HomeMy WebLinkAbout3-15-11 marijuana correspondenceiviar .~ 5 ~ ~ u[:b3p M~crosott 53089106~y p.2
(}Rp~f~,
3-12-2011 ~ ~uFp~Gb
In re: laatient/landowner version of Acceptable Marijuana Ordinance (Amendments iRecomrt~ended)
Dear Madam and Gentlemen of the Board of 5tipervisors,
We had forwarded you the above version of the ordinance earlier and we wanted to clarify a couple pf
issues, let yvu know of some desired changes the members have suggested, and let yoe~ know that this
version has garnished widespread support throughout the IandownerJpatient community.
First, we wanted to let you know that we surely agree with the. setbacks from schools, and the youth
Facilities asset forth in your version (known as the RamseyJlambert versiony a nd that we did not intend
to imply that we did not so agree. Our version was primarily meant to address the major changes that
would be required for acceptance by our community.
Secondly, we feel that in order to adapt the ordinance #o properties that have terrain, existing home
sites, wetlands, or other conditions affecting the practicality of meeting setback requirements, that a
provision such as the fallowing should be included:
"ln the event that, due to physical or practical issues, that a property is unable to reasonably
comply with the stated setbacks contained within this ordinance, the allowable amount of
plants for that sized parcel shall be permitted within said setback in such a way to most
reasonably comply with the intent ofthis ordinance:'
Also, in the event that an adjoining landowner gives his or her~written permission to the grower to
violate any setback, that setback shall.be waived to the extent that was agreed upon by the grower and
landowner in said letter. Only upon a complaint driven inspection shall the landowner be required to
famish the agreement letter to the department of development services upon their request in writing.
Alsv, due to the need to absorb patients off of the smaller parcels and the fact that 2D plants is not
divisible by the allowed 6 plants, we want to see item 6 on lots from 2 to 5 acres increased to 24 plants.
Lastly, we wanted to express a couple of items of importance. First is that we fee! there is na productive
purpose in hearingfrom patients to express their need or want of their medicine nor is there any need
far Mr. lambert to rally speakers on behalf ofthe folks who don`t like the fact that Proposition 215 was
approved by the voters, as he implied he planned to do. We believe that ail parties can pretty much
stipulate to the issues at hand and that our proposed ordinance will incorporate setbacks and other
mitigating measuresthat will be acceptable to you, the staff, and the patients, and be a reasonable
interpretation of the rights afforded the people of California under proposition 23.5. We would hope
that aurversion of the enforcement provisions of this ordinance as set forth by us would be acceptab[e
to you at the next meeting and all that would need to be addressed is some of the setback distances,
amount of plants, and some wording discussion for clarity purposes.
In closing, we want you to know that there has sprung up at least three organizations to address the
patient issues due mostly to the clandestine, non-inclusive, and threatening law enforcement approach
actions of your body in this matter leading up to the last meeting. aurversion afthe ordinance; for
instance, is on at Least f"tie facebook pages and accessed at this paint by several thousand readers due to
its inherent exponential growth nature. (here are several attorneys now involved and a movement of
Mar 1511 02;53p Microsoft 530$910687 p.3
the community towards farming and funding a PAC to encourage that the patient rights and the overall
wishes of the community be heard and addressed. Far instance, most feel that !aw enforcement should
be guided and instructed by this board to focus on violent crime, methamphetamine, and property
crimes and should be also instructed to treatthe growing community as the lowest priority, as is done in
Mendocino and i]eliVOrte counties.
We feel that such actions, along with the adoption of our na-cast, practical, and friendly version of this
ordinance vsrnuEd be a truly positive step in bettering our community and the relationships of county
staff and law enforcement.
Thank you.
A coalition of Butte County patients and lrandowners