Page One

Let people have enough medicine 

The Daily Planet received this letter addressed to the City Council: 

Regarding the proposed Berkeley Medical Marijuana Ordinance, the Berkeley Health and Human Services Dept., headed by Director Fred Medrano, feels that “it was wisest to keep allowable plant numbers low and 'include a provision in the ordinance for additional amounts if a doctor says its OK'.” (BDP, 3/26/01) If the Health and Human Services Dept. was concerned about the negative health impact of growing 144 plants at a time or having 6 pounds of dried marijuana a year, then I would expect to see these fears stated in this article. But the only health concern is raised by Berkeley health officer Dr. Poki Stewart Namkung when she said, in regard to someone consuming 6 pounds of marijuana a year, “I would be very worried about the quality of that patient's life.” Yet, Dr. Namkung is an advocate for the staff's plan which allows up to 9 pounds a year with a doctor's approval. It seems that Dr. Namkung is really worried about self-treatment rather than treatment per se. 

Which would be a reasonable concern if we were dealing with a substance of known danger, like alcohol or tobacco, or aspirin.  

But marijuana has no record of causing, by itself, any deaths. Has Dr. Namkung or the Berkeley Health and Human Services Dept. taken a stand opposing over-the-counter sales of aspirin, which can be bought by anybody - including children - who can afford it? 

So what's really going on here? City staff is waging a rear-guard battle against Proposition 215, the 85 percent of Berkeley voters who supported it, and the people who use it medicinally. Finally having to admit that marijuana does have medicinal value, they now want to limit access to this medicine. Not because of any danger due to the toxicity of marijuana, because their is none. No, the reason is that the Berkeley Police Dept. is concerned “that large amounts of marijuana grown in households might encourage home invasion type robberies, home burglaries and possibly violence.” 

And the Berkeley Police Department should know of what they are talking, since they themselves have invaded patient's homes and taken their medicine. These violations of Proposition 215 by Berkeley Police have resulted to date in the City of Berkeley having to pay approximately $80,000 in ensuing law suits. If the City Council endorses the staff's proposal then we can expect larger amounts of money to be paid out as settlements in the future. 

Let's get real. The people of Berkeley have made our will clear. We support the right of people to use marijuana medicinally. Period. We support a Medical Marijuana Ordinance that allows people to have access to as much marijuana as they need. Period. Berkeley citizens should have the same rights as Oakland citizens. According to the Oakland Police Department their have been no crime problems due to the Oakland medical marijuana standards. 

So I say it is wiser to have higher limits because people will have their medicine as they need it, and the citizens of Berkeley will not have to pay thousand of dollars for lawsuits. Its a win-win solution. 

Robin M. Donald 

Berkeley 

Beth El process flawed 

Editor: 

What’s with the development review process in Berkeley? 

A proposal comes in for a 35,000 square foot development in the middle of a single family neighborhood. It is for a landmarked site astride the most open creek in Berkeley with a grove of protected live oaks along the bank. A public path runs beside it.  

There are known problems. The outfall from illegal culverting has undercut creek banks and is causing slides. The sewer has overflowed in this area. Street connections are kinky and residents rely heavily on street parking.  

Would not the proposal merit the attention of public works staff, the traffic engineer, the city forester, a representative from the parks and recreation department, and the preservation planner who handled the previous permits on the site? No, the team to handle this proposal consists of three lawyers, including the city attorney herself, and three planners evidencing no background on the historic and open space issues. 

Is it too practical to work out best runoff and noise reduction options, too pedestrian to work on pedestrian safety and a bus stop connection, too down and dirty to work on creek bank stability and tree protection before the project is recommended for approval? Are the lawyers there to handle liability after approval of a project that pollutes the creek, kills protected oaks, creates traffic hazards, and violates noise standards?  

Vital recommendations from regional agencies, organizations and other city departments were not even included in staff reports, such as the advise of the Regional Water Quality Control Board to open the covered part of the Creek and to move the driveway and parking lot as far away as possible from the Creek. 

The void was apparent. At a “special” Design Review Committee session (preceded by flawed notice and followed by no review of revisions), citizen reviewer Omer Baltan asked, “Isn’t there a creek czar on staff ?”  

Instead of insisting that the Draft Environmental Impact Report include an open creek alternative evaluation, the ranking planner and attorney for the City had concentrated on gagging four members of the Landmarks Preservation Commission who questioned the adequacy of the environmental document.  

With four Commissioners gagged, the LPC was not able to review the design for this landmarked site. A permit was about to be automatically granted due to the state “permit streamlining” law, even though there were no review-scale drawings to show what was now proposed to be demolished, cleared and built. Oh well, at least a “replacement check” for the review had arrived the week before.  

Fortunately, substitutes for the four gagged Commissioners were appointed and they had studied the record in time to act March 5. The site Alteration Permit was denied (maybe, since the “team” hasn’t yet released the notice of decision). 

But the use permit was approved by the Zoning Adjustments Board with the critical vote and urging of Board member Michael Issel, appointed by Betty Olds.  

He understood the needs of Beth El’s program well; his family was a member when the site was purchased. He insisted it was impossible to make any changes to break up the massive building in order to fit it into the neighborhood. He suggested that placing parking under the building to save the creek was genocidal. And moving mature creekside oak trees was a snap.  

Horst and Eva Bansner 

Berkeley