NEVADA CITY, Calif. July 26, 2016 – The Nevada County Board of Supervisors will consider the following: (Introduce/Waive further reading/Adopt) An Urgency Ordinance adding Subsections G-IV 5.2.W, G-IV 5.4.C.4, G-IV 5.4.E.4, G-IV 5.4.H.14, G-IV 5.4.L, G-IV 5.10.C, G-IV 5.10.D, G-IV 5.10.E, G-IV 5.10.F, and G-IV 5.15.D to Article 5 of Chapter IV, and amending Subsections G-IV 5.2.V, G-IV 5.3.F, G-IV 5.4.C, G-IV 5.4.C.3, G-IV 5.4.E.1, G-IV 5.4.E.2, G-IV 5.4.F, G-IV 5.4.H, G-IV 5.4.H.9, G-IV 5.4, G-IV 5.7.F, G-IV 5.7.G, G-IV 5.8.B., G-IV 5.9.A., G-IV 5.9.B, G-IV 5.9.C, G-IV 5.9.E, G-IV 5.9.F, G-IV 5.10.A, G-IV 5.11, G-IV 5.12.A, G-IV 5.13, G-IV 5.14, G-IV 5.15.C, G-IV 5.16, G-IV 5.17, G-IV 5.18 of Article 5 of Chapter IV, of the Nevada County General Code, regarding Marijuana Cultivation Regulations. (4/5 affirmative vote required)
In plain English: Repeal the outdoor growing ban.
July 26, 2016 at 7:07 PM
Motion by Weston to move the ordinance as amended: 300 sq ft in RA Rural on 2-5 acres and indoor growing will be allowed for 90 days. Anderson seconds the motion. [updated to reflect the 2-5 acre parcel size]
Weston, Anderson, Miller and Beason Yes. The motion passes.
July 26, 2016 at 7:05 PM
Roll call on the original motion:
The motion fails.
July 26, 2016 at 7:02 PM
Incredibly enough, the discussion on the dais is still proceeding. 300 square feet in RA Rural on 2-5 acres, or up to 6 plants to be added to the existing draft ordinance. Asked if he would amend his motion with that, Scofield says No.
July 26, 2016 at 6:52 PM
Anderson asks County Counsel if any changes going above the 2349 could trigger CEQA. The supervisors, as far as we can ascertain, are talking about square footage changes.
July 26, 2016 at 6:47 PM
The sausage-making continues on the dias, Weston proposes allowing some outdoor growing or maybe in door growing on parcels zoned RA.
July 26, 2016 at 6:40 PM
General muttering from the dias, they supervisors are discussing setbacks maybe, but they can’t be heard in the audience.
July 26, 2016 at 6:35 PM
With the motion still on the table, Weston proposes 6 plants in the 3-5 acres on RA Rural. R1, R2 and R3 100 sq ft indoors should be allowed, he adds.
July 26, 2016 at 6:31 PM
Anderson proposes to allow the 12 plants indoors everywhere. When the board as a whole decided to implement Measure W, indoor growing was allowed. “Let’s see what the impacts are.”
July 26, 2016 at 6:30 PM
General confusion and discussion amongst the supervisors while the public waits.
July 26, 2016 at 6:27 PM
Weston asks how the indoor growing currently going on will be dealt with. Indoor growing was allowed up to 12 plants in an indoor structure or greenhouse.
July 26, 2016 at 6:26 PM
After another outburst from the public, Ed Scofield makes a motion to adopt the ordinance as resented. Beason seconds it, “just so we can get a vote.”
July 26, 2016 at 6:22 PM
County staff is pulling up a parcel map, however the parcels are not divided by occupied or vacant parcels. The ordinance requires any parcel to have a dwelling on it.
July 26, 2016 at 6:14 PM
“If you are changing this too much, you are losing me,” says Scofield.
July 26, 2016 at 6:10 PM
Discussion on what type of zoning is needed to allow growing on smaller parcels. Anderson proposes going back to the old ordinance in force on January 11, before the ban.
July 26, 2016 at 6:08 PM
Miller lays out his thinking about small parcels, maybe some indoor growing could be allowed on 3 acres.
July 26, 2016 at 5:58 PM
Miller says the board started the process as quickly as possible after the defeat of W. He says everyone agrees that bad actors degrading the environmentare not welcome.
July 26, 2016 at 5:52 PM
Local access shouldn’t be easy but it should be available. He wants reassurance from staff and his colleagues on that point. The limits under 2349 would be easy to implement again, he says. He is struggling with the complete ban of all cultivation now in R1, R2 and R3.
July 26, 2016 at 5:49 PM
He is also very concerned about the environmental impacts and the conversion of forests to grow zones. But, access to medicine is a huge concern as well, “If we allow collectives and co-ops I am a little less sanguine about this regulation.”
July 26, 2016 at 5:46 PM
District 5 supervisor Anderson says he has an easier time looking at the issue because he has less pressure from his constituents. He is impressed with the work done by Supervisors Weston and Beason. Given Anderson’s background in planning, he says his overarching concern are impacts that residents in western Nevada County are facing from grows – primarily odor.
July 26, 2016 at 5:44 PM
Weston says the county is required to address the cumulative impacts via CEQA. Once a CEQA issue arises, the ban remains in place. He says anyone can file a lawsuit even now.
July 26, 2016 at 5:39 PM
Ed Scofield states that he found it difficult to have only two supervisors on the committee, personally he is opposed to marijuana cultivation. He says he supports law enforcement and people that are opposed to marijuana. “We’ll do what we have to do today, but we will continue to work on this.” He concedes that both sides have good points, regulations can be a costly and long process. “Ultimately, I support the ordinance.”
July 26, 2016 at 5:31 PM
Beason continues explaining his priorities. The urgency ordinance is not considered a perfect issue by neither Beason or Weston, he says.
July 26, 2016 at 5:28 PM
Nate Beason, District 1 supervisor, says there was a twofold task, repeal the outdoor ban and then after an interim ordinance is in place, come up with a long-term ordinance. Harking back to Measure S, he states that while the outdoor ban has failed, strict regulation of marijuana is needed.
July 26, 2016 at 5:26 PM
Supervisor Anderson asks his colleagues if he would be comfortable reverting to 2349, the ordinance in place before the outdoor ban. Some discussion ensues.
July 26, 2016 at 5:24 PM
Weston says he heard the square footage and the plant count is confusing. He thinks the BOS has the option to go to a simple plant count. “We are committed to lifting the ban, however we get there. If we want to create the permanent ordinance now, it will take us an inordinate amount of time to get input from all sides.”
July 26, 2016 at 5:21 PM
Hank Weston says the #1 issue was to lift the ban, “We know the interim ordinance is not perfect.” He says the indoor growing has to be addressed and perfected. He says this is just the interim spot, no time to get into licenses, permits – all the things needed for commercial growing. “Now, if you don’t want the ban lifted, we can do that. It will take more than 30 days. But we are committed to having an independent committee to come back to the Board with some input.”
July 26, 2016 at 5:19 PM
“It’s not perfect, there is going to be a lot of angst. You’re flying off the handle we are incompetent fools up here, I know…” When the public reacts, he continues, “Your behavior is really terrible.”
July 26, 2016 at 5:17 PM
Miller says the interim ordinance has to pass by a 4/5th vote. Supervisors Miller and Weston did an admirable job putting the ordinance together, Miller states. If the ordinance does not pass, the ban remains in place.
July 26, 2016 at 5:15 PM
County Counsel states there has been no type of CEQA done on previous ordinances, contrary to statements made by the public. A request from the public to see the emails sent to the BOS is fulfilled by the binder of correspondence sitting on the public review table.
July 26, 2016 at 5:12 PM
The last speaker is making his statement, he is the 52nd speaker to address the BOS. The needs of real patients should be met. Real patients can’t grow their own medicine because they are sick – they just want to buy it at a pharmacy or dispensary. Therefore, medical marijuana should not be highly taxed. The ordinance also needs to eliminate all opportunities for a black market.
July 26, 2016 at 5:05 PM
Chair Miller just decided the four people still in line will be allowed to speak. The crowd applauds.
July 26, 2016 at 4:56 PM
The final speakers are seated and the board will take up deliberation shortly. As a reminder, the proposed ordinance is an interim ordinance that would repeal the outdoor growing ban and implement the rules set forth in the ordinance.
July 26, 2016 at 4:43 PM
One supporter of the Interim Ordinance, a co-owner of Robinson Enterprises, states all his employees are drug tested and have been so for a long time. He continues to say the forestry industry is not dead, only the trees are dead because of the mismanagement by the Forest Service.
July 26, 2016 at 4:38 PM
After a brief recess and a talk with County Counsel, Chair Miller announces that due to the ambiguity of the BOS’ policy on public comment, more testimony from the public will be taken – until 5:00 pm.
July 26, 2016 at 4:24 PM
Public comment appears to continue past the deadline set by Supervisor Miller.
July 26, 2016 at 4:19 PM
Brad Peceimer-Glasse wants to talk about the aspects of the ordinance he supports and some that he doesn’t. He was the head of a clean up team that removed 38,000 butane canisters. After a cease and desist letter, he can no longer do it. “We can do better than what is being proposed in thsi measure. It is nowhere finished or what is needed for this community.”
July 26, 2016 at 4:15 PM
Brad Peceimer-Glasse is being asked to vacate his seat in the supporting side even though he wants to make some comments in favor of the ordinance. After some back and forth with another speaker and Dan Miler, a supporter of the ordinance is invited to speak.
July 26, 2016 at 4:13 PM
Twelve more speakers are lined up on the No on W side while only two more are waiting to take their turn on the opposite side.
July 26, 2016 at 4:05 PM
KVMR is broadcasting the meeting live, you can listen online or tune in to 89.5 FM to hear the complete proceedings. The video of the meeting will be available in the archives of the BOS by tomorrow.
July 26, 2016 at 4:02 PM
More patients are expressing their opposition to the de-facto ban and residents of south county are voicing their support of a ban on outdoor growing.
July 26, 2016 at 3:54 PM
Speakers are still lined up on both sides, but the patients and growers line is about three times the size of the “Yes on W” supporters. Chair Miller indicated he would let public comment go on until 4:20 pm.
July 26, 2016 at 3:44 PM
Attorney Heather Burke wants to make two points. First, the changes to the appeals process make the process far more cumbersome for the patients. She is concerned about the fine structure which will impact small patient growers. Process is a big deal, she states. Under the new rules the patients will not get a fair deal. This new ordinance pits us against them, this shouldn’t be the case Burke says. We should work with law enforcement, whom we appreciate, and repeal this ordinance work together, Burke concludes.
July 26, 2016 at 3:41 PM
District 3 resident Ramey states marijuana growers sell other illegal drugs and get away with it.
July 26, 2016 at 3:40 PM
Former Supervisor Terry Lamphier urges the BOS to rescind the ban and revert to the previous ordinance.
July 26, 2016 at 3:25 PM
Fran Freedle, a former supervisor and current PAC person, states a detailed study needs to be undertaken after which a permit could be issued to legitimate patents only. She cites environmental concerns, and the fire danger as major threats.
July 26, 2016 at 3:22 PM
Somng Kowbell, a District 4 resident, reminds the BOS what the ballot measure was all about:
Shall an ordinance be adopted which (a) bans outdoor cultivation, commercial cultivation and other commercial cannabis activities, (b) limits indoor cultivation to 12 plants per parcel in residential and rural areas, (c) prohibits indoor marijuana cultivation in unpermitted structures and areas used or intended for human occupancy, and (d) allows marijuana cultivation only by qualified patients and primary caregivers and only for medicinal purposes?
“You asked, we voted No.”
July 26, 2016 at 3:18 PM
Debbie Porter, Golden Oaks HOA President, states she surveyed the pot supporters outside and they hadn’t read the ordinance. She also states the ordinance isn’t going into effect until 2048 and is corrected by Miller. She then states the opponents ignore the rules but nobody has told her how many plants are needed. She says a creek in her gated subdivision is now gone dry and she has learned an awful lot about pot growers stealing water.
July 26, 2016 at 3:13 PM
Loraine Webb, a District 1 resident, wants to address the emotional issues. She is also concerned about the children. She congratulates (facetiously) County Counsel for bringing in CEQA into the mix. “You are disenfranchising 80% of the people that want to grow medicine.” To the BOS, she says: You are reacting against a plant. We need to make this plant less monetarily attractive.
July 26, 2016 at 3:12 PM
Holly Hermansen, Nevada County Superintendent of Schools, asks the BOS to consider the youth when considering these complex issues. Whatever solution we come up, let’s keep our kids at the forefront. “I don’t know the answer to this complex issue, but I hope you’ll keep our youth in mind.”
July 26, 2016 at 3:11 PM
Betty Lou Webb, an almost 88-year old Nevada County resident says she prays the BOS can see the need of patients, be that children or elderly who need the medicine.
July 26, 2016 at 3:09 PM
A represenattive of the Placer County against Commercial Marijuana, states the ordinance must protect youth, the environment and the neighborhoods.
July 26, 2016 at 3:05 PM
Shelby Lucero represents Bud Tracker, a Track and Trace corporation. “We have a solution to your problem. What we have is entreprise-planning software, inventory and payment systems.” She continues to extol the virtues of her business, saying their program can solve the BOS’ problems.
July 26, 2016 at 3:01 PM
“We don’t have enough law enforcement to take care of the problem. The story does not end with marijuana. Relaxing rules only will recruit new users for the marijuana market,” states a director of an unidentified non-profit.
July 26, 2016 at 2:58 PM
Hezekiah Allen, Director of the California Growers Association, representing 2,100 dues paying members in Nevada County, states this is a big process. “We need to bring people in, you hold those keys.” He thinks the interim ordinance could be better, but they will continue to work on it. Our request is simple: “Let the growers in. Over time you will enact an ordinance that is in accordance with state law and we will work with you on that.”
July 26, 2016 at 2:48 PM
Mark Schaeffer, the No on W Committee representative, states “The new ordinance expressly prohibits collective growing for multiple patients.” His complete letter will be published at a later date.
July 26, 2016 at 2:46 PM
The president of the Nevada County law Enforcement and Fire is now addressing the BOS. “We support law enforcement and buy equipment for the, like body cams, tasers etc. We move here 30 years ago for quality of life and we are concerned. Because drug money can buy corruption…. drug money can buy elections.”
July 26, 2016 at 2:44 PM
Harry Bennett, representing commercial growers and a collective, reads the election results by district:
- District 1, which includes Nevada City, rejects Measure W by 6,959 to 4,299 votes or 62% to 38%.
- District 2, which includes Lake of the Pines, votes in favor of Measure W by 4,751 to 4,422 votes or 51.79% to 48.21%.
- District 3, centered around Grass Valley, rejects Measure W by 4,515 to 2,872 votes or61.12% to 38.88%.
- District 4, which includes Penn Valley and North San Juan, rejects Measure W by 5,893 to 3,994 votes or 59.60% to 40.40%.
- District 5, the eastern portion of the county and Truckee, rejects Measure W by 4,507 to 2,150 votes or 68% to 32%.
July 26, 2016 at 2:38 PM
The Chair of the Nevada County Republican Women takes a seat and states she personally knows several people have left Nevada County because of the marijuana growing. She states crime is rampant, school and bus stops should have a 1,000 ft setback and fines and penalties should be high enough to deter out of compliance growing. Her group has 160+ members and 65 associates.
July 26, 2016 at 2:38 PM
The letter Forrest Hurd submitted to the BOS:
I am here today to again express my concern and disappointment with the counties proposed medical-cannabis cultivation ordinance. For the last 8 months I have desperately tried my best to convey the seriousness of the consequences waiting for the patients for whom these medical cannabis laws were written to begin with, if the county were to move forward with their plans to eliminate the limited cultivation allowed in an attempt to stop black market illegal cannabis grows.
I have shown you the children and their families. I have tried to educate the community, some of whom are extremely passionate and dangerously under-informed, that these medical needs are real and based on science. And, that just saying “no, I don’t like it” is not valid when compared to the lives of these children nor is it going to lead to a reality based solution for protecting our communities and mitigating the complaints that cause nuisance concerns.
Still, the county moves forward with what can only be described as an ideological war on what is still being perceived as a dangerous narcotic instead of the relatively safe medicine for which it is. I have personally, repeatedly, asked what data was being used to support the land use cultivation limitations the county has set and how patients, who can’t purchase their medicine in dispensaries, are to legally obtain medicine under the proposed ordinance and each time I get nothing but blank stares and silence in return.
All we asked for was the very minimum to meet the needs of families in our community and what we got was a much more restrictive ordinance in many ways. I understand that the public sees 25 plants and thinks wow that is a lot, everybody should be fine, but you and I know how restrictive this ordinance really is. Aside from the fact that 1000 square feet limits the full term cultivation to ten plants, the fact that a patients would actually have to own a property with 20+ acres, with a home on it, and then be healthy enough to become a cannabis farmer is, as I sure you are aware, unobtainable for the vast majority of people in the county, let alone families of sick children who have lost everything trying to keep their loved ones alive.
The truth is that under this ordinance if you live in an apartment, any residential zone, rent and cant get permission, have an HOA that doesn’t allow for cultivation, fall victim to the setbacks that cancel out a larger number of AG zoned properties, or any other of the not so obvious restrictions in this proposal, you have no legal access. My family for example lives with an HOA, rents, lives in a residential zone, has never and couldn’t if we wanted to cultivate due to the severity of our child’s condition. Any one of these would eliminate our legal access under this ordinance and as you see I like many have several hurdles. I am not saying that outdoor grows need to be allowed EVERYWHERE, but if you are going to ban them, as you have and as you plan to, there HAS to be a legal, OBTAINABLE, option for someone to provide for these large areas of the community now restricted. You have restricted cultivation for the vast majority of the community and left 1000 square feet on a few properties that these patients do not own and are not allowed to ask the owners to help them.
This ordinance removes all LEGAL access to the majority of patients in Nevada County who rely on medicine cultivated here that cannot be found in stores.
We are parents, spouses, children, friends, and family who understand the difference between medicinal and recreational cannabis. We too want our neighbor’s safe and communities healthy. We too don’t want to see hills leveled and trees cut down to make ways for large cannabis farms. We understand that there is a middle road between bans and lawlessness.
More importantly we understand how cannabis works! A very important piece of knowledge that if everyone had it would be come immediately clear as to why cannabis is not going away and why effort to eradicate it are futile.
Briefly for the record, our bodies have a receptor system called the endo-cannabinoid system. It really has nothing to do with cannabis but was discovered in the 90’s by a doctor trying to figure out how cannabis worked. They discovered that this system is the most widely dispersed receptor system in the body and that it’s job was to regulate the cells messaging system; neurotransmitters. So, for example, if cells in the brain need to communicate to other cells they send out neurotransmitters like dopamine and serotonin. If that signal is OFF or over excited the endo-cannabinoid system sends a compound called anandamide to the malfunctioning cell to correct the signal. This is happening in all our bodies as we speak if your system is working correctly. If your body does not send anandamide to correct the signal then it continues to send the bad message. Where the signal is incorrect and which neurotransmitter is being sent determines what problem will manifest if the body cannot correct the bad signal.
So, as studies strongly suggest, if the signal is in the brain and cannot be corrected it can trigger a seizure or migraine. If this problem is happening in the gut; Crohn’s or IBS may form. Parts of the nervous system; fibromyalgia or MS. Studies are showing strong evidence that PTSD is caused by an endo-cannabinoid deficiency.
You see these conditions that were once a mystery are not cured by cannabis, they are stopped when your endo-cannabinoid system is function in properly. What cannabis has done is evolve to mimic anandamide. So when certain plant derived cannabinoids are introduced, they react with the cannabinoid receptors in the body and the body corrects the misfiring signal. No bad signal, no Crohn’s disease. No bad signal, no seizure. No bad signal, no pain. You see, unlike opioids, it doesn’t mask the problem. It corrected the cause of the problem and the body fixes itself.
This is one of the greatest medical discoveries of our time. And, as more people are educated about it more will demand it and find real relief. Attempting to prohibit production of such a life altering safe medication will be looked back on as being as foolish as people who refuse ebola vaccines out of fear and ignorance, even as they watch their loved ones die around them.
I, personally, am willing to compromise on any requirement except those that threaten the health and wellness of innocent children, or any other patient whose life depends on this medicine and doesn’t have the voice or the strength to fight against 60 years of disinformation. This boils down to the ability to cultivate, somewhere, and the ability to obtain the medicine from that somewhere, legally. If it’s banned from residential then allowances must be made for each and everyone of those patients. It has to be grown somewhere. This is where the proposal fails. Forcing large numbers of sick and desperate families to engage in criminal activity to save their loved ones lives is unconscionable.
As a parent of a critically ill child with Lennox-Gastaut Syndrome whose life and wellness depends on medicine made from specific strains of cannabis cultivated here in Nevada County I can tell you that I have no choice. I can’t risk the life of my child because men stuck in their ways refuse to find a sustainable solution, even in the short term.
If this is a short-term ordinance then why not pass the minimum requirements we asked for? If the world ends because of it then you have more reason to restrict the permanent ordinance, though I am confident that the world will be just fine. Saying that this ordinance is just temporary and “we’ll figure it out later” shows a real lack of the day-to-day life and death struggle some of our community face. Your assumed perception of more time is a privileged position. A privilege that is not shared one in some homes.
I advocate not for more pot to be grown or more money to be made. I advocate for the very basic rights for life. I advocate for compassion for those suffering horrors that frankly the majority of the community cannot imagine and I would not ever wish upon them.
I advocate for Nevada county to have the strong ethics and moral compass needed to say “yes, we don’t want nuisance cannabis grows in our back yards and next to our schools, but we draw the line at ripping options away from dying children, veterans, and our elderly”.
I believe we have the capacity to think on a level deeper than all good or all bad. There is no excuse for risking innocent lives. There is a solution if both sides are willing to compromise. Complete removal of legal access for the majority of the population is not compromise.
History will be our judge.
We are better than this.
Concerned parent and patient advocate,
July 26, 2016 at 2:33 PM
Forrest Hurd, the father of Silas – a 9-year old boy with Lennox-Gastaut syndrome – explains how he, as Silas’ caregiver, cannot legally grow medicine for his son.
July 26, 2016 at 2:29 PM
Don Bessee, who does not identify the origanization he represents this time, starts on the Parker regulation. Mr. Bessee represents either SAM Nevada County, a group opposed to marijuana, or maybe the Alta Sierra Neighborhood Association or just himself. He suggest registration for all growers – a proposal made by the stakeholders. As he finishes, he states he was speaking as the Executive Director of SAM Northern California and urges adoption of the ordinance.
July 26, 2016 at 2:26 PM
Smith states the ban in residential neighborhoods was agreed by the stakeholders IF there was a sufficient plant count on agricultural parcels to allow for collectives. She points to “deceptive” rules that make the ordinance discriminatory. She points to the changing regulations implemented by the BOS, from outdoor fencing to indoor-only growing. “What all this comes down to is how will this board govern. I urge you to reject this flawed ordinance, adopt the stakeholder recommendations.
July 26, 2016 at 2:20 PM
First up is Patricia Smith, Chair of ASA Nevada County. “I just wanted to say for our side to make a presentation before the board and we were denied the opportunity.”
July 26, 2016 at 2:19 PM
Public comment is about to start, with an akward rule of who gets to speak when and for how long.
July 26, 2016 at 2:15 PM
Royal talks about fines, with Fresno County having fines of $1,000/per day/per violation. He lays out the administrative penalties proposed in the current ordinance: 1st citation in 12 mos – $100/day/plant,
2nd citation in 12 mos – $200/day/plant,
>2 violations in 12 mos – $500/day/plant while nuisance unabated;
July 26, 2016 at 2:14 PM
Sheriff Royal states there were 191 complaints in 2016 so far. 105 were prior complaints.
July 26, 2016 at 2:11 PM
Nevada City Chief Tim Foley lays out Nevada City’s ban on dispensaries but states the situation is fluid and there are ongoing discussions.
July 26, 2016 at 2:09 PM
Captain Ron Leforge, Town of Truckee Police, states Truckee is in a similar situation. Given Truckee’s geographic location, outdoor cultivation is not an issue. The Town will keep an eye on November’s election results as it pertains to recreational marijuana.
July 26, 2016 at 2:06 PM
Miller announces Sheriff Keth Royal will address the BOS, prompting calls from the audience to stick to the 2 pm public comment timetable. Royal introduces Chief Alex Gammelgaard, the Grass Valley Chief who outlines Grass Valley’s current status – a complete cultivation ban within city limits.
July 26, 2016 at 2:04 PM
Barratt-Green recommends the BOS introduce, waive reading and adopt the proposed interim urgency ordinance. Also , the subcommittee should work with staff to solicit stakeholder input from the hold community.
July 26, 2016 at 1:44 PM
The recital of the various plant counts or restrictions is proceeding, with County Counsel emphasizing Nevada County must comply with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)
The main points of the presentation:
a. Cultivation of Marijuana, Indoors or Outdoors, is prohibited in all areas zoned as R-1, R-2 and R-3 on Legal Parcels or Premises of any size.
b. In areas designated as Residential and Estate in the Nevada County General Plan and zoned R-A only as follows:
i. Indoor or Outdoor Cultivation of Marijuana on Legal Parcels equal to or less than (5) acres in size is prohibited.
ii. On Parcels greater than 5 acres up to 10 acres in size, a total maximum of 12 plants are permitted to be cultivated Indoors only. No Outdoor cultivation is permitted.
iii. On Parcels which are greater than 10 acres in size up to 20 acres in size, Cultivation of Marijuana is permitted up to a total maximum of 16 plants, mature or immature, per Parcel, cultivated Indoors or Outdoors or a combination of both. A maximum of 12 plants may be cultivated Indoors. Cultivation Outdoors must be conducted in one contiguous staked grow area which does not exceed 800 square feet in size.
iv. On Parcels which are greater than 20 acres in size, Cultivation of Marijuana is permitted up to a total maximum of twenty-five (25) plants, mature or immature, per Parcel, cultivated Indoors or Outdoors or a combination of both. A maximum of 12 plants may be cultivated Indoors. Cultivation Outdoors must be conducted in one contiguous staked grow area which does not exceed 1000 square feet in size.
2. In areas designated primarily for agricultural uses (e.g., AG, AE, FR, TPZ and areas designated in the Nevada County General Plan as Rural and zoned R-A), Marijuana Cultivation may occur on a Parcel or Premises which serves as a Legally Permitted Primary Residence only as follows:
a. Indoor or Outdoor Cultivation of Marijuana on Legal Parcels less than or equal to two (2) acres in size is prohibited.
b. Cultivation of Marijuana on Legal Parcels which are greater than two (2) acres up to five (5) acres may not exceed a total maximum of 12 plants, mature or immature, to be Cultivated Indoors only. No Outdoor cultivation is permitted.
c. Cultivation of Marijuana on Legal Parcels which are greater than five (5) acres up to ten (10) acres, may not exceed a total maximum of 12 plants, mature or immature, per Parcel, cultivated Indoors or Outdoors or a combination of both. Cultivation Outdoors must be conducted in one contiguous staked grow area which does not exceed 600 square feet in size.
d. Cultivation of Marijuana on Legal Parcels which are greater than ten (10) acres up to twenty (20) acres is permitted up to a total maximum of 16 plants, mature or immature, per Parcel, cultivated Indoors or Outdoors or a combination of both. A maximum of 12 plants may be cultivated Indoors. Cultivation Outdoors must be conducted in one contiguous staked grow area which does not exceed 800 square feet in size.
e. Cultivation of Marijuana on Legal Parcels which are greater than twenty (20) acres is permitted up to a total maximum of twenty-five (25) plants, mature or immature, per Parcel, cultivated Indoors or Outdoors or a combination of both. A maximum of 12 plants may be cultivated Indoors. Cultivation Outdoors must be conducted in one contiguous staked grow area which does not exceed 1000 square feet in size.
F. The following setbacks shall apply to all Indoor and Outdoor Cultivation areas and shall be measured in a straight line from the nearest border of the Outdoor staked grow area or Indoor Cultivation area to the property line of any adjacent Legal Parcel under separate ownership.
1. For all Parcels or Premises:
a. Parcels of greater than 2 acres up to 5 acres: 100 ft. (was 150)
b. Parcels of greater than 5 acres up to 10 acres: 150 ft.
c. Parcels of greater than 10 acres up to 20 acres: 200 ft.
d. Parcels of greater than 20 acres: 300 ft.
This is a change fro the published version of the ordinance.
H. All Marijuana Cultivation, whether Indoors or Outdoors, shall comply with the following requirements:
9. Noise levels generated by Cultivation shall not exceed the standards set forth in Table L-II 4.1.7 (Exterior Noise Limits) of the Nevada County Zoning Ordinance applicable to the Land Use Category and Zoning District for the Premises on which the Cultivation occurs.
July 26, 2016 at 1:40 PM
Assistant County Counsel Amanda Uhrhammer continues the presentation and reminds the BOS and the public the ordinance needs a 4/5th vote to pass. She says county staff also had to consider the failed Measure S, a citizens initiative that failed back in 2014. The concerns of the whole community were also a concern to county staff when crafting the ordinance, election results notwithstanding.
July 26, 2016 at 1:37 PM
Barratt-Green explains the considerations in developing the new urgency ordinance. “It’s a civil ordinance, not a criminal ordinance.” she states.
July 26, 2016 at 1:34 PM
County Counsel Alison Barratt-Green gives a brief history of how Measure W came about, starting with Prop. 215 in 1996.
July 26, 2016 at 1:33 PM
Miller wants the meeting to be civil and disrespectful, warns the public they will be removed if anyone is out of line.
July 26, 2016 at 1:30 PM
Chair Dan Miller opens the meeting. He lays out ground rules, how this is going to run: First, there will be a staff presentation led by County Counsel. After that it will be opened to public comment and it will be shut off after 2 hours. Two lines will be formed, supporters and opponents of the urgency ordinance.