MEMORANDUM TO BOARD OF SUPERVISORS June 14, 2011 From: Ed Robey and Ron Green To: Lake County Board

of Supervisors Re: Medical Marijuana Dispensaries on June 21, 2011 Agenda 1. Introduction We have reviewed the proposed dispensary ordinance and wish to offer suggestions for improvement. There are many problems with the proposed ordinance, partly because staff has solicited virtually no direct input from the dispensary operators, medical marijuana patients, medical marijuana advocates and experts. Before going into detail, we would like to discuss the proposed ordinance in general. This proposed ordinance uses the Use Permit process to regulate dispensaries. Use Permits go with the land. We think that it would be preferable to have a licensing process for the operator of the dispensary which would be similar to a liquor store license issued by the state. The license would be issued for a particular individual, who has to pass a background check, pay a yearly fee to operate at a specified location, meet all required standards, etc. If the operator changed, then the new operator would need to go through the licensing process. There is no provision in the proposed ordinance for dealing with changes in operators. The proposed ordinance uses zoning to regulate the location of dispensaries. This is awkward because the system of land use zoning districts was designed before the issue of medical marijuana dispensaries existed. The licensing process would eliminate this problem. The license would be issued to an individual to operate at a particular location. If the location did not meet specified guidelines, it would not be granted. Again, the liquor license is the model. The cost of administrating the licensing process would be covered by the license fee. Finally, the proposed ordinance reeks with an unspoken attitude that these dispensaries are quasi-criminal enterprises, when in fact the voters of California chose to legalize marijuana for medical use. This is the law in California, and we need to deal with it in a rational and practical manner. These dispensaries are actually more like a cross between a drug store and a liquor store, except they are only open to members and not the general public. After a brief discussion of the relevant law, we discuss in detail our major concerns with the proposed ordinance. This is not an exhaustive list of all of the problems with the proposed ordinance. We believe that a dispensary ordinance can be written much more clearly and

concisely, and prefer a licensing process rather than use permits. We have written and enclose a Model Ordinance, last revised on April 13, 2011. It is concise and is only 7 pages. Please consider working from our Model Ordinance, which would only require a few minor changes (such as the addition of a section on pesticide, mold and fungus testing) to improve it and finalize it. 2. The Legal Context Proposition 215, The Compassionate Use Act of 1996, was passed by the voters of California and legalized the medical use of marijuana by anyone with a written or oral recommendation to use marijuana from a licensed physician. This Act stated that one of its purposes was to encourage the state government to implement a plan to provide for the safe and affordable distribution of medical marijuana to those patients who need it. [California Health and Safety Code, section 11362.5, subd. (b)(1)(C)] In 2003, the State Legislatures response to that directive was to pass SB 420, the Medical Marijuana Program Act (MMPA), which attempts to clarify and implement Proposition 215. Among other things, the MMPA added section 11362.775 to the Health and Safety Code, which provides that medical marijuana patients may associate within the state in order to collectively or cooperatively cultivate marijuana for medical purposes. One of the stated purposes of the act was to enhance the access of patients and caregivers to medical marijuana via collective or cooperative cultivation projects. [Stats. 2003, ch.875, section 1(b).] In People v. Urziceanu, 132 Cal.App.4th 747 (Ct. App. 2005), the Court held that the MMPA, in specifically itemizing the marijuana sales law, contemplates the formation and operation of medicinal marijuana dispensary collectives that would receive reimbursement for marijuana and the services provided in conjunction with the provision of that marijuana. In People v. Hochanadel, 176 Cal.App.4th 997 (Ct. App. 2009), the Court settled any remaining doubts and specifically held that "storefront dispensaries [that are collectives or cooperatives] may operate legally . . . ." 3. [72.3] The Proposed Ordinance Appropriately Includes C-2 Zoning, But Should Also Include CH, and Should Not Include M-1 and M-2. The proposed ordinance provides for dispensaries in C-2, C-3, M-1 and M-2. We suggest adding CH and eliminating M-1 and M-2. The more appropriate zoning is where most of the dispensaries now are, in C-2, and also in CH. C-2 is for a full range of commercial retail and service establishments, and specifically includes retail sales of drugs and liquor. CH allows for retail sale of beer and wine. Letting the dispensaries stay in C-2 and CH is more consistent with the zoning definitions. Of the 11 dispensaries operating under the terms of the moratorium, 9 are in C-2, one (Good Karma in Lucerne) is in CH, and one is in C-3. Even if you choose not to include CH, we recommend

that you essentially grandfather Good Karma at its CH location in Lucerne, as well as all the other existing dispensaries at their current locations. M-1 and M-2 are really inappropriate for dispensaries, and allowing them in those zoning districts would be inconsistent with zoning definitions. M-1 is for heavy commercial and light industrial or manufacturing uses, and M-2 is for heavy industrial and manufacturing uses. Dispensaries have nothing in common with M-1 and M-2 uses. We suggest that you grandfather all of the dispensaries currently operating under the moratorium that are located in any type of commercial zoning, allowing them to stay in their existing locations. We believe it is in the best interests of the County to set up a regulatory licensing procedure for dispensaries, and our Model Ordinance does that. Staff may tell you that the Lake County Zoning Ordinance does not allow for dispensaries, and therefore you cant technically grandfather them. We disagree with that interpretation, but even if that is your position, you can still allow the existing dispensaries to continue, since you are the lawmakers and can write the dispensary ordinance to do what you want it to do. [Per the zoning ordinance, C-2 specifically allows the sale of drugs, as well as liquor. CH allows the sale of beer and wine. Both C-2 and CH provide for other uses when of a similar character to the uses specifically listed. Thus, medical marijuana (an herb and drug) is a specifically listed permitted use in C-2, or at the very least a similar use. In CH, a medical marijuana dispensary is a permitted use since it is of a similar character to beer and wine. See Zoning Ordinance, Sec. 21-19.3 (a), (l) and Sec. 21-16.3 (e), (g). Just because dispensaries did not exist when the zoning ordinance was written does not mean that they are not permitted by the ordinance. The similar character provision was included to cover uses not specifically listed, or uses not yet in existence. For instance, when computer stores started proliferating about 30 years ago, they were not a listed use in applicable zoning ordinances, but they were allowed as a similar use. Many types of new businesses not envisioned by the zoning ordinance drafters have been allowed to operate under the similar character provision.] 4. [72.4(a)] The Dispensary Definition Should Be Improved and Clarified The first paragraph of the definition of a medical marijuana dispensary at 72.4(a) can be improved and clarified. We suggest the following definition of a dispensary, as set forth in our proposed Model Ordinance: Medical marijuana dispensary or dispensary means any storefront facility which distributes, transmits, gives, or otherwise provides medical marijuana to qualified patients or primary caregivers in accordance with California Health and Safety Code section 11362.5 through section 11362.83, inclusive, commonly referred to as the Compassionate Use Act of 1996 and the Medical Marijuana Program. A medical marijuana patient growing collective" or cooperative that does not operate as a storefront dispensary is exempt from the provisions of this ordinance.
3

The definition proposed by staff is the same one considered but not used by the Board of Supervisors in the moratorium ordinance which you passed. The Board previously adopted the definition we are suggesting, except we have added the word storefront and we have added the last sentence to clarify that this ordinance is only about storefront dispensaries, and not about private growing collectives that might, for instance, use a barn or other outbuilding to divide up medical marijuana grown collectively by several people. The second paragraph of the proposed definition of a dispensary, which lists the facilities that are not considered dispensaries, is unnecessary, but not objectionable. 5. [72.5] CH Should be Added, and M-1 and M-2 Should be Deleted We recommend that you add CH, and delete M-1 and M-2. Please see our discussion above, in heading 3 starting on page 2 of this memo, in the discussion of 72.3. 6. [72.5(a)] A Technical Error Should be Corrected Here. In 72.5(a), there is a technical drafting error, in that in order to be consistent with the other provisions, C-2 should be added, so the section should read in applicable part and located within the C2, C3, M1 or M2 district . . . . unless you change it to C-2, C-3, and CH, and eliminate M-1 and M-2 as we suggested above. 7. [72.5(a), (b)] The Permit Processing Priority Provisions are Problematic. 72.5(a) provides for permit processing priority for 10 (or 11, if you include the one dispensary in CH) dispensaries. But, the proposed ordinance only allows 5 dispensaries to continue operating, and has no provisions setting forth how the selection of the 5 will be made. How can 10 or 11 dispensaries be given priority processing if only 5 will be allowed? 72.5(b) provides that the one dispensary located in CH shall be given permit processing priority to establish a new location in a permitted zoning district, but it is not clear if this is a priority on a par with the priority set forth in 72.5(a) or if this is a secondary priority. If a secondary priority, and if only 5 dispensaries are allowed, and if all 5 permits are awarded to dispensaries in the other zoning districts, where does this leave the one dispensary in CH? 8. [72.5(d)] We recommend 15 dispensaries instead of 5. According to staff, there are now 11 dispensaries operating under the provisions of the moratorium. In the proposed ordinance presented by staff to the Planning Commission, the number was limited to 9. The Commission recommended only 5. We propose that 15 be permitted, to allow for population growth and growth in the medical marijuana industry. At the very least, 12 storefront dispensaries should be permitted. There is recommended language on page 2 of our Model Ordinance. Lake County is a unique place, a sprawling county with some towns far from any others. We have a lot of seniors and veterans that benefit greatly from medical marijuana for a wide range

of ailments, including PTSD, glaucoma, multiple sclerosis, nausea and intractable pain. Medical marijuana users need safe and convenient access to their medicine, and should not be forced to travel clear across the county to obtain it. Competition is good, its the American/capitalist way, and although we are not advocating a totally free market for medical marijuana, we think that 15 is a fair number of dispensaries, and would allow for all the existing ones to remain in operation, as well as provide some competition that will increase quality and decrease price, and those dispensaries offering the best medicine at the best prices will survive, and others wont. 9. [72.5(f)] The Distances from Various Places Are Too Prohibitive, and the Ordinance Should Follow State Law on Distance From Schools. The proposed ordinance requires that dispensaries be located 1000 feet from a school, 1000 feet from another dispensary, and 500 feet from a park with a playground, drug/alcohol rehab facility, day care facility, church or youth-oriented facility. We view this as far too prohibitive, and will eliminate many locations. We recommend that dispensaries be located at least 600 feet from a public or private school (kindergarten through 12th grade) in accordance with Section 11362.768(b) of the Health and Safely Code. We suggest that all the other distance restrictions be eliminated. AB 2650 (adding Section 11362.768(b) of the Health and Safety Code) went into effect on January 1, 2011 and provides that medical marijuana dispensaries may not operate within 600 feet of a school. The bill originally proposed a 1,000 foot buffer zone around schools, parks, and churches, but the bill was modified after much discussion to use the same standard as liquor stores, which are prohibited within 600 feet of schools with no additional limitations relating to parks, churches, etc. It appears that the county is required to accept the states law and use the same standard of 600 feet from a school. The legislative history is that AB 2650 declared that establishing a uniform standard regulating the proximity of these medical marijuana establishments to schools is a matter of statewide concern and not a municipal [or county] affair, and that, therefore, all cities and counties, including charter cities and counties, shall be subject to the provisions of the bill. Given this language, it appears reasonably clear that the county cannot require that dispensaries be more than 600 feet from a school; however, the county, at its discretion, may require various distances from other places of concern. The statute states that it shall not be construed to prohibit counties from further restricting the location or establishment of a [dispensary], but given the language of AB 2650 (distance of dispensaries from schools not a county affair), especially given the fact that this started out as a bill to create a buffer zone around schools, parks and churches, it is clear that the intent of the law is that 600 feet from schools be a state uniform standard, but that counties are free to prohibit the location of a dispensary within a certain distance of parks, churches and other similar places. See, County of Los Angeles v. Hill, 192 Cal. App. 4th 861 (2011).

We do not think that dispensaries need to be located at least 500 feet from a church, but if you are inclined to do so, please consider this alternative language, from our model ordinance: Dispensaries located within 500 feet of a church or other place of worship shall close on its primary weekly day of worship. With the exception of being 600 feet from a school, we recommend that you exempt all existing dispensaries from any distance from requirements you pass. 10. [72.5(g)] Setback from Residential Zoning The proposed ordinance requires a setback of 100 feet from residential zoning districts. The problem with this is that many commercial properties, particularly those in C-2, C-3 and CH, border directly on residential zoning, thereby eliminating many possible locations. We see no reason for such a requirement. Those living just off the commercial streets do so with the knowledge that storefront businesses may be located within 100 feet, and a dispensary is really just another storefront. Unless you require a setback of 100 feet for all storefronts, you should not do so just for dispensaries. But, if you do, we suggest that you exempt the existing dispensaries. 11. [72.5(j)] Felony and Misdemeanor Convictions The proposed ordinance disqualifies an operator who has a felony conviction, a misdemeanor conviction involving moral turpitude, or who has engaged in misconduct related to the qualifications, functions or duties of a permittee. This is overbroad and vague. We instead recommend the following language: No person who has been convicted of a felony within the past ten (10) years may be actively engaged in the operation or financing of any dispensary. Going back more than 10 years runs contrary to rehabilitation considerations, and a dispensary owner may have merely been convicted of felony possession of marijuana or cultivation of a handful of marijuana plants for personal use prior to Proposition 215. Concerning misdemeanor convictions, there are various acts of moral turpitude, the proposed language is overly broad, and would mean that a minor, very old mistake, such as shoplifting a candy bar or a pack of cigarettes from a store when young, would disqualify the person (petty larceny). A provision relating to felony convictions within the last 10 years should be sufficient. The provision relating to other misconduct is very vague and we have no idea what it means or who would decide what it means, and we therefore recommend it be eliminated.

12. [72.5(k)7., 72.6(a), (f)] Compliance and Records The proposed ordinance requires that dispensaries open their financial records and disclose to the Sheriff who their growers are and the locations where the cannabis is grown. They would have to label the marijuana with the identification of the grower, and the cost of the marijuana to the dispensary. We recommend striking these provisions. Compliance would be through the Sheriffs Office, rather than through the Health Department and the Planning Department. This attempts to treat the dispensaries as criminal enterprises rather than as legal businesses offering a legitimate and legal form of alternative medical treatment. There are admittedly zoning implications, as well as health implications, and the dispensaries should be regulated by the Health Department except for zoning issues, not by the Sheriffs Office. State identification cards (optional) are already issued by the County Health Department. If you get the optional State of California ID card through the County, the County Health Department must keep this confidential. The State Medical Marijuana ID card has an ID number and a picture, but no name due to privacy/confidentiality laws. Law enforcement officials can verify online that it is a valid card. The growers are required by state law and the proposed ordinance [72.6(c)] to be patients and members of the dispensing collectives. Requiring disclosure of their names and growing locations is a violation of patient privacy and the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA) of 1996 (P.L.104 -191). Under HIPAA, all patient information is private and confidential. Handing the Sheriff a list of who is growing medical marijuana for a dispensary and identifying the location not only violates patient privacy laws but also violates the collective members privilege against (federal) self-incrimination and has a very chilling effect on those supplying the medical marijuana dispensaries. And, with federal laws still in conflict with Californias laws, there is nothing to prevent the Sheriff from sharing this information with the DEA, especially when a subpoena is served by the federal government. There is no valid reason for this requirement. Also, the Sheriff has stated that the reason he favors such a provision is a health reason, so he can check and make sure pesticides are not being used. First of all, health issues are outside the realm of the Sheriffs Office. Secondly, this wouldnt work, since the Sheriff could inspect one day and the next day pesticides could be purchased and sprayed on the medicine. The point of distribution to the collective member/consumer is the appropriate inspection/testing time. Finally, there is a new provision in the proposed ordinance for pesticide testing, which we support, with some additions, and testing obviates the Sheriff having to inspect for pesticide use. (There are three legal sources of medical marijuana at the dispensaries. The dispensary operator can grow it herself for the dispensing collective. The second way is if a member of a dispensing collective or cooperative contracts with the dispensary to supply medicine in return for reimbursement for his labor and expenses. The third source is members that grow their own, but have extra, and then contract with the dispensary to sell their excess in return for reimbursement for labor and expenses. The specific sources are always changing, and
7

even if this disclosure were required in violation of privacy laws and the privilege against (federal) self-incrimination, all the applicant could do is give information current at the time of the application, since she would not be able to predict future sources.) Concerning the cost of the marijuana to the dispensary, no other types of businesses must disclose their wholesale cost to the public, why require that of dispensaries? Concerning financial records, we suggest the following language: Each dispensary shall allow the Planning Director to have access to the dispensarys state tax returns previously filed with the state for the purpose of verifying that the dispensary is operating on a not-for-profit basis in accordance with the Attorney Generals Guidelines. Tax returns shall be produced within 14 days after receipt of the Planning Directors written request. 13. [72.6(d)] This Should Clarify that Edibles are not included in the 15 pounds. This limits the amount of processed marijuana on hand to 15 pounds. A sentence should be added that states that Edibles shall not be included in the 15 pound limit on processed marijuana. 14. [72.6(e)] Warning Message and Child-Proof Containers The proposed ordinance requires a message that medical marijuana may cause cancer when smoked. This is inappropriate and inaccurate. In fact, studies have shown that marijuana may fight cancer and does not cause lung cancer. Should we have scare warnings without facts to back them up? We recommend that this be stricken. This section also requires sale in child-proof containers. This is unnecessary and is not the way medical marijuana is traditionally sold. It is usually sold in various sizes of plastic bags. Child-proof containers can be found for an 1/8 of an ounce, but child-proof containers for a half ounce or an ounce of cannabis are not readily available. Also, some seniors with hand arthritis and other impairments may have great difficulty opening child-proof containers. This should be left up to the responsible parents to be sure their children dont have access. Thus, we recommend striking 72.6 in its entirety. 15. [72.6(g)] Edibles Edibles, or what some call medibles, are an established part of dispensaries in various forms, since many people are unable to smoke or even vaporize cannabis due to their medical conditions, and need to ingest it in some way, but may not have the time or knowledge to prepare edibles themselves. We support the addition of 72.6(g), with the following exceptions: 72.6(g)3. The net weight of cannabis is really irrelevant, and may not be easily ascertained. Usually, the marijuana is processed into butter before cooking. The net weight is irrelevant
8

without knowing the THC content of the cannabis used, and/or whether the marijuana used is bud, trimmings or leaf. We recommend striking this. 72.6(g)6. - This extensive warning/disclaimer seems unnecessary. This sort of warning is required for no other consumer product, including herbs and dietary supplements. As noted by Jim Brown, Health Services Director, in his June 3, 2011 memorandum, if you are going to allow edibles to continue to be sold, it should be handled similar to herbal or dietary supplements . . . . Plants have been used for medicinal purposes for thousands of years, but herbal supplements arent subjected to the same scientific scrutiny and arent as strictly controlled as medications. We recommend striking this warning/disclaimer. 72.6 (k) We recommend striking the words refrigeration or from this provision. Many dispensaries have refrigerators and/or freezers, and distribute edibles that need to be refrigerated or frozen, including ice cream. There may be a risk with hot foods, which we have never seen sold at dispensaries anyway, but there is no significant risk involved from refrigerated items, and dispensaries should be allowed to continue distributing refrigerated or frozen items. 16. [72.6(n)] Residency Requirement The proposed ordinance would require all dispensary members to be residents (full or part time) of the county, thereby infringing on the constitutional right of people to travel intrastate. To our knowledge, no other City or County in California has such a law. Lets be careful here, because we want an ordinance that is legal, does not invite litigation and will hold up in court. Prop 215 was passed by the voters of California, and applies statewide, as does SB 420. There is no requirement like this on any other legal enterprise in our county. Imagine going to a pharmacy with a prescription for heart or blood pressure medicine, while visiting Lake County, and being told that you must be a resident and produce a local utility bill, or you cant get your medicine. Similarly, the multiple sclerosis or glaucoma patient visiting or vacationing in Lake County should be able to obtain her medical marijuana. Someone coming to Lake County to vacation for a week, 2 weeks, a month, or the entire summer should certainly be able to use our dispensaries, just like they can use our pharmacies and other businesses. This provision creates serious enforcement problems, as well as legal issues. There is an established right to travel both interstate and intrastate, and this provision violates the due process and the equal protection clauses of both the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution and also Article 1, Section 7 of the California Constitution. These provisions require equal protection under the laws and that all residents of California be free to travel throughout the state uninhibited by laws that unreasonably burden this movement. Equal protection means that laws are supposed to protect people equally. Also, there are some out of county residents that travel here to purchase medical marijuana from our dispensaries, and these visitors spend their dollars all over the county, not just at the

dispensaries, but also at our wineries, restaurants, motels, stores, gas stations, casinos, and cultural events. This provision was in staffs original draft, but was removed prior to the Planning Commission meeting. The Planning Commission did not vote to restore it. In staffs April 22, 2011 report to the Planning Commission, it was explained: Staff suggests this draft provision that would require members of the dispensaries to be residents of Lake County be deleted . . . . this provision is not practical. The intention of this provision was to assure that the local dispensaries are serving the needs of local residents, and a higher number of dispensaries would not be needed to serve out-of-County qualifying patients. However, this provision to restrict members to local residents would have unintended consequences and would likely be difficult to enforce. Staffs original version was simply that all members of the medical marijuana dispensarys collective or cooperative must be residents of Lake County. Now, it requires full or part time residency, with part time residency being determined by a Lake County utility bill. Such a provision would exclude those that spend several months a year in Lake County with relatives or friends, it would exclude someone who spends a couple of summer months living at a motel or resort, it would exclude people who regularly spend 2 or 3 or 4 days a week in Lake County without a utility bill, it would exclude those that regularly pass through Lake County on Highway 20 and other highways, and it would exclude all tourists, including tourists who are drawn to Lake County primarily by the quality of medicine and prices at our dispensaries, but are also drawn here by our countys beauty and recreational activities, and wind up spending their money all over the county. Also, it would exclude city dwellers, from such places as Sacramento, San Francisco, and Santa Rosa, who value outdoor-grown organic cannabis, but who have no place to grow their own outdoors in the cities, and who have heard about the fine, organic, outdoor-grown cannabis at Lake County dispensaries. Dont we want people visiting Lake County, discovering our many assets, and helping our economy? We strongly recommend that dispensary members not be required to reside in Lake County. Of all the questionable provisions in the proposed ordinance, this is the worst. There is simply no justification for this provision, and it violates the equal protection clauses of the United States and California Constitutions, and the right to travel, and is likely to lead to litigation. 17. [72.6(t)] Number of Clones on Site for Distribution The second sentence limits the number of live plants (clones) on site at any one time to 25. This is ridiculous and ignores the realities of dispensaries. It also contradicts 72.6(d), which states that a dispensary may possess marijuana at its facility only in the collective amount that each [dispensary member] is allowed to possess. The reality is that in the Spring, lots of patients buy clones from the dispensaries, and try to grow their own medicine. Clones come like any other nursery plants, in flats of 30, or 40, or 50 plants, all one variety. Many dispensaries sell 10 or 15 different varieties of clones, so a dispensary could easily have several hundred clones on hand during the Spring planting season, less during the rest of the year.
10

A dispensary might have 1,000 members, and thus in accordance with 72.6(d), could actually have a minimum of 12,000 clones on hand at any one time (12 immature plants per member). Now, no dispensary is going to have 12,000 clones on hand, but several hundred is not unusual in the Spring. We recommend that there be no limit on the number of clones on hand at a dispensary, and that the second sentence of 72.6(t) be stricken. 18. [72.6(v)] Sale of Alcohol on Parcel This provides that a dispensary can not be on a parcel where another business sells alcohol. We fail to see any legitimate reason for this. This means that a dispensary could not be located in a small strip mall, or a shopping center where any business sells alcohol. We simply dont understand why this is here and recommend striking this provision. 19. [72.6(aa)] Testing of Medical Marijuana We support this provision, with two changes: 72.6(aa)1. After the word pesticides, add , mold and fungus since these are probably more important than pesticides, and more prevalent. Also, we recommend striking the words and shall be destroyed in the last sentence of this provision, since the dispensary has no right to destroy cannabis provided on consignment by a member, even if it tests positive. 20. [72.9] Home Delivery Services The proposed ordinance would prohibit home delivery services except from approved dispensaries and specifically prohibits home delivery services operated out of residences. We recommend that this be stricken, since some patients form legal growing collectives at the property of one of the collective members, and the primary grower may then distribute the medical marijuana by home deliveries to other collective members. This should not be prohibited. Also, if you adopt our recommended definition of a dispensary as set forth herein in heading 4 on page 3, then this problem is resolved. We recommend that you use our definition of a dispensary, including the last sentence, which says: A medical marijuana patient growing collective" or cooperative that does not operate as a storefront dispensary is exempt from the provisions of this ordinance. 21. [72.13] The Requirement for Liability Insurance is Excessive The proposed ordinance requires that the dispensaries carry insurance with liability limits of one million/two million dollars. Purchasing that amount of insurance is very expensive and it is unreasonable to require that. The County does not require this of any other types of businesses. We suggest that this provision be eliminated or at the very least the amount be lowered to the more reasonable amount of $500,000.
11

22. Conclusion These are our major concerns. We believe that a licensing process, such as we set forth in our Model Ordinance, is a far simpler and better way to go. We believe that, given all the problems with staffs proposed ordinance, you should consider using our model ordinance as a starting point, and work from there to improve it with such additions as the pesticide, mold and fungus testing provision. Our model ordinance is clear and concise, much shorter and easier to read than staffs proposal, and accomplishes nearly everything necessary. Thank you for your time and consideration.

12