- Elizabeth Larson
Proponents submit signatures to place Medical Marijuana Control Act on November ballot
LAKEPORT, Calif. – The effort to place another medical marijuana cultivation initiative on the ballot moved forward on Tuesday, with signatures to support the measure submitted to the Lake County Registrar of Voters.
About two dozen community members gathered at the front of the Courthouse Museum in Lakeport Tuesday afternoon as Emerald Unity Coalition representative Daniel McLean announced the group had submitted 3,500 signatures in support of its Medical Marijuana Control Act.
McLean called the act a “political compromise” that meets the needs of the most community members.
“We're not only trying to do what is best for the cultivators, we're trying to do what's best for the community at large,” including neighbors plagued by nuisance issues with grows, such as unwanted odors, he said.
Interim Registrar of Voters Maria Valadez told Lake County News that the initiative needs 2,115 valid signatures – or 10 percent of the voters who took part in the last gubernatorial election – to qualify to make it onto the ballot.
Based on the timeline provided by Valadez, the coalition submitted the signatures with plenty of time to have them checked and certified before going before the Board of Supervisors. The board then has until Aug. 5 to call for the initiative to be placed on the November general election ballot.
Valadez said the measure's three listed proponents are McLean of Lower Lake, Clearlake resident Adelia Leonard and Clearlake City Councilwoman Jeri Spittler.
Once the group provided proof of publication in the newspaper on April 18, they began circulating petitions for signatures, Valadez said.
The coalition was active in the referendum effort on Ordinance 2997, which the Board of Supervisors passed last December to regulate medical marijuana cultivation.
After the referendum gathered enough signatures earlier this year, the ordinance was placed on the June 3 ballot as Measure N, which the coalition is attempting to defeat.
The Emerald Unity Coalition asserts that its Medical Marijuana Control Act is fairer to patients and the community, and is urging the Board of Supervisors to accept it as a county ordinance, without changes. Alternately, however, they're prepared to go to the general election.
The Medical Marijuana Control Act would allow four marijuana plants per parcel on properties of under an acre, limits collective gardens to 48 plants on rural properties of five acres or more, requires fully fenced and locked garden areas, creates a medical marijuana enforcement division in the Community Development Department and establishes a medical marijuana enforcement officer position, the hiring of which must be ratified by a majority vote of the Board of Supervisors following a public hearing.
When complaints are submitted, the enforcement officer would investigate, and any growers in violation of the measure's provisions could add greenhouses and odor control, and make other changes, or else their plants would be abated.
The measure includes criminal infraction penalties – not misdemeanors – for violations in residential areas.
In addition, the act establishes that any collective growing 13 or more plants would be required to register with the county's medical marijuana enforcement division and pay a per-plant fee of up to $50, with that fee being set by the Board of Supervisors.
It's that fee structure that McLean said Tuesday would fund the medical marijuana enforcement officer position.
He estimated that in the first year the fee could generate at least $100,000, and eventually bring in more than $1 million annually.
However, how that amount would increase by tenfold – whether by better enforcement or more grows – he did not specify.
McLean suggested the fees eventually could fund multiple enforcement officer positions.
“This is a legally sound ordinance that we spent hundreds of hours drafting,” said Lower Lake attorney Ron Green.
Green said he had input on the drafting of the ordinance, which was primarily written by James Anthony, an Oakland attorney whose practice specializes in policy, litigation and legal defense of medical marijuana.
He said it was vetted by a variety of stakeholders – community leaders, environmentalists, attorneys, law enforcement and county staff members – and many changes were made after the first draft, which he said was tilted toward cultivators.
“The final result is an ordinance that we think will work for everybody,” Green said.
Questions about potential for federal intervention and a competing initiative
The act's funding mechanism has raised questions about possible federal action, as happened in neighboring Mendocino County.
Mendocino County had for a few years run a medical marijuana permitting program that allowed for patients to grow up to 25 plants if they purchased zip ties for $25 each, with the zip ties marking plants as legal.
However, Mendocino County shut down the program in February 2012 after federal authorities threatened litigation and possible criminal action.
Despite the push back from the federal government experienced by Mendocino County, McLean said his coalition believes the Medical Marijuana Control Act won't be challenged because it is a zoning ordinance under the auspices of code enforcement, whereas the Mendocino program was under the sheriff's department.
McLean also suggested that an August 2013 memorandum from Deputy US Attorney General James Cole indicates that the measure won't face federal scrutiny.
Cole’s memo states: “In jurisdictions that have enacted laws legalizing marijuana in some form and that have also implemented strong and effective regulatory and enforcement systems to control the cultivation, distribution, sale, and possession of marijuana, conduct in compliance with those laws and regulations” is less likely to threaten several federal priorities, among them, preventing distribution to minors and revenue from going to cartels, stopping marijuana being diverted from one state to another or being used to traffic other drugs, and preventing violence and the use of firearms in marijuana cultivation.
However, Cole also went on to note that the memo was intended “solely as a guide to the exercise of investigative and prosecutorial discretion,” and, “Even in jurisdictions with strong and effective regulatory systems, evidence that particular conduct threatens federal priorities will subject that person or entity to federal enforcement action, based on the circumstances.”
Where a critical challenge for the Medical Marijuana Control Act ultimately may come from is in the form of a competing ordinance whose proponents also are seeking to place it on the November ballot.
“The Freedom to Garden Human Rights Restoration Act of 2014” also began collecting signature this spring. Valadez said the proponents are Lucerne residents Ron Kiczenski and his son Conrad, who sued the county over its interim medical marijuana ordinance, and James BlueWolf of Nice.
The four-page act exempts “an individual's home gardening efforts or abilities” from any limiting county permits or county ordinances.
In essence, it would allow for unlimited numbers of plants to be grown – although it does not specifically mention medical marijuana.
The proposed language also would offer little recourse – outside of mediation paid for by the parties themselves – in cases where neighbors have complaints, unless the complaints are “related to a specific medically verifiable toxic health risk.”
“It obviously conflicts with ours,” Green said of the Kiczenski ordinance.
If the two initiatives appear on the November ballot and are passed, the one with the most votes would become law, Green said.
To read the full Medical Marijuana Control Act, visit http://www.medicalmarijuanacontrolact.org/initiative.html .
Email Elizabeth Larson at