Humboldt Growers Assoc. on KMUD–Their Review of Unincorporated Humboldt Co. Ordinance

Tomorrow Humboldt Growers Assoc. (HGA) will appear on KMUD.  Dennis Huber’s Monday Morning Magazine will host members of the group from 8-9 am to discuss their review of the unincorporated areas of Humboldt County’s  proposed ordinance.  I will be there as a co-host from7-9 also.  I’m going to attach their review below so please read it and post your concerns and questions or areas that you agree with so I can convey them.  Remember this is for medical cannabis not blackmarket cannabis.  There are differences.  Below their review of the Humboldt Co. ordinance is HGA’s proposed ordinance for outdoor cultivation.

Update: The conversations that are happening here are so valuable that, with HGA’s approval, I’ve made the comment section more accessible by removing the documents mentioned above.  (Don’t worry.  They are still available on KMUD’s site in a much easier to read form.)  This way though no one has to scroll down through so many documents just to get to the conversation.  Thanks everyone for taking the time to ask good questions and thank you HGA members for taking the time to thoughtfully answer them.  I highly encourage reading the documents–especially the commentary on the proposed indoor ordinance that will be addressed at the May 12th meeting of the Planning Commission.

 

Facebooktwittergoogle_pluspinterestmail

70 comments

  • Holy moly that’s a lot to read.. I wondered what / where you went this afternoon!
    I will listen tomorrow for sure.. I will try and read this tonight.. I gotta step away from the computer I have been on here 12 hours..
    thanks Kym

    • Bobbi,
      Thank you for the work you put into the SoHum Awareness site. I think that it will be helpful for way more than just this current crisis.

      • That is my hope. Maybe between incidents, the general we can create a more efficient way of getting the news out there. Mikal has lots of ideas. This was a good first step. Thank you for all you help.. your blog is essential for keeping people informed as well, many people aren’t on FB.
        Get some rest..
        ~bobbi

  • Well shoot, so much for me growing pot in my own backyard at no expense to anybody! Thanks, HGQULALALA Corp! You’re lightyears behind the real thinkers of the world! Anybody among you conveniently qualify to make a pretty penny through this?

    • medical patient

      From what I read, they are proposing that any med patient can grow 100 sq ft outdoors without any permit. The counties new draft says that you can grow 50 sq ft indoors without a permit but if you want to grow more you need to have an inspection to make sure your electrical is up to code. Makes sense to me. Good job HGA. Much better proposal than what Mendo allows for.

      • I don’t fall under the guidelines…should i risk everything? Would the HGWUALALA Backscratchers talk shit about me if I’m busted for not following their rules? It’s just a crazy ass plant, ya know!

  • Well shoot, so much for me growing pot in my own backyard at no expense to anybody! Thanks, HGQULALALA Corp! You’re lightyears behind the real thinkers of the world! Anybody among you conveniently qualify to make a pretty penny through this?

    • medical patient

      From what I read, they are proposing that any med patient can grow 100 sq ft outdoors without any permit. The counties new draft says that you can grow 50 sq ft indoors without a permit but if you want to grow more you need to have an inspection to make sure your electrical is up to code. Makes sense to me. Good job HGA. Much better proposal than what Mendo allows for.

      • I don’t fall under the guidelines…should i risk everything? Would the HGWUALALA Backscratchers talk shit about me if I’m busted for not following their rules? It’s just a crazy ass plant, ya know!

  • Heard the interview. Good job, KMUD, Joey, Dennis, Kym, Kristin, and Mr. Scott. You made a very complex process– and the copious reading materials on policy– much more understandable for the everyday person.

    For interested folks, this KMUD interview is now archived under:
    Monday Morning Magazine (8-9), March 28, 8:00 am located at
    KMUD’s Audio Archive page here.

    Click ‘play’ or ‘download’ on the right side to listen. The interview starts about 8:30 minutes in.

  • Heard the interview. Good job, KMUD, Joey, Dennis, Kym, Kristin, and Mr. Scott. You made a very complex process– and the copious reading materials on policy– much more understandable for the everyday person.

    For interested folks, this KMUD interview is now archived under:
    Monday Morning Magazine (8-9), March 28, 8:00 am located at
    KMUD’s Audio Archive page here.

    Click ‘play’ or ‘download’ on the right side to listen. The interview starts about 8:30 minutes in.

  • Supervisor Clif Clendenen
    Humboldt County Board of Supervisors
    825 Fifth St.
    Eureka, CA 95501

    In fact all the supervisors can be reached at the above address for those who want to urge changes or approve what exists in the county’s document.

  • Supervisor Clif Clendenen
    Humboldt County Board of Supervisors
    825 Fifth St.
    Eureka, CA 95501

    In fact all the supervisors can be reached at the above address for those who want to urge changes or approve what exists in the county’s document.

  • medical patient

    Thanks Kym,
    Can you post up contact info for the Planning Commissioners as well. They are the ones that are going to approve an ordinance before it gets sent to the Supes.

  • medical patient

    Thanks Kym,
    Can you post up contact info for the Planning Commissioners as well. They are the ones that are going to approve an ordinance before it gets sent to the Supes.

  • Gracias!

  • Gracias!

  • I believe that the “Humboldt Growers Association” are exceptionally good businessmen and women and have displayed an impressive eloquence while speaking on behalf of the industry and related issues but I am surprised that community members have not scrutinized (HGA) more closely. I don’t believe that they are acting in the best interest of community. Are these not competitive and fearful motives driving their incentives? This group is largely composed of individuals who have not participated actively in local issues related to community health and prosperity until recent threats to their economic empires have surfaced. These people are the absentee owners in your neighborhood who see the land purely for their short-term economic profits and if the community that they were exploiting weren’t protecting their interests, and if the name “HUMBOLDT” didn’t mean a thing…they’d be selling out to the next high priced bidder and looking for the next way to make their million.
    In my opinion, the (HGA) proposal is starting to smell like all other “centralized agribusiness”. The increased centralization of the local cannabis industry will have the same well documented impacts as other centralized business– those with the most acquired capital gained through their exploitive practices will further their economic control through paying off local governments in increased taxes in order to maintain their capital incentive and conduct “business as usual”. This process would put small farmers in the position to either increase production illegally under the radar of local ordinances to compete, or they may be forced to withdraw from their rural community and move on. Of all the speculated impacts of the declining cannabis industry, the forced removal of the most active and long lasting members of our community will undoubtedly be the most detrimental. While (HGA) is working hard now on these proposed ordinances in order to create an atmosphere that matches their financial interests, I wonder if we will see them putting themselves out for local community when the dust clears and we all settle into the next realm of this post “Gold Rush” era. Is it truly in the best interest of the county to receive a hefty sum of taxes from a small group of abribusinessmen in exchange for the loss of the social fabric of the community? The “Humboldt Growers Association” has bought the ears and interests of our local government right before our eyes. Why is no one saying a thing about this?
    I would encourage people to write our county officials and let our voices be heard by more than the elite few that have bought their way in. Half acre (20,000 ft2) industrial grows do not have a place in our remote watersheds and on our fragile geology. Million gallon ponds to supply the water to these grows are similarly dangerous in almost all locations in our tiny watersheds. Our prime bottom land alluvial soils that could support such activity should be saved for local food production, NOT industrial cannabis production. Will county be able to regulate where the nutrients from these mega-grows go? Will they monitor the bulldozing of mountain sides to create these grow sites? Let’s not lose any more of our county to the mono-cultural minds of industrialism.

    –Small is beautiful–
    –Less is the new more–

    Kyle Keegan

    • Kyle,
      I admire your willingness to speak out and put your name to your beliefs. (Not to mention, I admire and like you personally) I’m uncomfortable though with attacking the motives of people rather than the specifics of their ideas. Motives are unknowable. Your questioning of the size of the ponds and grow acreage is understandable and reasonable. I have similar concerns. While I am sure that financial concerns are part of their motives (and who among us doesn’t care at least some about money), I have worked personally on community issues with at least one of the persons in HGA on and off for over 10 years so I know that your concerns about their lack of participation in community issues are not accurate in at least that case and I believe it is not accurate in others.

      In addition, I feel the implication of the statement that HGA “has bought the ears and interests of our local government right before our eyes” implies that HGA’s influence is based on money alone. What I see as one of the major ways that HGA has gotten attention from county officials has been their sheer willingness to work hard. The position papers above take work to read and understand let alone to compile the facts and write the papers. They attend meetings not only county meetings but weekly meetings among themselves. This takes away from home life and relaxation time. They are willing to put in huge amounts of time and effort to get the changes they believe are best for the county.

      Let’s instead of attacking their motives, put as much energy and commitment into looking at their proposals, and come up with other ideas where we disagree with them, and put those ideas forward. For instance, Charlie Custer has suggested to me that a small grower’s stamp would be a good way to support smaller growers (The recipients could market themselves differently and possibly pay less taxes or get some other benefits.) Let’s come up with more ideas that will help this community move forward. Your work with sustainable agriculture will benefit us all. Hopefully, this community will find a way beyond the monoculture of marijuana to thrive. We will find a way as a community to survive the changes that are pouring down on us. To do that though, We need to support each other’s efforts and work from a position of respect.

    • Kyle, you bring up some very good points. Thank you. You know more than yours truly. The industry is changing. We wouldn’t have had these discussions in the open sunshine 10 years ago. Speaking with one of the HGA folks I was surprised of his advocating organic growing and outdoor cultivation over other methods. They’ve been working hard keeping up and understanding and advocating a pretty complicated process. No one’s done this before. I’ve always been in favor of responsible and local community people protecting both their environment and Mom ‘n Pop business. Your point is well taken: greed and big money governing can be bad.

      The points you mentioned are very good considerations given what we could see. It’s my understanding you can join the HGA. Would you want to do that being part of your community and the solution to making things better? Your thoughts are valid and your voice could represent. Better to be part of this process now than be left out of it later.

      • skips, HGA dues are $50,000 per year. As the great jurist Blackstone observed, “Justice, like the RItz Hotel, is open to all.” So is the HGA.

        I gather from the Monday morning show on KMUD that sub-memberships with lesser dues and privileges may be created. I really credit HGA with working hard, hiring well and spending their dues effectively. They can’t be expected to represent interests of people who aren’t members. We should understand this, as Kyle does.

        • Thank you, Longwind. I didn’t know this. $50 grand?
          Wow and Holy Cow. I’m stunned. This puts things into a whole new perspective. Having to pay to play? Sigh.

          Yeah, I’d expect my dues and investment back– one way or another.

        • I can assure you Longwind that there is no $50,000 membership fee to join the HGA. Sounds like you are a victim of the classic Humboldt Rumor Mill. HGA members have put up some money out of our own pockets to get this thing started but nothing like you are saying.
          We are still finalizing what membership will cost and look like. To be a full member will be in the 2.5k range and come with discounts from local businesses that support the industry. After Humboldt gets an outdoor medical cultivation program in place we hope to offer a higher level of membership that will include our own third party certification program. This will address environmental issues as well as inputs that are being used in production. There will also be lower levels of membership. Take a look at what fees other medical cannabis business associations charge to be a member of including the National Cannabis Industry Association. http://www.thecannabisindustry.org/join.html
          Please share your input on how to improve these proposals. They are still drafts and we are revising them all the time.
          Thanks

          Joey Burger
          info@humboldtgrowers.org

  • I believe that the “Humboldt Growers Association” are exceptionally good businessmen and women and have displayed an impressive eloquence while speaking on behalf of the industry and related issues but I am surprised that community members have not scrutinized (HGA) more closely. I don’t believe that they are acting in the best interest of community. Are these not competitive and fearful motives driving their incentives? This group is largely composed of individuals who have not participated actively in local issues related to community health and prosperity until recent threats to their economic empires have surfaced. These people are the absentee owners in your neighborhood who see the land purely for their short-term economic profits and if the community that they were exploiting weren’t protecting their interests, and if the name “HUMBOLDT” didn’t mean a thing…they’d be selling out to the next high priced bidder and looking for the next way to make their million.
    In my opinion, the (HGA) proposal is starting to smell like all other “centralized agribusiness”. The increased centralization of the local cannabis industry will have the same well documented impacts as other centralized business– those with the most acquired capital gained through their exploitive practices will further their economic control through paying off local governments in increased taxes in order to maintain their capital incentive and conduct “business as usual”. This process would put small farmers in the position to either increase production illegally under the radar of local ordinances to compete, or they may be forced to withdraw from their rural community and move on. Of all the speculated impacts of the declining cannabis industry, the forced removal of the most active and long lasting members of our community will undoubtedly be the most detrimental. While (HGA) is working hard now on these proposed ordinances in order to create an atmosphere that matches their financial interests, I wonder if we will see them putting themselves out for local community when the dust clears and we all settle into the next realm of this post “Gold Rush” era. Is it truly in the best interest of the county to receive a hefty sum of taxes from a small group of abribusinessmen in exchange for the loss of the social fabric of the community? The “Humboldt Growers Association” has bought the ears and interests of our local government right before our eyes. Why is no one saying a thing about this?
    I would encourage people to write our county officials and let our voices be heard by more than the elite few that have bought their way in. Half acre (20,000 ft2) industrial grows do not have a place in our remote watersheds and on our fragile geology. Million gallon ponds to supply the water to these grows are similarly dangerous in almost all locations in our tiny watersheds. Our prime bottom land alluvial soils that could support such activity should be saved for local food production, NOT industrial cannabis production. Will county be able to regulate where the nutrients from these mega-grows go? Will they monitor the bulldozing of mountain sides to create these grow sites? Let’s not lose any more of our county to the mono-cultural minds of industrialism.

    –Small is beautiful–
    –Less is the new more–

    Kyle Keegan

    • Kyle,
      I admire your willingness to speak out and put your name to your beliefs. (Not to mention, I admire and like you personally) I’m uncomfortable though with attacking the motives of people rather than the specifics of their ideas. Motives are unknowable. Your questioning of the size of the ponds and grow acreage is understandable and reasonable. I have similar concerns. While I am sure that financial concerns are part of their motives (and who among us doesn’t care at least some about money), I have worked personally on community issues with at least one of the persons in HGA on and off for over 10 years so I know that your concerns about their lack of participation in community issues are not accurate in at least that case and I believe it is not accurate in others.

      In addition, I feel the implication of the statement that HGA “has bought the ears and interests of our local government right before our eyes” implies that HGA’s influence is based on money alone. What I see as one of the major ways that HGA has gotten attention from county officials has been their sheer willingness to work hard. The position papers above take work to read and understand let alone to compile the facts and write the papers. They attend meetings not only county meetings but weekly meetings among themselves. This takes away from home life and relaxation time. They are willing to put in huge amounts of time and effort to get the changes they believe are best for the county.

      Let’s instead of attacking their motives, put as much energy and commitment into looking at their proposals, and come up with other ideas where we disagree with them, and put those ideas forward. For instance, Charlie Custer has suggested to me that a small grower’s stamp would be a good way to support smaller growers (The recipients could market themselves differently and possibly pay less taxes or get some other benefits.) Let’s come up with more ideas that will help this community move forward. Your work with sustainable agriculture will benefit us all. Hopefully, this community will find a way beyond the monoculture of marijuana to thrive. We will find a way as a community to survive the changes that are pouring down on us. To do that though, We need to support each other’s efforts and work from a position of respect.

    • Kyle, you bring up some very good points. Thank you. You know more than yours truly. The industry is changing. We wouldn’t have had these discussions in the open sunshine 10 years ago. Speaking with one of the HGA folks I was surprised of his advocating organic growing and outdoor cultivation over other methods. They’ve been working hard keeping up and understanding and advocating a pretty complicated process. No one’s done this before. I’ve always been in favor of responsible and local community people protecting both their environment and Mom ‘n Pop business. Your point is well taken: greed and big money governing can be bad.

      The points you mentioned are very good considerations given what we could see. It’s my understanding you can join the HGA. Would you want to do that being part of your community and the solution to making things better? Your thoughts are valid and your voice could represent. Better to be part of this process now than be left out of it later.

      • skips, HGA dues are $50,000 per year. As the great jurist Blackstone observed, “Justice, like the RItz Hotel, is open to all.” So is the HGA.

        I gather from the Monday morning show on KMUD that sub-memberships with lesser dues and privileges may be created. I really credit HGA with working hard, hiring well and spending their dues effectively. They can’t be expected to represent interests of people who aren’t members. We should understand this, as Kyle does.

        • Thank you, Longwind. I didn’t know this. $50 grand?
          Wow and Holy Cow. I’m stunned. This puts things into a whole new perspective. Having to pay to play? Sigh.

          Yeah, I’d expect my dues and investment back– one way or another.

        • I can assure you Longwind that there is no $50,000 membership fee to join the HGA. Sounds like you are a victim of the classic Humboldt Rumor Mill. HGA members have put up some money out of our own pockets to get this thing started but nothing like you are saying.
          We are still finalizing what membership will cost and look like. To be a full member will be in the 2.5k range and come with discounts from local businesses that support the industry. After Humboldt gets an outdoor medical cultivation program in place we hope to offer a higher level of membership that will include our own third party certification program. This will address environmental issues as well as inputs that are being used in production. There will also be lower levels of membership. Take a look at what fees other medical cannabis business associations charge to be a member of including the National Cannabis Industry Association. http://www.thecannabisindustry.org/join.html
          Please share your input on how to improve these proposals. They are still drafts and we are revising them all the time.
          Thanks

          Joey Burger
          info@humboldtgrowers.org

  • From Matt Scott: It is a wonderful world where we have the opportunity to publish our opinions and share them the the larger community. It is this kind of variety that makes these times so interesting. I appreciate the differing opinions that are out there being expressed. I have learned that there is no perfect solution that will make everyone happy. But that would be quite a boring world if we all thought the same and acted the same. It is only in the experiencing of that which is not wanted do we ever know what it is that we do want. As a board member of the Humboldt Growers Association (HGA) and one of the founding members, sustainable environmental farming along with economic growth are are on my list of things to pay attention to for the future development of Humblodt County. There will be many opinions of what is sustainable? There will differing opinions about how much economic growth is good. What one person thinks is to much another person will tell you that its not enough. One person will tell you that this is the correct way to store water and another person will tell you that is environmental destruction. It can be a long and arduous task to try and sort all of the different components into good piles and bad piles and then once you think you have done that, tell people what exactly they can and can not do. The HGA has a vision for Humboldt County that some people will connect with and share and there will be those who wont. Again, it is going to be the variety that will cause the expansion in to a wonderful future for Humblodt County. The HGA looks forward to taking on new members from all the different view points and coming together , to continue adding in a harmonious way , to the lifestyle that we all know and love here in Humboldt County. It is going to be fun getting to know those of you I have not yet had the pleasure of meeting, and fun growing and expanding with those of you that I already know and love. Matt Scott.

    • “I have learned that there is no perfect solution that will make everyone happy.”

      Tomatoes are seen in a certain light among the general population right now. Pretend the government just handed tomatoes the same treatment they handed marijuana some time before most of us were born. The perfect solution that would make everybody happy is would be to restore marijuana…er…tomatoes to their pre-prohibition glory.

      Nothing is carved in stone.

  • From Matt Scott: It is a wonderful world where we have the opportunity to publish our opinions and share them the the larger community. It is this kind of variety that makes these times so interesting. I appreciate the differing opinions that are out there being expressed. I have learned that there is no perfect solution that will make everyone happy. But that would be quite a boring world if we all thought the same and acted the same. It is only in the experiencing of that which is not wanted do we ever know what it is that we do want. As a board member of the Humboldt Growers Association (HGA) and one of the founding members, sustainable environmental farming along with economic growth are are on my list of things to pay attention to for the future development of Humblodt County. There will be many opinions of what is sustainable? There will differing opinions about how much economic growth is good. What one person thinks is to much another person will tell you that its not enough. One person will tell you that this is the correct way to store water and another person will tell you that is environmental destruction. It can be a long and arduous task to try and sort all of the different components into good piles and bad piles and then once you think you have done that, tell people what exactly they can and can not do. The HGA has a vision for Humboldt County that some people will connect with and share and there will be those who wont. Again, it is going to be the variety that will cause the expansion in to a wonderful future for Humblodt County. The HGA looks forward to taking on new members from all the different view points and coming together , to continue adding in a harmonious way , to the lifestyle that we all know and love here in Humboldt County. It is going to be fun getting to know those of you I have not yet had the pleasure of meeting, and fun growing and expanding with those of you that I already know and love. Matt Scott.

    • “I have learned that there is no perfect solution that will make everyone happy.”

      Tomatoes are seen in a certain light among the general population right now. Pretend the government just handed tomatoes the same treatment they handed marijuana some time before most of us were born. The perfect solution that would make everybody happy is would be to restore marijuana…er…tomatoes to their pre-prohibition glory.

      Nothing is carved in stone.

  • Kym,

    I appreciate your straight forwardness and believe that you are right in that people like myself should focus on the proposed ideas of (HGA) and not their personal incentives. I’ll eat my words in that regards but the smell of “big business” no matter what form it takes is all the same…. kinda stinky. I was attempting to raise up some hackles here to see where the community stands. It’s not in my nature to be so blatantly judgmental, especially on a local blog in cyberspace. I’m feeling the weight today of pressing the (post comment) button without letting the emotions rest a little.
    Their original (40,000 sqft canopy) proposal showed me where their intentions were from the very start as well as their continued lack of transparency, private stakeholder meetings and rumors of 50,000$ membership fee to have an opportunity to enter into their club. That was probably all I needed to say to stir things up.
    I agree that they’ve got the county’s attention through persistence and I also agree that they have worked very hard on the related issues. I still feel strongly that these efforts are to protect their own invested interests in the industry. I’ll swallow my words on that one once again.
    Everyone has a different opinion of what a strong community or country is made of. Since the industrial revolution we have mostly used economic growth as the universal barometer of success in our culture. For some, the idea of a resilient community is based purely on economic strength. There is some truth to this belief but I think we are missing something important here.
    The Emerald Triangle region has seen one of its biggest economic pulses in recent history since the weed-boom. A boom which may rival the redwood logging days of the past. Some would say we have surpassed those times in economic flows, yet we are still as vulnerable as ever here and far from creating a localized economy that could weather the larger changes to come. As I write this, HWY101 is blocked heading south. If we build an economy that exports our only valued commodity (cannabis) out of the area and then we depend on the importing of virtually all of our goods and services, than how strong and resilient are we?
    I want to see all of us persist with or without cannabis but I have seen our communities and county accept our economic activity as our main gauge of “progress” or “success”. Meanwhile our creeks go dry, the teen suicide rate soars, violence continues to haunt us and we are industrializing some of the last remote rural places left in Northern California. I think the disproportionate value that has been placed on cannabis has completely altered our sense of reality here on what is possible, what is valuable, and what is ultimately good for the land and all of its inhabitants, people included. Perhaps if we weren’t so insulated by the false sense of security the cannabis industry has fostered we’d be in a better position to localize our economy. This is what people and communities are doing all over the world now to prepare for energy descent. This weed-boom has us stalling out.
    My message to (HGA) is to consider the values of a horizontally integrated market in which everybody gets a slice of the pie. They need to bring their numbers WAY down and open up the door to their closed meetings so mom and pop can have a say.

    Kyle

    • ” It’s not in my nature to be so blatantly judgmental, especially on a local blog in cyberspace.”

      What good is cyberspace if I can’t maintain my real llife space’s peace yet speak my real peace? It’s not in my nature to ruffle feathers in real life space at all…if ever there was some”where” to call people out on their bullshit, it’s cyberspace. It should be about what is said, not how it’s said.

      …just two cents, not a comment on your other comments…netiquette is baloney. Television has been reinvented and everybody’s being told to take it way too seriously, melding their own realities around it, not vice versa.

    • Kyle,
      When you say that the HGA is looking out for our own interests, you are right. We are a medical cannabis trade association. We represent the medical cannabis industry. We want to ensure that we can provide medicine for our collective patient base. If you read and understand our proposals you would see that we don’t want to do that at the expense of the environment or our communities safety.
      We have tried to build environmental oversight into our proposals.
      Humboldt is in a unique situation as unlike most other communities (with the exception of Oakland) we are trying to write a medical ordinance that will lead to a thriving legal cannabis industry post legalization.
      Oakland’s 50,000 sq ft indoors have stalled, but only temporarily. Sacramento is about to start licensing legal 30,000 sq ft indoor grows. If Humboldt doesn’t get on the bus with an ordinance that puts us on the leading edge of medical cannabis cultivation we are going to miss the opportunity for a thriving legal industry.
      We feel these ordinances open the door for all collective growers to cultivate as long as they are willing to be held accountable for their neighborhood and environmental impacts. We want to make sure that if a property can’t support a certain size cultivation permit either because of lack of water, lack of suitable land, or neighborhood impacts, that they won’t be issued one.
      When we started the work on our outdoor proposal we looked very closely at Mendos. They have no limits on how many 99 plant permits a collective/patient can buy. There are no size limits on those plants either. There are already collectives in Mendo that have multiple 99 plant grows and are growing several acres worth. We wanted to stop that possibility by limiting the total amount to 20,000 sq ft. They also have no environmental oversight other than making sure water doesn’t come from an illegal source. We are trying to go above and beyond that.
      We did start with a very small like minded group of medical cannabis growers as it is very hard to get much accomplished with a large group. And the So Hum rumor mill has gone wild. We needed to have a very focused effort or we wouldn’t have made the progress that we have. We have been attacked by people who say we are not doing enough environmental protection, people who say there should be no environmental oversight, inspections or limits, and people who don’t seem to understand that we are talking about legal medical grows not black market ones. Some have been quick to condemn us but not to offer solutions.
      We are still in our infancy and these proposals are constantly being revised with good community input. Please help your community by contributing.
      Thanks
      Joey Burger
      info@humboldtgrowers.org

  • Kym,

    I appreciate your straight forwardness and believe that you are right in that people like myself should focus on the proposed ideas of (HGA) and not their personal incentives. I’ll eat my words in that regards but the smell of “big business” no matter what form it takes is all the same…. kinda stinky. I was attempting to raise up some hackles here to see where the community stands. It’s not in my nature to be so blatantly judgmental, especially on a local blog in cyberspace. I’m feeling the weight today of pressing the (post comment) button without letting the emotions rest a little.
    Their original (40,000 sqft canopy) proposal showed me where their intentions were from the very start as well as their continued lack of transparency, private stakeholder meetings and rumors of 50,000$ membership fee to have an opportunity to enter into their club. That was probably all I needed to say to stir things up.
    I agree that they’ve got the county’s attention through persistence and I also agree that they have worked very hard on the related issues. I still feel strongly that these efforts are to protect their own invested interests in the industry. I’ll swallow my words on that one once again.
    Everyone has a different opinion of what a strong community or country is made of. Since the industrial revolution we have mostly used economic growth as the universal barometer of success in our culture. For some, the idea of a resilient community is based purely on economic strength. There is some truth to this belief but I think we are missing something important here.
    The Emerald Triangle region has seen one of its biggest economic pulses in recent history since the weed-boom. A boom which may rival the redwood logging days of the past. Some would say we have surpassed those times in economic flows, yet we are still as vulnerable as ever here and far from creating a localized economy that could weather the larger changes to come. As I write this, HWY101 is blocked heading south. If we build an economy that exports our only valued commodity (cannabis) out of the area and then we depend on the importing of virtually all of our goods and services, than how strong and resilient are we?
    I want to see all of us persist with or without cannabis but I have seen our communities and county accept our economic activity as our main gauge of “progress” or “success”. Meanwhile our creeks go dry, the teen suicide rate soars, violence continues to haunt us and we are industrializing some of the last remote rural places left in Northern California. I think the disproportionate value that has been placed on cannabis has completely altered our sense of reality here on what is possible, what is valuable, and what is ultimately good for the land and all of its inhabitants, people included. Perhaps if we weren’t so insulated by the false sense of security the cannabis industry has fostered we’d be in a better position to localize our economy. This is what people and communities are doing all over the world now to prepare for energy descent. This weed-boom has us stalling out.
    My message to (HGA) is to consider the values of a horizontally integrated market in which everybody gets a slice of the pie. They need to bring their numbers WAY down and open up the door to their closed meetings so mom and pop can have a say.

    Kyle

    • ” It’s not in my nature to be so blatantly judgmental, especially on a local blog in cyberspace.”

      What good is cyberspace if I can’t maintain my real llife space’s peace yet speak my real peace? It’s not in my nature to ruffle feathers in real life space at all…if ever there was some”where” to call people out on their bullshit, it’s cyberspace. It should be about what is said, not how it’s said.

      …just two cents, not a comment on your other comments…netiquette is baloney. Television has been reinvented and everybody’s being told to take it way too seriously, melding their own realities around it, not vice versa.

    • Kyle,
      When you say that the HGA is looking out for our own interests, you are right. We are a medical cannabis trade association. We represent the medical cannabis industry. We want to ensure that we can provide medicine for our collective patient base. If you read and understand our proposals you would see that we don’t want to do that at the expense of the environment or our communities safety.
      We have tried to build environmental oversight into our proposals.
      Humboldt is in a unique situation as unlike most other communities (with the exception of Oakland) we are trying to write a medical ordinance that will lead to a thriving legal cannabis industry post legalization.
      Oakland’s 50,000 sq ft indoors have stalled, but only temporarily. Sacramento is about to start licensing legal 30,000 sq ft indoor grows. If Humboldt doesn’t get on the bus with an ordinance that puts us on the leading edge of medical cannabis cultivation we are going to miss the opportunity for a thriving legal industry.
      We feel these ordinances open the door for all collective growers to cultivate as long as they are willing to be held accountable for their neighborhood and environmental impacts. We want to make sure that if a property can’t support a certain size cultivation permit either because of lack of water, lack of suitable land, or neighborhood impacts, that they won’t be issued one.
      When we started the work on our outdoor proposal we looked very closely at Mendos. They have no limits on how many 99 plant permits a collective/patient can buy. There are no size limits on those plants either. There are already collectives in Mendo that have multiple 99 plant grows and are growing several acres worth. We wanted to stop that possibility by limiting the total amount to 20,000 sq ft. They also have no environmental oversight other than making sure water doesn’t come from an illegal source. We are trying to go above and beyond that.
      We did start with a very small like minded group of medical cannabis growers as it is very hard to get much accomplished with a large group. And the So Hum rumor mill has gone wild. We needed to have a very focused effort or we wouldn’t have made the progress that we have. We have been attacked by people who say we are not doing enough environmental protection, people who say there should be no environmental oversight, inspections or limits, and people who don’t seem to understand that we are talking about legal medical grows not black market ones. Some have been quick to condemn us but not to offer solutions.
      We are still in our infancy and these proposals are constantly being revised with good community input. Please help your community by contributing.
      Thanks
      Joey Burger
      info@humboldtgrowers.org

  • I think Kyle’s point is well taken; that “small is beautiful”, and a half-acre grow is not small. It’s enormous, and to me that falls definitely into the category of a commercial grow, certainly not a Mom and Pop scene.
    It was the Moms and Pops who started this whole thing, who took the risks, supported themselves in a generally modest way and in the process pumped very substantial amounts of money into the county’s economy.
    Then, predictably enough, people started to squeeze the goose, seeing how much money they could make. Some of them made a lot, and all the ills that are associated with a focus on money came into play.
    Now the goose is dying or at least very sick, and to many people it seems that the only way this industry can continue is by adopting the normal industrial model, with its economy of scale, etc. And they may be right; prices may fall so low that Mom and Pop can’t afford the costs of production, and the only option will then be large-scale enterprises.
    But we don’t yet know how low the price will go (or what ingenuity may come into play), and it’s impossible to plan realistically without that information. So everyone is trying to protect themselves with whatever planning they can come up with in a chaotic situation where the most basic information is impossible to come up with. it’s a zoo.
    I don’t blame HGA for looking out for their interests as they see them, but to me the thing that stands out is that half-acre. I’m with Kyle; small is beautiful. A modest living, not an extravagant one.
    i also feel that we should be thinking about the effects upon 1) the County’s economy and 2) the County’s people, of a small number of large grows versus a large number of small grows. I can’t tell if the County would make more in taxes from the former or the latter, but one thing is obvious; with the former there would be a vastly smaller number of individuals spending money in the County’s grocery stores, car dealers, etc., so if we go that route the County’s economy would lose a lot of money from that source. It would also lose a lot of good people, as Mom and Pop dried their tears and left the area. That troubles me.

    • Peter,
      You need to understand that this is about legal medical grows. This is not about permits for free-for-all black market grows. Our proposals are trying regulate how collectives will cultivate for their patients. Will patients get their medicine from indoors in the city or will they choose to be part of a collective that grows it in Humboldt.
      If you are applying for an outdoor permit we are suggesting that you are able to grow 100 sq ft per patient which is what the current ordinance says is enough to produce a years supply for one patient. To apply for a 20,000 sq ft permit you would need to be growing for at least 200 patients. Unless you are growing for personal use YOU HAVE TO HAVE PATIENTS TO JUSTIFY APPLYING FOR THE SIZE OF THE PERMIT!!!
      This is how Mendo’s program works and undoubtedly how Humboldt’s will as well. When you apply for a 99 plant permit in Mendo you need to provide proof of either, a physician recommendation that the amount to be cultivated is consistent with your medical needs, the needs of your patients for whom you are a caregiver, or a written agreement or agreements, that you are authorized by one or more medical marijuana dispensing cooperatives to produce medical marijuana for the use of the members of said collective.
      This not regulating the black market. This is so people can cultivate for their own medical needs or provide for their collective members. But if we do this right, we make a program that addresses environmental concerns, public safety concerns, and health and safety standards, after legalization we can have a frame work in place that can secure Humboldt’s rightful place in the cannabis industry.

  • I think Kyle’s point is well taken; that “small is beautiful”, and a half-acre grow is not small. It’s enormous, and to me that falls definitely into the category of a commercial grow, certainly not a Mom and Pop scene.
    It was the Moms and Pops who started this whole thing, who took the risks, supported themselves in a generally modest way and in the process pumped very substantial amounts of money into the county’s economy.
    Then, predictably enough, people started to squeeze the goose, seeing how much money they could make. Some of them made a lot, and all the ills that are associated with a focus on money came into play.
    Now the goose is dying or at least very sick, and to many people it seems that the only way this industry can continue is by adopting the normal industrial model, with its economy of scale, etc. And they may be right; prices may fall so low that Mom and Pop can’t afford the costs of production, and the only option will then be large-scale enterprises.
    But we don’t yet know how low the price will go (or what ingenuity may come into play), and it’s impossible to plan realistically without that information. So everyone is trying to protect themselves with whatever planning they can come up with in a chaotic situation where the most basic information is impossible to come up with. it’s a zoo.
    I don’t blame HGA for looking out for their interests as they see them, but to me the thing that stands out is that half-acre. I’m with Kyle; small is beautiful. A modest living, not an extravagant one.
    i also feel that we should be thinking about the effects upon 1) the County’s economy and 2) the County’s people, of a small number of large grows versus a large number of small grows. I can’t tell if the County would make more in taxes from the former or the latter, but one thing is obvious; with the former there would be a vastly smaller number of individuals spending money in the County’s grocery stores, car dealers, etc., so if we go that route the County’s economy would lose a lot of money from that source. It would also lose a lot of good people, as Mom and Pop dried their tears and left the area. That troubles me.

    • Peter,
      You need to understand that this is about legal medical grows. This is not about permits for free-for-all black market grows. Our proposals are trying regulate how collectives will cultivate for their patients. Will patients get their medicine from indoors in the city or will they choose to be part of a collective that grows it in Humboldt.
      If you are applying for an outdoor permit we are suggesting that you are able to grow 100 sq ft per patient which is what the current ordinance says is enough to produce a years supply for one patient. To apply for a 20,000 sq ft permit you would need to be growing for at least 200 patients. Unless you are growing for personal use YOU HAVE TO HAVE PATIENTS TO JUSTIFY APPLYING FOR THE SIZE OF THE PERMIT!!!
      This is how Mendo’s program works and undoubtedly how Humboldt’s will as well. When you apply for a 99 plant permit in Mendo you need to provide proof of either, a physician recommendation that the amount to be cultivated is consistent with your medical needs, the needs of your patients for whom you are a caregiver, or a written agreement or agreements, that you are authorized by one or more medical marijuana dispensing cooperatives to produce medical marijuana for the use of the members of said collective.
      This not regulating the black market. This is so people can cultivate for their own medical needs or provide for their collective members. But if we do this right, we make a program that addresses environmental concerns, public safety concerns, and health and safety standards, after legalization we can have a frame work in place that can secure Humboldt’s rightful place in the cannabis industry.

  • I appreciate HGA’s efforts in drafting this propsal as well as a lot of good points being raised in the comments. While the future of Humboldt County is uncertain, it is clear to me that HGA has done a lot of work and raised a lot of people’s attention, including the county government and planners. After reading through the proposal, it seems to me to be a lot about business and not much about environment and community. It’s obvious that most businesses these days are promoting themselves as “green” and claiming to have the best intersts of the community in mind. Some even like to mention the word “sustainable,” a subjective concept that should probably be left out of the discussion entirely. Take a look at the HGA website and you will find:

    HGA’s Key Issues
    Environmental Protection
    Sustainable Cultivation
    Job Creation
    Public Safety
    Patient Wellness

    I read through their review above and focused on the OUTDOOR section. If prices continue to drop, it seems like indoor cultivation will eventually be too expensive to grow. Maybe huge indoor grows will exist in urban areas, but Humboldt is already known for its climate and reputation for growing outdoor, and that’s likely where the future will be.

    The numbers presented in HGA’s proposal are very illuminating and it was helpful for me to organize them as follows:

    For a half-acre grow (20,000 sq. ft.) they propose the following costs:

    soil – $106,240
    ammendments – $16,000
    labor – $160,000
    processing – $400,000
    county permit- $22,500
    TOTAL – $704,740

    water required – 720,000 gallons

    Of course these are estimations, and costs such as soil might be a one-time expense.

    I understand the suggested costs except the processing cost. If you consider that according to HGA, 800 plants at 25 sq. ft. each will fill the half-acre, can we assume that one pound-per-plant harvest of 800 pounds is expected? To process 800 pounds at $300 per pound would still only be $240,000. Maybe someone can offer clarification.

    Just as a reference, If the 800 pound harvest is sold at $500 per pound, the gross profit is $400,000

    The numbers speak to the scale of farming already taking place in Humboldt, or possibly in the near, but this proposal is about a lot more than numbers. It raises a lot of questions about what the future of our communities and agricultural land might look like. I don’t have the answers, but I would like to raise the following questions, Who can afford to grow on this scale? Does anyone else find the idea of half acre gardens littering the landscape alarming? Maybe it isn’t a big jump considering the amount of greenhouses, “medical” grows, and hidden indoor factories that are already impacting our local watersheds and communities. One difference is that the county is being asked to get on board and support this scale of agricultural production, in the past it’s been overlooked or ignored.

    HGA’s proposal above states:

    ” It is our current recommendation that the fee be reduced from $2.00
per square foot to $1.00 per square foot. This new pricing is in line with the Mendocino
County Ordinance. There is so much instability in the outdoor medical cannabis market
that the higher permits prices may very well drive residents out of the area in search for a
more stable future.”

    For HGA to speculate that people might be driven out of the area by high cost of permits is ironic, right along the lines with Joey Burger saying, “If Humboldt doesn’t get on the bus with an ordinance that puts us on the leading edge of medical cannabis cultivation we are going to miss the opportunity for a thriving legal industry.

    To me, these statements raise even more questions about the scale of farming that is environmentally suitable to our area and what we want our county to look like down the road. As others have pointed out, this county has endured the timber and fishing industry’s boom and bust. The mentality that we better hurry up and grow this mono-crop in large plots or someone else will beat us to the punch makes me wonder if it is in the best interest of the county on a long-term basis. If a big agribusiness corporation from the Central Valley were proposing these permits, how would we see the situation?

    HGA has reduced their original proposed largest grow size from 40,000 sq. ft. (almost a full acre) to 20,000 sq. ft. They say that this was because of community feedback and because of “less likeliness in provoking the involvement of the Federal Government.”

    They don’t mention community feedback in terms of size, scale, the amount of resources and infrastructure required for developing that size of grow, water consumption, etc. It seems like the type of growing that fits the HGA model is more like large scale centralized agri-business better suited to the stable farm land of the valleys than small scale diverse community farming that has existed for generations in the Humboldt hills.
    In parts of Northern California we’ve been living in a time of economic growth while a lot of the country and world are living through recession and the effects environmental degridation. If we continue full steam ahead with marijuana as our main source of income, it is only a matter of time before our bubble bursts.
    I’d like to finish by saying that I value and respect everyone’s input and don’t have any ill will towards HGA, their leaders or members. I would rather have a healthy discussion than pass judgement, we are all in this together and I look forward to hearing from more voices.

    respectfully,
    -Jesse Hill

  • Jesse,
    Thanks for the respectful dialogue. It is only through raising concerns and asking questions that we can craft an ordinance that works for the community.
    The above ordinances have already been revised since they were posted and should really be removed till we can post the newest drafts. Prices on outdoor permits have been changed to $.50 per sq ft from $1 and permit fees for over 400 sq ft reduced from 2,500 to 1,500. Some other changes as well for personal use cultivation. We’ll try to get it to Kym early next week to post for more feedback. The website is not really up yet. You must have seen our staging page.
    When we decided that 20,000 sq ft would be the maximum amount of canopy one farmer could cultivate it was with the thought that a farmer might be cultivating several smaller gardens over several parcels. We wanted to make sure that no one entity would be cultivating more than 20,000 sq ft total. We know most parcels can’t support that in one location.
    We did this because like I mentioned in an above post, Mendo has no limit to how many 99 plant permits a collective or farmer can attain. This means, and it is already happening, that a collective will potentially be growing several acres or more with multiple permits. Mendo does very little environmental oversight other than checking your water source.
    We hope through having inspectors trained in erosion control, appropriate water use and other environmental and neighborhood impacts that they will be able to determine what is appropriate cultivation for your property.
    Please continue to add to the conversation.
    Thanks
    Joey Burger
    info@humboldtgrowers.org

  • Jesse,
    Thanks for the respectful dialogue. It is only through raising concerns and asking questions that we can craft an ordinance that works for the community.
    The above ordinances have already been revised since they were posted and should really be removed till we can post the newest drafts. Prices on outdoor permits have been changed to $.50 per sq ft from $1 and permit fees for over 400 sq ft reduced from 2,500 to 1,500. Some other changes as well for personal use cultivation. We’ll try to get it to Kym early next week to post for more feedback. The website is not really up yet. You must have seen our staging page.
    When we decided that 20,000 sq ft would be the maximum amount of canopy one farmer could cultivate it was with the thought that a farmer might be cultivating several smaller gardens over several parcels. We wanted to make sure that no one entity would be cultivating more than 20,000 sq ft total. We know most parcels can’t support that in one location.
    We did this because like I mentioned in an above post, Mendo has no limit to how many 99 plant permits a collective or farmer can attain. This means, and it is already happening, that a collective will potentially be growing several acres or more with multiple permits. Mendo does very little environmental oversight other than checking your water source.
    We hope through having inspectors trained in erosion control, appropriate water use and other environmental and neighborhood impacts that they will be able to determine what is appropriate cultivation for your property.
    Please continue to add to the conversation.
    Thanks
    Joey Burger
    info@humboldtgrowers.org

  • One leg of the triangle seems to be saying NO to large “aggregate” outdoor grows.

    http://www.trinitycounty.org/Moratorium_Extend.pdf

    Bob

  • One leg of the triangle seems to be saying NO to large “aggregate” outdoor grows.

    http://www.trinitycounty.org/Moratorium_Extend.pdf

    Bob

  • I appreciate that HGA is still incorporating community input in their draft proposal, and I respect the input I’ve heard here. Balancing economic and environmental health is an issue that we all have a personal stake in; for me latter is more critical than the former. I would rather live in a thriving ecosystem than a thriving economy, but I think a balance can be struck if we are willing to make the sacrifices for it.

    The theme of keeping grows small seems to trouble those who feel Humboldt County is going to “miss the boat”, meaning our area will lose a sizeable chunk of the revenue it has enjoyed for decades as other areas industrialize the crop and maximize production. Concern has been voiced over getting the Humboldt “brand” out there to compete with the rest of the growing market. But the inherent value of the local product is in its quality, not quantity: these hills have a history of gardeners who love each individual plant, with notable results. By mass-producing bud at a level that practically demands mechanical processing, the end result will be indistinguishable from something grown in Oaksterdam. The niche market we ought to aim for is the biodynamic (“organic” is a meaningless term now, thanks to industry influence over the USDA), pot grown on small farms where a living wage is possible. This horizontal integration allows production, profit and impact to be more evenly distributed. As environmental concerns become more pressing for the world, the trend toward Truly Sustainable agriculture is growing not only more viable, but more necessary.

    Thanks for that link, Bob. I think Trinity county’s ordinance is worthy of inclusion when comparing this proposal to others. If indeed all this work is in the interest of providing healthy medicine to patients (and not about maximizing a profit margin for black market growers who are now seeking a niche in the legitimate industry), then the highest priority needs to be the quality of the product. Trinity’s maximum square footage of 2500 ought to provide adequately for any one patient/producer’s needs. Smaller plots may mean more plots, so the burden of inspections is still a serious consideration: it doesn’t seem like the department of Health and Human Services has the resources to conduct hundreds of annual on-site inspections in the unincorporated areas.

    This leads me to a couple of questions: Joey, would you clarify what you meant in an earlier post when you said HGA is considering a higher membership level that would include “our own third party” inspections? I’m thinking that was just a semantic error, since a 3rd party implies outside objectivity. Also, I’m curious about the structure of HGA: is it a non-profit? A private club? Lobbying association? I’m sure you’ll have a mission statement on your website once it’s up, but I think clarifying the nature of your organization would make your intentions more transparent to the public. The rumor mill feeds on lack of first-hand information. Thanks.

    • Thanks for the post Kathy,
      I’ll try to address several of your remarks.
      I agree that an attempt to keep Humboldt’s name intact with higher quality product is very important. Though I don’t think that size of grow will necessarily imply that medicine will be of a higher quality or safer for consumption. I think there are many small growers that produce poor unsafe medicine as well as larger producers with a higher quality product and vice versa. Obviously there is a better chance to pay closer attention to a smaller crop but there are so many variables involved.
      I personally don’t have land that can support a 20,000 sq ft grow. Not even half that. I don’t have the water or appropriate land to get a large permit. But I also don’t think the limits set forth for collective grows should be based on my specific situation or that of anyone else.
      Mendo has been having success with their 99 plant program since last year so that is what we used as a starting point for our outdoor proposal. It is a simple program and it has been functioning. Humboldt has been looking very closely at just copying Mendo’s program. There are parts that we like and parts we don’t feel offer enough environmental protection or protection for smaller farmers.
      We feel that when you are growing by plant count it encourages farmers to grow larger plants that use more water and can lead to lower quality plants and medicine. By allowing farmers to attain a permit that regulates by plant canopy, farmers can grow more smaller plants which will be easier to care for, potentially be a higher quality product and potentially use less water. Farmers will also be able to produce light dep mid season to provide medicine to their patients during the “dry” season.
      Humboldt will not have an outdoor ordinance in place for this years planting season so we have a lot of time to get it right. We really need to be focusing our efforts on the draft ordinance that will be regulating personal indoor grows and dispensaries as that draft ordinance is up for review at the May 12th Planning Commission meeting at 6pm in the county supes chambers at the court house.
      Mendo only had 18 participants in it’s 99 plant program last year and will probably only have two or three times that many this year. These programs will develop over the coming years and will change many times. We are asking that any ordinance that is passed in Humboldt is up for review every 6-12 months so we can make changes with community input accordingly.
      Trinity’s ordinance is a step back. Only allowing 2,500 sq ft of collective cultivation on a parcel 30 acres or larger hurts collectives and smaller land owners.
      We have tried to build in some safeguards for the smaller outdoor farmers in our proposals. We are encouraging in our proposals requiring collectives to have a percentage of outdoor grown medicine be on their shelves and to only acquire medicine that is grown by members with permitted grows. This will discourage dispensaries to buy the cheapest medicine from the black market to make the most profit. It will also encourage growers to participate in a county cultivation program and be held accountable for their cultivation practices through inspections and whatever environmental standards the county requires.
      When I spoke of a third party certification program it would be certifying a higher level of cultivation and environmental practices than just what the local county issued inspection would be looking for. It would also be able to verify that you are following state and local regulations. There are “third party inspection programs” available for medical cannabis today that tout USDA Organic standards but if you look at their list of allowed inputs you would see they allow many synthetic inputs not allowed by USDA. You would still need to be legal through the county but a certification program with high standards would show that you are producing a cleaner, healthier, “organic” product. Maybe a certification and recognition specifically for smaller farmers as well. That is on our back burner and won’t be something we can work on till the county passes an outdoor ordinance.
      We are a membership based non profit medical cannabis trade association. We have a five member board, a five member advisory board and we are lobbying on behalf of the medical cannabis industry. The mission of the Humboldt Growers Association is to serve its membership and its communities in developing and promoting programs and policies that promote issues of safety and sustainability for the legal cultivation of medical cannabis in California.
      We have also gotten a great deal of input from local community members, patients, land owners, medical cannabis professionals, dispensary operators, attorneys, and consultants. We are still in our infancy and working out the kinks. We will be taking on new members very shortly. We are being rushed to put our rough draft proposals out there before we are completely ready because people need to weigh in with input before the May 12th planning commission meeting. Right now the focus should really be on the personal indoor and dispensary proposal that is being reviewed.
      Please give us your specific input. Be a part of the process of shaping Humboldt’s medical cannabis future.
      Thanks
      Joey Burger
      HGA
      info@humboldtgrowers.org

  • I appreciate that HGA is still incorporating community input in their draft proposal, and I respect the input I’ve heard here. Balancing economic and environmental health is an issue that we all have a personal stake in; for me latter is more critical than the former. I would rather live in a thriving ecosystem than a thriving economy, but I think a balance can be struck if we are willing to make the sacrifices for it.

    The theme of keeping grows small seems to trouble those who feel Humboldt County is going to “miss the boat”, meaning our area will lose a sizeable chunk of the revenue it has enjoyed for decades as other areas industrialize the crop and maximize production. Concern has been voiced over getting the Humboldt “brand” out there to compete with the rest of the growing market. But the inherent value of the local product is in its quality, not quantity: these hills have a history of gardeners who love each individual plant, with notable results. By mass-producing bud at a level that practically demands mechanical processing, the end result will be indistinguishable from something grown in Oaksterdam. The niche market we ought to aim for is the biodynamic (“organic” is a meaningless term now, thanks to industry influence over the USDA), pot grown on small farms where a living wage is possible. This horizontal integration allows production, profit and impact to be more evenly distributed. As environmental concerns become more pressing for the world, the trend toward Truly Sustainable agriculture is growing not only more viable, but more necessary.

    Thanks for that link, Bob. I think Trinity county’s ordinance is worthy of inclusion when comparing this proposal to others. If indeed all this work is in the interest of providing healthy medicine to patients (and not about maximizing a profit margin for black market growers who are now seeking a niche in the legitimate industry), then the highest priority needs to be the quality of the product. Trinity’s maximum square footage of 2500 ought to provide adequately for any one patient/producer’s needs. Smaller plots may mean more plots, so the burden of inspections is still a serious consideration: it doesn’t seem like the department of Health and Human Services has the resources to conduct hundreds of annual on-site inspections in the unincorporated areas.

    This leads me to a couple of questions: Joey, would you clarify what you meant in an earlier post when you said HGA is considering a higher membership level that would include “our own third party” inspections? I’m thinking that was just a semantic error, since a 3rd party implies outside objectivity. Also, I’m curious about the structure of HGA: is it a non-profit? A private club? Lobbying association? I’m sure you’ll have a mission statement on your website once it’s up, but I think clarifying the nature of your organization would make your intentions more transparent to the public. The rumor mill feeds on lack of first-hand information. Thanks.

    • Thanks for the post Kathy,
      I’ll try to address several of your remarks.
      I agree that an attempt to keep Humboldt’s name intact with higher quality product is very important. Though I don’t think that size of grow will necessarily imply that medicine will be of a higher quality or safer for consumption. I think there are many small growers that produce poor unsafe medicine as well as larger producers with a higher quality product and vice versa. Obviously there is a better chance to pay closer attention to a smaller crop but there are so many variables involved.
      I personally don’t have land that can support a 20,000 sq ft grow. Not even half that. I don’t have the water or appropriate land to get a large permit. But I also don’t think the limits set forth for collective grows should be based on my specific situation or that of anyone else.
      Mendo has been having success with their 99 plant program since last year so that is what we used as a starting point for our outdoor proposal. It is a simple program and it has been functioning. Humboldt has been looking very closely at just copying Mendo’s program. There are parts that we like and parts we don’t feel offer enough environmental protection or protection for smaller farmers.
      We feel that when you are growing by plant count it encourages farmers to grow larger plants that use more water and can lead to lower quality plants and medicine. By allowing farmers to attain a permit that regulates by plant canopy, farmers can grow more smaller plants which will be easier to care for, potentially be a higher quality product and potentially use less water. Farmers will also be able to produce light dep mid season to provide medicine to their patients during the “dry” season.
      Humboldt will not have an outdoor ordinance in place for this years planting season so we have a lot of time to get it right. We really need to be focusing our efforts on the draft ordinance that will be regulating personal indoor grows and dispensaries as that draft ordinance is up for review at the May 12th Planning Commission meeting at 6pm in the county supes chambers at the court house.
      Mendo only had 18 participants in it’s 99 plant program last year and will probably only have two or three times that many this year. These programs will develop over the coming years and will change many times. We are asking that any ordinance that is passed in Humboldt is up for review every 6-12 months so we can make changes with community input accordingly.
      Trinity’s ordinance is a step back. Only allowing 2,500 sq ft of collective cultivation on a parcel 30 acres or larger hurts collectives and smaller land owners.
      We have tried to build in some safeguards for the smaller outdoor farmers in our proposals. We are encouraging in our proposals requiring collectives to have a percentage of outdoor grown medicine be on their shelves and to only acquire medicine that is grown by members with permitted grows. This will discourage dispensaries to buy the cheapest medicine from the black market to make the most profit. It will also encourage growers to participate in a county cultivation program and be held accountable for their cultivation practices through inspections and whatever environmental standards the county requires.
      When I spoke of a third party certification program it would be certifying a higher level of cultivation and environmental practices than just what the local county issued inspection would be looking for. It would also be able to verify that you are following state and local regulations. There are “third party inspection programs” available for medical cannabis today that tout USDA Organic standards but if you look at their list of allowed inputs you would see they allow many synthetic inputs not allowed by USDA. You would still need to be legal through the county but a certification program with high standards would show that you are producing a cleaner, healthier, “organic” product. Maybe a certification and recognition specifically for smaller farmers as well. That is on our back burner and won’t be something we can work on till the county passes an outdoor ordinance.
      We are a membership based non profit medical cannabis trade association. We have a five member board, a five member advisory board and we are lobbying on behalf of the medical cannabis industry. The mission of the Humboldt Growers Association is to serve its membership and its communities in developing and promoting programs and policies that promote issues of safety and sustainability for the legal cultivation of medical cannabis in California.
      We have also gotten a great deal of input from local community members, patients, land owners, medical cannabis professionals, dispensary operators, attorneys, and consultants. We are still in our infancy and working out the kinks. We will be taking on new members very shortly. We are being rushed to put our rough draft proposals out there before we are completely ready because people need to weigh in with input before the May 12th planning commission meeting. Right now the focus should really be on the personal indoor and dispensary proposal that is being reviewed.
      Please give us your specific input. Be a part of the process of shaping Humboldt’s medical cannabis future.
      Thanks
      Joey Burger
      HGA
      info@humboldtgrowers.org

  • wanda de justus

    thanks to all for labors granted-a bit of a shock tho, to think a rumor mill churns on behind the redwood curtain-

  • wanda de justus

    thanks to all for labors granted-a bit of a shock tho, to think a rumor mill churns on behind the redwood curtain-

  • It still looks designed to cut out small growers. Many small growers do not own their own land or live in higher visibility areas where theft is a problem. So, many are indoor. The permit fees and red tape for 100 sq, ft. indoors are a burden and with the seemingly arbitrary processes in county permitting, it seems too much for many small growers to maintain what they have which is within current guidelines. It will drive people more underground. Large indoor growers will probabley not be effected by this as much. They are already outside regulations, and if they choose to go above board they may have plenty of capital to do so, after years of large grows. It’s only going to effect the “little lights of freedom”.

    Don’t kid yourself. If they bleed and regulate the stuff out of small indoor growers they will come for the outdoor ones later… IMO there’s been a campaign of divide and conquer.

    With pollution .. .A compromise in organic vs toxic could be education about “integrated pest management” or IPM. This is a philosophy of using the least harmful solution at any time, starting with the least harmful and working up to more harmful if absolutely necessary. For instance starting with predator mites, advancing to neem, then safer’s, then chemical if nothing else works. It isn’t “pure”, but if that philosophy became popular it would cut back on more pesticide usage than attacking people who are not organic. Whether they grow indoors or out. There’s no need to punish indoor growers under the assumption that they are all bad. Not that anyone here or with HGA has said that… But reducing footage certainly implies that. Small growers seem more concerned about health issues than large growers regardless of where they grow. IPM could also reduce pesticide usage on commercial grows that may come later.

    UCDavis has a lot of online info on IPM. Easier to google it than navigate their site.

    …BTW, I like your choice of fonts 🙂

    • Lorie,
      The county is suggesting 50 sq ft and 1200 watts indoors for personal medical use without a permit or inspection. If you want an exemption for 100 sq ft they propose you will need to have your electrical inspected and show a reason why you need the exemption such as living with another patient or proof of a larger medical need. We agree with the idea of an inspection for larger than 1200 watts. If you are running a 600 watt light most circuits can handle that load with out modification. When you start running 1000 watt lights, especially 3000-4000 watts your electrical will need to be modified. If this is not done correctly you run a fire risk.
      When it comes to indoor the main issues the county wants to address are: Public safety, public health, and public nuisance. They want your grow to be safely wired and constructed. They don’t want your grow to endanger your neighbors through fires or robbery. They don’t want your grow to affect your neighbors, attract attention through smell, or be visible from outside of the building. They don’t want large indoors in residential neighborhoods. We think these are all valid concerns.
      We have tried to add exemptions for two types of expanded indoor permits that address these issues through set backs, parcel size, and inspections.
      We have included two recommendations for different types of collective indoor grows. Both would be for an indoor collective grow up to 200 sq ft and 10,000 watts of lighting. One permit would be just for flowering medicine. The other would be for a nursery permit for a clone/mom operation that could supply dispensaries, collectives, or provide clones and veg space for your own outdoor cultivation permit. Growers could only apply for one type of indoor permit.
      Grow would need to be in a permitted detached non residential building with electrical to code. Must be on a minimum 1/2 acre parcel. Permit holder would need to live on the same parcel. Walls would need to be constructed of one hour fire wall. Cultivation site must be at least 75 feet from any occupied residence on a neighboring parcel. No odor of growing marijuana shall be allowed to escape from the cultivation site, which shall be mechanically ventilated with a carbon filter or something better. No cultivation site shall be permitted within 600 feet of a K-12 school, or 500 feet of a church, school, playground, public park, library, or licensed day care facility.
      Cultivation site is prohibited from discharging waste products, chemical fertilizers or pesticides into drains, septic systems, community sewer systems, water systems or other drainage systems including those that lead to rivers, streams and bays.
      Cultivation shall not adversely affect the health or safety of nearby residents or businesses by creating dust, glare, heat, noise, noxious gasses, odor, smoke, traffic, vibration, or other impacts, and must not be hazardous due to use or storage of materials, processes, products or wastes associated with the cultivation of medical marijuana.
      The other parameters are listed in the proposals at the top of the page but these are the key ones we feel address the concerns of the county.
      When it comes to this process with the county we need to be asking for a lot and hoping we get half of it. Ask for 200 sq ft and be happy with 100. Ask for 20,000 sq ft and hope for 10,000. If we start out asking for too little we will get even less.
      Please send us your questions or suggestions directly as well as posting them here.
      Thanks
      Joey Burger
      HGA
      info@humboldtgrowers.org

  • It still looks designed to cut out small growers. Many small growers do not own their own land or live in higher visibility areas where theft is a problem. So, many are indoor. The permit fees and red tape for 100 sq, ft. indoors are a burden and with the seemingly arbitrary processes in county permitting, it seems too much for many small growers to maintain what they have which is within current guidelines. It will drive people more underground. Large indoor growers will probabley not be effected by this as much. They are already outside regulations, and if they choose to go above board they may have plenty of capital to do so, after years of large grows. It’s only going to effect the “little lights of freedom”.

    Don’t kid yourself. If they bleed and regulate the stuff out of small indoor growers they will come for the outdoor ones later… IMO there’s been a campaign of divide and conquer.

    With pollution .. .A compromise in organic vs toxic could be education about “integrated pest management” or IPM. This is a philosophy of using the least harmful solution at any time, starting with the least harmful and working up to more harmful if absolutely necessary. For instance starting with predator mites, advancing to neem, then safer’s, then chemical if nothing else works. It isn’t “pure”, but if that philosophy became popular it would cut back on more pesticide usage than attacking people who are not organic. Whether they grow indoors or out. There’s no need to punish indoor growers under the assumption that they are all bad. Not that anyone here or with HGA has said that… But reducing footage certainly implies that. Small growers seem more concerned about health issues than large growers regardless of where they grow. IPM could also reduce pesticide usage on commercial grows that may come later.

    UCDavis has a lot of online info on IPM. Easier to google it than navigate their site.

    …BTW, I like your choice of fonts 🙂

    • Lorie,
      The county is suggesting 50 sq ft and 1200 watts indoors for personal medical use without a permit or inspection. If you want an exemption for 100 sq ft they propose you will need to have your electrical inspected and show a reason why you need the exemption such as living with another patient or proof of a larger medical need. We agree with the idea of an inspection for larger than 1200 watts. If you are running a 600 watt light most circuits can handle that load with out modification. When you start running 1000 watt lights, especially 3000-4000 watts your electrical will need to be modified. If this is not done correctly you run a fire risk.
      When it comes to indoor the main issues the county wants to address are: Public safety, public health, and public nuisance. They want your grow to be safely wired and constructed. They don’t want your grow to endanger your neighbors through fires or robbery. They don’t want your grow to affect your neighbors, attract attention through smell, or be visible from outside of the building. They don’t want large indoors in residential neighborhoods. We think these are all valid concerns.
      We have tried to add exemptions for two types of expanded indoor permits that address these issues through set backs, parcel size, and inspections.
      We have included two recommendations for different types of collective indoor grows. Both would be for an indoor collective grow up to 200 sq ft and 10,000 watts of lighting. One permit would be just for flowering medicine. The other would be for a nursery permit for a clone/mom operation that could supply dispensaries, collectives, or provide clones and veg space for your own outdoor cultivation permit. Growers could only apply for one type of indoor permit.
      Grow would need to be in a permitted detached non residential building with electrical to code. Must be on a minimum 1/2 acre parcel. Permit holder would need to live on the same parcel. Walls would need to be constructed of one hour fire wall. Cultivation site must be at least 75 feet from any occupied residence on a neighboring parcel. No odor of growing marijuana shall be allowed to escape from the cultivation site, which shall be mechanically ventilated with a carbon filter or something better. No cultivation site shall be permitted within 600 feet of a K-12 school, or 500 feet of a church, school, playground, public park, library, or licensed day care facility.
      Cultivation site is prohibited from discharging waste products, chemical fertilizers or pesticides into drains, septic systems, community sewer systems, water systems or other drainage systems including those that lead to rivers, streams and bays.
      Cultivation shall not adversely affect the health or safety of nearby residents or businesses by creating dust, glare, heat, noise, noxious gasses, odor, smoke, traffic, vibration, or other impacts, and must not be hazardous due to use or storage of materials, processes, products or wastes associated with the cultivation of medical marijuana.
      The other parameters are listed in the proposals at the top of the page but these are the key ones we feel address the concerns of the county.
      When it comes to this process with the county we need to be asking for a lot and hoping we get half of it. Ask for 200 sq ft and be happy with 100. Ask for 20,000 sq ft and hope for 10,000. If we start out asking for too little we will get even less.
      Please send us your questions or suggestions directly as well as posting them here.
      Thanks
      Joey Burger
      HGA
      info@humboldtgrowers.org

  • Joey, I think you misunderstood my remarks. I don’t take issue with the canopy size versus plant number criteria, just the maximum size of the canopy.

    My question regarding inspections had to do with the use of the words “our own” in front of “third party”. Will the inspecting body be a subsidiary of HGA or truly an outside agency?

    My specific input regarding indoor cultivation is to institute a carbon tax on the power consumption and use the revenues for local remediation projects that move the county in a more energy-independent direction. Climate change- and our fuel dependency- is a bigger threat to public health and safety than the sight or smell of pot plants.

    and, @ Lorie: I’m not saying indoor growers are “bad”, just that they use non-renewable energy for growing plants, and THAT is a step backward, given the state of the world. I appreciate the spirit of your IPM philosophy, but if you have a crop so infested with mites that you “need” to use pesticides, it should be thrown out. Those products are not intended for use on crops that are going to be consumed, let alone inhaled. If it’s really medicine, please don’t put carcinogens on it.

  • Joey, I think you misunderstood my remarks. I don’t take issue with the canopy size versus plant number criteria, just the maximum size of the canopy.

    My question regarding inspections had to do with the use of the words “our own” in front of “third party”. Will the inspecting body be a subsidiary of HGA or truly an outside agency?

    My specific input regarding indoor cultivation is to institute a carbon tax on the power consumption and use the revenues for local remediation projects that move the county in a more energy-independent direction. Climate change- and our fuel dependency- is a bigger threat to public health and safety than the sight or smell of pot plants.

    and, @ Lorie: I’m not saying indoor growers are “bad”, just that they use non-renewable energy for growing plants, and THAT is a step backward, given the state of the world. I appreciate the spirit of your IPM philosophy, but if you have a crop so infested with mites that you “need” to use pesticides, it should be thrown out. Those products are not intended for use on crops that are going to be consumed, let alone inhaled. If it’s really medicine, please don’t put carcinogens on it.

  • Wow looks like Lake Co. is cracking down
    see section (i)
    all members of the collective have to be residents of Lake County
    BOS hearing is April 28
    Is there a trend here?

    BOARD OF SUPERVISORS, COUNTY OF LAKE, STATE OF CALIFORNIA
    ORDINANCE NO.__________
    AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 21 OF THE ORDINANCE CODE OF THE COUNTY OF
    LAKE ADDING ARTICLE 72: REGULATIONS FOR THE DISPENSING OF MEDICAL MARIJUANA
    THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF THE COUNTY OF LAKE ORDAINS AS FOLLOWS:
    “SEC.21-72 REGULATIONS FOR THE DISPENSING OF MEDICAL MARIJUANA
    Section 1: Article 72 is hereby added to the Chapter 21 of the Lake County Code and it shall
    read as follows:
    72.1 Purpose: The purpose of this Article is to establish the regulations, standards and
    circumstances for a limited number of collective or cooperative medical marijuana
    dispensaries to operate in the unincorporated area of the County of Lake. This ordinance is
    not intended to restrict access to qualifying patients, but rather is intended to ensure that
    such facilities are located and operated in a manner that protects the public health, safety, and
    general welfare and that is in conformance with the provisions of California Health and Safety
    Code Section 11362.5 through 11362.83.
    72.2 Intent: It is the intent of the Board of Supervisors that the provisions of this Article shall
    not be construed to protect Medical Marijuana Dispensary owners, permittees, operators and
    employees, or the members of collectives and/or cooperatives associated with Medical
    Marijuana Dispensaries from prosecution pursuant to any laws that may prohibit the
    cultivation, sale, distribution or possession of controlled substances. It is also the intent of the
    Board of Supervisors that nothing in this Article shall be construed to allow persons to
    engage in conduct that endangers others or causes a public nuisance or to allow the use of
    marijuana for non- medical purposes.

    72.3 Applicability: The provisions of this Article are applicable in the “C3”, “M1” & “M2” zoning
    districts. The provisions of this Article shall be applicable to all persons and businesses
    described herein whether the activities described herein were established before or after the
    effective date of this Article.
    72.4 Definitions:
    (a) Medical Marijuana Dispensary: A premises used by a cooperative, or collective of two (2) or
    more qualified patients or primary caregivers where the primary purpose is the distribution of
    medical marijuana that has been recommended by a licensed physician to a qualified patient,
    in strict accordance with State Health and Safety Code Sections 11362.5 et seq and 11362.83,
    inclusive, commonly referred to as the Compassionate Use Act, and that houses the
    organization’s records, including those records required to be made available to the Lake
    County Sheriff upon request.
    A Medical Marijuana Dispensary does not include the distribution of medical marijuana to
    qualified patients by their designated primary caregivers in the following locations and
    facilities, as long as the location is otherwise regulated by the Lake County Code and/or
    applicable law and as long as the use complies with the ake County Code and/or applicable
    law, including, but not limited to, The Compassionate Use Act and The Medical Marijuana
    Program:
    1. A clinic licensed pursuant to Chapter I (commencing with Section 1200) of Division 2 of the
    California Health and Safety Code.
    2. A health care facility licensed pursuant to Chapter 2 (commencing with Section 1250) of
    Division 2 of the California Health and Safety Code.
    3. A residential care facility for persons with chronic life-threatening illness licensed pursuant
    to Chapter 3.01 (commencing with Section 1568.01) of Division 2 of the California Health and
    Safety Code.
    4. A residential care facility for the elderly licensed pursuant to Chapter 3.2 (commencing with
    Section 1569) of Division 2 of the California Heath and Safety Code.
    5. A hospice or a home health agency licensed pursuant to Chapter 8 (commencing with
    Section 1725) of Division 2 of the California Health and Safety Code Section.
    (b) Primary Caregiver: Shall have the same definition as California Health and Safety Code
    Section 11362.7 (d).
    (c) Qualified Patient: Shall have the same definition as California Health and Safety Code
    Section 11362.7 (c) and (f).
    (d) Drug Paraphernalia: Shall have the same definition as California Health and Safety Code
    Section 11364.5
    (e) Premises: Includes the actual building, as well as accessory structures, parking areas and
    other on-site improvements.
    72.5 Collective or Cooperative Medical Marijuana Dispensaries may be located with the “C3”,
    “M1” and “M2” zoning districts, without on-site cultivation, subject to approval of a Minor Use
    Permit, and subject to the following minimum application and siting requirements:
    (a) Any medical marijuana dispensary that was in operation prior to the adoption of this Article
    and located within the “C3”, “M1” or “M2” district shall be given permit processing priority,
    and shall file a complete application within 120 days of the effective date of this Article.

    (b) Any medical marijuana dispensaries located within the“C2” and “CH” zoning districts that
    have been operating continuously since September 15, 2009 shall be given priority for permit
    processing, and shall find an alternative location within an “C3”, M1” or “M2” district and file
    complete applications for minor use permits within 180 days of the effective date of this
    Article. Said dispensaries shall relocate to the new permitted site within 60 days of minor use
    permit approval.
    (c) Enforcement action shall be taken against any dispensary that fails to meet the minimum
    application requirements specified in Section 72.5 of this Article or fails to obtain approval of a
    minor use permit and/or relocate to an approved site.
    (d) A maximum of nine (9) dispensaries may be authorized to operate under permit within the
    unincorporated County at any given time, subject to the provisions of this Article.
    (e) The application shall include a statement and/or information to establish the need for the
    dispensary to serve qualified patients in the area, such as the number of qualifying patients
    who are members of the collective or cooperative seeking to establish a dispensary.
    (f) A medical marijuana dispensary shall not be established within 1,000 feet of another
    dispensary, 1,000 feet of any school, or within 500 feet of any developed park containing
    playground equipment, drug or alcohol rehabilitation facility, day care facility or youth-
    oriented facility such as any establishment that advertises in a manner that identifies the
    establishment as catering to or providing services primarily intended for minors, or the
    individuals who regularly patronize, congregate or assemble at the establishment are
    predominately minors.
    (g) A medical marijuana dispensary shall not be established within 100 feet of the “R1”, “R2”
    or “R3” zoning districts.
    (h) A medical marijuana dispensary shall not be established on any parcel containing a
    dwelling unit used as a residence, unless it is occupied by the owner or manager of the
    Dispensary.
    (i) A medical marijuana dispensary shall not occupy a building area of more than 2,500 square
    feet.
    (j) Prior to the minor use permit application being deemed complete for processing, the owner
    and/or operator of the proposed medical marijuana dispensary and any employees must pass
    a criminal history background check performed by the Lake County Sheriff, at the applicant’s
    expense, and must provide personal affidavits. Any applicant, his or her agent or employees,
    or any person exercising managerial authority of a dispensary on behalf of the applicant shall
    not have been convicted of a felony, or of a misdemeanor involving moral turpitude, or
    engaged in misconduct related to the qualifications, functions or duties of a permittee. A
    conviction within the meaning of this section means a plea or verdict of guilty or a conviction
    following a plea of nolo contendere.
    (k) Applications for medical marijuana dispensary use permits shall include an Operation Plan
    that specifies the following:
    1. Written project description that includes detailed information including the full name and
    address of the operator, the property owner’s name and address, intended business hours
    and signage.

    2. A description of how the dispensary operations will be conducted, including the hours and
    days of operation proposed.
    3. The number of members within the collective or cooperative associated with the
    dispensary, and the number of employees that will operate the dispensary.
    4. A detailed site plan, drawn to scale, that shows building location, parking area, and
    proposed sign location.
    5. A detailed floor plan, drawn to scale. A dispensary shall have a lobby waiting area at the
    entrance to receive clients, and a separate and secure designated area for dispensing medical
    cannabis to qualified patients or designated caregivers. The primary entrance shall be located
    and maintained clear of barriers, landscaping and similar obstructions so that it is clearly
    visible from public streets, sidewalks or site driveways.
    6. The on-site security systems and methods proposed, including measures for safe storage
    of medical marijuana, security lighting, and other security measures proposed to be used.
    7. Information concerning source locations of medical marijuana to be distributed through the
    proposed collective or cooperative dispensary.
    8. Proof of eligibility as a collective or cooperative, such as articles of incorporation, not for
    profit status, financial and general membership information.
    9. Written evidence of ownership or authorization for use of the proposed site.

    72.6 General Performance and Operational Standards for Collective or Cooperative
    Dispensaries:
    (a) Annual compliance monitoring shall be conducted by the Lake County Sheriff’s
    Department, at the permit holder’s expense. Prior to operation of the dispensary, the permit
    holder shall enter into a “Compliance Monitoring Inspection Agreement” with the Sheriff’s
    Department and shall pay for an initial inspection of the premises. The Agreement shall
    provide for recovery of costs incurred by the Sheriff’s Department, based on the weighted
    hourly rate(s) of the staff assigned to conduct said inspections. The permit holder shall
    maintain the following records and shall make said records available to the Lake County
    Sheriff’s Department, upon request:
    1. Financial records, along with records of supply source locations and the legal status
    thereof.
    2. Proof of not-for-profit status. Any compensation for the operator’s time shall be consistent
    with Federal Income Tax laws for “reasonable compensation”. No medical marijuana
    dispensary shall be operated for profit. A dispensary may receive compensation for its actual
    expenses, including reasonable compensation for services provided, or for payment of out-of-
    pocket expenses incurred in providing those services. However, any such dispensary must
    pay applicable sales tax on such sales or services and maintain the applicable seller’s permit
    or similar permit from the State Franchise Tax Board or other applicable agency.
    3. A current registry of employees and any contractors and/or volunteers, who are engaged in
    the operation of the dispensary. The registry shall be provided to the Sheriff at any time upon
    request. The registry shall include the name, current residential address, telephone number,
    date of birth and the height, weight and color of eyes and hair of each such person.
    (b) The minor use permit shall be valid for an initial term of two (2) years, and may be renewed
    every two (2) years thereafter, provided that the operation remains in compliance with the
    applicable provisions of this Article and Chapter, and any applicable state laws. Applications
    for renewal must be filed prior to the expiration date of the existing permit, and are subject to
    processing fees of 50% of the fee in effect for a minor use permit at the time of application for
    renewal.
    (c) Medical marijuana dispensaries may sell or distribute marijuana only from members of the
    dispensary’s collective or cooperative and may sell or distribute only to members of the
    dispensary’s collective or cooperative. No distribution to non-members is authorized. Home
    delivery to members by the dispensary owner is allowed, provided that any home delivery
    service is based from the permitted dispensary.
    (d) A medical marijuana dispensary may possess marijuana at its facility only in the collective
    amount that each qualified patient or primary caregiver who is a current member of the
    cooperative or collective associated with the Medical Marijuana Dispensary is allowed to
    possess under California Health and Safety Code Section 11362.77, as may be amended from
    time to time. However, in no case shall the amount in possession at the dispensary at any
    given time exceed 15 pounds of processed medical marijuana. In calculating the quantity of
    medical marijuana, concentrated cannabis (such as hashish) shall be counted at a ratio of 3 to
    1 as compared to equal quantities of the un- concentrated varieties. At no time shall a medical
    marijuana cooperative maintain in excess of one and one-half (1 1/2) pounds of concentrated
    cannabis on the premises.

    (e) The medical marijuana dispensary shall label its products by stating the name of the
    medical marijuana collective or cooperative and the weight of cannabis and the statement
    “Contents may cause cancer when smoked”. All products shall be packaged in County
    approved child-proof containers.
    (f) All marijuana on site at the dispensary shall be physically labeled in such a manner as to
    allow for ready identification of the specific Collective member who is the source of the
    marijuana.
    (g) All marijuana on site at the dispensary must be physically labeled with the monetary
    amount to be charged to a Collective member as reimbursement for cost of cultivation,
    overhead, and operating expenses.
    (h) Medical marijuana dispensaries shall sell or distribute only marijuana manufactured and
    processed in the State of California that has not left the State before arriving at the medical
    marijuana dispensary. Medical marijuana produced in Lake County shall be sourced from
    sites that are operated consistent with the Lake County Code, with no citations for erosion,
    stormwater or other violations.
    (i) All members of the medical marijuana dispensary’s collective or cooperative must be
    residents of Lake County.
    (j) The permit holder shall require any person entering the premises to provide verification of
    the individual’s status as a current member of the collective or cooperative associated with
    the medical marijuana dispensary, and shall also verify the individual’s identity by way of a
    government issued photographic identification.

    (k) The permit holder shall maintain membership records on-site or have them reasonably
    available for the permit holder’s use that provide written verification of each individual
    member’s status as a qualified patient or primary caregiver. Subject to HIPAA regulations, this
    shall be done by any of the following methods:
    1. Written documentation establishing that the permit holder has confirmed that the individual
    member has a valid government-issued medical marijuana identification card, with a copy of
    the medical marijuana identification card included in the membership records; or
    2. Written documentation establishing that the permit holder has confirmed the individual
    member has a recommendation from a physician by making personal contact with the
    recommending physician (or his or her agent), verifying the physician’s identity, and verifying
    the physician’s licensing status. If the physician recommendation is in writing, a copy of that
    recommendation shall also be included in the membership records; or
    3. Written documentation establishing that the permit holder has confirmed the individual’s
    primary caregiver status by making personal contact with the qualified patient and has
    confirmed the status of the qualified patient.
    (l) The permit holder shall track when individual member’s medical marijuana
    recommendations, designations of primary caregivers, and/or identification cards expire.
    (m) The permit holder shall enforce conditions of membership by excluding from membership
    individuals whose identification cards, physician recommendations, and/or designations of
    primary caregiver status are invalid or have expired, or who have diverted marijuana to non-
    members and/or for non-medical use.

    (n) No medical marijuana shall be smoked, ingested or otherwise consumed on the premises
    of the medical marijuana dispensary. The term “premises” includes the actual building, as well
    as any accessory structures, parking areas, or other immediate surroundings.
    (o) No cultivation of marijuana is permitted at the medical marijuana dispensary or on the
    medical marijuana dispensary parcel. However, flowering marijuana plants may be made
    available at dispensaries for members.
    (p) No permit holder, collective or cooperative associated with a medical marijuana dispensary
    shall hold or maintain a license from the State Department of Alcohol Beverage Control to sell
    alcoholic beverages, or operate businesses that sell alcoholic beverages, at any dispensary,
    or on any parcel occupied by a dispensary, nor shall any dispensary be established on a
    parcel where existing businesses sell or maintain a license to sell alcoholic beverages.
    (q) No public display of product or drug paraphernalia (as defined in California Health and
    Safety Code Section 11364.5) is allowed. All business activities shall be conducted indoors.
    (r) The operator of a medical marijuana dispensary shall ensure the absence of loitering
    consistent with California Penal Code Section 647(11).
    (r) No juveniles shall be allowed into a medical marijuana dispensary. It is unlawful for any
    permittee, operator, or other person in charge of any dispensary to employ any person who is
    not at least 18 years of age.

    (t) All medical marijuana dispensary owners, permittees, operators and employees, and/or the
    members of collectives and/or cooperatives associated with medical marijuana dispensaries
    must be verifiable qualified patients or primary caregivers, as defined, and meet all terms and
    conditions of applicable law.
    (u) Each medical marijuana dispensary, inside the medical marijuana dispensary itself, shall
    display in a manner legible and visible to its clientele:
    1. Notice that no person under the age of 18 (eighteen) is allowed in the Medical Marijuana
    Dispensary except in the presence of his/her parent or guardian.
    2. Notice that there is no consumption of marijuana on the premises or in the vicinity of the
    medical marijuana dispensary.
    3. Loitering is not permitted on the premises or in the vicinity of the Medical Marijuana
    Dispensary.
    (v) Operators of medical marijuana dispensaries shall make every effort possible to assure
    that marijuana obtained from their sources does not contain harmful levels of pesticides.
    Operators are encouraged to educate their suppliers on the importance of organic cultivation
    practices.
    (w) The medical marijuana dispensary shall provide adequate security on the premises,
    including security cameras and a vault for money and medical marijuana, and adequate
    outdoor lighting consistent with Section 41-8(a) of the Zoning Ordinance.

    (x) Hours of operation shall be restricted to the time period between 8:00am and 8:00pm daily.
    Additional restrictions on operational hours may be applied as a condition of use permit
    approval.
    (y) An exhaust and air filtration system shall be utilized to prevent off-site odors.
    (z) One on-site sign, not to exceed twenty (20) square feet shall be allowed. The sign may
    consist of a wall mounted sign or a sign located within an existing sign structure that
    advertises other businesses on the property. There shall be no direct reference to marijuana
    in any form, including displays or illustration, on any exterior sign or any interior sign or
    display area visible from outside the medical marijuana dispensary.
    (aa) The building in which the medical marijuana dispensary is located shall comply with all
    applicable local, state, and federal building codes, development standards, and accessibility
    requirements.
    72.7 Grounds for Revocation or Denial of Minor Use Permit for Medical Marijuana Dispensary
    (a) Failure to comply with the provisions of this Article shall be grounds for permit revocation
    or denial of a permit extension.
    (b) Filing of an application for a minor use permit for a collective or cooperative dispensary
    after the unpermitted operation of said dispensary has already commenced shall be grounds
    for denial of the permit by the Zoning Administrator (or the Planning Commission on appeal).
    Any operation of a dispensary while a minor use permit application is being processed by the
    County shall also be grounds for denial. A permit for an early Activation of Use shall not be
    permitted for medical marijuana collective or

    cooperative dispensaries. Exceptions to this rule shall be granted to those dispensaries that
    were in operation prior to September 15, 2009, and have been in continuous operation since,
    so that they can continue to operate for up to 180 days while working toward compliance with
    this Article.
    72.8 Appeals
    (a) Right of Appeal: The final decision of the Zoning Administrator to grant, deny, suspend or
    revoke a permit may be appealed in the manner prescribed in Article 60 of the Zoning
    Ordinance.
    (b) Hearing: The procedure and requirements governing an appeal shall be as specified in
    Article 60 of the Zoning Ordinance.
    72.9 Uses Prohibited: Operating a medical marijuana dispensary or a home delivery service
    from any location other than a permitted collective or cooperative dispensary is strictly
    prohibited. Independent home delivery services operated out of residences in Lake County
    are not allowed and shall result in enforcement action.
    72.10 Release of the County from Liability: In a form satisfactory to the County of Lake, the
    Medical Marijuana Dispensary owners, permittees, operators and employees, the members of
    collectives and/or cooperatives associated with medical marijuana dispensaries, and the
    property owner(s) of record for each medical marijuana dispensary, shall release and hold
    harmless Lake County, and its agents, officers, elected officials, and employees from injuries,
    damages, or liabilities of any kind that result from the operations and activities at medical
    marijuana dispensaries including, but not limited to, any arrest or prosecution of medical
    marijuana dispensary owners, permittees, operators and employees, the members of
    collectives and/or

    cooperatives associated with medical marijuana dispensaries, and the property owner(s) of
    record for each medical marijuana dispensary, for violation of state or federal laws.
    72.11 Indemnification: Each permit issued pursuant to this Article shall have as a condition of
    the permit, a requirement that the applicant indemnify and hold harmless the County and its
    officers, agents, and employees from actions or claims of any description brought on account
    of any injury or damages sustained, by any person or property resulting from the issuance of
    the permit and the conduct of the activities authorized under said permit, damages or liabilities
    of any kind that may arise out of the distribution and/or on- or off-site use of marijuana
    provided at the dispensary.
    72.12 Liability: The provisions of this Article shall not be construed to protect the medical
    marijuana dispensary owners, permittees, operators and employees, the members of
    collectives and/or cooperatives associated with medical marijuana dispensaries, and the
    property owner(s) of record for each medical marijuana dispensary from prosecution
    pursuant to any laws that may prohibit the cultivation, sale, and/or possession of controlled
    substances. Moreover, cultivation, sale, possession, distribution, and use of marijuana remain
    violations of federal law as of the date of adoption of the ordinance creating this Section, and
    this Section is not intended to, and does not protect any of the above described persons from
    arrest or prosecution under those federal laws. Medical marijuana dispensary owners,
    permittees, operators and employees, the members of collectives and/or cooperatives
    associated with medical marijuana dispensaries, and the property owner(s) of record for each
    medical marijuana dispensary assume any and all risk and any and all liability that may arise
    or result under state and federal criminal laws from operation of a medical marijuana
    dispensary. Further, to the fullest extent permitted by law, any actions taken under the
    provisions of this Section by any public officer or employee of the County of Lake or by Lake
    County itself shall not become a personal liability of such person or a liability of the county.

    72.13 Liability Insurance Required. No permit shall be issued or renewed under this Article
    unless the permittee carries and maintains in full force and effect a policy of insurance which
    meets or exceeds the requirements of this section, in a form approved by the County of Lake
    and executed by a licensed insurance broker or agent. The policy of insurance shall insure
    against liability for damage to property or injury to or death of any person as a result of
    activities conducted or occurring at the medical marijuana dispensary. The minimum liability
    limits shall not be less than $1,000,000 for each incident of damage to property or incident of
    injury to or death of a person, with a general aggregate limit of not less than $2,000,000. The
    policy shall name the County of Lake as an additional insured.
    72.14 The provisions of this Article shall not be construed to protect dispensary owners,
    operators, and employees or their clients from prosecution pursuant to any laws that may
    prohibit the cultivation, sale, use, or possession of controlled substances. Cultivation, sale,
    possession, distribution, and use of marijuana remain violations of federal law as of the date
    of the ordinance creating this Article and this Article is not intended to, nor does it, protect any
    of the above described persons from arrest or prosecution under those federal laws. Owners,
    operators and permittees must assume any and all risk and any and all liability that may arise
    or result under state and federal criminal laws from operation of a medical marijuana
    dispensary.
    72.15 Conflicts with Other Codes: If this Article is found to be in conflict with any other
    Chapter, Section, Subsection, or Title, the provisions of this Article shall prevail.
    Section 2: All ordinances or resolutions in conflict herewith are hereby repealed to the extent
    of such conflict and no further.
    Section 3: This project is exempt from California Environmental Quality Act requirements in
    that it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the activity in question will
    have a significant effect upon the environment.

    Section 4: This ordinance shall take effect on the _________ day of ______________________,
    2011. Within fifteen (15) days after adoption of the ordinance, the Clerk to the Board of
    Supervisors shall at least once in a newspaper of general circulation printed and published in
    the County of Lake publish a summary of the Ordinance with the names of those supervisors
    voting for and against the ordinance and the Clerk shall post in the office of the Clerk to the
    Board of Supervisors a certified copy of the full text of the adopted ordinance along with the
    names of those supervisors voting for and against the Ordinance.
    The foregoing Ordinance was introduced before the Board of Supervisors of the County of
    Lake on the _______day of _____________, 2011, and passed by the by the following vote on
    the _______day of ___________ 2011:
    AYES:
    NOES:
    ABSENT OR NOT VOTING:
    COUNTY OF LAKE
    ______________________
    Chair Board of Supervisors
    ATTEST: KELLY F. COX
    Clerk of the Board of
    Supervisors
    By: _______________________
    Deputy
    APPROVED AS TO FORM: APPROVED AS TO FORM:
    ANITA L. GRANT Community Development Department
    County Counsel
    By: _______________________ By: _______________________

  • Wow looks like Lake Co. is cracking down
    see section (i)
    all members of the collective have to be residents of Lake County
    BOS hearing is April 28
    Is there a trend here?

    BOARD OF SUPERVISORS, COUNTY OF LAKE, STATE OF CALIFORNIA
    ORDINANCE NO.__________
    AN ORDINANCE AMENDING CHAPTER 21 OF THE ORDINANCE CODE OF THE COUNTY OF
    LAKE ADDING ARTICLE 72: REGULATIONS FOR THE DISPENSING OF MEDICAL MARIJUANA
    THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF THE COUNTY OF LAKE ORDAINS AS FOLLOWS:
    “SEC.21-72 REGULATIONS FOR THE DISPENSING OF MEDICAL MARIJUANA
    Section 1: Article 72 is hereby added to the Chapter 21 of the Lake County Code and it shall
    read as follows:
    72.1 Purpose: The purpose of this Article is to establish the regulations, standards and
    circumstances for a limited number of collective or cooperative medical marijuana
    dispensaries to operate in the unincorporated area of the County of Lake. This ordinance is
    not intended to restrict access to qualifying patients, but rather is intended to ensure that
    such facilities are located and operated in a manner that protects the public health, safety, and
    general welfare and that is in conformance with the provisions of California Health and Safety
    Code Section 11362.5 through 11362.83.
    72.2 Intent: It is the intent of the Board of Supervisors that the provisions of this Article shall
    not be construed to protect Medical Marijuana Dispensary owners, permittees, operators and
    employees, or the members of collectives and/or cooperatives associated with Medical
    Marijuana Dispensaries from prosecution pursuant to any laws that may prohibit the
    cultivation, sale, distribution or possession of controlled substances. It is also the intent of the
    Board of Supervisors that nothing in this Article shall be construed to allow persons to
    engage in conduct that endangers others or causes a public nuisance or to allow the use of
    marijuana for non- medical purposes.

    72.3 Applicability: The provisions of this Article are applicable in the “C3”, “M1” & “M2” zoning
    districts. The provisions of this Article shall be applicable to all persons and businesses
    described herein whether the activities described herein were established before or after the
    effective date of this Article.
    72.4 Definitions:
    (a) Medical Marijuana Dispensary: A premises used by a cooperative, or collective of two (2) or
    more qualified patients or primary caregivers where the primary purpose is the distribution of
    medical marijuana that has been recommended by a licensed physician to a qualified patient,
    in strict accordance with State Health and Safety Code Sections 11362.5 et seq and 11362.83,
    inclusive, commonly referred to as the Compassionate Use Act, and that houses the
    organization’s records, including those records required to be made available to the Lake
    County Sheriff upon request.
    A Medical Marijuana Dispensary does not include the distribution of medical marijuana to
    qualified patients by their designated primary caregivers in the following locations and
    facilities, as long as the location is otherwise regulated by the Lake County Code and/or
    applicable law and as long as the use complies with the ake County Code and/or applicable
    law, including, but not limited to, The Compassionate Use Act and The Medical Marijuana
    Program:
    1. A clinic licensed pursuant to Chapter I (commencing with Section 1200) of Division 2 of the
    California Health and Safety Code.
    2. A health care facility licensed pursuant to Chapter 2 (commencing with Section 1250) of
    Division 2 of the California Health and Safety Code.
    3. A residential care facility for persons with chronic life-threatening illness licensed pursuant
    to Chapter 3.01 (commencing with Section 1568.01) of Division 2 of the California Health and
    Safety Code.
    4. A residential care facility for the elderly licensed pursuant to Chapter 3.2 (commencing with
    Section 1569) of Division 2 of the California Heath and Safety Code.
    5. A hospice or a home health agency licensed pursuant to Chapter 8 (commencing with
    Section 1725) of Division 2 of the California Health and Safety Code Section.
    (b) Primary Caregiver: Shall have the same definition as California Health and Safety Code
    Section 11362.7 (d).
    (c) Qualified Patient: Shall have the same definition as California Health and Safety Code
    Section 11362.7 (c) and (f).
    (d) Drug Paraphernalia: Shall have the same definition as California Health and Safety Code
    Section 11364.5
    (e) Premises: Includes the actual building, as well as accessory structures, parking areas and
    other on-site improvements.
    72.5 Collective or Cooperative Medical Marijuana Dispensaries may be located with the “C3”,
    “M1” and “M2” zoning districts, without on-site cultivation, subject to approval of a Minor Use
    Permit, and subject to the following minimum application and siting requirements:
    (a) Any medical marijuana dispensary that was in operation prior to the adoption of this Article
    and located within the “C3”, “M1” or “M2” district shall be given permit processing priority,
    and shall file a complete application within 120 days of the effective date of this Article.

    (b) Any medical marijuana dispensaries located within the“C2” and “CH” zoning districts that
    have been operating continuously since September 15, 2009 shall be given priority for permit
    processing, and shall find an alternative location within an “C3”, M1” or “M2” district and file
    complete applications for minor use permits within 180 days of the effective date of this
    Article. Said dispensaries shall relocate to the new permitted site within 60 days of minor use
    permit approval.
    (c) Enforcement action shall be taken against any dispensary that fails to meet the minimum
    application requirements specified in Section 72.5 of this Article or fails to obtain approval of a
    minor use permit and/or relocate to an approved site.
    (d) A maximum of nine (9) dispensaries may be authorized to operate under permit within the
    unincorporated County at any given time, subject to the provisions of this Article.
    (e) The application shall include a statement and/or information to establish the need for the
    dispensary to serve qualified patients in the area, such as the number of qualifying patients
    who are members of the collective or cooperative seeking to establish a dispensary.
    (f) A medical marijuana dispensary shall not be established within 1,000 feet of another
    dispensary, 1,000 feet of any school, or within 500 feet of any developed park containing
    playground equipment, drug or alcohol rehabilitation facility, day care facility or youth-
    oriented facility such as any establishment that advertises in a manner that identifies the
    establishment as catering to or providing services primarily intended for minors, or the
    individuals who regularly patronize, congregate or assemble at the establishment are
    predominately minors.
    (g) A medical marijuana dispensary shall not be established within 100 feet of the “R1”, “R2”
    or “R3” zoning districts.
    (h) A medical marijuana dispensary shall not be established on any parcel containing a
    dwelling unit used as a residence, unless it is occupied by the owner or manager of the
    Dispensary.
    (i) A medical marijuana dispensary shall not occupy a building area of more than 2,500 square
    feet.
    (j) Prior to the minor use permit application being deemed complete for processing, the owner
    and/or operator of the proposed medical marijuana dispensary and any employees must pass
    a criminal history background check performed by the Lake County Sheriff, at the applicant’s
    expense, and must provide personal affidavits. Any applicant, his or her agent or employees,
    or any person exercising managerial authority of a dispensary on behalf of the applicant shall
    not have been convicted of a felony, or of a misdemeanor involving moral turpitude, or
    engaged in misconduct related to the qualifications, functions or duties of a permittee. A
    conviction within the meaning of this section means a plea or verdict of guilty or a conviction
    following a plea of nolo contendere.
    (k) Applications for medical marijuana dispensary use permits shall include an Operation Plan
    that specifies the following:
    1. Written project description that includes detailed information including the full name and
    address of the operator, the property owner’s name and address, intended business hours
    and signage.

    2. A description of how the dispensary operations will be conducted, including the hours and
    days of operation proposed.
    3. The number of members within the collective or cooperative associated with the
    dispensary, and the number of employees that will operate the dispensary.
    4. A detailed site plan, drawn to scale, that shows building location, parking area, and
    proposed sign location.
    5. A detailed floor plan, drawn to scale. A dispensary shall have a lobby waiting area at the
    entrance to receive clients, and a separate and secure designated area for dispensing medical
    cannabis to qualified patients or designated caregivers. The primary entrance shall be located
    and maintained clear of barriers, landscaping and similar obstructions so that it is clearly
    visible from public streets, sidewalks or site driveways.
    6. The on-site security systems and methods proposed, including measures for safe storage
    of medical marijuana, security lighting, and other security measures proposed to be used.
    7. Information concerning source locations of medical marijuana to be distributed through the
    proposed collective or cooperative dispensary.
    8. Proof of eligibility as a collective or cooperative, such as articles of incorporation, not for
    profit status, financial and general membership information.
    9. Written evidence of ownership or authorization for use of the proposed site.

    72.6 General Performance and Operational Standards for Collective or Cooperative
    Dispensaries:
    (a) Annual compliance monitoring shall be conducted by the Lake County Sheriff’s
    Department, at the permit holder’s expense. Prior to operation of the dispensary, the permit
    holder shall enter into a “Compliance Monitoring Inspection Agreement” with the Sheriff’s
    Department and shall pay for an initial inspection of the premises. The Agreement shall
    provide for recovery of costs incurred by the Sheriff’s Department, based on the weighted
    hourly rate(s) of the staff assigned to conduct said inspections. The permit holder shall
    maintain the following records and shall make said records available to the Lake County
    Sheriff’s Department, upon request:
    1. Financial records, along with records of supply source locations and the legal status
    thereof.
    2. Proof of not-for-profit status. Any compensation for the operator’s time shall be consistent
    with Federal Income Tax laws for “reasonable compensation”. No medical marijuana
    dispensary shall be operated for profit. A dispensary may receive compensation for its actual
    expenses, including reasonable compensation for services provided, or for payment of out-of-
    pocket expenses incurred in providing those services. However, any such dispensary must
    pay applicable sales tax on such sales or services and maintain the applicable seller’s permit
    or similar permit from the State Franchise Tax Board or other applicable agency.
    3. A current registry of employees and any contractors and/or volunteers, who are engaged in
    the operation of the dispensary. The registry shall be provided to the Sheriff at any time upon
    request. The registry shall include the name, current residential address, telephone number,
    date of birth and the height, weight and color of eyes and hair of each such person.
    (b) The minor use permit shall be valid for an initial term of two (2) years, and may be renewed
    every two (2) years thereafter, provided that the operation remains in compliance with the
    applicable provisions of this Article and Chapter, and any applicable state laws. Applications
    for renewal must be filed prior to the expiration date of the existing permit, and are subject to
    processing fees of 50% of the fee in effect for a minor use permit at the time of application for
    renewal.
    (c) Medical marijuana dispensaries may sell or distribute marijuana only from members of the
    dispensary’s collective or cooperative and may sell or distribute only to members of the
    dispensary’s collective or cooperative. No distribution to non-members is authorized. Home
    delivery to members by the dispensary owner is allowed, provided that any home delivery
    service is based from the permitted dispensary.
    (d) A medical marijuana dispensary may possess marijuana at its facility only in the collective
    amount that each qualified patient or primary caregiver who is a current member of the
    cooperative or collective associated with the Medical Marijuana Dispensary is allowed to
    possess under California Health and Safety Code Section 11362.77, as may be amended from
    time to time. However, in no case shall the amount in possession at the dispensary at any
    given time exceed 15 pounds of processed medical marijuana. In calculating the quantity of
    medical marijuana, concentrated cannabis (such as hashish) shall be counted at a ratio of 3 to
    1 as compared to equal quantities of the un- concentrated varieties. At no time shall a medical
    marijuana cooperative maintain in excess of one and one-half (1 1/2) pounds of concentrated
    cannabis on the premises.

    (e) The medical marijuana dispensary shall label its products by stating the name of the
    medical marijuana collective or cooperative and the weight of cannabis and the statement
    “Contents may cause cancer when smoked”. All products shall be packaged in County
    approved child-proof containers.
    (f) All marijuana on site at the dispensary shall be physically labeled in such a manner as to
    allow for ready identification of the specific Collective member who is the source of the
    marijuana.
    (g) All marijuana on site at the dispensary must be physically labeled with the monetary
    amount to be charged to a Collective member as reimbursement for cost of cultivation,
    overhead, and operating expenses.
    (h) Medical marijuana dispensaries shall sell or distribute only marijuana manufactured and
    processed in the State of California that has not left the State before arriving at the medical
    marijuana dispensary. Medical marijuana produced in Lake County shall be sourced from
    sites that are operated consistent with the Lake County Code, with no citations for erosion,
    stormwater or other violations.
    (i) All members of the medical marijuana dispensary’s collective or cooperative must be
    residents of Lake County.
    (j) The permit holder shall require any person entering the premises to provide verification of
    the individual’s status as a current member of the collective or cooperative associated with
    the medical marijuana dispensary, and shall also verify the individual’s identity by way of a
    government issued photographic identification.

    (k) The permit holder shall maintain membership records on-site or have them reasonably
    available for the permit holder’s use that provide written verification of each individual
    member’s status as a qualified patient or primary caregiver. Subject to HIPAA regulations, this
    shall be done by any of the following methods:
    1. Written documentation establishing that the permit holder has confirmed that the individual
    member has a valid government-issued medical marijuana identification card, with a copy of
    the medical marijuana identification card included in the membership records; or
    2. Written documentation establishing that the permit holder has confirmed the individual
    member has a recommendation from a physician by making personal contact with the
    recommending physician (or his or her agent), verifying the physician’s identity, and verifying
    the physician’s licensing status. If the physician recommendation is in writing, a copy of that
    recommendation shall also be included in the membership records; or
    3. Written documentation establishing that the permit holder has confirmed the individual’s
    primary caregiver status by making personal contact with the qualified patient and has
    confirmed the status of the qualified patient.
    (l) The permit holder shall track when individual member’s medical marijuana
    recommendations, designations of primary caregivers, and/or identification cards expire.
    (m) The permit holder shall enforce conditions of membership by excluding from membership
    individuals whose identification cards, physician recommendations, and/or designations of
    primary caregiver status are invalid or have expired, or who have diverted marijuana to non-
    members and/or for non-medical use.

    (n) No medical marijuana shall be smoked, ingested or otherwise consumed on the premises
    of the medical marijuana dispensary. The term “premises” includes the actual building, as well
    as any accessory structures, parking areas, or other immediate surroundings.
    (o) No cultivation of marijuana is permitted at the medical marijuana dispensary or on the
    medical marijuana dispensary parcel. However, flowering marijuana plants may be made
    available at dispensaries for members.
    (p) No permit holder, collective or cooperative associated with a medical marijuana dispensary
    shall hold or maintain a license from the State Department of Alcohol Beverage Control to sell
    alcoholic beverages, or operate businesses that sell alcoholic beverages, at any dispensary,
    or on any parcel occupied by a dispensary, nor shall any dispensary be established on a
    parcel where existing businesses sell or maintain a license to sell alcoholic beverages.
    (q) No public display of product or drug paraphernalia (as defined in California Health and
    Safety Code Section 11364.5) is allowed. All business activities shall be conducted indoors.
    (r) The operator of a medical marijuana dispensary shall ensure the absence of loitering
    consistent with California Penal Code Section 647(11).
    (r) No juveniles shall be allowed into a medical marijuana dispensary. It is unlawful for any
    permittee, operator, or other person in charge of any dispensary to employ any person who is
    not at least 18 years of age.

    (t) All medical marijuana dispensary owners, permittees, operators and employees, and/or the
    members of collectives and/or cooperatives associated with medical marijuana dispensaries
    must be verifiable qualified patients or primary caregivers, as defined, and meet all terms and
    conditions of applicable law.
    (u) Each medical marijuana dispensary, inside the medical marijuana dispensary itself, shall
    display in a manner legible and visible to its clientele:
    1. Notice that no person under the age of 18 (eighteen) is allowed in the Medical Marijuana
    Dispensary except in the presence of his/her parent or guardian.
    2. Notice that there is no consumption of marijuana on the premises or in the vicinity of the
    medical marijuana dispensary.
    3. Loitering is not permitted on the premises or in the vicinity of the Medical Marijuana
    Dispensary.
    (v) Operators of medical marijuana dispensaries shall make every effort possible to assure
    that marijuana obtained from their sources does not contain harmful levels of pesticides.
    Operators are encouraged to educate their suppliers on the importance of organic cultivation
    practices.
    (w) The medical marijuana dispensary shall provide adequate security on the premises,
    including security cameras and a vault for money and medical marijuana, and adequate
    outdoor lighting consistent with Section 41-8(a) of the Zoning Ordinance.

    (x) Hours of operation shall be restricted to the time period between 8:00am and 8:00pm daily.
    Additional restrictions on operational hours may be applied as a condition of use permit
    approval.
    (y) An exhaust and air filtration system shall be utilized to prevent off-site odors.
    (z) One on-site sign, not to exceed twenty (20) square feet shall be allowed. The sign may
    consist of a wall mounted sign or a sign located within an existing sign structure that
    advertises other businesses on the property. There shall be no direct reference to marijuana
    in any form, including displays or illustration, on any exterior sign or any interior sign or
    display area visible from outside the medical marijuana dispensary.
    (aa) The building in which the medical marijuana dispensary is located shall comply with all
    applicable local, state, and federal building codes, development standards, and accessibility
    requirements.
    72.7 Grounds for Revocation or Denial of Minor Use Permit for Medical Marijuana Dispensary
    (a) Failure to comply with the provisions of this Article shall be grounds for permit revocation
    or denial of a permit extension.
    (b) Filing of an application for a minor use permit for a collective or cooperative dispensary
    after the unpermitted operation of said dispensary has already commenced shall be grounds
    for denial of the permit by the Zoning Administrator (or the Planning Commission on appeal).
    Any operation of a dispensary while a minor use permit application is being processed by the
    County shall also be grounds for denial. A permit for an early Activation of Use shall not be
    permitted for medical marijuana collective or

    cooperative dispensaries. Exceptions to this rule shall be granted to those dispensaries that
    were in operation prior to September 15, 2009, and have been in continuous operation since,
    so that they can continue to operate for up to 180 days while working toward compliance with
    this Article.
    72.8 Appeals
    (a) Right of Appeal: The final decision of the Zoning Administrator to grant, deny, suspend or
    revoke a permit may be appealed in the manner prescribed in Article 60 of the Zoning
    Ordinance.
    (b) Hearing: The procedure and requirements governing an appeal shall be as specified in
    Article 60 of the Zoning Ordinance.
    72.9 Uses Prohibited: Operating a medical marijuana dispensary or a home delivery service
    from any location other than a permitted collective or cooperative dispensary is strictly
    prohibited. Independent home delivery services operated out of residences in Lake County
    are not allowed and shall result in enforcement action.
    72.10 Release of the County from Liability: In a form satisfactory to the County of Lake, the
    Medical Marijuana Dispensary owners, permittees, operators and employees, the members of
    collectives and/or cooperatives associated with medical marijuana dispensaries, and the
    property owner(s) of record for each medical marijuana dispensary, shall release and hold
    harmless Lake County, and its agents, officers, elected officials, and employees from injuries,
    damages, or liabilities of any kind that result from the operations and activities at medical
    marijuana dispensaries including, but not limited to, any arrest or prosecution of medical
    marijuana dispensary owners, permittees, operators and employees, the members of
    collectives and/or

    cooperatives associated with medical marijuana dispensaries, and the property owner(s) of
    record for each medical marijuana dispensary, for violation of state or federal laws.
    72.11 Indemnification: Each permit issued pursuant to this Article shall have as a condition of
    the permit, a requirement that the applicant indemnify and hold harmless the County and its
    officers, agents, and employees from actions or claims of any description brought on account
    of any injury or damages sustained, by any person or property resulting from the issuance of
    the permit and the conduct of the activities authorized under said permit, damages or liabilities
    of any kind that may arise out of the distribution and/or on- or off-site use of marijuana
    provided at the dispensary.
    72.12 Liability: The provisions of this Article shall not be construed to protect the medical
    marijuana dispensary owners, permittees, operators and employees, the members of
    collectives and/or cooperatives associated with medical marijuana dispensaries, and the
    property owner(s) of record for each medical marijuana dispensary from prosecution
    pursuant to any laws that may prohibit the cultivation, sale, and/or possession of controlled
    substances. Moreover, cultivation, sale, possession, distribution, and use of marijuana remain
    violations of federal law as of the date of adoption of the ordinance creating this Section, and
    this Section is not intended to, and does not protect any of the above described persons from
    arrest or prosecution under those federal laws. Medical marijuana dispensary owners,
    permittees, operators and employees, the members of collectives and/or cooperatives
    associated with medical marijuana dispensaries, and the property owner(s) of record for each
    medical marijuana dispensary assume any and all risk and any and all liability that may arise
    or result under state and federal criminal laws from operation of a medical marijuana
    dispensary. Further, to the fullest extent permitted by law, any actions taken under the
    provisions of this Section by any public officer or employee of the County of Lake or by Lake
    County itself shall not become a personal liability of such person or a liability of the county.

    72.13 Liability Insurance Required. No permit shall be issued or renewed under this Article
    unless the permittee carries and maintains in full force and effect a policy of insurance which
    meets or exceeds the requirements of this section, in a form approved by the County of Lake
    and executed by a licensed insurance broker or agent. The policy of insurance shall insure
    against liability for damage to property or injury to or death of any person as a result of
    activities conducted or occurring at the medical marijuana dispensary. The minimum liability
    limits shall not be less than $1,000,000 for each incident of damage to property or incident of
    injury to or death of a person, with a general aggregate limit of not less than $2,000,000. The
    policy shall name the County of Lake as an additional insured.
    72.14 The provisions of this Article shall not be construed to protect dispensary owners,
    operators, and employees or their clients from prosecution pursuant to any laws that may
    prohibit the cultivation, sale, use, or possession of controlled substances. Cultivation, sale,
    possession, distribution, and use of marijuana remain violations of federal law as of the date
    of the ordinance creating this Article and this Article is not intended to, nor does it, protect any
    of the above described persons from arrest or prosecution under those federal laws. Owners,
    operators and permittees must assume any and all risk and any and all liability that may arise
    or result under state and federal criminal laws from operation of a medical marijuana
    dispensary.
    72.15 Conflicts with Other Codes: If this Article is found to be in conflict with any other
    Chapter, Section, Subsection, or Title, the provisions of this Article shall prevail.
    Section 2: All ordinances or resolutions in conflict herewith are hereby repealed to the extent
    of such conflict and no further.
    Section 3: This project is exempt from California Environmental Quality Act requirements in
    that it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the activity in question will
    have a significant effect upon the environment.

    Section 4: This ordinance shall take effect on the _________ day of ______________________,
    2011. Within fifteen (15) days after adoption of the ordinance, the Clerk to the Board of
    Supervisors shall at least once in a newspaper of general circulation printed and published in
    the County of Lake publish a summary of the Ordinance with the names of those supervisors
    voting for and against the ordinance and the Clerk shall post in the office of the Clerk to the
    Board of Supervisors a certified copy of the full text of the adopted ordinance along with the
    names of those supervisors voting for and against the Ordinance.
    The foregoing Ordinance was introduced before the Board of Supervisors of the County of
    Lake on the _______day of _____________, 2011, and passed by the by the following vote on
    the _______day of ___________ 2011:
    AYES:
    NOES:
    ABSENT OR NOT VOTING:
    COUNTY OF LAKE
    ______________________
    Chair Board of Supervisors
    ATTEST: KELLY F. COX
    Clerk of the Board of
    Supervisors
    By: _______________________
    Deputy
    APPROVED AS TO FORM: APPROVED AS TO FORM:
    ANITA L. GRANT Community Development Department
    County Counsel
    By: _______________________ By: _______________________

  • edit see
    Sec 72.6
    3 (i)

  • edit see
    Sec 72.6
    3 (i)

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *