaulted by marijuana smoke outside of

the establishment. Patrons of the establishment are often directed by security guards to go down the street and smoke.

I see the same thing happening right in front of my house.

34 Greenfield is the wrong location for a marijuana dispensary.

Mohamad Aljundi

13 Smith Lane

1

Sarah Price

From: Carla Kacmar



Subject: FW: Online Form Submittal: Board, Commission & Committee Email

FYI

Best,

Carla Kacmar

Town Clerk

Town of San Anselmo

525 San Anselmo Ave

San Anselmo, CA 94960

(415) 258-4660

From: [email protected] <[email protected]>

Sent: Thursday, October 03, 2019 9:21 PM

To: Carla Kacmar <[email protected]>



Which Board or


to contact?

Planning Commission

Your Name Robert Fleharty

Your Email

Your Phone

Subject Canabis dispensory

Your Message I am in favor of a local walk in dispensory as it would be nice

shop in a store rather than using delivery. The 34 Greenfield

location would a good location as it easy to get to and has

good parking and easy to walk to from downtown.

To whom this concerns: I have known Nicolas Pommier for17 years. He has been a responsible business owner and contributor to the well being of our community with his past Martial Arts schools and his current Cross-fit gymnasium. He has recently expressed his interest in opening a Cannabis dispensary in San Anselmo. I would like to offer my support at this time. Legalization of this medicinal and recreational plant has eliminated the black market and criminal activities that have been associated with it for decades. Responsible adults should have access to this in a safe and controlled environment. The proposed location, 34 Greenfield, is a good, convenient location. Dispensaries in other town have had no negative effects and San Anselmo could, of course, use the additional revenue. We learned the lesson of alcohol prohibition, when a 500 million dollar a year business was turned over to organized crime and quickly became a 5 billion dollar a year criminal enterprise. Not a wise choice. When industries are taxed, licensed and controlled, quality goes up, prices go down and there is less criminal activity in our community. Having a progressive, mature and wise policy concerning this topic is long overdue. Thank you- Justin Kohn Animation Supervisor,

sarah price - sananselmo-ca.granicus.com

Documents