Pubdate: Wed, 09 Mar 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

SUPERVISORS SEND BUTTE COUNTY MARIJUANA RULE CHANGES TO VOTERS JUNE 7

Oroville - Butte County voters will decide June 7 whether changes to 
the county's marijuana rules will go into effect.

Responding to two petitions, the Butte County Board of Supervisors 
voted Tuesday to put changes to the county's medical marijuana 
cultivation ordinance and right-to-farm rules on the primary election ballot.

County officials stressed that the vote only applies to the currently 
suspended changes approved by the board Jan. 26. The original 
ordinances remain in effect and are being enforced.

The original cultivation ordinance limits the size of grows based on 
area and lot size, ranging from a 50 square-foot grow for lots 
between a half-acre to five acres to 150 square-feet for properties 
larger than 10 acres.

The changes being challenged clarify the allowable garden sizes and 
combine the citation and nuisance abatement process into one.

Supervisors also amended the right-to-farm ordinance to state that 
marijuana cultivation isn't deemed an agricultural operation.

While recently approved state law recognizes cannabis as an ag 
commodity, County Counsel Bruce Alpert said the county's legal 
opinion was that the state declaration didn't make marijuana a crop 
for all purposes. The right-to-farm rule change was intended to avoid 
confusion about the county rules.

Although some public speakers maintained the prior right-to-farm rule 
barred marijuana by respecting federal laws, others said the change 
to explicitly strike cannabis was unconstitutional. Alpert indicated 
the discrepancy underscored some of the confusion on the matter.

Supervisors voted unanimously to put the cultivation rule changes to 
voters, while Paradise-area Supervisor Doug Teeter cast the lone "no" 
vote on having voters decide on the right-to-farm changes.

Teeter supported repealing the right-to-farm changes so there would 
be clarity from having only one issue on the ballot. He said it was 
clear voters in 2014 wanted only personal grow size gardens and the 
June vote would be a question of how well to enforce those rules.

Chico-area Supervisor Maureen Kirk said both rule changes should be 
on the ballot.

"People should be allowed to vote on both of them," Kirk said.

Board chairman and Oroville-area Supervisor Bill Connelly 
acknowledged the standing-room-only crowd packing the supervisors 
chambers overwhelmingly supported growing cannabis, but said voters 
choose differently in 2014. He said people should weigh in and vote.

"If you want to change the world, going to the ballot is the rational 
and reasonable way to do it," Connelly said.

Tuesday's votes arose because of petitions filed Feb. 24 by the 
Inland Cannabis Farmers Association. After the petitions were deemed 
valid, the supervisors' choices were to repeal the changes or 
schedule them for a vote by the electorate.

On Tuesday, Clerk-Recorder Candace Grubbs certified the petitions to 
the board after conducting a random check of 500 signatures on each 
petition. Each petition needed 6,177 valid signatures, which equals 
10 percent of the county residents who voted in the 2014 
gubernatorial election.

For the challenge to the right-to-farm changes, Grubbs said 65.6 
percent of the 500 checked signatures were valid, leading officials 
to conclude that enough of the 12,585 submitted signatures would be valid.

The group submitted 12,690 signatures for the cultivation rule 
changes. Grubbs said 67.2 percent of the randomly checked signatures 
were valid. A pair of duplicate signatures raised the certification 
threshold, but there were still enough signatures to qualify.

After Grubbs certified the petitions, 37 members of the public spoke 
for nearly 90 minutes on the items. In addition to repealing the 
changes, most of the speakers asked the supervisors to revamp how the 
county treats cannabis, including repealing the underlying cultivation measure.

Many of the speakers touted the medicinal benefits of cannabis and 
described onerous county enforcement of the current rules. A couple 
of speakers said the cultivation rules hindered their ability to 
start a cannabis-based business or to grow plants in a garden 
exceeding the county limits.

Andrew Merkel said the rules approved as Measure A in 2014 weren't 
necessarily bad for controlling cultivation in neighborhoods. 
However, cannabis is now an agricultural commodity and the county 
should work to get people in compliance with licensing and taxation 
as people will continue to grow the plant.

"These people aren't going to quit next year," Merkel said.

Enforcement complaints included law enforcement flyovers, and 
apparently by third parties in planes and helicopters. Alpert said 
officials didn't anticipate private parties doing that, but can't prohibit it.

There were a handful of speakers who supported tighter restrictions, 
including one who said the smell from neighboring grows prevented him 
from getting fresh air. Another said the cultivation rules were about 
protecting the public safety of those who don't want to be coerced or 
worried about their neighbors.

After the vote, Jessica MacKenzie, director of the Inland Cannabis 
Farmers Association, told the supervisors that relations were 
improving, but there was a ways to go

"Today was mixed, you know, but I'm grateful to you all for 
listening," MacKenzie said.

She said discussions about cannabis were often broken up into smaller 
issues, but patients and growers who are acting in good faith still 
sought a path to legitimacy.

Kirk favored reviewing the county's practices following elections in 
June and November. It's anticipated voters will decide at least one 
statewide proposition to legalize recreational cannabis in the Nov. 8 
general election.

Kirk said she thinks medicinal marijuana is a real thing, but doesn't 
like how the plants have been grown in the county.

"I really think we can work with some groups and see what we can do," she said.
- ---
MAP posted-by: Jay Bergstrom