Wednesday, April 23, 2014

Supervisors look to expand medical marijuana ordinance guidelines

From page A1 | June 17, 2013 | 7 Comments

An increasingly vocal number of county residents showed up at Tuesday’s board of supervisors meeting to present their views regarding the outdoor cultivation of medical marijuana and access or lack thereof to shops or collectives dispensing their medications.

At issue is county government’s intention to craft a permanent amendment to the County Code regulating such cultivation and distribution. Back in november 2011, the Board of Supervisors enacted “urgency ordinances” that imposed a moratorium on both the outdoor cultivation and on the establishment of new medical cannabis dispensaries. Both ordinances were extended once and now are scheduled to expire at the end of October.

“Unless the board wishes to allow the ordinances to expire, adoption of a permanent amendment to the county code is necessary,” reads a document prepared on the background of the issue. Toward that end, the board voted 4-0 to adopt a Resolution of Intention which will initiate the amendment process. District 2 Supervisor Ray Nutting did not participate in Tuesday’s afternoon hearing nor in the later vote.

The most common complaints from residents about marijuana cultivation are the odor of the plants themselves and the smoke from burning of the garden waste, Chairman Ron Briggs noted to the agreement of fellow supervisors. Other concerns include potential “criminal elements” entering neighborhoods, fire dangers and lack of water or other infrastructure to operate a legal cannabis growing site. Producing for the grower’s profit is prohibited but not uncommon. District 5 Supervisor Norma Santiago described law enforcement raids on commercial farms in the South Lake Tahoe area where the growers were selling large amounts to distributors in other states.

As presented and recommended by the Planning Division of the county’s Community Development Agency, the amendment to an eventual, permanent ordinance would include specific setbacks on property lines where cultivation is occurring. Prohibitions on outdoor cultivation within a certain distance from a school, church, park or other youth-oriented facility should be in place and enforceable. Current code requires a garden to be surrounded by an opaque fence between six and eight feet tall.

Staff recommended that supervisors consider increasing the minimum size of a cannabis garden, currently 200 square feet, that thus could provide for more than one patient if one were disabled or otherwise unable to take part in the work. They also discussed ways to allow non-residents of the cultivated property to benefit from the produce. With a property owner’s authorization, a renter could cultivate on a specific parcel. The latter circumstance should include a formal notification process to alert neighbors to the proposed land use, Santiago suggested.

One speaker explained to supervisors that he lives in a house but his garden property is across the street. It would be unreasonable to require and impossible for him to build a new residence on that property, he said.

“An appeal process to provide for consideration of unique circumstances that may apply to a specific site” was suggested as well and included in the supervisors’ draft resolution.

Burning of waste or residual material from a marijuana garden would be prohibited under the proposed ordinance guidelines, according to the recommendations. But one grower described a fairly simple process of grinding it up and using it for compost, which Santiago said was “intriguing” to her.

Odor control and setback standards are significant sticking points in development of a permanent ordinance. El Dorado Hills resident Rich Stewart testified that he was negatively impacted by the smell from a small garden several houses away from his and that minimal setbacks would not be effective. He went on to suggest a system in which large acreage, 200 acres or so, could accommodate 20 acres set in the middle of the property that could supply up to 4,000 patients with a necessary annual supply of medical marijuana. It would be capable of providing full-time security and include resident owners or property managers.

“Setback standards would need to be developed to adequately provide relief from the odor but not become so restrictive as to be prohibitive,” said the recommendation documents.

A number of speakers told supervisors that they are disabled and/or live in small apartments or don’t drive and are completely unable to plant and cultivate their own supply of medicinal cannabis. The Planning Division suggested that the board consider a “greater area for growing on larger lots.”

“Advocates for medical marijuana have suggested that on large lots, residents could pool resources and grow more than the 200 square feet allowed for one individual, provided that each person is a medical marijuana user and it is not being grown for distribution,” the documents read. “This could provide an alternative for someone who is physically unable to grow and sustain their own cultivation, or lives in a location where it is impractical or prohibited to grow outside.”

Briggs said, “This board is trying to enable those who need it to get it. But not for the guys who are coming in for their own profits. We are trying to give the Sheriff’s department and law enforcement the ability to enforce (the ordinance), and there should be an appeal process for the individual and for the neighbors to appeal.

“Make it legal and I’ll plant 100 acres tomorrow,” Briggs, a certified organic farmer quipped to general laughter and applause.

He added that he has not heard many complaints in the past months since the moratoria took effect and he asked audience members how they thought it was working.

Because of the conflict between state and federal laws regarding marijuana, local jurisdictions in California have had to be careful about how they weave a way between the two. Under the federal Controlled Substances Act, marijuana is listed as a Schedule 1 Drug and “has no currently accepted medical use in treatment in the United States, and has not been accepted as safe for use under medical supervision.”

California’s Compassionate Care Act of 1996 (Proposition 215), however permits “the cultivation and use of marijuana for medical purposes.”

Peter Maurer representing the Planning Division described the conundrum to the board, and the planning documents note, “The purpose of (County) Ordinances 4970 and 4971 was to try to find the balance between the conflicting state and federal requirements.”

Pesticide spray drift and fertilizer “creep” are also issues to be considered lest those products encroach onto other residential property or agricultural operations. This was brought to the board’s attention by Farm Bureau Director Valerie Zentner and Agriculture Commissioner Charlene Carveth.

District 1 Supervisor Ron Mikulaco described his obligation to take into account a large number of constituents and to “be as fair as possible to everyone” and urged that the ordinance be “as simple as can be” especially with respect to collectives and dispensaries. Currently there are several dispensaries in the county, but the laws regulating them are somewhat unclear, and supervisors declined to give a “legal” opinion on them. The City of South Lake Tahoe has jurisdiction over dispensaries in the city limits. Placerville has the same authority, while the county has jurisdiction in the rest of the unincorporated areas of the county.

The board directed county staff to work with interested parties over the next few weeks to come up with a draft Resolution of Intention.

“I never thought I’d hear myself say this, but I’ll work with the dispensaries to vet these ideas for my constituents,” Briggs said.

Maurer noted that it will be a challenge to deal with what is “clearly against federal law, but OK in state law” and said his department would carefully “analyze what has been successful in other jurisdictions.”

Contact Chris Daley at 530-344-5063 or Follow @CDaleyMtDemo.


Discussion | 7 comments

  • 1036-FrankJune 16, 2013 - 3:23 pm

    Should require every "patient" to apply for a permit at the Sheriff's Office like a CCW, full background and criminal records check and then after approval a few, maybe up to 6 for one person, have plastic zip tie style numbered plant tags, so that everyone sees it is legal or not and there are no further excuses when an illegal garden is found. The county's attitude towards this will influence how many outlaws show up for growing season and how many head for other areas.

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • TontoJune 16, 2013 - 6:55 pm

    Lets look at the history since prop 215 was enacted and see how many violations have been recorded. Yes we will see that those who say it is for medical use are all profiting from the ILLEGAL sales and cultivation and not one has an excuse. This history is that it does not work. There is no medical use for an illegal drug but a host of uses for those who sell and profit from a law that has been abused by the sellers and no compassionate use.

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • KevaiJune 17, 2013 - 2:05 pm

    Tonto, 1st I would like to see your documentation that ALL Medicinal Cannabis is solely for profit. 2nd, I would recommend that you look at patent# 6630507 held by YOUR United States Government that clearly states the medicinal benefits. Every living thing has an Endocannabinoid system. ALL of your body systems are regulated by it. When it is out of balance disease processes start. Cannabis is the only known "Magic Key" that stops the disease process and returns the body to a normal homeostasis. It is a cure for cancer. By the U.S. governments own study in 1974 they found that a brain tumor (Glioma)directly injected with THC not only killed the tumor it didn't harm ANY of the surrounding tissue. You cannot say that about Chemo and Radiation. 3rd, The U.S. government with William Randolph Hearst in 1936-37 started a smear campaign on Hemp. Mr. Hearst had purchased 1000's of acres of timber forest with the intent of making paper BUT Hemp was cheaper to produce. He stood to lose a lot of money, seeing as he owned the newspapers and was a HUGE contributor to political interests he and Mr Anslinger decided to call Cannabis by its Mexican name Marihuana. Because this was unfamiliar to the masses the sheeple bought it hook line and sinker. They did not realize that their true medicine was being taken away. I know personally of a Cannabis Collective doing it right, right here in El Dorado County. Their profits go back into the community, They do clothing drives all year long for Green Valley Church, They have compassion programs for Terminally Ill, War Veterans,low income. Over $15,000 was given to the food bank this last year alone and with the Food Banks buying power that amounts to almost a $100,000. They pay their taxes, have corporate attorney's and CPA's. Its disturbing to know Mr.Tonto that your government has licensed 40 pharmaceutical companies to grow for medicinal purposes in the U.S. and are keeping it Illegal Federally until they have there own "Stores" in place. DO NOT THINK FOR A SECOND THAT THEY WILL NOT BE DOING IT FOR PROFIT!! Mr. Tonto please educate yourself with the truth about Cannabis and not the lies that you have been fed. I suggest you start with Mickey Martin's book " Medical Marijuana 101" Mahalo

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • edJune 17, 2013 - 10:27 pm

    i completely agree with what Mr. Kevai has posted. I have family as well with certain ailments that marajuana relieves. There are always gonna be a minut amount individuals that will push the envelope on guidelines, whether it be alcohol, cannabis, or even prescription pills. However, there are far more individuals that are more than willing to follow guidelines set forth by their local and state municipalities. I hope there will be a set guideline for prop 215 patients because what is really annoying and can also have a negative affect on actual real patients is the changing of the guidelines set by each county. Mabuhay

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • samJune 18, 2013 - 3:05 am

    People on here are a joke. Keep government out of our lives. No one has the right to tell others what they can put in their bodies. So you hypocrites that come on here and spew your trash should go back to the hole you came from.

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • JayJune 30, 2013 - 7:25 am

    So I guess these people who hate medical cannibis are not into the same regular action against guns and gun restrictions. You can't have it both ways. You want big government out of your life but you want it in your neighbors garden!

    Reply | Report abusive comment
  • Jack MehoffJuly 04, 2013 - 9:18 am

    The most common complaints from residents about marijuana cultivation are the odor of the plants themselves. Odor? So I have asthma and perfume sets it off. Can we restrict women from wearing Channel #5. I also can not stand the smell of roses. Restrict Roses also..

    Reply | Report abusive comment


Herard over the back fence: Try fishing at Wakamatsu

By Bob Billingsley | From Page: B1

Downtown group coordinates painting, awnings

By Wendy Schultz | From Page: A1

No quick fix for California’s highways

By Dawn Hodson | From Page: A1

More mountain lion sightings reported

By Dawn Hodson | From Page: A1, 1 Comment

Supervisor Nutting trial begins

By Cole Mayer | From Page: A1, 8 Comments | Gallery

Sanford murder case to jury

By Cole Mayer | From Page: A1 | Gallery

Gearing tax questions to correct office saves time

By Treasurer-Tax Collector | From Page: A3



My turn: More than a buzzword

By Special to the Democrat | From Page: A4, 3 Comments

Building restored

By Mountain Democrat | From Page: A4

Outstanding dog

By Mountain Democrat | From Page: A4



Altshuler framing

By Letters to the Editor | From Page: A5, 1 Comment

National Day of Prayer

By Letters to the Editor | From Page: A5

‘Parents, be afraid’ letter

By Letters to the Editor | From Page: A5, 3 Comments

Ukranian situation

By Letters to the Editor | From Page: A5, 2 Comments


By Letters to the Editor | From Page: A5, 3 Comments



Outside with Charlie: Transitioning

By Charlie Ferris | From Page: A6

Pitching the ‘Root’ cause of Trojans’ victory

By Mike Bush | From Page: A6 | Gallery

Pedal power at the forefront next month

By Jerry Heinzer | From Page: A6 | Gallery

Sports Scene: April 22, 2014

By Democrat Staff | From Page: A7

Roundup: April 22, 2014

By Democrat Staff | From Page: A7



4-H’ers star at showcase

By Dawn Hodson | From Page: B1 | Gallery

At a glance: Look for fireballs

By Mimi Escabar | From Page: B2, 1 Comment

Authors to share their stories

By Pat Lakey | From Page: B2, 1 Comment

Church to host human trafficking conference

By Pollock Pines | From Page: B3

Grow For It! Flower of Easter

By Barbara Schuchart | From Page: B5



Crime Log: April 1-3

By Cole Mayer | From Page: A2

Weather stats 4-22-14

By Michael Raffety | From Page: A2

Building permits 4/7-11/2014

By Michael Raffety | From Page: A2



Bobby Lloyd Bridges

By Contributor | From Page: A2

Harry Frank Harper

By Contributor | From Page: A2

Marion “Wayne” Griswold

By Contributor | From Page: A2


Real Estate




By Contributor | From Page: A8


By Contributor | From Page: A8

New York Times Crossword

By Contributor | From Page: A8

Flying McCoys

By Contributor | From Page: A8

Speed Bump

By Contributor | From Page: A8


By Contributor | From Page: A8

Horoscope, Thursday, April 24, 2014

By Contributor | From Page: A8

Horoscope, Wednesday, April 23, 2014

By Contributor | From Page: A8

Working It Out

By Contributor | From Page: A8

TV Listings

By Contributor | From Page: A8


By Contributor | From Page: A8