Pubdate: Fri, 18 Mar 2016
Source: Ukiah Daily Journal, The (CA)
Copyright: 2016 The Ukiah Daily Journal
Contact: http://www.ukiahdailyjournal.com/feedback
Website: http://www.ukiahdailyjournal.com/
Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/581
Author: Kate Maxwell

SUPES DISCUSS PROPOSED CANNABIS CHANGES

On March 15 the Mendocino County Board of Supervisors' Marijuana Ad 
Hoc Committee presented its initial recommendations for redrafting 
the county's marijuana policy to the public and to the full BOS. The 
committee has been gathering input from many sources for more than a 
year on the proposed changes. The committee, comprised of supervisors 
Tom Woodhouse and John McCowen, received input from the board and 
intends to return with another draft in April, to allow for a June 1 
adoption. At least one more public input sessions will be scheduled 
before the final draft is ready for the BOS review.

The March 15 presentation included proposed changes to the county 
ordinance amd a presentation from Agricultural Commissioner Chuck 
Morse. Morse is tasked with implementing much of the new state 
regulations and licensing that will be in full effect by January 1, 2018.

Supervisors received input from the public, Sheriff Tom Allman, 
County Counsel Katherine Elliott, and held a brief discussion on 
potential regulatory changes before agreeing to continue discussing 
details at the next meeting.

Cultivators currently in compliance with the county cannabis policy, 
known as the 9.31 program, which includes a plant cap of 25 as well 
as other requirements, will not be significantly impacted by future 
program changes. However, some of the issues to be clarified include 
how to administer the registration and administration of larger grows 
during the transition to full state regulation, how best to zone 
commercial cannabis activity within the county, and how to establish 
local fees and taxes to recoup county program costs but not 
discourage program enrollment.

McCowen and Woodhouse also received information from six Northern 
California counties with some moving forward with local regulations 
and others which have have adopted a "wait and see" approach.

The Ad Hoc Committee supplied the Board with a list of initial 
recommendations, including a list of potential license types and 
proposed zoning restrictions.

The licensing types largely mirror those that state will issue by 
2018, but do not include permitting of the larger grows, and allow 
for a "cottage" license similar to one proposed by north coast 
Assemblyman Jim Wood for state adoption.

McCowen stated the proposed changes create a tiered system, with 
those cultivating 25 plants or less not be required to register with 
the county, and those growing between 26 - 50 plants participate in a 
"track and trace" system under the Agriculture Department. Those 
growing between 51- 100 plants would be considered a different tier, 
and potentially regulated by the Sheriff's office during the 
transition to full state licensure. While there was some discussion 
about whether the county should use square footage or canopy size 
instead of plant count, but no changes were made.

McCowen also explained a draft dispensary ordinance was created in 
2011 and was being reviewed as part of the new policy changes, and 
current dispensaries could be grandfathered into a new licensing 
system. The Committee is also considering ways to allow cultivators 
to transport small amounts of "pre-commercial" cannabis to testing 
sites or within the county, and whether a local distribution or 
cooperative model could be licensed to protect smaller farms.

Some members of the public were concerned about the lack of a 
"cottage" indoor license to address current cultivation activity, 
especially in coastal areas. While this could go as large as 2,500 
square feet, the Committee plans to review this suggestion after 
support from Supervisors Dan Gjerde and Dan Hamburg.

Other public comment included the need for possible "medical 
research" licenses. Several residents said they wanted to be able to 
continue assisting with medical research by cultivating in the 
county, but would need county regulations to permit the types of 
cultivation necessary to begin that investment.

The Ad Hoc Committee and Morse recommended the formation of a type of 
"organic" certification for local cultivators.

Supervisor Carre Brown proposed existing farm and ranching 
requirements could be utilized for cannabis cultivation, as these 
require chemical containment as well as providing the county with a 
list of substances used, and often also require additional training.

The need for some zoning requirements was generally agreed upon, but 
how those specific restrictions will impact different parcel types in 
different areas of the county was not decided. McCowen recommended 
that zoning suggestions be submitted to the Committee, pointing out 
the current ordinance sets parcel size requirements for cultivation 
but also requires stricter "setbacks" for types of neighboring 
business than the state laws recommend.

Requiring a residency be associated with cultivation sites was 
favored by the board, since resident local cultivators "have a stake 
in that neighborhood, they have a stake in the community." The legal 
parameters of such a requirement will be addressed by county counsel 
in the upcoming weeks.

Morse highlighted some issues which will need to be addressed in 
making a transition to a more regulated commercial medical marijuana, 
including implementing "track and trace" plant identifier programs, a 
streamlining of licensing and other state regulatory requirements, 
and the need for a "Mendocino Grown" system of regional branding as 
part of the new program.

Morse wants to see the county implement a full range of permitted 
commercial medical cannabis activity in accordance to state law, but 
expected the county agriculture department would need to rapidly 
increase staffing capacity to begin the transition this growing 
season. County CEO Carmel Angelo said hiring could be expedited as needed.

One proposal made by the Ad Hoc Committee was to permit grows from 52 
- - 100 plants initially under the administration of the Sheriff's 
office until the Agricultural Department had adequate staffing, 
potentially in the 2017 season. McCowen stated this proposal was 
intended to address the need for additional staffing, so as to not 
provide de facto caps on the number of larger grows due to staffing 
issues. Other supervisors, as well as local residents, expressed the 
desire to see the program be wholly administered by Morse, who will 
be administering all cultivation permitting by 2018, although some 
industry groups stated support for a "dual track" administration 
during the transition.

One suggestion made was that a registry be created, as well as a form 
to express "notice of intent" so supervisors and relevant agencies 
would have a better sense of the number of residents planning to 
enroll. McCowen emphasized the county planned to utilize the 
strictest confidentiality possibility in registering canna-businesses 
in any county program.

Called to comment, Sheriff Tom Allman stated his department had 
experience from the 9.31 "zip-tie" program to register and inspect 
larger grows beginning this season.

Allman also reminded the supervisors that law enforcement would 
continue to enforce any violations to local ordinances, and that 
despite the potential for a statewide recreational use initiative on 
this fall's ballot, commercial cannabis activity was only currently 
legal for medical purposes. Warning of the involvement of state and 
federal agents in the previous 9.31 program, Allman emphasized that 
his department was required to comply with current laws and that 
deputies retained discretion over how to address plants over 
permitted plant count limits. "I don't want anyone to think that the 
sheriff's office is going to stop eradicating illegal marijuana," he 
stated, regardless of what department administers the program.

Another Ad Hoc recommendation included instituting an expedited 
administrative process for violations, which several other 
neighboring counties have implemented. Such a process would speed up 
the adjudication of violations so as to prevent ongoing nuisance 
problems from cultivation sites during the violations process.

Although counties are allowed to establish local taxes as well as 
license fees to recoup program costs, supervisors and stakeholder 
groups discussed whether such fees could deter residents from 
enrolling in the program or coming into compliance. McCowen 
recommended local agencies propose potential fees, and that the 
county consider a kind of amnesty program for those seeking licenses, 
who may also have code violations on their properties, while trying 
to come into compliance.

County CEO Carmel Angelo said her office would review potential 
options for taxes on cannabis businesses and could report to the 
Board in late April or early May on her findings.

Several groups also proposed an advisory committee to address the 
upcoming changes to cannabis regulations, comprised of 
representatives from each district and from the community at large. 
Although several supervisors said they felt such a committee could 
provide insight, others stated concern that the formation of an 
advisory committee could delay implementing new policies during the 
early months of this year's growing season.

McCowen stated he planned to hold several public meetings as well as 
ongoing stakeholder discussions before coming back before the 
supervisors with refined recommendations.

The full supervisors meeting discussing the draft ordinance can be 
found on the Mendocino County youtube page, and the supporting agenda 
documents can be found on the county's webpage under the agenda item. 
Public comment can also be submitted to the Ad Hoc Committee via the 
county website.
- ---
MAP posted-by: Jay Bergstrom