Petition and Complaint Against Board of Supervisors

PETITION FOR WRITS UNDER CEQA AND CCP 1094.5; COMPLAINT FOR

DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF - 1

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

LETITIA E. PEPPER, SBN 105277Director of Legal and Legislative Analysis for Crusaders for Patients’ RightsP. O. Box 55560Riverside, CA 92517(951) 781-8883

Attorney for Plaintiff Crusaders for Patients’ Rights

SUPERIOR COURT FOR THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO

CRUSADERS FOR PATIENTS'

RIGHTS, a California Corporation,

Petitioner and Plaintiff,

vs.

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF THE

COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO,

Respondent and Defendant.

__________________________________

CALIFORNIA CHIEFS OF POLICE

ASS’N, a California Corporation,

Real Party in Interest and

Defendant.

)))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))))

Case No.: CIVDS 1105492

PETITION FOR: (1) WRIT OF MANDATE TO HALT

PROJECT APPROVED IN VIOLATION OF “CEQA” [pursuant to Code Civ. Proc. §§ 1060, 1095, 1094.5, Pub. Resources Code §§ 21000 et seq.; CEQA Guidelines]

(2) WRIT OF ADMINISTRATIVE MANDAMUS FOR JUDICIAL REVIEW OF ADMINISTRATIVE AGENCY ACTION [pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure § 1094.5]

COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF BASED ON VIOLATIONS OF FEDERAL AND (1) Violation of Free Speech Rights Under U.S. Constitution, Amend. 1 & Cal. Const, art. 1, § 2(a)(2) Violation of Associational Rights derived from U.S. Constitution, Amend. 1 & Cal. Const, art. 1, § 3(3) Violation of The Ralph M. Brown Act, Gov. Code §§ 54950 et seq.(4) Violation of “The Compassionate Use Act,” Health & Safety Code § 11362.5(5) Violation of “The Medical Marijuana Program Act,” codified at Health & & Safety Code §§ 11362.7 to 11362.9. (6) Violation of The 2008 Attorney General's Guidelines for the Non-

Diversion of Medical Marijuana, as mandated by Health & Safety Code § 11362.81, subd. (d);



1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

THE PARTIES

1. Petitioner and Plaintiff Crusaders for Patients’ Rights (hereinafter “CPR”) is,

and at all times relevant hereto was, a 501(c)(3) corporation duly organized and

existing under the laws of California, and an affiliate of Americans for Safe

Access, also a 501(c)(3) corporation duly organized and existing under the

laws of California.

2. Petitioner’s members are California citizens and taxpayers who have a direct

interest in the safe, affordable and legal availability of “medical marijuana”1

for use by California residents who are qualified to use it under applicable state

laws, including Prop. 215 (the voter-approved initiative known as The

Compassionate Use Act [hereinafter “the CUA”], codified at Health & Safety

Code section 11362.5), the CUA’s enabling statutes (as enacted by Senate Bill

420, known as The Medical Marijuana Program Act [hereinafter the “MMPA”]

1 Hereinafter Petitioner shall refer to “medical marijuana” as “medical marijuana” when such term appears in a statute, case law or documents used in the administrative record of this case. In all other instances, Petitioner shall use the term “cannabis” to refer to “cannabis indica” and “cannabis sativa,” colloquially known by the slang term “marijuana,” and shall use the term “marijuana” when referring to cannabis that is used, illegally under both state and federal law, recreationally rather than medicinally.

The species cannabis indica and sativa were legally used for medicinal purposes for at least 3,500 years. Such legal, medicinal use of both whole herbal cannabis, extracts of cannabis, and cannabis cigarettes (used to treat asthma), was well-established in the United States before 1937. The medicinal herb and its extracts were referred to as “cannabis” in U.S. medical literature and catalogues for the sale of medicinal herbs. It was not until 1937, when the “Marijuana Stamp Tax Act” (MSTA) was enacted, that the little-known slang term “marijuana” began to become the generic term for “cannabis.” (For a medical and legal history of cannabis/marijuana, see generally Herer, “The Emperor Wears No Clothes” (2007) as available on the Internet at no cost at www.jackherer.com.)

Despite its stance that “marijuana has no medicinal value,” the U.S. Government, in 2003, became the assignee of a patent on cannabinoids (the primary medicinal compounds found in cannabis), U. S. Patent No. 6,630,507 B1, date of patent Oct. 7, 2002, as “anti-oxidants and neuro-protectants.” This patent describes cannabinoids as having medicinal value in the treatment of, e.g., ischemic attacks, trauma, HIV, AIDS, autoimmune diseases, Parkinson’s Disease and Alzheimer’s Disease. California citizens have been using whole-herbal cannabis to treat all of the above, and other, ailments.



1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

and codified at Health & Safety Codes §§ 11362.7 to 11362.9), and the 2008

Attorney General’s Guidelines for the Nondiversion of Medical Marijuana

[hereinafter “the 2008 A.G. Guidelines”], which 2008 A. G. Guidelines the

Legislature mandated the Attorney General to prepare, as part of The Medical

Marijuana Program Act, in Health & Safety Code § 11362.81, subd. (d).

3. CPR’s members’ direct interests include, as patients and primary caregivers as

defined by the applicable medical marijuana laws:

a. the right and ability to legally obtain cannabis, as a form of herbal

medicinal treatment used as an alternative to, and/or an adjunct with,

compounded pharmaceutical prescription medications and/or over-the-

counter (OTC) compounded medications, from lawfully operated

“storefront cannabis dispensing collectives,” as well as from non-storefront

cannabis dispensing collectives and cooperatives as defined in the 2008

Guidelines;

b. the right and ability to legally cultivate cannabis for their own personal

medicinal use and for distribution to other patients and caregivers who do

not or cannot cultivate such cannabis for themselves;

c. the right to associate together and form legally recognized and operated

collectives and cooperatives for the purposes of legally cultivating and

distributing cannabis to each other;

d. the right to associate together and form legally recognized and operated

collectives and cooperatives for the purposes of sharing information with

each other related to the medicinal uses of cannabis, the methods of

preparing cannabis extracts and cannabis-containing foods used for

medicinal purposes; and

e. the right to engage in the above-noted activities in a legal, safe and

affordable manner.



1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

4. CPR’s members’ direct interests include, as family members and friends of

such patients and primary caregivers, assuring that patients and caregivers have

legal, safe and affordable access to cannabis as an herbal medicinal therapy

that can be used as an alternative to, and/or adjunct with, prescription,

compounded pharmaceutical medications and/or OTC compounded

medications.

5. CPR’s members include, but are not limited to, residents of both the

unincorporated and incorporated areas of the County of San Bernardino.

6. CPR brings this action on behalf of itself and its members and/or supporters,

and on behalf of all Californians who may now, or in the future, need to be

able to legally, safely and affordably obtain cannabis in the County of San

Bernardino.

7. CPR also brings this action on behalf of all residents of California, who have a

beneficial interest in all state agencies’ compliance with CEQA and

specifically with the greenhouse gas emission components of the California

Environmental Quality Act (hereinafter “CEQA”), because greenhouse gas

emissions – and their environmental impacts -- do not respect county and city

borders.

8. The County of San Bernardino (hereinafter “COUNTY”) is, and at all relevant

times hereto was, a government agency of the State of California and both a

local agency and the lead agency, for purposes of CEQA, for the project in

question, to wit, the discretionary approval of and adoption of the below-

described ordinance (hereinafter either “the Project” or “the ORDINANCE”).

9. Respondent and Defendant the Board of Supervisors of the County (hereinafter

“the BOARD”) is COUNTY’S governing body and is authorized and required

by law to hold public hearings as required by law, to accept public comment

and testimony as required by law, to determine the adequacy of and certify

environmental documents under CEQA, and to take all other actions with



1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

respect to the approval of projects subject to CEQA and the adoption of

COUNTY’S ordinances. BOARD is also charged with adopting laws to

protect the public’s health, safety and welfare.

10. Real Party in Interest California Chiefs of Police Association (hereinafter

“CALCOPA”) is a 501(c)(3) corporation duly organized and existing under the

laws of California.

11. CALCOPA promulgates, and makes available on its website, a “model”

ordinance that, when adopted by cities or counties, both impairs safe, legal and

affordable access to cannabis and promotes the need for retaining and/or hiring

additional law enforcement and/or code enforcement personnel to enforce such

Ordinance.

12. COUNTY and BOARD chose to use CALCOPA’s model ordinance as the

basis for COUNTY’S own Ordinance No. 4140 (hereinafter “the

ORDINANCE”), which is a word-for-word copy, with no substantive changes,

of the CALCOPA “model” ordinance.

13. At the March 22, 2011 public hearing before BOARD, the Chief of Police of

the City of Fontana spoke, on behalf of the “San Bernardino County Chiefs and

Sheriffs Association,” (hereinafter “SBCCSA”) in favor of the ORDINANCE.

14. CPR is informed and believes, and on that basis alleges, that SBCCSA, which

is not listed with the Secretary of State as a separate entity, is a subset, chapter,

branch or similar affiliate of CALCOPA.

15. Accordingly, for purposes of CEQA, CALCOPA, on behalf of itself and

SBCCSA, was and is the project applicant for the adoption of the

ORDINANCE. A true and correct copy of the ORDINANCE is attached

hereto as EXHIBIT 1 and incorporated here by such reference as though

fully set forth herein.

16. The true names and capacities of DOES 1 through 24, inclusive, are unknown

to CPR. CPR will amend this petition/complaint to set forth the true names



1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

and capacities of said DOE real parties in interest/defendants as soon as the

same have been ascertained. CPR is informed and believes, and thereon

alleges, that each such DOE parties 1 through 12 has jurisdiction by law over

one or more aspects of the Ordinance and its approval and that each of said

DOE parties 13 through 24 claims an interest in the actions of the

respondents/defendants challenged herein.

PRE-FILING NOTICES

17. On April 22, 2011, before the commencement of this action, CPR served

written notice of the commencement of this action on COUNTY and BOARD

in accordance with the requirements of the Code of Civil Procedure § 388 and

Public Resources Code § 21167.5.2 A true and correct copy of such written

notice is attached hereto as EXHIBIT 2 and incorporated here by such

reference as though fully set forth herein.

18. On April 23, 2011, CPR notified the Attorney General of the State of

California of the commencement of this action and thereafter, concomitantly

with the filing of this complaint and petition, furnished her with a copy of the

petition and complaint in accordance with the requirements of Public

Resources Code § 21167.7. A true and correct copy of such written notice

to the California Attorney General is attached hereto as EXHIBIT 3 and

incorporated here by such reference as though fully set forth herein.

PRELIMINARY FACTS

(Related to COUNTY and BOARD’S Illegal Restriction of Speech at the Public

Hearings on the Ordinance, in Violation of State and Federal Constitutional

Rights of Free Speech and the Ralph M. Brown Act)

19. Before its adoption, the ORDINANCE was the subject matter of two hearings

before COUNTY’S Planning Commission, on February 3 and 17, 2011.

2 All further statutory references shall be to the Public Resources Code except as otherwise noted.



1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

20. At the February 3, 2011 hearing, many members of the public, including

members of CPR, spoke against the adoption of the ORDINANCE, raising,

among other issues, that the proposed ORDINANCE violated cannabis

patients’ and caregivers’ state and federal constitutional freedom of association

rights, the CUA, the MMPA, the 2008 A. G. Guidelines, and even CEQA,

given that staff had reported that the project was exempt from CEQA pursuant

to CEQA Guidelines, Guideline § 15061(b)(3).3 A true and correct copy of

the February 3, 2011 letter submitted by CPR to the Planning Commission

(but erroneously addressed to BOARD), objecting to the adoption of the

ORDINANCE, is attached hereto as EXHIBIT 4 and incorporated here by

such reference as though fully set forth herein.

21. The Planning Commission, rather than recommend that the BOARD adopt the

ORDINANCE, continued the hearing until February 17, 2011.

22. When the agenda for the February 17, 2011 Planning Commission was

released, it purported to limit further public testimony at the continued hearing,

so as to prevent the public from commenting on any new materials received by

the Planning Commission between the end of the February 3, 2011 hearing and

the beginning of the February 17, 2011 hearing.

23. Accordingly, CPR on behalf of its members and the general public, on

February 16, 2011, submitted two letters to County Counsel objecting not only

to such limitations on public comment/testimony, but to the Planning

Commission’s insistence that members of the public give their full names and

addresses before being allowed to speak. True and correct copies of the two

February 16, 2011 letters submitted to County Counsel by CPR objecting

to the agenda’s announced limitation of comment/testimony and

requirement that speakers give their full names and addresses are

3 All further references to “Guideline” shall be to CEQA Guidelines.



1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

attached hereto as EXHIBITS 5 and 6 incorporated here by such

reference as though fully set forth herein.

24. In addition to submitting EXHIBITS 5 and 6 to County Counsel before the

meeting, CPR also submitted further written comments about the legal and

factual problems with the ORDINANCE to the Planning Commission itself. A

true and correct copy of the February 16, 2011 letter from CPR submitted

to the Planning Commission is attached hereto as EXHIBIT 7 and

incorporated here by such reference as though fully set forth herein.

25. At the February 17, 2011 hearing, although the Planning Commission did not

restrict public comment/testimony as it had planned to do according to its

agenda, it did illegally limit public comment/testimony in another way.

26. Specifically, although the subject matter listed on the agenda for discussion

was the ORDINANCE, and whether or not the Planning Commission should

recommend to BOARD that the ORDINANCE be adopted, the Planning

Commission’s Chair, in violation of the Ralph M. Brown Act, § 54952.3 and

state and federal constitutional rights of free speech, instructed those in

attendance that (1) they were not to discuss their health problems and the

impact of the ORDINANCE on such problems, and (2) they could only speak

on the topic of “land use,” upon pain of being physically removed from the

hearing chambers.

27. The Chair of the Planning Commission repeated these directions on numerous

occasions, as members of the audience attempted to address the issue of their

health problems and the impact of the ORDINANCE on such problems

because it would impair their legal, safe and affordable access to cannabis.

28. During this hearing, members of the public raised the issues of (a) where,

exactly, indoor cannabis could be grown and (b) the unnecessary expense of

paying for electricity to grow it indoors.



1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29. In response, the Chair commented that people could simply grow cannabis on

their windowsills, indicating a serious lack of knowledge on the subject, since

healthy cannabis plants can be as tall as field corn and bushy enough to fill a

five foot by five foot square. Therefore, at the end of this hearing, members of

the public came to the front of the chambers to talk to her about the realities of

growing cannabis, and she then suggested they could use greenhouses, as

opposed to windowsills, to grow “indoor” cannabis.

30. Those present then asked if greenhouses – which have clear sides and roofs –

would actually be acceptable, since then the plants could be seen. Because no

reasons had ever been given in the staff report, or anywhere else, for requiring

only indoor cultivation of cannabis, the public had been reduced to guessing

that visibility of outdoor cannabis was an issue for County’s decision-makers,

but the Ordinance itself said nothing about the issue of visibility.

31. Asked if greenhouses were acceptable under the Ordinance, the Assistant

County Counsel who had been present during the hearing, and who was

present afterwards, would only say that plants had to be grown inside a

building with solid walls and a solid roof, but would not confirm whether or

not clear walls and roofs were acceptable under the ORDINANCE, thus clearly

leaving this issue to be resolved via litigation after the first patients had

invested in greenhouses, started growing cannabis, and then been cited by

County for violating the Ordinance.

32. The Planning Commission, following such hearing, recommended to the

BOARD that it adopt the ORDINANCE with no changes.

33. The ORDINANCE and its proposed adoption then became the subject matter

of two hearings before COUNTY’S BOARD, on March 22 and April 5, 2011.

34. On March 22, 2011, the BOARD’S hearing on the adoption of the

ORDINANCE began with the BOARD’S Chair, Josie Gonzales, in violation of

the Ralph M. Brown Act and state and federal constitutional rights of free



1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

speech, instructing those in attendance that (1) they were not to discuss their

health problems and the impact of the ORDINANCE on such problems, and

(2) they could only speak on the topic of “land use,” upon pain of being

physically removed from the hearing chambers if they tried to discuss anything

but “land use.”

35. CPR, through its attorney, attempted to raise, as a point of order from the floor,

the illegality of such a restriction on public comment, but the Chair refused to

recognize CPR’s attorney. CPR’s attorney then, at the lunch break, attempted

to explain the on-going free speech violation to the Chair and to County

Counsel, but to no avail; Mrs. Gonzales did not understand the legal issue, and

County Counsel, refusing to speak to CPR’s attorney, simply left for lunch.

36. Therefore, the second half of the hearing proceeded with the same improper

restriction on speech. Nonetheless, CPR was able to put into the record the

written testimony of several of its members, including the written testimony

of Jeremy Weissmiller, Sgt. USMC Ret., a true and correct copy of which

is attached hereto as EXHIBIT 8 and incorporated by this reference as

though fully set forth here.

37. After the lunch break, some members of the audience who had put in speaker

cards to speak against the adoption of the ORDINANCE did not return, and

therefore did not provide public comment/testimony.

38. CPR is informed and believes, and on that basis alleges, that the on-going,

illegal restriction on speech, in addition to improperly restricting the contents

of the record in terms of comments that were made by those members of the

public who did speak, also had a chilling effect on speech and discouraged

other persons in attendance from even trying to speak to the issues that were

known to and important to them.

39. The ORDINANCE, by purporting to ban not only (1) any associations of more

than two persons collectively and/or cooperatively cultivating and distributing



1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

cannabis, (2) storefront cannabis dispensing collectives and cooperatives, and

(3) the outdoor cultivation of cannabis, clearly will impair safe, legal and local

access to a legal alternative to, and/or adjunct with, more “traditional,”

“modern” compounded, pharmaceutical medications, both those sold by

prescription and those sold OTC.

40. Thus, among the issues known to and important to members of the public who

were directed to speak to only “land use” issues, were such issues as their own,

personal experiences, or those of their sick relatives, with using prescription

and OTC medications, the problems they experienced using such medications,

how using cannabis as an alternative to, or adjunct with, such more

“traditional,” “modern” compounded medications had helped them or their

relatives, how the difference in outcome between a treatment using cannabis or

not using cannabis was so significant that they would resort to illegally

purchasing cannabis on the black market if it were otherwise unavailable,

personal anecdotes about their ability to grow cannabis outdoors with no

problems versus the problems they had experienced, or had heard from others,

about growing cannabis indoors, and other issues about which one can only

speculate, given that the ban on discussion of anything other than “land use”

prevented them from even being raised.

41. At the end of the March 22, 2011 hearing, the BOARD voted to adopt the

ORDINANCE, and to set it for the required second reading on April 5, 2011.

42. Between March 21 and April 5, 2011, CPR submitted several letters to the

BOARD and County Counsel pointing out the legal and factual problems with

adoption of the ORDINANCE. True and correct copies of the letters from

CPR submitted to the BOARD and County Counsel submitting evidence

related to the proposed Ordinance’s adoption and raising objections to its

adoption are attached hereto as EXHIBITS 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16,



1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

and 17 and incorporated here by such reference as though fully set forth

herein.

43. On April 5, 2011, the second reading was waived, but, at the request of Ron

Deziel, a CPR member, to his Supervisor, Supervisor Derry, the

ORDINANCE’S adoption was removed from the agenda’s Consent Calendar

and further public comment/testimony was taken.

44. On April 5, 2011, the BOARD unanimously voted to adopt the ORDINANCE.

45. Final approval of the ORDINANCE having been given on April 5, 2011, the

ORDINANCE will take effect on May 6, 2011 if not enjoined.

PRELIMINARY FACTS

(Related to How, by Adopting ORDINANCE, COUNTY and BOARD Violated

CEQA, COUNTY’S General Plan, COUNTY’S Consent Decree Signed with the

People of the State of California, the CUA, S.B. 420, the 2008 A. G. Guidelines,

State and Federal Constitutional Rights of Free Association and Basic Principles

of Land Use and Planning

46. The Ordinance constitutes a project within the meaning of CEQA, a fact

recognized by County and Defendant Board, as evidenced by the Notice of

Exemption from CEQA (hereinafter “the NOE”) adopted and filed by County

on March 23, 2011. A true and correct copy of such NOE is attached

hereto as EXHIBIT 18 and incorporated here by such reference as though

fully set forth herein.

47. If such NOE is found to be legally adequate, then this action has been brought

within 35 days of the filing of the NOE as required by § 21167, subd. (d) and

Guideline §15062(d).

48. If such NOE is found to be legally inadequate, as Petitioner contends, then this

action has been brought within 180 days of the filing of the NOE, as required

by § 21167, subd. (d) and Guideline § 15112(c)(2).



1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

49. When COUNTY and BOARD adopted such ORDINANCE, they knew, and

used as a rationale for adopting such ORDINANCE, that other counties and

cities have adopted (equally illegal) bans on collective distribution of cannabis,

and, specifically, that all of the incorporated cities in San Bernardino County

have banned the collective distribution of cannabis, including distribution via

storefront dispensing collectives.

50. The Ordinance, among other things, purports to:

a. define “medical marijuana dispensary” in such a way as to include in such

definition all private, non-retail-related, non-storefront distribution of

cannabis by private collectives and cooperatives in a manner allowed as

lawful by the 2008 A. G. Guidelines;

b. make illegal, and ban, any association of more than two (2) cannabis

patients organized to cultivate and/or distribute cannabis;

c. ban, as a violation of County’s Development Code, all such “medical

marijuana dispensaries” within County’s unincorporated areas;

d. ban, as a violation of County’s Development Code, the outdoor cultivation

of cannabis by anyone, including persons legally allowed, pursuant to state

law, to cultivate cannabis both indoor and outdoors as each patient finds

most suitable, safe and affordable;

e. potentially purport to re-criminalize, within County’s unincorporated areas,

as violations of the Development Code that may be punished by being

charged as misdemeanors, the following activities which were

decriminalized by state law, and which, under state law, are not illegal:

i. all “medical marijuana dispensaries,” including all private, non-

retail-related, non-storefront private medical marijuana collectives

and cooperatives that are lawful under state law

ii. the outdoor cultivation of cannabis.



1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

51. CPR and the public presented evidence that the Ordinance will have the

following environmental impacts and related impacts on human health:

a. remove from the environment the beneficial side-effects of the outdoor

cultivation of cannabis, which cultivation of large, outdoor crop-sized

plants results in a lessening of greenhouse gases by the carbon-fixing action

of the plants’ use of CO2 and a concomitant reduction in ambient air

temperatures;

b. substitute, by requiring such plants’ indoor cultivation, the use of large

amounts of electricity in place of natural sunlight;

c. substitute, by requiring such plants’ indoor cultivation, large amounts of

electricity to create breezes to take the place of natural breezes needed to

strengthen the indoor plants’ stems and to circulate air for overall plant

health;

d. substitute, by requiring such plants’ indoor cultivation, large amounts of

electricity to ventilate and to cool the interior growing spaces to reduce the

build-up of heat from the electrical light;

e. substitute, in place of natural sunlight, large numbers of specialized electric

light bulbs, each of which have a useful life of no more than a year before

they must be replaced (used bulbs, which may contain heavy metals, which

then must be properly disposed of);

f. substitute artificial, inorganic chemicals as fertilizer and soil substitutes in

place of natural soils;

g. substitute toxic pesticides in place of natural, organic pest predators such as

birds, beneficial insects and lizards;

h. cause, because of the increased demands for electricity, an increased

demand for and production of, specialized electrical light bulbs, artificial

chemicals, and pesticides, an environmental impact displaced in the areas



1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

where such electricity, light bulbs, and chemicals are produced and/or

disposed of;

i. cause, by banning within County’s jurisdiction all medical marijuana

dispensaries, and by making it more onerous for patients and caregivers to

cultivate cannabis themselves, an increased use of fossil fuels, e.g.,

gasoline, oil and tires, by County’s residents who will be forced to travel

longer distances to obtain their legal cannabis from more distance sources;

j. cause, by reducing legal, safe, affordable, outdoor cultivation of, and local

access to, cannabis, significantly increased public health risks related to the

concomitant changes in:

i. increased mileage traveled by patients and/or caregivers to obtain

cannabis;

ii. increased illegal activities by gangs and drug dealers selling

cannabis to patients and caregivers who are unable to readily obtain

cannabis legally;

iii. increased use of electricity and water in residential homes that may

be unsuited to such increased usage;

iv. increased risk of, and actual increases in, indoor humidity, mold and

pests and of the indoor use of chemicals to control mold and pests;

v. re-allocation of family budgets to try to cover the increased costs

associated with obtaining cannabis and/or cultivating cannabis

indoors instead of outside, e.g., costs of gas, electricity, equipment,

and chemicals, so that less money may be available for other

necessities, leading to the proverbial need to choose between food or

healthcare;

vi. increased opportunities for, and therefore increased risk of, negative

interactions between, on the one hand, patients and caregivers, and,

on the other hand, code enforcement officers related to the



1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

ORDINANCE’S illegal restrictions of patients’ and caregivers’

rights to cultivate and distribute cannabis pursuant to state law;

vii. increased opportunities for, and therefore increased risk of, negative

interactions between, on the one hand, patients and caregivers, and,

on the other hand, law enforcement officers related to the

ORDINANCE’S illegal re-criminalization of cultivation and

collective distribution of cannabis by patients and caregivers;

viii. increased risks of patients and caregivers being subjected to stressful

searches, seizures, fines and even assaults and arrests by

COUNTY’S employees acting “under color of law” pursuant to the

ORDINANCE;

k. cause, by banning collective distribution of cannabis within County’s

unincorporated areas, with the knowledge that such bans were already in

place in all or all but one of COUNTY’S incorporated cities, a cumulative

impact on legal, safe and affordable access to cannabis, e.g., an increase in

the cost of such cannabis due to decreased supplies (because of those

unable to legally cultivate and distribute under the ORDINANCE) and

increased demand (because of those unable to legally cultivate for

themselves outdoors, unable, practically, to cultivate for themselves

indoors, and who therefore become additional consumers of cannabis which

someone else must grow);

l. deprive those persons who legally choose to use herbal cannabis in place of,

or as an adjunct to, prescription medications, of equal access to healthcare

and to treatment of pain, neuropathy and all the other ailments which they

can best treat with cannabis;

m. thereby statistically increase the risk of, and therefore the number of,

persons who will suffer kidney and liver failure because of increased



1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

dependence on both over-the-counter (OTC) and prescription pain and

spasticity medications when adequate cannabis is unavailable;

n. thereby statistically increase the risk of, and therefore the number of,

persons suffering from spinal cord injuries, quadriplegia, and paraplegia

who will experience uncontrolled autonomic dysreflexia, with its attendant

risks of brain hemorrhage and resulting injuries (e.g., coma and/or death),

because of inadequate, or no, access to cannabis;

o. thereby statistically increase the risk of, and therefore the number of,

persons who will become malnourished and depressed and therefore fail to

recover and/or die when they are unable to obtain adequate cannabis to treat

the nausea, lack of appetite and depression that accompany chemotherapy

treatment for cancer, AIDS, HIV and other illnesses;

p. thereby statistically increase the risk of, and therefore the number of,

persons who will experience worsening of glaucoma and other, related

inflammatory eye diseases;

q. thereby statistically increase the risk of, and therefore the number of,

persons who will experience painful, unnecessarily long-lasting migraines

when they are unable to quickly halt the progression of such attacks by

using inhaled cannabis;

r. thereby statistically increase the risk of, and therefore the number of,

persons who will suffer damage to organs, damage to other bodily systems

and other side effects associated with prescription drug use, because of

increased dependence on both OTC and prescription medications when

adequate cannabis is unavailable;

s. thereby statistically increase the risk of, and therefore the number of,

persons suffering from HIV and AIDS who will suffer over-all declines in

health and increased susceptibility to opportunistic diseases when they are



1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

unable to obtain adequate cannabis to use as a supplement to their OTC and

prescription medications.

t. thereby deprive military veterans of adequate access to cannabis as a

complete treatment, or an adjunct to traditional compounded prescription

medications, for pain, phantom limb pain, spasticity associated with spinal

cord injuries, and post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) – even though, in

2010, the Veteran’s Administration officially began to allow veterans

residing in California, the District of Columbia, and all states where

cannabis is legal to use cannabis instead of, or in addition to, VA-supplied

prescription pain medications.

52. Approval of the ORDINANCE is thus inconsistent with BOARD and

COUNTY’s duties to protect the public’s health, safety and welfare, and with

COUNTY’S General Plan’s components related to

a. reduction of air pollution, greenhouse gas emissions, and fossil fuel and

electrical consumption;

b. protecting human life, health and safety;

c. providing equitable, local access to healthcare and other facilities related to

the public’s health, safety and well-being.

EXHAUSTION OF ADMINISTRATIVE REMEDIES

53. CPR’s members, as well as its Director of Legal and Legislative Analysis,

Letitia E. Pepper, attended the Planning Commission and BOARD hearings

and/or sent written comments to raise objections to the process by which public

comments were improperly limited, to the violations of state law that would be

committed if the ORDINANCE were adopted, and to the lack of any nexus

between the evidence and the findings in support of adoption of such

ORDINANCCE.

54. CPR’s members, as well as its Director of Legal and Legislative Analysis,

Letitia E. Pepper, attended the Planning Commission and BOARD hearings



1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

and/or sent written objections to the ORDINANCE based on its effects on

human health and the environment, if adopted, including, but not limited to,

objections based on

a. failure to comply with the California Environmental Quality Act

(hereinafter “CEQA”), specifically that Section 6 of the Ordinance, which

purported to find that the Ordinance was not subject to CEQA, was patently

incorrect and not supported by the evidence;

b. violations of the CUA, the MMPA, and the 2008 A. G. Guidelines;

c. serious negative impacts on public health & safety presented by the

ORDINANCE;

d. improper restriction of public comments/testimony – and therefore of the

record -- in violation of free speech rights and the Ralph M. Brown Act;

e. violations of cannabis patients and their caregivers’ constitutional rights of

association;

f. the lack of evidentiary support for the claimed local health and safety

problems that supposedly could only be resolved by a ban of storefront

dispensaries rather than regulation of such facilities.

55. CPR and the public made multiple submissions to, and appearances before,

COUNTY’S Planning Commission, COUNTY, and BOARD at each and every

hearing conducted on adoption of the ORDINANCE.

56. At such hearings, and in letters and e-mails delivered to COUNTY and

BOARD before and after such hearings, CPR and the public advised them of

their public duties, and requested them to comply with such duties.

57. In a last-ditch effort to prevent the adoption of the ORDINANCE, one of

CPR’s members, Ron Deziel, even asked his Supervisor to “pull” the

ORDINANCE’S adoption from the Consent Calendar so that members of the

public could again try to persuade the BOARD that its adoption of the



1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

ORDINANCE was improper because the findings in support of the

ORDINANCE were not supported by the evidence in the record or by the law.

58. However, by April 5, 2011, very few cannabis patients and caregivers even

bothered to attend, having already been discouraged from participation by

being told they could only speak to the “land use” issue.

59. The ORDINANCE was pulled for further discussion and the few members of

the public present, including CPR, via its attorney and a few of its members,

Ron Deziel, Jeriann Durbin-Fairman, Mark Martin, and Abel Chapa, again

objected, unsuccessfully, to the ORDINANCE’S adoption.

60. Therefore, it clearly being futile to make any further submissions and demands

that COUNTY and BOARD comply with applicable laws and/or not adopt the

ORDINANCE when the findings in support of it were not supported by the

evidentiary record, CPR and the public have exhausted their administrative

remedies.

IRREPARABLE INJURY

61. Petitioner and its members and supporters, as well as California citizens in

general, will suffer irreparable injuries as a consequence of the adverse impacts

from Respondents’ illegal approval of the Project, enactment of, and threatened

enforcement of, the ORDINANCE.

62. Such irreparable injuries include, but are not limited to:

a. inability of cannabis patients and caregivers to legally begin outdoor

cultivation of cannabis now. Cannabis is a large plant best grown outdoors,

where it is seasonal crop whose success depends on patients’ ability to plant

it in the spring and allow it seven to nine months of outdoor growth before

harvesting it. Patients who fear arrest and prosecution pursuant to the

ORDINANCE are therefore unable to begin their outdoor planting season

in the face of the threat presented by the ORDINANCE’S adoption and

enforcement;



1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

b. loss of patients’ necessary, home-produced medicines as a result of the

interference with the planting of a seasonal crop, which will result in the

patients’ and their families’ need to come up with significant sums of

money to buy replacement herbal cannabis – or do without it;

c. loss of patients’ and caregivers’ safe and legal access to alternate sources of

cannabis from local, dispensing storefront collectives and cooperatives;

d. apparent necessity to pay for the facilities, equipment, supplies and

electricity necessary to engage in indoor cultivation of cannabis in order to

be able to legally cultivate cannabis.

e. inability to know whether or not it is legal to grow cannabis inside a

greenhouse, given the ORDINANCE’S ambiguity as to the meaning of “no

outdoor cultivation” and County Counsel’s unwillingness to make any

definitive statement about whether solid walls and roofs may be clear.

f. increases in greenhouse gas emissions and use of fossil fuels;

g. increased mileage that must be driven in order to obtain cannabis;

h. serious emotional distress and worry suffered by patients and caregivers

over the fear that they will be unable to safely, legally, and affordably

cultivate and/or obtain cannabis in their own neighborhoods, and that they

will again suffer the physical problems they experienced before they were

able to obtain and use cannabis.

NO PLAIN, SPEEDY OR ADEQUATE REMEDY

63. CPR, its members, and all members of the public affected by the

ORDINANCE, have no plain, speedy or adequate remedy in the ordinary

course of law. CPR’s only recourse is to seek the relief provided by:

a. CEQA, Public Resources Code §§ 21000 et seq., which provides for

judicial review under Code of Civil Procedure §§ 1094.5 and 1097;

b. Code of Civil Procedure, § 1094.5, which provides for judicial review of

administrative agency decisions ;



1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

c. a complaint for declaratory and injunctive relief, including seeking a

temporary restraining order, and preliminary and permanent injunction.

CLEAR AND PRESENT RIGHT AND INTEREST IN

VINDICATION OF ALL APPLICABLE LAWS

64. CPR, its members, and members of the public have a clear and present right to,

and an immediate beneficial interest in, COUNTY and BOARD’s compliance

with:

a. CEQA;

b. the requirement that government actions must be supported by findings,

such findings must be supported by the evidence in the record, and

government actions must not be arbitrary and capricious;

c. all laws, e.g., the Brown Act and state and federal constitutional provisions,

related to the public’s right to comment and present testimony as part of

such record;

d. all laws, e.g., state and federal constitutional provisions, related to the

public’s right to freely associate with whom they choose, e.g., to belong to

collectives of cannabis patients which consist of more than two members;

e. all state laws and regulations related to cannabis patients’ and caregivers’

legal rights to safe and affordable access to cannabis, as well as to

personally cultivate and collectively distribute cannabis.

VENUE

65. Venue is proper because the actions complained of occurred in the City of San

Bernardino.

/

/

/

/

/



1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

PETITION FOR A WRIT OF MANDATE TO HALT PROJECT

APPROVED IN VIOLATION OF CEQA

FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION

[For Violation of CEQA Guidelines §§ 15061(b)(3), 15061(a)(1); Preparation of

and Reliance on a Legally Inadequate NOE]

66. CPR incorporates paragraphs 1 through 62 here by this reference as though

fully set forth here.

67. Guideline § 15061(a) and (b) provide that, once COUNTY, as lead agency, has

determined that its activity, e.g., the proposed discretionary approval of an

ordinance, is a “project” within the meaning of CEQA, it may declare such

project to be exempt from CEQA.

68. COUNTY’S NOE, attached to this petition/complaint as EXHIBIT 18, states

that COUNTY had determined that the Project was exempt from CEQA

pursuant to Guideline § 15061(b)(3).

69. Guideline § 15061(b)(3) provides that a project is exempt from CEQA if

“[t]]he activity is covered by the general rule that CEQA applies only to

projects which have the potential for causing a significant effect on the

environment. Where it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility

that the activity in question may have a significant effect on the environment,

the activity is not subject to CEQA.”

70. COUNTY’S NOE, in keeping with the notice requirements of Guideline §

15062(a)(1), contained the following Project description: “An ordinance to

amend Title 8 of the County Code to ban medical marijuana dispensaries, to

regulate the cultivation of medical marijuana, and to require the registration of

certain state licensed facilities that are not included in the definition of

dispensaries, and to amend Title 1 to add a registration fee for those facilities.”



1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

71. Although the Project description did not so state, the Project’s regulation of the

cultivation of cannabis consists of a ban of all outdoor cultivation of cannabis,

as set out in EXHIBIT 1, Section 3, subdivision (c).

72. The Project therefore did not ban indoor cultivation of cannabis; thus, all

persons legally entitled to grow cannabis within County’s unincorporated

areas, who had been growing cannabis outdoors, or who would have grown

cannabis outdoors in the future, will be forced to grow cannabis indoors in

order to comply with the Ordinance.

73. Growing any crop, let alone cannabis, indoors requires significantly more

electricity, more chemicals, more equipment and more light bulbs, all of which

must be produced and disposed of, than does growing it outdoors.

74. COUNTY’S NOE, in keeping with the requirements of Guideline § 15062(a)

(4), also contained the following “brief statement of reasons to support the

finding [of exemption]”: “Since the ordinance prohibits the establishment of

medical marijuana facilities, it can be seen with certainty that there is no

possibility that the activity in question may have a significant effect on the

environment, and thus, the Project is also exempt from the requirements of

CEQ pursuant to state CEQA Guidelines § 15061(b)(3).”

75. The NOE’s “Reasons why project is exempt” also entirely failed to refer to the

Project’s “cultivation regulation” component, let alone its outdoor cultivation

ban component, and therefore entirely obscured the particular component of

the Project that created at least a possibility – if not a certainty – that the

Project “may have a significant effect on the environment.”

76. The NOE thus both failed to describe the Project in a way that reflected the

nature of the new cultivation regulation, which allows only indoors cultivation

and gave, as the only reason to support the finding of exemption from CEQA,

only that the ORDINANCE prohibited the establishment of medical marijuana



1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

facilities – as though that was all the ORDINANCE does, when, in fact, the

ORDINANCE also prohibits outdoor cultivation of cannabis.

77. The NOE’s inadequate description of the Project, when combined with another

inaccurate and inadequate project description which was given as part of its

reason for the exemption, made the NOE legally inadequate to give fair notice

to the public or government decision-makers of the possible significant

environmental impacts of the Project, e.g., its potential impact on increased

electrical usage, a concomitant increase in greenhouse gas emissions, and the

increased use of chemicals and humidity required when patients have to switch

from outdoor to indoor cultivation of cannabis.

78. COUNTY and BOARD violated Guideline §15062 by failing to provide an

adequate description of the Project and an adequate statement of reasons to

support the finding of exemption under § 10561(b)(3).

79. Thus, the NOE was and is legally inadequate to give notice that, factually, the

Project had, and has, the potential for causing a significant impact on the

environment, and was and is inadequate to support COUNTY and BOARD’s

claim the Project is exempt from CEQA pursuant to Guideline § 15061(b)(3).

80. COUNTY and BOARD violated CEQA by failing to provide a legally

adequate NOE, and then using such legally inadequate NOE as the basis for

avoiding undertaking at least a preliminary review of the Project’s potential

environmental impacts.

81. Accordingly, the NOE, the approval of the Project, and the adoption of

ORDINANCE 4140 must be set aside and treated as null and void.

/

/

/

/

/



1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION

[For Violation of CEQA Guidelines §§ 15061(b)(3), 15061(a)(1); Evidence in the

Record Created a “Fair Argument” that the Project Might Have a Significant

Environmental Impact, thus Precluding Reliance on the NOE]



83. Assuming arguendo that COUNTY’S NOE was and is legally adequate,

nonetheless the record and evidence before COUNTY and BOARD created a

fair argument that the Project did have the potential for causing a significant

effect on the environment (see ¶51, supra), so as to necessitate that COUNTY

and BOARD comply with CEQA’s requirements and undertake an

environmental review of the Project and consider, as part of such review,

alternatives to the Project as proposed.

84. COUNTY and BOARD therefore violated CEQA by ignoring such evidence

and approving and adopting the Project without undertaking at least a

preliminary review of the Project’s potential environmental impacts.

85. Accordingly, the approval of the Project, and the adoption of ORDINANCE

4140, must be set aside and treated as null and void, and COUNTY and

BOARD must be directed to prepare an environmental review of the Project’s

possible environmental impacts, then circulate such review for comments and

responses to comments, before they can decide whether to approve and adopt

the Project and the ORDINANCE again.

THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION

[For Violation of CEQA Guideline § 15126.2; Failure to Consider Impacts of

Project on Environment and Human Health]





1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

87. Under CEQA Guideline 15126.2, subd. (a), public projects that may cause

substantial adverse effects on human beings, either directly or indirectly, and

over either and/or both the short- and long-term, because of impacts on the

environment, must be supported by an environmental impact report (EIR) that

discusses health and safety problems caused by the physical changes caused by

the project and other aspects of the resource base such as public services.

88. Such EIR also must show the correlations, if any, between a proposed project

and resulting adverse health consequences.

89. CPR and members of the public presented evidence that the Project would

have adverse effects on human beings and on the area’s resource base, e.g.:

a. cannabis cultivated indoors has less medicinal value than cannabis

cultivated outdoors, which requires patients to either spend more money to

obtain more cannabis or do without sufficient cannabis for their ailments;

b. cultivating cannabis indoors in human residences carries potential health

problems related to molds, uses of chemicals and pesticides indoors, and

high humidity levels;

c. a ban on local, dispensing storefront collectives will affect the area’s

resource base by forcing the closure of and/or preventing the opening of,

storefront and non-storefront collectives as a source of cannabis for patients

and caregivers;

d. the lack of local, legal sources for cannabis will force patients and

caregivers with the financial ability to do so to travel longer distances to

obtain cannabis;

e. forcing the public to travel longer distances carries a statistically based,

increased risk of injury and death;

f. banning both outdoor cultivation of cannabis and local dispensaries works

to synergistically impair patients’ and caregivers’ legal, safe and affordable

access to cannabis;



1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

g. limiting safe, affordable and legal access to cannabis will drive some

patients and caregivers without the resources to travel to obtain cannabis

into the illicit drug market to obtain cannabis, which carries a risk to their

personal safety;

h. increasing the demand for illicit cannabis will in turn support distribution of

illicit drugs by gangs and criminals, with the attendant increases in gang

and criminal activities and competition to control markets for illicit drugs,

and attendant increased negative impacts on public safety;

i. as a group, patients who choose to use cannabis as an alternative or adjunct

to prescription and OTC medications, who are unable to obtain cannabis, or

sufficient cannabis for their particular ailments, and some of whom have

health insurance and have access to prescription medications, and some of

whom have no health insurance and live on fixed incomes, -- as well as

future such patients -- will be at risk of such medication-related health and

safety issues as:

i. increased incidences of cirrhosis of the liver and damage to other

organs caused by chronic use of prescription and OTC medications

to treat chronic pain;

ii. untreated or inadequately treated nausea and loss of appetite

associated with chemotherapy and HIV and AIDS;

iii. malnourishment and death from nausea and loss of appetite while

suffering from cancer, AIDS, HIV and other illnesses;

iv. untreated or inadequately treated depression;

v. untreated or inadequately treated anxiety and insomnia;

vi. untreated or inadequately treated bi-polar disorder;

vii. untreated or inadequately treated ADHD and ADD;

viii. untreated or inadequately treated autoimmune diseases such as

lupus, multiple sclerosis and rheumatoid arthritis;



1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

ix. untreated or inadequately treated post-traumatic stress disorder

(PTSD);

x. untreated or inadequately treated phantom limb pain;

xi. increased need for dialysis because of increased use of prescription

and OTC medications to treat the above, underlying health

problems;

xii. untreated or inadequately treated other illnesses for which cannabis

provides a beneficial and safe alternative and/or adjunct to non-

herbal, prescription and/or OTC medications.

90. Thus, there was and is evidence from which a fair argument could and can be

made that an environmental impact review was, and is, needed to fully inform

the public and BOARD of the correlation between the Project and resulting

adverse health and safety consequences, and to suggest and consider

alternatives to the Project before its adoption.

91. Accordingly, BOARD’s approval of the Project and enactment of

ORDINANCE, having been based on a legally inadequate and otherwise

evidentially-non-supported NOE, and in the absence of any EIR related to the

adverse health and safety consequences of the Project and possible alternatives

thereto, is null and void.

92. Accordingly, approval of the Project and adoption of the ORDIONANCE must

be set aside.

FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION[Petition for Writ of Administrative Mandamus for Judicial Review of

Administrative Agency Action [Pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure 1094.5]



94. Before adopting ORDINANCE 4140, COUNTY and BOARD were required to

hold a legally valid public hearing, take public testimony in compliance with



1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

all applicable laws, and make findings supported by the actual evidence

presented.

95. COUNTY and BOARD were then required to adopt or reject ORDINANCE

4140 based on:

a. a valid and complete public record;

b. evidence supported by the testimony;

c. findings supported by the evidence; and

d. all applicable laws of the State of California.

96. Instead, COUNTY and BOARD violated their legal duties under both federal

state law by:

a. illegally limiting and censoring the contents of the public record by illegally

restricting public comment to the discussion of “land use” in violation of

U.S. Constitution, Amend. 1; California Constitution, art. 1, § 2(a); and The

Ralph M. Brown Act, Gov. Code §§ 54950 et seq.

b. illegally limiting and censoring the evidence in violation of such laws;

c. illegally concluding that the findings, including the finding that CEQA did

not apply to the Project, were supported by the evidence after illegally

limiting and censoring such evidence;

d. adopting ORDINANCE, whose provisions are contrary to, and pre-empted

buy, state laws and regulations as set forth in the CUA (Health & Safety

Code § 11362.5); the MMPA (Health & Safety Code §§ 11362.7 to

11362.9), and the 2008 A. G. Guidelines (as mandated by Health & Safety

Code § 11362.81, subd. (d).

97. In each of the respects enumerated above, Respondents have violated their

duties under applicable state and federal laws, abused their discretion, failed to

proceed in a manner required by law, and have decided the matters complained

of without the support of substantial evidence, thus rendering their decision

arbitrary, capricious, and requiring that it be set aside.



1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION

[Complaint for Declaratory Relief as to the Parties’ Rights Related to Alleged

Violations of CEQA, Planning Laws; U.S. Const., Amend. 1; California

Constitution, art. 1, §§ (2)(a), (3); The Ralph M. Brown Act, § 54952.3; The CUA

(Health & Safety Code, §11362.5; the MMPA (Health & Safety Code §§11362.7

to 11362.9) and the 2008 A.G. Guidelines (as mandated by Health & Safety

Code §11362.81, subd.(d))]



99. An actual controversy exists between the parties. CPR contends that BOARD

and COUNTY have acted in violation of not only CEQA and laws related to

planning, but in violation of Amendment 1 of the U. S. Constitution; Article 1,

§§ (2)(a) and (3) of the California Constitution; The Ralph M. Brown Act,

§ 54952.3; the CUA (Health & Safety Code § 11362.5); the MMPA (Health &

Safety Code §§ 11362.7 to 11362.9), and the 2008 A. G. Guide they must

vacate and set aside their approval of the Project and adoption of

ORDINANCE 4140, and consider a new project which complies with state

law, actually protects the public’s health, safety and welfare, is supported by an

adequate EIR that considers the project’s impacts on human beings and the

environment, and provides alternatives for otherwise unacceptable human and

environmental consequences of the project.

100. A judicial resolution of this controversy, involving as it does questions of law

and fact, is necessary and appropriate.

101. As part of the declaratory relief requested,

/

/

/

/



1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

SIXTH CAUSE OF ACTION

[Complaint for Injunctive Relief as to the Parties’ Rights Related to Alleged

Violations of CEQA, Planning Laws; U.S. Const., Amend. 1; California

Constitution, art. 1, §§ (2)(a), (3); The Ralph M. Brown Act, § 54952.3; The CUA

(Health & Safety Code, §11362.5; the MMPA (Health & Safety Code §§11362.7

to 11362.9) and the 2008 A.G. Guidelines (as mandated by Health & Safety

Code §11362.81, subd.(d))]



103. Unless CPR and its members and supporters are granted injunctive relief, they

will suffer irreparable injury as described at ¶¶ 51 and 89, supra, and as

otherwise may be deduced from such paragraphs’ contents and the evidence

presented by the record, all to their detriment.

104. A judicial resolution of this controversy, involving as it does questions of law

and fact, is necessary and appropriate.

105. CPR conservatively estimated the number of cannabis patients in COUNTY as

some 21,000 persons, and made such figure part of the record. No monetary

figure can be placed on the pain, suffering, distress and fear experienced by

such persons because of COUNTY and BOARD’s actions, and therefore no

remedy at law is adequate to compensate such a large group of people for the

health risks and violations of their civil rights presented by the adoption of

ORDINANCE 4140 in violation of CEQA and the above-noted state and

federal laws, let alone all persons effected by COUNTY and BOARD’s failure

to comply with laws related to greenhouse gas emissions and nonrenewable

resources such as the fossil fuels needed to the increased electrical and tire and

chemical consumption necessitated by the ORDINANCE.

/

/



1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

WHEREFORE, CPR prays as follows:

1. As to all causes of action herein, that the Court enter judgment determining

or declaring that the approval of the Project and adoption of the

ORDINANCE was illegal and therefore null and void;

2. As to the First Cause of Action herein, that the Court enter judgment

determining or declaring that the NOE was legally inadequate and that

adoption of the ORDINANCE was illegal and therefore null and void;

3. As to the Second Cause of Action herein, that the Court enter judgment

determining or declaring that, assuming arguendo that the NOE was legally

adequate, nonetheless the evidence established a fair argument that the

Project might have significant environmental consequences, thus

necessitating preparation of an EIR, and therefore adoption of the

ORDINANCE in the absence of such EIR was illegal, null and void;

4. As to the Third Cause of Action herein, that the Court enter judgment that

the evidence established a fair argument that the Project might have

significant environmental consequences on human health and safety and

COUNTY’s resource base, thus necessitating preparation of an EIR, and

making COUNTY and BOARD’s adoption of the ORDINANCE in

the absence of an EIR illegal, null and void;

5. As to the Fourth Cause of Action herein, that the Court enter judgment that

the evidence established a fair argument that the Project might have

significant impacts on human health and safety and COUNTY’s resource

base, thus necessitating preparation of an EIR, and making COUNTY and

BOARD’s adoption of the ORDINANCE, in the absence of an EIR, illegal,

null and void;

6. As to the Fifth Cause of Action herein, that the Court enter a declaratory

judgment in the respects stated in the earlier paragraphs for this prayer, as



1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

well as a declaration that, to the extent ORDINANCE 4140 purports to re-

criminalize cultivation and/or the distribution of cannabis by patients and

caregivers in a manner that is legal under state law, or criminalizes

cannabis collectives of three or more patients and/or caregivers, such

ORDINANCE is invalid and pre-empted by state law;

7. As to the Sixth Cause of Action herein, that the Court enter a temporary

restraining order and a preliminary injunction restraining Respondents, and

any and all persons purporting to act under color of authority derived from

Respondents, from enforcing, or otherwise treating as viable,

ORDINANCE 4140;

8. That CPR be awarded its costs of suit herein, including reasonable

attorney’s fees;

9. For such other and further relief as the Court may deem just and proper.DATED: APRIL 26, 2011 __________________________________________

LETITIA E. PEPPER for Petitioner and Plaintiff Crusaders for Patients’ Rights

VERIFICATION

I, Letitia E. Pepper, am the attorney for Petitioner in this action, and in that

capacity attended the public hearings described herein. I have read the foregoing Petition

and Complaint. I am informed and believe, and on that basis allege, that the matters

stated in it are true and that the documents attached as exhibits thereto are true and

correct copies.

I declare under penalty of perjury of the laws of the State of California that the

foregoing is true and correct and that this verification was executed on April 26, 2011 in

Riverside, California. ___________________________________________

LETITIA E. PEPPER



1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

LIST OF EXHIBITS

Exhibit No. Description Paragraph 1 st Mentioned

1 ORDINANCE 4140 15

2 Written Notice to COUNTY of 17 Commencement of Action

3 Written Notice to Attorney General 18of Commencement of Action

4 February 3, 2011 letter to 20Planning Commission (erroneously

addressed to BOARD)

5 February 16, 2011 letter to 23County Counsel

6 February 16, 2011 letter to 23County Counsel

7 February 16, 2011 letter to 24Planning Commission

8 Jeremy Weissmiller’s March 6, 2011 36testimony, presented March 22

9 March 30, 2011 letter re censorship 42

10 March 31, 2011 re Exhs. 1-4 42

11 March 31, 2011 re Exhs. 5-7(a) 42

12 March 31, 2011 letter re Exhs. 8-13 42

13 March 31, 2011 letter re Exhs. 14-20 42

14 April 4, 2011 letter re Exhs. 21-25 42

15 April 4, 2011 letter re Exhs. 302 42

16 April 4, 2011 letter re Exh. 31 42

17 April 4, 2011 letter re Exh. 32 42

18 Notice of Exemption (NOE) 46filed March 23, 2011

Petition and Complaint Against Board of Supervisors

Documents

Transcript of Petition and Complaint Against Board of Supervisors