By Vicente Vera
“By signing this agreement, I acknowledge that I do not belong to any type of law enforcement group or agency, and genuinely need cannabis as a sacrament to exercise my religion."
These were just a few of the rules that Coachella Valley Church’s lifetime members were required to abide by before they were allowed access to tax-free weed.
The church claimed to “distribute” marijuana amongst the congregation in exchange for “suggested donations,” rather than selling it.
The church opened for business right under the radar of San Jose city regulators in May of last year, just a few blocks south of Santa Clara University.
Since then, more than 600 people jumped at the opportunity to become a part of the self-proclaimed “first federally approved Rastafari church in the state of California.”
But when lawmakers in San Jose caught wind of the operation, they did not take too kindly to the church’s classification.
“The owners know what they’re doing is illegal,” said San Jose City Council member Devora Davis.
She represents the city’s 6th District, the area right on the border of Santa Clara and San Jose, where the church conducts its business. Davis has been very vocal in her efforts to shut down illegal pot clubs in the city.
“Coachella Valley Church was operating without zoning permits and the neighbors were mad about having to deal with an unregulated dispensary in their neighborhoods,” Davis said. “I don’t hate pot, I just want people to follow the laws.”
Dave Henschel, who has lived in the neighborhood since 1999, said he is happy to see how Davis handled the situation with the church.
“I’m just one guy so it’s hard for me to get the attention of the city,” he said. “But when Davis got involved, that’s when the city really began to take action against the church.”
Resident Maria Elena Flores lived directly behind the church and said people constantly mistook her house for Coachella Valley Church. She said the confusion arose because both her house and the church shared similar street addresses.
“All different types of people came knocking on the door looking for marijuana,” Flores said. “Even when they can see that there’s little kids here, some people would just walk into the house.”
The city of San Jose claimed that Sacha Nemcov is the landlord of the building occupied by Coachella Valley Church.
Before the church planted itself on the outskirts of San Jose, Nemcov was also accused by the city in a 2015 lawsuit of allowing a separate illegal pot club operate in his building, “Amsterdam’s Gardens.”
According to San Jose City Attorney Richard Doyle, Amsterdam’s Gardens illegally sold marijuana with no regard to the city’s requests to shut down. In “The City of San Jose v. Victoria Foxx,” Doyle asserted that Amsterdam’s Gardens was a “public nuisance.”
Nemcov has fought back against the characterization of Amsterdam’s Gardens as illegal.
“The city is still out of touch,” Nemcov told the Silicon Valley Business Journal while he was a contract manager of Amsterdam’s Garden on Dec. 10, 2013. “We’ve been through this pretty much every year. It’s just a waste of time and energy.”
Doyle confirmed on March 30, 2017 that the city succeeded in closing Amsterdam’s Gardens.
Just two months later, Coachella Valley Church took ownership of the same building used by the aforementioned dispensary.
“Based on the evidence we’ve gathered, it is our belief that Nemcov and his sister Viktoria Foxx, who owned the prior dispensary at the same location, are the ones behind Coachella,” said Doyle.
The civil case, “People of the State of California v. Coachella Valley Church,” was filed in the Santa Clara Superior Court on Dec. 7 of that same year.
The city attorney wanted a preliminary injunction to be imposed on the church. If granted by a judge, a preliminary injunction would allow the city to shut down the church until the rest of the case plays out in court.
Nemcov did not respond to a request for comment. According to court documents, his attorney argued the city couldn’t prove he rented his building to the church, and that landlords aren’t responsible for making sure that their tenants are following the law.
Senior deputy city attorney Kendra McGee-Davies said the city’s argument was heard by Judge McCracken in court on March 27, 2018.
After another additional briefing, the court took the matter under submission.
For Coachella Valley Church to be successfully shut down, the court would have to determine there is a reasonable probability that the case will prevail in court and the potential harm to the public outweighs the potential harm to the defendants.
McGee-Davies claimed the church violated Titles 6 and 20 of the San Jose Municipal Code, which mandated it register with the city, the planning commission and pay its city fees.
Arguing on behalf of the church, attorney Stuart Miller claimed its religious liberties are being infringed upon, and the city is to blame for its inability to process new applications for pot shops to operate legally.
“Coachella Valley Church would be happy to register with the city, but they can’t because the city won’t take anymore applications,” he said.
The city of San Jose began accepting applications from businesses wanting to register as medical marijuana collectives on July 18, 2014.
Pot clubs were given a three-month window to apply.
When the selection process ended, the city sanctioned 16 dispensaries to operate.
Since the three-month window was closed, San Jose’s Planning Division had not accepted any additional applications for Zoning Code Verification Certificates.
According to San Jose Chief of Police Eduardo Garcia, the police department’s current staffing is not equipped to support a new registration process or to regulate and monitor additional marijuana businesses.
“Administrative inconvenience is not an excuse to stop accepting new applications,” said Miller.
But the church’s defense proved insufficient to win over the opinion of the Santa Clara Superior Court.
On July 2, the Court ordered that Coachella Valley Church shut its doors by July 5.
The report stated, “The Court disagrees that the Coachella’s activities do not fall within the provisions of the San Jose Municipal Code.”
Political science junior Diana Solares said she became a member of the church because it was a convenient place to access pot.
Solares said she used marijuana medicinally to relieve her stress and anxiety.
“It’s hard for me to find the right strain now since that was the place I would go to for products,” she said. “I don’t want to buy something wrong and dangerous from a stranger.”
Though the court told Coachella Valley Church to stop selling weed, the church appealed the court’s decision to the California Court of Appeal for the 6th District.
While the church continued to build its defense in court, it also took steps to defend itself through social media.
“The city has been doing everything they can to interfere with our religious right. They are literally going out of their way to punish us for something that is already legal,” said a spokeswoman for Coachella Valley Church in a public service announcement released by the church on Nov. 3.
The woman featured in the YouTube video only identifies herself as “Nicole” and asks viewers to help pay for the church’s legal fees through donations.
“Whether it’s $5 or $500, every dollar will bring us that much closer to victory,” she said.
As of Dec. 4, the church has raised $175 out of its $49,600 goal.
“I have seen the city of San Jose win cases like this in the past, and I am confident that it will win this case as well,” said Davis in regards to the church’s latest appeal.
According to McGee-Davies, the superior court case is still continuing and both the church and the city of San Jose are currently gathering additional evidence by requesting interviews, documents, admissions and depositions.
Richard Gonzales, an employee at Family Violence Counseling Associates, a business that operates in the building adjacent to Coachella Valley Church, said he’s glad to see the city succeed in going against the church.
“I’m not against people smoking pot, but the church had no concern whatsoever for its neighbors,” he said. “The owners were nowhere to be seen either.”
Gonzales said that he would be more tolerant of the church’s operation if the owners were willing to talk with the surrounding community and work out solutions on parking, litter and noise problems, which he claimed were created by the church’s presence.
“I don’t have a problem so much with the church itself,” he said. “I just don’t think it should be in the neighborhood.”
