Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutlarge marijuanan correspondence folder 2Stumbaugh, Traci .... _ __ From: Moghannam, Kathleen Sent: Tuesday, May 03, 2011 3:39 PM To: Stumbaugh, Traci Subject: FW: MMJ Ordinance B05, Alpert, 5nellings From: Vince Ramon fmailto:rarnon.vinceCa~gmail.comj Sent; Monday, May 02, 2011 2:14 PM Ta: Connelly, Bill Subject: MM1 Ordinance Supervisor Connley; Having looked aver the proposed ordinance for medicinal marijuana I urge you to vote against this ordinance. While not condoning illegal activity, I believe that it is time to look at this situation logically with our eyes fully open. We are losing the "War on drugs" and it's costing us a lot of money. The demand for cannabis exists and will be fizlfilled. The cartels south of our border are enslaving citizens of their country and sending them up here to our national forests to grow a crop and guard it with firearms under threat of damage to members of their family and the profits are sent to another country. Ask our sheriff Jerry Smith how many man-hours his department has to devote to chasing down these foreign national farmers. I doubt that they will concern themselves with a county ordinance, but I'm sure they will be very happy if such an ordinance has the effect of increasing the price for their contraband. Our local citizen farmers on the other hand work very hard, purchase their requirements locally, spend their money locally, and thus enhance our local economy, increase rural property values and thus elevate the county tax base. Our local citizen farmers also do not go into our national forests and damage the lands and our watersheds by diverting and polluting our creeks. Most of the local growers pride themselves an using only organic farming methods in order to produce a high quality crop for the medicinal market. The cartels on the other hand are not really too concerned with that. So consider that if you have a son, or daughter, or mother, or father whose doctor recommends the use of cannabis for a medical condition. Ask yourself this: Do you want him/her to be able to obtain a high quality locally grown medicine, or one shipped over the border or grown in our national forests with who knows what kind of fertilizers and sprayed with industrial pesticides which may do much more harm than goad? Has the board of supervisors studied either collectively or individually what the effect was to property values and sales tax bases in other rural counties that have passed such draconian ordinances? Vince f CC ~ ~o~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~S 7'~ C$A~~S and N~IwTA LAMBERT 1643 Chr"ca River Road Chico, Carifornia 95928 .Plane: 530~3~f2-378f~ May 2, 2011 'Z'o: From: Re: ~"~~3erV1SOI ~~r ~~ Nina Lambert ~4Ai~ OFSUl~VI50RS ~M~IY 0'3 ~2~1t OROVILLE, CALIFORNEA PGSt-ita fax Note 7671 ^ai~ pac°es- 7o From CalE1@pT. ~• Phone rt :3 02 D J ~ Prase N ~C1! - !,~ F ~,~y~ fax k Medical Marijuana. Cultivation Ordinance Chapter 34.A V~hile 1 plan to attend the meeting at the Blks Club en May 4, I dons. believe I can cover my concerns in the two minutes allowed each speaker. ~::r i also believe it is easier to follow an (3utline ~~th references to the language in the (?rdinarzce wbez~ attempting to make a point. Therefore,l am enclosing ray Outline and comments, and hope yvu will ltiave time to .. re~-iew them 6efafe the Ordinance as approved and adopted. My sincere appreciation for tEte tizr~e ar~.d effort you put in as Supendsor~ V ~ ~c~ ~~ (~ CC ~ 6'~ L89t36680£9 }}osoao~W d88~Z L L ~ Ed ~~W Pages ~ and 6 FIlVDIIY~S AND PURPOSE Does nat prohibit "individually, collectively, or cooperatively°' grows granted by State law Pace l.3 - 34A-5 Registration; Cultivation Requiirepten#s page ~4 ~-- Elates X2 -- Lines 17 ' Registration not required for parcel sizes 1.5 acres or less. Registration should be required for ALL parcel sizes. a) Need to lmow where ALL graves are located to protect setbacks from "proposed" construction, etc. mentioned on page 19 (34A-9) Notice Regarding Change in Land tl'se. Page g, Lime ~X Definifian of "premises". ,As'rngle, legal parcel ofp~roperly. Where contiguous legal parcels are under common awitership or control, such contiguous legal parcels shalt be e©unted as a single premises for pwrposes o£this Chapter. a) By including contiguous legal parcels it could increase the amount of acreage beyond the 1.5 acres or less, and therefoxe also increase the number of plants allowed to be gxown by an ~dividual, collective, or cooperative. These smaller parcels are located in a "residential" type setting as opposed #o Iarger parcels in a nacre zmzal setting. The neighborhood impacts increase as well. Registration of these smaller pparcels would be helpful far eztforcement puxposes. Page 18, Lute ~5 and Page 19, 34A..~ "Change in i,and Use" onl}r applies to "Regist~.xed"parcels aver 1.5 acres inn size. Wage 6, Limes 2 - 4 Rather, the i~atent and purpose o#' this Chapter is to establish reasonable regulations upon the manner i~ which marijuana nxay be cultivated, ittcludiug restxictioms on the amount o£ marijuana that may be individually; collectively, or cooperatively cultivated izt any locatiax~ Q~ p~r~e~arises, ;n order to prr~tect the public health, safely, welfare and environment in Sutte County. Does k2 plaxxts (TQTAL) on parcels 15 acres ar less 3mean "TQTAL"? 4r, does this mean for an "individual" grow -- for their owr~ use? Tf a "collective" ox "cooperative" is famed, is the z~urrzber of plants multiplied by the number of nnember~s in the "collective"' or "cooperative"? Z'd L890L880~~ }losoa3iW d8E~Zb 6E.EO+~sW Page ~~ , X.ine 25 -Setbacks ..."the cultivation of marijuana an premises of one (#.l acre in size".... Should this be l.5 acres or less in size? Ifno#, why the change to one (I} acre in size? Page i'7, Lives 5 to ~2 Outdoars wx#h~ ome hnndred.~4~) feet of any occupied resic#entiial structutre located on a separate legal parcel, pro~ded, hov~ver~er, that any pea-son crrltrvatiaa~g no more than 6 mature or 1.2 immatare marijuana plants (or ~2 marijuana plants #otal with xao more than six (6) mature plants in such combina#loa}shall not grow oatclooxs within thirty (34} feet of any occupiers residential structure located on a separate legal parcel. V~hy does the ntmol~er of plants reduce the distance from an occupied residential structure? Page 18, Lines 6 thru i~# Permissiaa of Property ptvner X7oes this include parcel sizes I.5 acres or less? Ifnot "Registered" -how will Violations, Enforeerner3t, card ,A.batement pracetlures listed vn pages I9, 20. and 21 he i3mplemented? Page ~8, Lines 16 thz~a 2S Fencing Is this fence to be situated entirely on the gravers "pzemises'y -or will Department of Development Services approve attachiaag a 6 foot or higher ``solid or opagrze=' fence to an e~dsting property line fence? Page 27, Lmes ~4 to 2a The appellant shall be responsible for the cosf of tlwe appeal grad record; pro~virled, ho~vevex, i~'the &oard unhaXds t3ae anneal and fxrids that rro violatroxx exists then the cost of the appeal shaII be borne by the County. Clari~catiau requested. WI~a is the appellant in this type situation? Page 37, Lines X to 1>. No Duty to Enforce Ctarlf~eation requested. Is t}ais because this is a "Land Use Issue" vs. a "begat issue"? 2 £'d L8806s80£9 ~osoao~W ~8£~Z6 L~.£O~eW ~-~ri1.-r.,~. rte; I kLE: $ntte Conn i~edicallYiari'nana Ordiaaace r7 ~- 34A-2 FINDINGS AND FURPOSE Fa es 5 and 6• (~) Purpose and Tintent of Ibis Chapter (4xdinance) to comply with Proposition 2l5 and Senate Bill 424; and towards that encl, is not intended to prohibit perso~xs from "individuallv coliectirely or coa,~,erati~veh exexcising any right otherwise granted by State lar~r. Ratber, ~e intent and purpose ol'this Chapter is to establish reasonable regulations upon the manner in. ~rhich rr~ari uar-a ma be cultivate including_restrictions on fine amount of marijuana that rr;a be inclividuall collectively and coo rativel culti~rated in any location or premises, zo. ozder to protect the public beaith, safety, welfare and en~~irarnent in Butte County. 34A 3 D)~~NITIUNS Pages S and 9:_ U} Q: If a "Callecti~e" or "GooperatiF eya is established, (to cultiva#e marijuana far rr:edical purposes), floes that mean the number of plants can be increased on any given paxcellprernises and multiplied by the number ofpersons/rnembers in a given "collective" or "coopexative"? (l;xarnples): ~aae 11:11: Re: 1.5 acres or Less Tiotat !an#s =12 Q: If 5 people establish a "colleetilTe" or "cooperative" togow medical marijuana, how many TOTAL taats could they grow on a parcel 1.5 acres or less i~a size? Tf a .5 acxe lot= can they mow 12 plants x 5 = 60 Iota! plants? if a..75 acre lot =can they grow 12 plants x 5 = 60 Total plants? if a 1.0 acre lot =can they grow l2 punts x S = 60 Total plants? if a i .~ acre lat =can they grow l2 plants x 5 = 64 Total plants? -OIi- Q: Does TOTAL of 12 plan#s on a parcel 1.5 acre or less mean a TOTAL of 12 plants based on size of parcellprexnises and ~rneeting setbacks fr-o~an lyounda~ies, xesidences, etc....? (sn) "Premises" =single, legal parcel. Contiguous legal parcels under same ownership or control, shall lie eaunted as a single u re„~ wises" for purposes ofthis Chapter, Q if several parcels considexed as (I) tsne parcel, does dais increase the number ofplants that can be grown by increasing the Total acreage "premises" size? 1 ~ ~~~ ~.. b'd L8906F80£~ }~oso.~oiW a8£~Z6 6!. £O~~W 1.~ acre or Less parcel size T would allow 1? Total plants. 1.5 #a Z4 acre parcel size =would increase 12 Total plants to 24 plants. Thew noaultiply by #lre nnmberof members in a "collective" ox "cooperative"? -and- l-ossibly "vFaive" setbacks because of "vdd" parcel confguation? (See page ~5 {2) - 3~A-~ -Setbacks Re; premises 1.5 acres or less). Page_ 12. (Clarification reques#ed relative t© above questions -and- fvllavving language.} Wlteti~er 3mature or imnaa~re giants _ regardless ol'tlte uumber of qualified Iatients or grimarti caregivers residio~g at the greinises or participating directly or indirec#Iy in tiie cultivation. ~rrtlter, such linYitativtas shall be iumpased noth~vitltistanding aqY assertaion that the personrs c~xitivating marijuana are the primary caregivers for qualified patients ar that such persons are collectively or cooperatively cultivatiQg marijuana. And fotrther~all persons cultivating marijuana on the premises or participating directly or indirectly in the cultivation must be Sutte County residents. Page 13_~-1~ REGIST'R.ATI4N; CULT~'VATI~N REUUIREMEN'~'S• PREMISES LESS THAN Z.5 ACRES 1N SIZE Q.~,-5 b N'U REGLSTRATT4N REQUIRED. Q; Wtiy is registration NOT required for Af.L parcels? a) Tnvah=es closer relationship withixx residential areas than on ]anger acreages. b) lvlore "nuisance" impact than where larger pazcels are involved. c) Why not require "Registration" without afee, -or- for a modest fee of $ l 0.Q0 to $SO.OQ? This would provide a more accurate record of plantings, etc. for impleme~atation and enforcement afthe Ordinance tivithoat an excessi~=e fee charged, d} This v~=aulci assist Page 18 -- 34A-9 (Line X~ -- NOTIFICATIOI+I Ski DDS IF "REGISTERED" PREIYnSES. {Line lad e) Tl3is would assist P'a a 19 - 3~4A-9 -"Cha~x a in Land Use" and determining existing cultizration within a setback if alI arcel sizes re 'stered including up fo 1.~ acre in size. Page, l6 --Line 25 (Continued on Page 17 -•- Lime 1) Ite: ~a~-~ SET~a~cxs OUEST3~N: ...provided, howe~=er, that ttae cultivation of marijuana on premises of one fl,l acre in size or lei whether gro~~~ collectively ar individuall}% in any amount ar cluantiiy. shall not_.... etc. v~ny la~ngnage changed to "one (1) acre or less" instead of "(x.5) acres or less"? 2 S'~ L$906680E~ t}osoaoiW d88~Zf. !.6 £O~eW Pa a I7 - Be 'nnin Linea 2 Outdoors wi#hin (IU(3} feet of any nccnuied residential s#rueture located on a separate, legal ap, rce3. provided, however, that any person cultivating na more than {f) mature or (7?} irn3nature marijuana plants (or 12 znarljuana plants total with no more than six. (5) mature plants in s~zch combina#iaz~) shall not grow outdoors within thirty 430) feet oiany oecupied residential structure located an a se crate I al creel. Q„ is the difference ~ distance 400 feet vs. 3Q feet) determined by whether there is a "collective" or "coaperative" vs. and "htdividual" gnaw? Page 1S iLine 61 3~tA-7 PE SSXOT OF PItUPERTY OWIriER If persons} culti~rating marijuana on env legal parcel is not the Legal owner ofthe prolaert}:..they shall submit a notoraized letter frapn the legal o~w~ner4s} consenting to the cultivation of marijuana on the parcel. Letter to be exaYnined by UUS arid returned to submittei: ~UES'1cl.ON: If parcels I.5 acres in size or less are r-ot required to "Regist+~r" haw wall the permission of the legal ~vner of the propet~ty be obtaznzd and be available to imaplement ~~~iolations Enfarceinent and batement racedures~ listed on a es ].9 2Q and 21? 3~4A-8 FENCING fLines_16 thin ~5) AI:1L rnarajuana grown outside of any building must be full enclosed b a salicl and o a. ue fence of a roved material h ~ DD at leas# 6 feet iu her lilt -OF- a hei t sufficient #o conceal the;nari' axle lasts from view whichever is hi ]ter. Should the marijuana plant(s) grow higher than the fence, either {l}the plaxats shall be cut so as to not extend higher than such fence or 42) the ersan awin mari'uat~a lan#s shall install a fence sufficient to ear-ceal the marijuana plants tom public vie~W and_cona~ with all a livable Eutte Couu ermit re uireinents. UESTION: Is there a setback from a ra ertrr line £encin If so, what is #lze setback from ~existiixg property line fencing? Is the "6 foot, ar higher, opaque fence material approved by DDS to be attached to my existing fence" -or- to be setbact~ and nl_aced entirel~ron fhs_grc~wer's propertvlnremises? The fence must be adequately secure to prevent unauthorized envy. Bushes or hedgerow shall not constitute an adequate fence ur~cler this Chapter. 9'd L890 6680E9 ~ }}osoaotW d6£~Z 6 b ~. EO ~eW Page I9 !Line 3] (See also Page f3 --Registration, and Page 20 --Abatement) 3~A,-9 NUTICE itEGARDZ G CHANGE OF L Nt} YTSE Proposed canstroction or operation o€ a never or relocated sci~ool, school bus stop...eta, encouraged to aonsidez z~rhether the proposed location is v-~ithin the setback of a registered premises upon which marijuana is cu€tivated. ~Iotwithstandzng the requixernents of 34A,-S, upon request, Butte County ADS shall inform grower and owner of fire property whether there is a reaistere~ premises «+i#lxir~ the required setback. MOTE: SEE PAGE 13 3~1A-5 (b) =1V0 REGISTRATION 1[tEOUIREI~ FOR PARCELS LESS THAN 1.5 ACRES l~T SIZE. 3~A-12 ABATEMENT PROCEDiJRES Page ~7 - {Clones 2fl ttiru 25) "The appellant shall be responsible for the cost of the appeal and record; ho~- ever if the Soaxd_ upEtolds the anpeai and finds That no s~iolation exists then the costs oI' the appeal shall be borne b the Coon vvESTxOrr: X) Please clarify #his statement. "ibis language "upholds the appeal and finds no violation exists" appears to assume the appellant is a property owner or tenant cultivat~g marijuana -- is this coxxecY' 2) If so, what if a neighbor appeals the cultivation of marijuana, and the Board finds that no violation exists, waulcl the cost of the appeal be borne b3* the County? 3) If the Board upholds the r~eighbar's appeal, would the cost of the appeal be hart~.e by the County? 34A-18 NO Di3TY TC) ENFORCE rage 37 -(sines 1 thra 11) Merely a xequest for clarification of this Paragraph. Is this because this Ordinance is considered a "Land Ilse issue" enforced by tl~e Department of Develaprnexrt Sexvices rather than a "Legal issue" enforced b,' the Coartty Sheriffs Dept.? 4 L'd L8901~68Q£9 t}oso~oiW d6£~Z4 LL £O~eW ~a 2on d~~ ' ~ ~ 1~ Y . ~ oar-~-~r~ ~ y.L ,/Jjf~jfl q~~ i r ' ~.-~-~- `~ ~. ~. ~ ,.~ ~~, $'d L$9066ff0E5 }}osoao~W aO~~Z~ i.6 EO~sW Stumbau h, Traci f=rom: Moghannam, Kathkeen Sent: Tuesday, May 03, 20'k 1 3:22 PM To: Stambaugh, Traci Subject: FW: Taresh FW: MEDICAL MARIJUANA CULTIVATION ORDINANCE Importance: High This went to alpert and spellings, too. Sang has requested to be removed from the distribution list You rock from: CARROLL TARESH ~mailto:cntinc@yahoo.coml Sent: Tuesday, May 03, 2011 8:44 AM To: Connelly, Bill; Wahl, Larry; Kirk, Maureen; BOS District 4; Yamaguchi, Kim Subject: MEDICAL MARIJUANA CULTIVATION ORDINANCE DEAR BOARD MEMBER, I AM WRITING TO YOU IN SUPPORT OF PASSING THE PENDING MEDICAL MARIJUANA CULTIVATION ORDINANCE. I AM CONVINCED THAT SOME REGULATION AND RULES ARE ESSENTIAL. ON PAGE 4, LINE 20, I WOULD LIKE TO SEE THE 1000 FOOT RESTRICTION ENACTED, AS I DO NOT BELIEVE 100 FEET IS ADEQUATE. CARROLL AND NANCY TARESH 9040 STANFORD LANE DURHAM, CA., 95938 / ~ ~ r ~ ~o~ ~~ ~ X Stumbau h, Traci From: Moghannam, Kathleen Sent: Tuesday, May 03, 2019 3:25 PM To: Stumbaugh, Traci Subject: FW: Please protect our children Went to ail BOS, alpert, snellings....... From; Cindy Scott fmailto:rescottFamilyCa}sbcglobal.netl Sent: Tuesday, May 03, 2011 10:40 AM To: Connelly, Bill Subject: Please protect our children Dear Supervisor Connelly: R.E: Strong county limits on marijuana growing protect minors from increased pressure to use We are Russ and Cindy Scott, and we live in Butte County west of Gridley on Kofford Road. We are in favor of tighter restrictions on the growing of medical marijuana. We live on a country road. Last year, a nearby resident established a marijuana grow. We could smell it, and there was unusual road traffic at times. We worried for our security and felt it was a dangerous element coming into our area. We da not want to see grows infiltrate my neighborhood or my county. About one and a halfyears ago, when my son began his freshmen year in high school, he began a regular pat smoking habit, usually smoking with drug buddies during the school lunch hour. When we became aware of his dependency this last December, we began treating him in all the ways we thought or were told would be effective: counseling, consequences, contracts, etc. Thankfully, he is making progress. One of the primary reasons our son and other students smoke marijuana is because there is a cheap, sometimes free, supply, and because there is a misconception that it is legal and acceptable. This state of oversupply and acceptability would only be exacerbated by lenient county growing regulations. Californians rejected Proposition 19 last November. We believe Californians saw two results coming that were unacceptable: 1) An even more plentiful supply of marijuana, and 2) Very weak protection for minors. Strong county limits on growers will protect our minor children. Marijuana affects their developing brains in a completely different and more devastating way than it does the brains of adults. We respectfully request that you put in place the most restrictive county growing limits possible. Thank you Russ and Cindy Scott 534.846.4298 + ~ /~ ~~~~ Stumbau h, Traci From: Moghannarn, Kathleen Sent: Tuesday, May 03, 2011 3:26 PM To: Stumbaugh, Traci Subject: i=W: C Alexander FW: Draft Medical Marijuana Cultivation Ordinance Importance: High To alpert, snellings, too From: Chris Alexander fmaiito:chrisalexmck@att.netl Sent; Tuesday, May 03, 2011 10:36 AM To: Connelly, Siil; Wahl, Larry; Kirk, Maureen; Lambert, Steve; Yamaguchi, Kira Subject: Draft Medical Marijuana Cultivation Ordinance Dear Supervisor, I would like to express my support for the Draft Medical Marijuana Cultivation Ordinance. I would also like you to consider not allowing ANY marijuana plants, mature or immature, within 1,000 feet or more of places where children will congregate, including schools, parks, churches, BUS STOPS, etc. I would also like to request that there be no marijuana dispenseries available in Butte County. As a grandparent of children who attend Durham schools I am deeply concerned with thais issue. Sincerely, Chris Alexander ~, ~1 ~~ Stumbau h, Traci From: Sent: To: Subject: Alpert, snellings... Moghannam, Kathleen Tuesday, May 03, 2011 3:27 PM Stumbaugh, Traci F11V: Marijuana Growers -----Original Message----- From: Gary Estep fmailto:~estep34S7(faol.coml Sent: Tuesday, May 03, 2011 10:3$ AM To: Connelly, Bill; Wahl, Larry; Kirk, Maureen; Yamaguchi, Kim; 645 District 4 Cc: Julie Estep Subject: Marijuana Growers He11o, my wife Julie Estep and I would like to add our names to those requesting the limiting of marijuana plants grown in residential neighborhoods to a maximum of six. While we favor the decriminalization of marijuana, we do believe that large grows, especially in residential areas, invite potential Criminal activities and can be a nuisance because of the odor around harvest time. We have another obligation and can nat attend the meeting on Wednesday, May 4, but would like our voices to be heard. Thank you for your consideration, and for your service to Butte County. Gary Estep 776 Cessna Avenue Chico, California 9592$ +c~f "`d`