SUPERVISORS DISCUSS MEDICAL MARIJUANA DISTRIBUTION, CULTIVATION

Lake County Board of Supervisors took no action Tuesday on
a draft ordinance pertaining to the regulation of medical marijuana
distribution and cultivation. Instead, the board conceded to begin
work to refine the draft document with consideration of public
comments offered throughout the 2.5 hour discussion of the issue.

Among the primary concerns the public had with the draft document was
the addressing of both cultivation and dispensary distribution in one
ordinance. The majority of those speaking to the issue were adamantly
opposed to regulating both medical marijuana activities via a single
ordinance.

"Cultivation and distribution are very different activities," Ed Robey
said, adding that there are environmental impacts to consider in
relation to cultivation and that the issues should be two separate
areas of focus.

The board came to agree. "I think we should be moving along on both
tracks but it should be separate," District 2 Supervisor Jeff Smith
said. "There should be two different permits."

The board expressed urgency in dealing the issue of dispensaries, in
particular. "For this year, what's grown is grown," District 1
Supervisor Jim Comstock said. "In the forefront are the dispensaries.
Dispensaries are the issue right now."

Another area of the draft ordinance that drew public opposition was
Section 72.4, which would prohibit outdoor cultivation activities on
parcels less than one acre in size. Many speakers claimed that such a
regulation is discriminatory. "To limit growing to parcels to the size
of one acre or more is discriminatory," Jim O'Dell said. "To tell me I
can't grow six plants on my deck when I have a prescription that says
I can grow 25 is ridiculous. If someone comes and gets them, then I'm
going to sue them and I'm going to sue the county."

Section 72.8, as drafted, requires that collective or cooperative
membership information, including names and addresses of all members
be submitted with each application for a use permit. This was also
drew public contention. Both attorneys present for the discussion,
Bill McPike and Ron Green, stated that demand for such medical records
is a violation of patient privacy laws protected under Civil Code 56,
Confidentiality of Medical Information Act.

Another law McPike called into question was use of the term "public
nuisance" in order to engage in acts of enforcement on properties,
which the board indicated may be an option in dealing with complaints
thus far received regarding odor. McPike said you can't threaten
"nuisance" on smell. He said it would be a violation of Civil Code
34.82. The code states that "Nothing which is done or maintained under
the express authority of a statute can be deemed a nuisance."

Ronda Mottlow voiced opposition to use of ABC regulations for alcohol
sales in relation to composing an ordinance pertaining to medical
marijuana. She said that tobacco and alcohol are not used for medical
purposes and therefore should not be used as reference. Mottlow
suggested that an ordinance development committee be established prior
to the board's formal adoption of an ordinance.

Paula Vess was the only person from the public to speak to the
problems associated with marijuana cultivation, in particular. She
said she wasn't against medical marijuana in general; her problem lies
with her neighbors on New Long Valley Road in Spring Valley. She
attributed the rude, harassing behavior exhibited by her neighbors to
the cultivation site located on their property. She described
excessive dust from a dune buggy; glaring looks, noise and harassing
behavior.

Catherine Brewer, who operates a dispensary in Lucerne, spoke
following Vess. "It's really hard to regulate respect," she said.

Board Chairperson Denise Rushing, who represents District 3, agreed,
jesting about failed attempts to legislate respect. District 5
Supervisor Rob Brown said that some of the issues brought up by Vess
would be illegal with or without the presence of marijuana.

Martin Squire said complaints are easy to make and will not stop
despite any efforts. "I'm pretty sure regardless of what you put in
your policy, you're still going to have complaints," he said. "As long
as we're neighbors in this county, you're always going to have someone
growing and someone complaining about it."

At the conclusion of the 2.5 hour discussion, the board agreed to use
the draft as a working document. Members of the board, county staff,
county counsel along with Ed Robey, who with Attorney Green, submitted
a seven-page itemized response to the board regarding the draft
ordinance, will be working together to refine the document. Once
refined, the draft ordinance will come again before the board at which
time it will either be acted upon or the formation of an ad hoc
committee will be considered. It was suggested by the public that
Americans For Safe Access be included should a committee be formed.