Pubdate: Sat, 04 Apr 2015 Source: Appeal-Democrat (Marysville, CA) Copyright: 2015 Appeal-Democrat Contact: http://www.appeal-democrat.com/sections/services/forms/editorletter.php Website: http://www.appeal-democrat.com Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/1343 Author: Eric Vodden JUDGE ALLOWS URGENCY ON NEW POT ORDINANCE TO REMAIN A Yuba County Superior Court judge has denied a bid by medical marijuana growers to restore their ability to seek a voter referendum on the county's new cultivation ordinance. Judge Benjamin Wirtschafter on Friday ruled against Yuba Patients Coalition and six growers in their motion for a temporary restraining order against Yuba County. The ruling left intact an urgency designation with the ordinance that eliminated a signature-gathering period for a referendum. Attorney Joe Elford, representing the growers, said after the hearing he will file an emergency writ with the 3rd District Court of Appeals to overturn the ruling. Ordinance opponents would need a favorable outcome before next Thursday to have time to submit referendum petitions to county election officials. A preliminary injunction to halt enforcement of the new ordinance until the outcome of a separate lawsuit filed last week is set for 1:30 p.m. Tuesday. Even if a voter referendum is precluded, opponents could seek a voter initiative, a more complex process that involves placing a new ordinance before voters rather than overturning one already approved. Opponents have said they have already gathered enough referendum signatures to submit to election officials, but they would essentially have to start over to seek an initiative. Yuba County supervisors last month approved the new ordinance after a series of workshops and hearings attracted vocal opponents and supporters. The previous ordinance allowed 18 plants on an acre or less and as many as 99 on 20 acres or more. The new one allows no outdoor plants, 12 inside a qualified accessory structure and none in residences. At issue during Friday's hearing, attended by about 70 people, was the urgency designation approved by the Board of Supervisors last month in connection with the new ordinance. That designation meant the ordinance took effect immediately rather than in 30 days, thus eliminating the 30-day period for gathering signatures before it took effect. Elford argued the findings that made it an urgency ordinance were essentially the same as for the previous ordinance adopted in 2012 without the urgency designation. He said the determination "removes the people from the ordinance. "The county did this purposefully to avoid the referendum," Elford said. However, Deputy County Counsel John VacEk said some of the findings "are essentially new." He said the fact "some board members" who said after the approval they were unaware it would preclude a referendum shows it was not their intent to stop it. "The urgency ordinance was approved for entirely legitimate reasons," VacEk said. Wirtschafter noted that one of the findings given for the urgency designation is the need to conserve water during the ongoing drought. The urgency ordinance notes marijuana plantings would have been likely to occur before a non-urgency ordinance would take effect. Previous court rulings have found counties and cities "have broad discretion in the cultivation of marijuana," Wirtschafter noted. Friday's hearing followed a separate lawsuit filed last week by four growers, also represented by Elford, claiming the new ordinance is unconstitutional. It also seeks a permanent injunction preventing enforcement of the new law. "This is just the first chapter in a long story," Elford said of Friday's ruling. "We didn't even get into our substantive things. This is just the referendum." - --- MAP posted-by: Jay Bergstrom