Ron Strider
Well-Known Member
With the Adult Use of Marijuana Act set to take effect on Jan. 1, the San Joaquin County Board of Supervisors is considering imposing regulations on adults wishing to grow up to six cannabis plants within the county.
During Tuesday's Board of Supervisors meeting, Deputy County Counsel Zoey Merrill and Director Linda Turkatte of the San Joaquin County Environmental Health Department presented a report outlining three recommendations for regulations on personal cannabis cultivation within the county, although the board did not say when it might vote on them.
"The reason we brought this report forward is that we want to have policy input from the board," Merrill said.
Under the proposal, those wishing to grow cannabis for personal use would be required to submit a cultivation plan for the county's approval and pay a fee of at least $167.20, although Merrill said that the fee could be as high as $500 to help cover the cost of the proposal. Potential benefits include enabling the county to inform first responders of the presence of cannabis plants in the event that they need to respond to an emergency, according to Merrill, who acknowledged that this restriction could potentially discourage residents from complying with the ordinance due to the cost of the permit.
"People are generally not inclined to provide the county with information about their cannabis grows," Merrill said.
Privacy concerns are another potential drawback of this restriction, Merrill said, as the information would be considered public, although she explained that the information would not be provided to people without a court order resulting from a lawsuit.
The proposed regulations would also require potential cannabis growers to complete an online training course outlining specifics of the county's ordinance and best practices for growing cannabis safely, which Merrill said would have a lower cost than the proposed permit, although she said that this recommendation still might discourage compliance with the county's ordinance.
Merrill also submitted a third option for the first recommendation, which would not require growers to obtain a permit or complete an online course, instead placing responsibility for compliance with the county's ordinance solely in the hands of residents. While she did announce plans for a large-scale educational outreach program, she said that this option could have the downside of residents not knowing or understanding the ordinance, resulting in more non-compliant cannabis grows.
The second recommendation asked the board to consider whether to allow the cultivation of cannabis in accessory structures such as greenhouses with transparent walls, currently forbidden under the county's ordinance. Merrill explained that greenhouses would require the use of less electricity, as their walls allow for the use of sunlight as opposed to sheds with completely enclosed walls, which would require the installation of additional lighting fixtures and electricity hookups not usually found in sheds, which could present fire risks.
The final recommendation involved imposing administrative fines of $500 per day for each violation of the ordinance on both the grower and the property owner from whom the grower would have to obtain permission in cases where cultivation occurs on a rental property. The grower would have 10 days to correct the violation before the fines were imposed. Although Merrill acknowledged that the fines might create financial difficulties for offenders, she hopes that, along with the other recommendations, they would help the county enforce the ordinance on cannabis cultivation.
"The county has no ability to completely ban cannabis cultivation, but with your direction, we hope to implement measures to limit and control the county's cost," Merrill said.
Supervisor Tom Patti of District 3 was the first to comment in favor of the proposal, suggesting the addition of on-site inspections of personal cannabis grows and restricting cultivation in accessory structures to those without transparent walls.
"I, for one, am in favor of more requirements. I'm interested in more requirements, not less, to participate, leading to us having more involvement (in personal cultivation)," Patti said.
Supervisor Bob Elliott of District 5 recommended follow-up inspections of cannabis grows once permits have been issued, while Supervisor Kathy Miller of District 2 expressed concerns that the high proposed cost might discourage participation and suggested requiring additional training every two years to renew permits for personal cultivation.
"What I'm concerned about is having a lot of folks opt out of the program because of the cost. My primary concern is for the safety of our first responders," Miller said.
Supervisor Chuck Winn of District 4 voiced concerns that, after obtaining a permit, some growers might grow more than the allowed six plants, saying that requiring inspections could help prevent that. He questioned how to prevent people from illegally selling the cannabis grown in their homes, and said that he felt the fees are justified given the cost of inspections and enforcement. He added that he does not support the use of greenhouses, citing security concerns such as theft of legally-grown cannabis for which there is still a demand on the black market.
"The county has an obligation to the residents that don't participate in this, to protect them from the nuisance, risks to their safety and fire hazards," Winn said.
The only citizen to comment during the meeting, Brent Williams, suggested making it easy for potential growers to obtain permits, at least in the beginning, and recommended that the county focus more of their law enforcement efforts on harder drugs.
"I think one of the main issues is to protect kids, it should be a priority to protect the public and first responders. If you make this too restrictive, it could create the problem of more illegal grows," Williams said.
News Moderator: Ron Strider 420 MAGAZINE ®
Full Article: San Joaquin County considers rules for personal cannabis cultivation - Lodinews.com: News
Author: John Bays
Contact: Lodinews.com: Contact Us
Photo Credit: DEA
Website: Lodinews.com: Lodi, California, and northern San Joaquin County news
During Tuesday's Board of Supervisors meeting, Deputy County Counsel Zoey Merrill and Director Linda Turkatte of the San Joaquin County Environmental Health Department presented a report outlining three recommendations for regulations on personal cannabis cultivation within the county, although the board did not say when it might vote on them.
"The reason we brought this report forward is that we want to have policy input from the board," Merrill said.
Under the proposal, those wishing to grow cannabis for personal use would be required to submit a cultivation plan for the county's approval and pay a fee of at least $167.20, although Merrill said that the fee could be as high as $500 to help cover the cost of the proposal. Potential benefits include enabling the county to inform first responders of the presence of cannabis plants in the event that they need to respond to an emergency, according to Merrill, who acknowledged that this restriction could potentially discourage residents from complying with the ordinance due to the cost of the permit.
"People are generally not inclined to provide the county with information about their cannabis grows," Merrill said.
Privacy concerns are another potential drawback of this restriction, Merrill said, as the information would be considered public, although she explained that the information would not be provided to people without a court order resulting from a lawsuit.
The proposed regulations would also require potential cannabis growers to complete an online training course outlining specifics of the county's ordinance and best practices for growing cannabis safely, which Merrill said would have a lower cost than the proposed permit, although she said that this recommendation still might discourage compliance with the county's ordinance.
Merrill also submitted a third option for the first recommendation, which would not require growers to obtain a permit or complete an online course, instead placing responsibility for compliance with the county's ordinance solely in the hands of residents. While she did announce plans for a large-scale educational outreach program, she said that this option could have the downside of residents not knowing or understanding the ordinance, resulting in more non-compliant cannabis grows.
The second recommendation asked the board to consider whether to allow the cultivation of cannabis in accessory structures such as greenhouses with transparent walls, currently forbidden under the county's ordinance. Merrill explained that greenhouses would require the use of less electricity, as their walls allow for the use of sunlight as opposed to sheds with completely enclosed walls, which would require the installation of additional lighting fixtures and electricity hookups not usually found in sheds, which could present fire risks.
The final recommendation involved imposing administrative fines of $500 per day for each violation of the ordinance on both the grower and the property owner from whom the grower would have to obtain permission in cases where cultivation occurs on a rental property. The grower would have 10 days to correct the violation before the fines were imposed. Although Merrill acknowledged that the fines might create financial difficulties for offenders, she hopes that, along with the other recommendations, they would help the county enforce the ordinance on cannabis cultivation.
"The county has no ability to completely ban cannabis cultivation, but with your direction, we hope to implement measures to limit and control the county's cost," Merrill said.
Supervisor Tom Patti of District 3 was the first to comment in favor of the proposal, suggesting the addition of on-site inspections of personal cannabis grows and restricting cultivation in accessory structures to those without transparent walls.
"I, for one, am in favor of more requirements. I'm interested in more requirements, not less, to participate, leading to us having more involvement (in personal cultivation)," Patti said.
Supervisor Bob Elliott of District 5 recommended follow-up inspections of cannabis grows once permits have been issued, while Supervisor Kathy Miller of District 2 expressed concerns that the high proposed cost might discourage participation and suggested requiring additional training every two years to renew permits for personal cultivation.
"What I'm concerned about is having a lot of folks opt out of the program because of the cost. My primary concern is for the safety of our first responders," Miller said.
Supervisor Chuck Winn of District 4 voiced concerns that, after obtaining a permit, some growers might grow more than the allowed six plants, saying that requiring inspections could help prevent that. He questioned how to prevent people from illegally selling the cannabis grown in their homes, and said that he felt the fees are justified given the cost of inspections and enforcement. He added that he does not support the use of greenhouses, citing security concerns such as theft of legally-grown cannabis for which there is still a demand on the black market.
"The county has an obligation to the residents that don't participate in this, to protect them from the nuisance, risks to their safety and fire hazards," Winn said.
The only citizen to comment during the meeting, Brent Williams, suggested making it easy for potential growers to obtain permits, at least in the beginning, and recommended that the county focus more of their law enforcement efforts on harder drugs.
"I think one of the main issues is to protect kids, it should be a priority to protect the public and first responders. If you make this too restrictive, it could create the problem of more illegal grows," Williams said.
News Moderator: Ron Strider 420 MAGAZINE ®
Full Article: San Joaquin County considers rules for personal cannabis cultivation - Lodinews.com: News
Author: John Bays
Contact: Lodinews.com: Contact Us
Photo Credit: DEA
Website: Lodinews.com: Lodi, California, and northern San Joaquin County news
