---

----- - - - - -

City Administrator's Office
CITY HALL

•

1 Frank H. Ogawa Plaza

•

11th FLOOR

•

OAKLAND, CALIFORNIA 94612
TTYfrDD

Arturo M. Sanchez,
Deputy City Administrator

Main FAX
Voicemail

(510) 238-2007
{510) 238-7084
{510) 238-7542

March 14, 2012

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION OF HEARING OFFICER ON HEARING ON THE
DISCQUALIFICATION OF AMCD, INC FROM CONSIDERATION FOR A PERMIT
TO CONDUCT A MEDICAL CANNABIS DISPENSARY AT 478 W. GRAND A VENUE .

A public hearing on the above matter was held on Thursday January 5, 2012 in Hearing Room 1,
City Hall, 1 Frank H. Ogawa Plaza, Oakland, California.
Presented below are the findings and recommendation of the Hearing Officer:
BACKGROUND
On Friday, October 14, 2011, AMCD, Inc, represented by board members Kisha Jackson,
Minnie Watson, Carl Anderson, Forrest Anderson, Hank Levy, David King, Geri Murphy, and
attorneys Robert Raich and Marc Terbeek, hereinafter Applicant, filed an application for a
permit to conduct a Medical Cannabis Dispensary at a proposed site of 478 W. Grand Avenue.

Pursuant to Oakland Municipal Code (OMC) section 5.80.020 the City Administrator's Office
prepared and issued a Request For Permit Applications (RFP A) on Wednesday September 7,
2011. The Applicant submitted and filed a timely application with the Special Business Permits
Division ofthe City Administrators Office. Their application was reviewed in two phases of
scoring with the following results:
Phase I Score: 814.5 points out of 1000 total points
Test Score: 88.5 points out of 102 total points
Phase II Score: 273 points out of 430 total points
Total Points: 1176 points out of 1532 points available
Overall Point Ranking:

5th

HEARING

 AMCD,INC
Page 2 of12
A hearing was conducted Thursday January 5, 2012 to determine whether a Medical Cannabis
Dispensary (MCD) Permit should be issued to Applicant to conduct medical cannabis sales at
478 W. Grand Avenue. Present at the hearing were members of the applicant board, Kisha
Jackson, Minnie Watson, Carl Anderson, Forrest Anderson, Hank Levy, David King, Geri
Murphy, and attorneys Robert Raich and Marc Terbeek, there were six (6) members of the public
who wished to provide public comments on the application.
The hearing was being held pursuant to the public hearing requirements of OMC section
5.80.020 E "Public notice ofthe hearing on the application shall be given as provided in Section
5.02.050. The City Administrator shall be the investigating official referred to in Section
5.02.030 to whom the application shall be referred. fu recommending the granting or denying
of such permit and in granting or denying the same, the City Administrator shall give particular
consideration to the capacity, capitalization, and complaint history of the applicant and any
other factors that in the City Administrator's discretion he/she deems necessary to the peace,
order and welfare of the public." All individuals who testified were sworn in prior to providing
testimony.
The applicants testified as follows:
1. Ms. Kisha Jackson and board members presented a power point presentation that:
a. Ms. Jackson is board member and spokesperson.
b. Oakland resident and dedicated to civil rights and community.
c. Excited about serving underserved populations.
d. Ms. Minnie Watson, President/Chairperson of Board testified on vision of the
future and background. Previously operated cannabis dispensary at this site until
2006 when permit was lost due to inability to meet code requirements. Since then
they have worked to improve the building and bring it up to code.
e. Want to provide clean safe access to medical cannabis to qualified registered
patients.
f. Dream and vision to help others and want to continue in Oakland.
g. Carl Anderson testified that the board of directors had chosen Geri Murphy and
Kisha Jackson were selected for their commitment to the community.
h. Robert Raich testified as attorney for the Applicant and to explain that goal of the
applicant was to provide a benefit to the community and to set up a non-profit for
the MCD and a tax exempt organization known as the soup wagon to provide
food to this community. Their goal is to provide medicine to the community but
their goals go beyond this and that they are committed to complying with every
state and local ordinance as required by the City.
1. Ms. Bond spoke to the activities of the Soup Kitchen and food give away.
J. Geri Murphy testified to importance of community benefits and providing
additional funding to community organizations. Soup Kitchen necessary because
of the scarcity of food for low income individuals and seniors.
k. Hank Levy testified to experience and knowledge about the worthiness of AMCD
as a candidate based on his experience and knowledge as a CPA who has been
connected to the industry. Found the proprietors to be stand up and committed to
the people and industry.

 AMCD,INC
Page 3 of 12

1. Building had new owner and had made significant improvements to address the

m.

n.

o.

p.

q.
r.

concerns of the City. Detailed planning that has taken place over two years
includes accounting and database systems that will keep track and every seed
through distribution and will include POS systems that will cover everything.
Nothing will be unaccounted for.
David King testified as to the computer software systems that will be used at
AMCD. When he entered the design phase for Applicant they had twin goals
HIPP A compliance and transparency. They have multiple security measures and
wanted to. provide service and information in a real time manner.
Marc Terbeek spoke as to the location having been previously cleared for a
medical cannabis dispensary and presenting arguments as to its suitability as a
location and appropriateness of the site. Continue to work with AMCD to
monitor legal requirements of the area and as such work to make sure that they
are compliant.
Forrest Anderson testified to the need to know type and strain that works for
different types of ailments. Applicant is committed to making sure that they
provide appropriate medicine for the patient and their ailment.
Carl Anderson testified that goal of having them operate soup wagon is to control
where and how the money was to be used. As well as the endorsements that they
have received.
Applicants went over the modified diagram of operations with adjustments made
after the staff site visit.
Eric Albert testified to the accessibility of site and its appropriateness for patients
with limited mobility.

2. The Hearing Officer had a series of questions to which the applicants responded as
follows:
a. Regarding software that was being developed the Applicant explained that
quickbook pro would be used as inventory control and transactions and would
include significant reporting abilities; second would be a patient database that
would monitor and control specific member validation and all transactions would
be fully track able and auditable. All products would be labeled with product
safety tests.
b. Applicants explained that current proposed board is expanded form the original
three members which were Ms. Watson, Mr. Anderson, and their son. The soup
kitchen will be operated by the same board. No compensation will be provided to
the Soup Kitchen board. Applicant indicated that structure was in place to be able
to control but be able to be transparent and will be completely transparent to the
city.
c. Regarding the loss of the previously held permit at the site the Applicant
explained that the loss of permit was due to an inability of the applicant to
complete construction.
d. Hearing Officer raised concern that management remains basically the same as
before and similar improvements appear to be necessary what assurances could
they provide that the same issues will not occur. Applicant indicated that unlike

 AMCD,INC
Page 4 of12

e.

f.
g.

h.

1.

J.

k.

the previous time they have the support and commitment of the owner and the
owner's contractor which was not present in the previous iteration.
Hearing Officer asked about the control of the site and whether the Applicant had
control of the building since 2006. Applicant indicated that they had been in
building but left for a short period of time and returned in 2009.
Regarding what has been operating in facility since 2009 to date the Applicant
indicated that nothing had been operating in facility.
Hearing Officer requested that Applicant provide PG & E and water bills to
verify. Applicant responded in the affirmative that they would and indicated that
there had been "some refrigeration" for the food giveaways. Indicated that bill has
been about $250 a month.
Hearing Officer raised concern from staff that conducted the site visit which was
that the staff observed items that are typically associated with grows including
infrastructure and that the smell of cannabis was pervasive in certain areas of the
property. With a specific question being asked as to when the last time cultivating
had taken place on site. Applicant's contractor, Mr. Robert Fowler, testified that a
new tenant came in 2006 and did have a valid dispensary in Hayward and were
using the space to cultivate. Some of the equipment in building belonged to these
former tenants.
Applicant indicated that no cultivation was occurring in the building from 2009 to
date. Applicant indicated that building retains odor from past history and
connection to cannabis.
When asked about a power cord that was running from one building to the next
the Applicant indicated that they had been using it for security cameras and they
had "refrigeration in there for a while" and had funding problems so they shut off
electricity.
When asked whether a delay in the City's process would complicate funding the
Applicant indicated they had "been at this for a while" and funding would not be
in jeopardy.

3. Fire Inspector Vince Crudele testified that:
a. He is a fire inspector with the City of Oakland Fire Marshals office.
b. There are no records of fire life safety systems in the building.
c. Has a significant concern with the life safety upgrades necessary to operate an
MCD at this site.
d. The building plans that were discussed did not cover the fourth building on site
and he had questions about the Applicant's intention with that structure.
4. In response to the comments of the fire inspector Hearing Officer had a series of
questions to which the applicants responded as follows:
a. The Applicant indicated that the attic space would merely be storage.
b. The back building might be used as accessory activity for a pennitted facility if
they were awarded a permit.
5. The members of the public testified as follows:
a. Ms. Angel Raich testified as follows:
i. Has known Applicants for a long time and supports the Applicants in their
application.

 AMCD,INC
Page 5 ofl2
ii. Property has had an affiliation with this activity for a long time.
iii. Believes Applicant actually wants to give back to the community.
iv. Applicant has patients operating it.
b. Mr. Ralph Cooke testified as follows:
i. Lives within quarter mile from location and the school and area seem not
appropriate for this type of location. Influx of school age children this may not be
the most appropriate site. Believes there could be a better location.
ii. If the operator has not been honest or forthright as resident he would be
concerned.
iii. Security is a concern in the area and cameras on the location may be a benefit
to the community.
iv. Would not recommend that two exist in close proximity if one of the other
Applicants were approved
c. Mr. David Lampach testified as follows:
i. President and co-founder of Steep Hill Labs.
ii. Confirm relationships and have shown commitment to product testing and
safety.
d. Ms. Salwa Ibrahim testified as follows:
i. Wanted to speak to character of Applicants.
ii. Believes it is important to get more people who are patients with experience in
industry.
e. Mr. Matthew Witemyre testified as follows:
i. Union representative, union organizer, and this is a union friendly dispensary
should it open.
ii. Union supports this applicant and excited about their ability to bring local jobs.
iii. Also a local resident and live close to the proposed location. It is unfortunate
that people want to paint sick people as an attraction to crime which is
unfortunate. Supports applicant and thinks it is a good fit.
f.

Mr. Robert Fowler testified that:
i. That they are hard working and honest individuals.
ii. Has experience with other dispensaries and these are honest and hard working
individuals and see their commitment.
iii. Building has been inspected and was approved for the previous construction.
Fire sprinklers not required before.
iv. Fire inspection has been conducted and there are deficiencies. But sprinklers
are not required.

FINDINGS

 AMCD,INC
Page 6 of12
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.

An MCD permit is required to conduct medical cmmabis sales in Oakland.
Applicant board members did not provide credible testimony.
Applicants did provide adequate testimony as to their background and knowledge of
the cannabis industry.
All of the board member passed live scan background checks and yielded no hits for
crimes that would reflect on their moral character.
Members of the public provided credible testimony.
The location of 478 W. Grand was not within the allowable areas but had been
previously issued a zoning clearance for a MCD.
Staffwas able to conduct a site visit and assessment to ascertain condition and quality
of location.
A permit can be offered to an Applicant contingent on the finding/identifying of a
new location.

DETERMINATION
OMC section 5.80.020 Estates that "In recommending the granting or denying of such permit
and in granting or denying the same, the City Administrator shall give particular consideration
to the capacity, capitalization, and complaint history of the applicant and any other factors that
in the City Administrator's discretion he/she deems necessary to the peace, order and welfare of
the public."
The preponderance of the evidence provides the Hearing Officer with no choice but to
recommend disqualification of this Applicant from consideration. While there is a sufficient
basis to believe that this Applicant is a knowledgeable candidate for an MCD, the supplemental
information submitted did nothing to dissuade the Hearing Officers concerns about activities that
may have been occurring on this site prior to the MCD process.
The RFP A stated in relevant part on page 5 "All proposed facilities will be inspected by the City
of Oakland staff. Failure to disclose pre-existing operations or refusal to submit the requested
documents, information, or complying with the business tax assessment will automatically
disqualify your business from the RFPA process". During the public hearing several issues were
raised by the Hearing Officer for which the Applicant was asked to provide supplemental
information these included the PG & E records for the location for the entire time they have
occupied the site, an explanation of how they have used the site, and clarification on controls and
other items in place designed to address the concerns of the City.
The Applicants provided additional information to the Hearing Officer as requested and the
Hearing Officer subsequently requested an analysis from the Revenue Department of the City of
Oakland to assist in detennining if what the Applicant's provided could in fact explain their use.
Attached to this decision are the findings of City staff and the documents upon which such
findings were made.

Board Reservations and Pre-existing use of Facility

 AMCD,INC
Page 7 of 12
It was clear during their public hearing and the site visit conducted that the Applicant members
present had an unclear understanding of what and how they intended to operate the facility. The
board members could not account for how certain space would be used, if allowed to open a
dispensary on site, nor could they credibly account for how the space had been used for the last
two years. There also exists a concern with the board composition, the Applicant board includes
individuals whom have previously failed to meet the requirements of the City once before and
lost the last permit associated with this property. The concern over the past inability of the board
members to comply is exacerbated by the general sense that the board members were being
disingenuous about activities being conducted at the site.

The nature of the MCD permits is such that the Applicants are being entrusted with a very
special permit that has potential for misuse. If at any point the Hearing Officer feels as though
an Applicant is either misleading or lying, then it is a direct reflection on their trustworthiness
and a dominant factor in determining whether they can be entrusted with a permit. Further, if the
Applicant appears to be disingenuous then they cannot be entrusted to manage and or operate the
excess funds of a facility. Here the Applicant is asking the Hearing Officer to believe that the
large facility has been used for food donations for more than 2 years, in spite of strong evidence
to the contrary and that they can be trusted to manage the excess funds for the provision of food
donations, yet could provide nothing more than a couple of months worth of receipts.
By contrast other Applicants have their boards making decisions on what to fund as community
benefits with excess revenue. Here the boards of both organizations will fund an organization
they manage. There is no separation to provide surety to the City that there is in fact no
diversion occurring with the revenues. Much of the Hearing Officer's ability to recommend an
applicant is directly connected to the veracity and reliability ofthe Applicant. The Hearing
Officer finds that the information submitted in response to questions and concerns raised at the
hearing only exacerbate the Applicants credibility problems.
At the hearing the Hearing Officer expressed the concern about the same board overseeing the
MCD aspect and the "soup wagon" to which the Applicants provided follow up information
affirming their willingness to be audited and conduct activity in an open and professional mmmer
with the City. Further, the Hearing Officer wanted a specific accounting for how and why the
Applica11ts needed so much space and to understand their electrical and water use during the
entire time they occupied the space. In response the Applicant submitted electrical bills, a receipt
for installation of refrigerator units, and written explanation purporting to have used the space for
"soup wagon" activities. Through these documents Applicants have failed to establish the use
they purport to have taken place on the site and have failed to adequately address the concern of
the Hearing Officer. They did not provide any information that dissuades the Hearing Officer
from the concern he was expressing, which was that upon the conducting of the site visit staff
felt that the space had been very recently used as a grow space and could smell cannabis and see
equipment used for growing on the site.
At the hearing, the Applicant testified that there had been "some refrigeration" for the food
donations activity being conducted by their 501 (C)3 the "Soup Wagon" at the site and that they
had "refrigeration in there for a while" and had funding problems so they shut off electricity. To
substantiate this claim the Applicants submitted a series of receipts from a short period of time

 AMCD,INC
Page 8 of 12
intended to establish that the building was being used consistent with their testimony. The
submitted receipts were in the amount of nearly 1000 dollars for what the Hearing Officer
assumes are a couple of food donations (one set of receipts for one month and the other for
another), and to explain how the excess would fund community benefits program, while at the
same time provide an explanation for the electrical usage to date. In addition, they submitted a
"contractor's invoice" from Fowler Mechanical Company, who does not have a business tax
certificate from the city but purports to operate out of Oakland, for the purchase and installation
of Cold Storage freezer units. The receipt is dated May 5, 2010. In their review staff found the
following:
"The letter and invoice provided as documentation contains inconsistencies with
specifications and size of the three walk-in units (See Attachment #4).
The description of the equipment purchased is unclear. It appears AMCD bought one
Tyler 12" (seems more likely 12' than 12") x 20' Low Temp walk in freezer and two 12"
(ft?) x 20' low temp freezer walk-ins converted to a cooler. There are numerous
discrepancies in the specs of the condensing units, i.e. 600,000 Btu condensing units
seem excessive for a 12' x 20' cooler."
Regarding the "receipt" from the "contractor" the report provided by staff provided the following
information:
"The contractor listed on the letterhead," Fowler Mechanical Company", does not show
up in the City of Oakland's business license system. However, we were able to find a
company listed as "RO Fowler/Carter Co." in our database. Furthermore, it should be
noted that this license expired 12/31/07 and it was located at 2503 Oakes Dr in Hayward.
(See Exhibit #4).
The contractor license number referenced on the letter and contractors invoice, 634027,
was incorrect (See Exhibit #5). Doing a search on the State Contractor's Board database,
a contractor license number 634927 was found for R 0 Fowler and lists Robert O'Donell
Fowler as the primary licensee (See Exhibit #6). In addition, a skip trace check on Lexus
Nexus verified that the name Robert O'Donell Fowler matched the individual at the 2503
Oakes Dr in Hayward address.
The address on the letter and invoice, 296 Mather Street Oakland, CA, is an apartment
complex. (See Exhibit #7). Another unusual observation is that neither the invoice nor the
letter lists a phone number for Fowler Mechanical Company which is standard for most
businesses."
The above findings of staff raise several significant concerns about the veracity of the documents
submitted. As a result the Hearing Officer finds that the credibility of the Applicants is not aided
but is further damaged by the submission ofthese documents. The finding in this instance is that
the documents were submitted with the intention of misleading and misrepresenting information
to the Hearing Officer.

 AMCD,INC
Page 9 of12
Even if the documents did not have the discrepancies noted above there remains a problem with
the documents submitted and their ability to establish that there was "soup wagon", e.g. food
donation, type activity occurring on a regular basis at the site and for which they needed such a
large space. At the hearing, the Hearing Officer asked for an accounting of how the Applicants
have used the space from 2009 (when according to their testimony) they began occupying the
space to date.
In response the Applicants submitted two sets of receipts and the receipt for refrigerators to
establish that they have been conducting food donation type activity on site. In reviewing these
documents the Hearing Officer finds that they are insufficient to establish that they have been
conducting the food donation activity at the site with consistency and persistency to show the
need for the refrigerator usage they claim.
To start with much of what was shown to have been purchased on the receipts for food donations
were non refrigerated items such as canned goods, Mac and cheese, and some perishable items,
again only for a couple of dates. These items would not go to show the need for refrigerator use
to the level the Applicants hoped to show. Additionally, as we toured the facility I saw no
evidence of food donation type activity, large cooking pots, commercial grade kitchen equipment
(including two large freezers as discussed below), paper bags, wax paper common used to wrap
food, etc. If Applicants have in fact been conducting food donations at the site for at least two
years then the Hearing Officer would have expected to see such equipment and supplies
throughout the facility even if they ceased the activity due to funding two months prior to site
visit.
If Applicants were conducting monthly food donations the Hearing Officer had hoped they
would provide monthly and or weekly accounting for the food they were acquiring and
distributing including letters from recipients, organizations who have directly benefitted, etc. The
lack of receipts to show consistent food donation type activity and equipment at the site leaves
the Hearing Officer once again questioning exactly how the large space was being used and how
they were paying for the lease. If the Applicants were conducting this activity on a consistent
basis would they not have receipts for more than two donations? Would there not have been
commercial grade cooking equipment? Could they not have provided health inspection permits,
which would be required to conduct that activity? For accounting and tax purposes alone the
Hearing Officer believes that a business conducting such activity would in fact keep monthly
receipts and have all appropriate permits in place.
Simultaneously the Applicant submitted documents establishing electric usage rates and showing
that during non peak hours (overnight) the Applicant was using their greatest amount of
electricity. Staffs review of documents submitted yielded the following analysis:
"The exclusion of electrical usage from the documents provided by AMCD, Inc. is
suspicious and one could infer that AMCD, Inc. could not adequately explain electrical
use anomalies during that period (See Attachment #2). Indoor cannabis cultivation in
Oakland during this period would make sense from a supply/demand perspective as well.
Cannabis grown during these periods would be ready for consumption after "The Flood"

 AMCD,INC
Page 10 of 12
(the period when the cannabis is trimmed and sent down to the Bay Area from the
Triangle for sale which lowers the price) and so would be more profitable."
The Hearing Officer finds it highly unlikely in light of the items purchased, dry and canned
goods, with receipts and the lack of additional information that these activities could explain the
exact nature and use of the site. The Hearing Officer cannot recall seeing two refrigerators of the
size and use as described in the documents and so he inquired with the other staff that assisted in
the site visits and inquired as to whether they could recall seeing any commercial grade
refrigeration equipment at the facility. They did not. The Hearing Officer does recall seeing two
residential size refrigerator units but they were not anywhere near the size purported in these
documents.
For the sake of this discussion even if one were to assume that the refrigerators were on site, and
that the receipts were reflective of the nature and type of activity occurring at the location on a
monthly basis, it would in no way explain the exact usage pattern that was shown in the bills.
The billing pattern led to the following series of questions: Why would the electricity usage go
up overnight on a consistent basis? Further why does there appear to be pattern "cycle" of usage
consistent with seasons and/or cycles of growing and producing medical cannabis? Why would
the usage peak during normal off peak hours? Why was there a need to bring in such large
amounts of water? When there did not appear to be any cooking occurring on site? Where is the
commercial grade kitchen equipment necessary to cook meals they allege to have cooked? Did
they have county health permits? If overnight use was for refrigeration why is there such a
disparity between day time and nighttime use when typically a refrigerator would be accessed by
people but levels of electricity required would remain the same? Why was there so much water
used by the Applicant at the facility? Receipts do not substantiate extensive cooking certainly
the lack of a commercial kitchen also calls this issue into question. Why are Applicants getting
water independently from EBMUD? Why is water being brought in from third party vendor
other than to circumvent the usage meter, and why need water for anything other than to grow?
The Hearing Officer can only surmise that the site was in fact being used for the purposes of
growing cannabis and that this is why staff smelled cannabis during the site visit and why the
particular patterns of use are seen in the documents. The Hearing Officer knows that often large
scale grows require an inordinate amount of electricity and that typically this requires heating
and lighting equipment to be run during the late night hours so as not to impact other uses and or
draw additional attention. Further the Hearing Officer believes that it is common practice to
blame large spikes in meter usage on electrical equipment in the illicit cannabis industry. The
documents submitted do not establish with sufficient credibility to purported use of space for two
years as a "Soup Wagon", there was no equipment or evidence on site to establish this use, the
receipts are insufficient to show such use, and the receipt of"Fowler Mechanical" appears to be
fraudulent or at minimum to misrepresent the credentials of the contractor, place ofbusiness, and
equipment purchased. The Hearing Officer finds it that based on the catmabis odor on site the
inability ofthe Applicant to adequately establish an alternate credible use that the more likely
pre-existing use of facility is consistent with a cultivation site based on the growing lights and
other items left on over night to help medicine grow.

 AMCD, INC
Page 11 of 12

Disqualification, Application Null and Void
As a matter of policy the Oakland City Council felt it necessary to make sure that those operators
operating without permits pay their requisite taxes for pre-existing unlawful cannabis related
activities prior to being eligible for a permit. As such, they directed that this process include a
method and manner by which Applicants could self report and pay their taxes in lieu ofbeing
prohibited from participating in the RFP A process.

In spite of this it appears that AMCD choose instead to not report activities that based on the
documents submitted to the Hearing Officer, they appear to have been conducting. As indicated
the RFP A "All proposed facilities will be inspected by the City of Oakland staff. Failure to
disclose pre-existing operations or refusal to submit the requested documents, information, or
complying with the business tax assessment will automatically disqualify your business from the
RFPA process". The Hearing Officer believes the Applicants have knowingly withheld
information and failed to disclose pre-existing operations which they ceased in October but
which left an odor at the site a belief that is supported by the documentation submitted which
does not reflect the activity the Applicant alleges to have been conducting at the site.
The Hearing Officer bases this determination on the odor present at the site, the equipment
(lights and materials typically used to grow and dry cannabis), the amount of empty unused
space which showed no evidence of a "soup kitchen" activity as described by applicant and
litany of other use questions for which there is insufficient time to discuss. It is important to note
that even if the Hearing Officer were inclined to believe the Applicants assertions that the
refrigerators could account for the usage spikes displayed in electricity reports the rate of
electrical usage would be inconsistent with activity alleged to be occurring for two years. There
is no evidence of consistent use of property in the manner described present in materials. If you
look at usage there is a pattern consistent with growing and seasons associated with flowering
etc. It is interesting note that usage ramped down around time the RFP A process commenced at
which time usage went from 2800 units to 15 units. If same refrigerators are on site there should
not be such a large disparity unless it was ramping down grow in expectation for competing in
process.
Location
Without discussing the issues related to zoning and appropriateness ofuse the Hearing Officer's
lack confidence in the Applicants ability to complete permitted repairs and fire systems upgrades
within a reasonable time period required to potentially build the building out as described by the
Applicants and in order to address the concerns of the Fire Inspector.
Tracking and POS
Finally, the Hearing Officer had serious concerns about the software being proposed to be used.
Here the Applicants are proposing to use QuickBooks on one side and a database on the other.
The concern is that the Applicants appear to be taking out of the box software, and adapt
themselves to its use. Rather than identify industry leading software as other applicants have
done in order to identify the appropriate software to use. While it would not be a barrier the
Hearing Officer does find it interesting that other applicants have identified software that the

 AMCD,INC
Page 12 of 12
industry has developed and which are leading others around the country to improve medicine
tracking, patient tracking, and which combine POS systems for greater integration and
accountability. The instant concern is whether out of the box software can provide more of a
guarantee to the city of all its tracking needs, than software specifically designed for the
industry? The use of the out of box software perpetuates the question of whether the applicants
can be trusted. Why would they not propose to use industry leading software that is guaranteed
to prevent diversion, integrate with POS system, track patients, and track inventory? And instead
choose to have a POS system that is not fully integrated with their patient management database?
A possible reason is that not having a fully integrated system will make diversion easier.
Conclusion
The Hearing Officer believes that the Applicant withheld information, submitted misleading if
not fraudulent information, and could not adequately account for the usage of the property for the
last two years such that the Hearing Officer could be dissuaded from believing that they have
been cultivating on site. As a result the Hearing Officer hereby disqualifies the Applicant from
consideration and in light of current belief strongly encourages the city to monitor site so that
unpermitted activity does not recur.

The applicant is disqualified and their application null and void.

DATE
cc by email: Police ChiefHoward Jordan
Deputy Chief Darren Allison
Lt. Michael Poirier
Nancy Nadel, District 2 Council Representative
Rebecca Kaplan, At-Large Council Representative
Hoang Banh, Neighborhood Services Coordinator- 8X
David McPherson, Tax and Revenue Administrator
Eric Angstadt, Planning & Zoning
cc: CAO File