|
Back to Calendar
Return
|
| |
Regular-General Government # 52.
|
| Board of Supervisors Meeting |
County Counsel |
|
|
|
| Subject |
| Review and discuss draft ordinance relating to the outdoor cultivation of medical marijuana and provide direction to staff on adopting the proposed ordinance, either as drafted or revised. (No general fund impact) (Pogledich) |
| Recommended Action |
| Review and discuss the attached draft ordinance relating to the outdoor cultivation of medical marijuana and provide direction to staff on adopting the proposed ordinance, either as drafted or revised. |
| Strategic Plan Goal(s) |
Preserve and ensure safe and crime free communities
Protect open space and the environment
|
| Reason for Recommended Action/Background |
Background:
On May 19, 2015, the Board of Supervisors requested that staff research options to limit the number of medical marijuana plants permitted to be cultivated in the unincorporated areas of the County. Accordingly, County Counsel, the Sheriff’s Office, the District Attorney’s Office and Environmental Health have worked collaboratively to determine legal parameters, identify options and to develop the attached outdoor medical marijuana cultivation ordinance to assist in a conceptual discussion of the County’s options.
The purpose of the proposed ordinance is to establish provisions for outdoor cultivation of medical marijuana in the unincorporated area of Yolo County that attempt to balance the needs of qualified patients and their primary caregivers with the needs of neighboring property owners affected by cultivation-related activity. In particular, the main provisions of the proposed ordinance include the following:
- Cultivation of marijuana is prohibited for non-medical purposes;
- Only 12 marijuana plants may be grown per parcel, regardless of the size of the parcel or how many qualified patients or primary caregivers reside there;
- Marijuana may not be cultivated within 1,000 feet of a school, a school-bus stop, a park, a church, a youth-oriented facility or residential treatment facility;
- Setbacks from marijuana cultivation and other residences and property;
- Requirement that marijuana plants be concealed from public view;
- Outdoor marijuana cultivation in violation of the ordinance is declared a nuisance; and
- Enforcement is accomplished through a nuisance abatement process with an attending fine, which fine escalates with each violation.
Legal History:
Marijuana has been illegal under federal law since the enactment of the Controlled Substances Act in 1970. The Act defined it as having no accepted medical use and made it illegal to import, manufacture, distribute, possess or use marijuana in the United States. In 1996, California voters approved Proposition 215 (the Compassionate Use Act). The Compassionate Use Act (CUA) creates limited exemptions from state criminal liability for seriously ill qualified patients who are in need of medical marijuana for specified purposes and who obtain and use marijuana under limited, specified circumstances. In 2003, the California State Legislature enacted the Medical Marijuana Program Act (MMPA). The MMPA clarified the scope of the CUA, and allowed counties to adopt and enforce medical marijuana regulations consistent with the MMPA.
The California Supreme Court has held that neither the CUA nor the MMPA limit local regulation of land used for the cultivation of medical marijuana. Other California courts have similarly recognized that the regulation of cultivation of medical marijuana, including a complete prohibition on cultivation, does not conflict with either the CUA or the MMPA. Cities and counties throughout California are addressing medical marijuana cultivation in many different ways, ranging from taking no action to enacting a complete ban.
Effects of Outdoor Cultivation:
Yolo County has experienced negative impacts associated with the visible cultivation of medical marijuana. The County has received resident complaints regarding visible outdoor cultivation sites leading to calls for law enforcement services. These complaints have included concerns about strong offensive odors and possible criminal activity. |
| Collaborations (including Board advisory groups and external partner agencies) |
| County Counsel, the Sheriff's Office, the District Attorney's Office, Environmental Health and the County Administrator's Office have worked collaboratively on the draft ordinance. |
|
| Fiscal Impact |
|
|
| Source of Funds for this Expenditure |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|