Pubdate: Wed, 13 Jan 2016
Source: Chico Enterprise-Record (CA)
Copyright: 2016 Chico Enterprise-Record
Contact:  http://www.chicoer.com/
Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/861
Note: Letters from newspaper's circulation area receive publishing priority
Author: Ryan Olson

BUTTE COUNTY SUPERVISORS UNANIMOUSLY APPROVE TWEAKS TO MEDICAL 
MARIJUANA CULTIVATION ORDINANCE

Oroville - The Butte County Board of Supervisors unanimously approved 
changes to the county's medical marijuana cultivation ordinance Tuesday.

In introducing the changes, Chief Administrative Officer Paul Hahn 
said they were based on what staff learned in the first full year of 
enforcing the ordinance approved by voters in 2014 as Measure A.

"We're not making what I believe to be major substantive changes," Hahn said.

However, some of the 27 members of the public who addressed the board 
during the passionate, yet civil, 3-hour, 10-minute discussion 
suggested that more dramatic changes would be appropriate in light of 
new state laws.

The new laws create a new structure for the county to rely on that 
didn't exist when the ordinance was first developed in 2014, said 
Jessica MacKenzie of the Inland Cannabis Farmers Association.

The three laws will enact a statewide framework to regulate the 
cultivation, processing and distribution of medical marijuana, while 
still allowing local jurisdictions the ability to add stricter 
regulations and maintain existing authority to impose taxes and fees. 
Regional water control boards are also passing rules regulating waste 
from marijuana grow sites.

Four speakers urged the county to maintain or tighten the cultivation 
rules, which generally regulate the size of cannabis grows based on lot size.

Michael Turner said code enforcement needed more help to go after 
people who are pursuing illegal grows. He said there were several 
sites with high fences with either dangerous activity or people who 
were arrested.

"These are people growing for money and they haven't been dealt 
with," Turner said.

Most of the other speakers supported local rules regulating 
marijuana, but wanted a more permissive system that could allow for 
commercial cultivation.

The new state laws move away from a nonprofit, collective model to 
strict commercial licensing.

"I don't understand why you all keep voting against the best 
interests of a wealthy Butte County," Denice Lessard said.

Lessard said she has been disabled since 2002 and relies on someone 
providing medicinal cannabis to her because she can't grow it herself.

Registered nurse Kay Saavedra said she grows cannabis for her 
patients and hopes to one day have a commercial grow, but can't get 
information from county officials. She said she followed Measure A 
and kept a 100 square foot grow, but was in constant fear of running 
afoul of law enforcement because of shifting rules.

RIGHT TO FARM ISSUE

The supervisors' discussion Tuesday stayed clear of sweeping changes 
based on the new state laws, although they did approve an item 
declaring that marijuana cultivation isn't an agricultural operation 
under the county's right to farm ordinance.

The new state law deems medical cannabis an agricultural commodity, 
but County Counsel Bruce Alpert noted the change was limited to 
specific sections of state law and not the food and agriculture code. 
Local jurisdictions still had the ability to regulate it within their 
boundaries, he said.

Several residents challenged the proposal, saying that any local 
regulation of a seed or plant needed approval from the state 
agricultural secretary. They also pointed out that marijuana wasn't 
protected under the current right to farm rules because the rules 
respect federal laws, where marijuana is prohibited.

Alpert said there would likely be a challenge to the move, but county 
staff was prepared for it.

Alpert later said the change was being made out of an abundance of 
caution. Outside the meeting, he said there could be conflicts 
between the cultivation and the right to farm ordinances if marijuana 
was determined to fall under the right to farm.

The county's right to farm rules limit circumstances when proper 
agricultural operations may be considered a nuisance under local 
regulations. The cultivation ordinance treats violations as public nuisances.

Chico-area Supervisor Maureen Kirk favored simply stating that 
marijuana didn't fall under the right to farm. Ultimately, the board 
backed an amendment striking language that declared that marijuana 
wasn't an agricultural commodity but kept the clause that cultivation 
wasn't an agricultural operation.

KEY CHANGES

The approved changes clarify some issues regarding allowable garden 
sizes, which vary based on lot size. Lots a half-acre and smaller are 
allowed to have a detached structure of 120 square feet, but 
officials want to clarify that the actual indoor garden is limited to 
50 square feet.

Outdoor grows are allowed for larger properties - up to 50 square 
feet for lots between a half-acre to 5 acres, 100 square feet for 
lots between 5 to 10 acres and 150 square feet for parcels larger 
than 10 acres.

One of the changes makes clear people may have smaller grow areas for 
larger properties if they don't have a sufficient number of doctor's 
recommendations for larger gardens. Generally, at least one 
recommendation is needed for every 50 square feet of cultivation area.

Another change was intended to allow a resident to have one garden on 
a single premises, including if the premises included more than one 
contiguous lot.

Most of the changes were focused to combine the citation and nuisance 
abatement process into one. Now when a code enforcement officer gives 
a grower or landowner a 72-hour notice to abate, the person is 
subject to fines of $500 per day. That daily fine increases to $1,000 
when a nuisance abatement hearing notice is posted.

The changes modify what code enforcement needs to prove at a hearing 
- - officials will need to prove the violation existed when the hearing 
date was set instead of showing that the violation still existed.

Supervisors also approved allowing administrative penalties to be 
recovered through a lien process on an affected property. Previously, 
the county could recover administrative and abatement costs.

ENFORCEMENT ISSUES

Several people asked how the fines would be assessed on rented 
properties, especially when a landowner may not receive timely 
notification of the notices or has trouble with a tenant.

Officials said development services director Tim Snellings has the 
ability to cancel a hearing or reduce fines if the nuisance was 
abated and the landowner acted in good faith. The landowner may also 
testify at a hearing about taking all reasonable actions if a tenant 
refuses to resolve the situation.

Several members of the public related their experiences with code 
enforcement during the past year. One said he received a citation 
even though he had sold the property six months prior.

Alex Lyons said officials cited him twice - one for a greenhouse and 
the second for improper fencing material. Saying he grew more than 
allowed so he could help friends and family, Lyons said there should 
be a better procedure and for the county to think of the patients involved.

Snellings and code enforcement supervisor Chris Jellison recapped 
enforcement actions over the past year where 1,489 complaints were 
received. About 67 percent of the cases were closed because the 
subject was either in compliance or came into compliance.

Jellison showed photos of several examples of violations, including 
oversized gardens, unpermitted greenhouses and dwellings, and 
improper electrical and sewer.

Snellings said 34,556 plants were destroyed because of compliance 
actions. He said people apparently rolled the dice with plants to see 
if officials would come out.

"This is sending a message that we wanted people to stay inside the 
box," Snellings said.

Staff issued 894 citations, leading to $2.93 million in fines. Less 
than 6 percent of the fines had been collected. Snellings was working 
with collections on what could be done. While liens may be imposed on 
some, he said a lot of the fines may go unpaid.

What was paid, $171,175, helped offset the enforcement costs of 
$375,996. Actual costs were 57 percent of the budgeted $658,346.

Snellings said the costs included charges from the District 
Attorney's Office. Hahn said there was no additional allocation for 
the Sheriff's Office for Measure A enforcement.

Resident Mat Bacior was disappointed that complaints could be 
initiated by code enforcement or sheriff's deputies going about their 
duties. He said it went against the original concept that the 
enforcement would be based off of neighbor complaints.

Attorney Charnel James urged the board to take the time to come up 
with a land-use solution that worked for everyone. She noted that the 
destroyed plants sent a message that thousands of people were going 
without medicine.
- ---
MAP posted-by: Jay Bergstrom