ASA’s recommendations for new interim MMJ ordinance

George Rebane

Ms Patricia Smith, MMJ champion and president of the local Americans for Safe Access, invited Mr Eddie Garcia (NC SoJ steering committee) and me to have lunch and discuss the progress toward a draft of the new interim MMJ ordinance that the NC BoS will adopt before Labor Day.  The county and stake holders promoting MMJ access have already met twice, and are scheduled to meet again before the new ordinance is finalized.  In the interval Ms Smith is meeting with various community interests to get a wide range of feedback on attitudes toward growing MMJ in the county, and what should be contained in the ordinance.  In November California will be among eight states that will vote on legalizing both MMJ and RMJ.  Nevada County’s finalized MMJ ordinance will then be put in concordance with what comes down from Sacramento.

Today ASA is presenting to our BoS recommendations for an Interim Ordinance along with an accompanying press release.  Ms Smith sent me the following items; first the recommendations -

1. Rescind the ban.
2. Add that collectives and caregivers are permitted to provide medicine for up to five members that do not have to live on the same property.
3. Define where outdoor cultivation will be allowed.  ASA recommends limited cultivation in R-1, R-2, and more liberal cultivation rights on RA, AG, AE, or FR zones.
4. Keep sensitive use setbacks at 600 sq feet, matching state guidelines.
5. Setbacks from garden should only be measured from garden site to closest wall of nearest neighbor’s home - not from property lines.
6. Specify only ACTIVE bus stops are included in sensitive use areas.
7. Eliminate requirement that cultivation takes place on a “single level plane”  - but terracing would require a permit.
8. Offer permits to growers who follow regulations and get proper licenses from regulatory agencies.  Suggested fee, $500 that includes an inspection.
9. Establish a 2-year Residency Clause for the right to cultivate, no permit w/o proof of residency.  This will be unenforceable without issuing permits.
10. Relax greenhouse standards to include hoop houses with plastic coverings or self contained grow units.  For 12 plants or less, no building permit would be necessary.  Permitted electricity only if used (some only use natural sunlight).
11. Create a variance for patients in R-1 and R-2 zones with neighbors permission 
12. Establish a plant count for outdoor cultivation based on parcel size and zoning:
    • R-1 & R-2 Zones: 1+ acres - 3 - 6 plants in greenhouse or hoop house w/variance from county & neighbors
    • R-3  Zones: no outdoor
    • Mobile Homes:  no outdoor
    • RA, AG, AE, TPZ, or FR Zones:
      • <  2 acres -   6 plants*
      • <  5 acres - 12 plants*
      • <10 acres - 18 plants*
      • 10+ acres - 25 plants*
      • 20+ acres-  50 plants*

            *100 sq feet per plant if using square feet measurements instead of plant counts.

The accompanying press release reads –

ASA believes it is time for a fundamental shift in our approach to regulating medical cannabis production in Nevada County and apparently, the voters have agreed.

By reframing the conversation from eradication/ban to compliance/permits, we can find reasonable regulations that will better protect the health and wellbeing of our community.  Writing regulations that promote compliance will identify the bad actors, making it much easier to focus enforcement energies where they will do the most good.

Sheriff Royal is rightfully concerned with an influx of out-of-area growers moving to our County to exploit our community.  People with no ties to our neighborhoods have no concern for protecting our quality of life.  For this reason, we strongly support a 2-year residency clause, but this will only have teeth if there is a permit tied to the requirement to identify those in compliance.

School bus stops have been a contentious issue between ASA and the County.  We have no objection to enforcing active school bus stops, but there are over 2,207 stops on the Durham bus list (dating back to 1946) and only 110 or so are currently being used.  It is unreasonable to include such a large majority of inactive sites that have been randomly enforced.  Using these standards, most properties would be disqualified and are indicative of measures taken in the past to make it difficult to comply with the ordinance, but did nothing to protect the public.  

We request that the definition of school bus stops be amended to read that only ACTIVE school bus stops are included in the sensitive use setbacks.  (The state has eliminated this requirement altogether and now only lists schools as a required setback.)

Before Ordinance #2349, everyone was allowed to grow up to 36 plants (with six recommendations) regardless of where they lived.  To appease residents in Alta Sierra, Lake of the Pines and Lake Wildwood, ASA has agreed to eliminate or severely restrict outdoor cultivation in R-1 and R-2 zones and restrict all cultivation in R-3 and mobile home parks.  If we are to restrict so many areas from outdoor cultivation, accommodations must be made so that people on RA, AG, AE, TPZ, and FR zones have the ability to grow for others just like they raise cattle for city dwellers.  

Expanding the plant count from 36 to 50 on parcels that are 20 acres or larger is not an unreasonable compromise.  If anything, it underserves the needs of our community.  Even if one used 100 sq feet per plant, it would occupy less than 1% of the 871,200 square feet of the landspace on a twenty acre property.  It’s not necessarily the number of plants that is a problem, it’s whether a nuisance is being created by following unsound practices.

Permitting is the only answer to solving the problems we have experienced.  Every business from a manicurist to a food vendor at a local farmer’s market have regulations they must follow to protect the public health or they are not allowed to operate.  Permits will require cannabis cultivators to follow strict environmental and public safety guidelines that can be verified by licensing authorities and revoked for non-compliance.

ASA believes these are very reasonable steps to take to bridge the gap between the ban and the new state laws that regulate and tax cannabis cultivation and auxiliary businesses.  We are still soliciting opinions from the community, so if you want YOUR voice to be heard, please take the survey at:  www.surveymonkey.com/r/NevadaCountyASA.

Comments

[Peter Van Zant]

George: Thanks for publishing the ASA text. I was interested in your reader comments....did they take the weekend off?

[Russ Steele]

Peter,

And, your thoughts are?

[Peter Van Zant]

Russ: Regulation, taxes, and designation using existing zoning seem sensible ways to move MM into a fair and usable system.

[BradC]

I think Number 4 should read '600 feet', not '600 sq.ft.'

What is the proposed setback distance between garden and closest neighbor residence wall (No. 5)?

What would determine residency (No. 9): property deed, utility bill, etc.? Residency where - at the grow site, or just anywhere in the county?.
Is the PRF (person responsible for the facility) who is also the person required to be a confirmed resident required to live at the grow site?
Some grow sites might not have residences on the property. Large acreage farms could span multiple parcels. Not all farm lands have homes on every legal, discrete parcel.

[Patricia Smith]

Thank you George for posting this for me. i wonder why your fellow bloggers are so silent all of a sudden? It's not like they don't usually have opinions! I guess they must agree with our proposls. Good news that I will share with the Stakeholder's meeting on July 12th.

[Paul Emery]

Patricia

There's not much controversy over this anymore. Nevada County has spoken, as the Supervisors asked to do and the response (60-40 vote rounded off) shows solid disapproval for the ban on cultivation and support for commercial growing. Don Bessee said as much when in the League of Woman's Voters forum he said the issue was simply whether Nevada County wants to have commercial grows or not. Nevada County soundly spoke that they support Cannabis cultivation.

[Steven Frisch]

Patricia, my understanding is that NC ASA has come out against Proposition 64, the proposition that will be on the November ballot to legalize recreational use of marijuana. I'm not sure where I read that so I am wondering if you could elaborate. I am also wondering what your rationale for opposing Prop 64 is if indeed you oppose.

[Laurie Bascom]

Law enforcement leadership and all elected officials have a difficult job in a democracy. Unifying the people is the job of statesmen.

On that basis, I will defer to the thoughtful words of the first president of the Republican Party concerning the issue at hand: “Prohibition goes beyond the bounds of reason in that it attempts to control a man's appetite by legislation and makes a crime out of things that are not crimes... A prohibition law strikes a blow at the very principles upon which our government was founded” -- Abraham Lincoln