C4 At Crossroads as They Meet to Plan Extended Term

Jim Coffis

Following last week’s Board of Supervisors unanimous agreement to give the group a 6 month extension, the 13 appointees on the Santa Cruz County Cannabis Cultivation Choices Committee (C4) will meet on Tuesday to begin planning their future.  The Committee will also expand their focus beyond cultivation to other facets of the business of medical cannabis in Santa Cruz County like processing, distribution, transport, testing and licensing.

The C4 had previously discussed completing recommendations regarding cultivation by March before addressing the wider range of issues that will need to be resolved before the County begins issuing licenses as early as June.

Before getting to their 2016 calendar however they will take up the draft ordinance they voted to support just days before it went before the BOS.

The C4 got their first look at the new draft ordinance, along with everyone else, on Thursday afternoon Dec 3rd.  After receiving a walk through of the major elements the group voted to withdraw their previously agreed upon recommendations in favor of the proposed Chapter 7.128.

Many of the C4 members expressed reservations about some of the elements and restrictions in the draft but were offered assurances that this was only a “foundation” or “framework” and will need lots of finishing work.  Chief Assistant County Counsel Jason Heath said he expects  “a substantial amount of time will be required to implement” the program.

Board of Supervisors Take Historic Action - Move From Ban to Licensing in Less Than 9 Months

With their unanimous vote, accepting the draft ordinance “in concept”,  the Board of Supervisors took the first step toward establishing a regulated commercial medical cannabis market in the County. The new ordinance creates a “Licensing Official” empowered to approve or deny applications and issue or revoke licenses.  The draft ordinance assumes applications for a 2016 license will be accepted beginning in June but no later than September 30th.

The program is to be funded by application and licensing fees.  Each license will be for one year only and a “provisional license” may be granted to existing cultivators while their application is considered.

Most of the restrictions in the current ordinance (7.126) were carried into the new chapter along with some new ones.  Two restrictions which the C4 was going to recommend be eliminated from the current (7.126) ordinance: the 99 plant count and the requirement of ties to local dispensaries were eliminated in the new draft but will remain in the current ordinance (7.126).

Saying that some level of consistency should be maintained during the transition to licensing, County Counsel wants the current ordinance to remain in place.

C4 Gives, Gets Lots of Love

After the presentation of the proposed draft ordinance the Board heard from Eric Olsen, the consultant hired by the County to facilitate the work of the C4.  He gave a powerpoint presentation describing the Committee’s work to date and their consensus building process.

He thanked the Board for creating the Committee and urged an extension to continue their work.

Committee member Shebreh Kalantari Johnson who represents the Community Prevention Partners (CPP) - a countywide coalition that is dedicated to promoting health and well being and enhancing youth and community safety through sustainable alcohol and drug prevention efforts - spoke next.

Johnson noted that the Committee “adopted a ‘perspectivist’ framework, that allowed us to move from our more narrow definitions of community to a broader and inclusive one...to include patients, young people, neighbors, wildlife, natural environment, members of the industry, and more.”.

She said, “Our desire for the well being of each of these components, brings us together and inspires us to continue our work on behalf of the Board.”

“You have put your trust in us, to guide our community in developing realistic, safe, and efficient Cannabis regulations.  As we have discovered that each of us at C4 cares deeply about maintaining a healthy, thriving Santa Cruz County, and that our group is guided by values such as justice and compassion, your trust is well placed.”

She asked all the C4 members and staff to stand and be recognized, saying “We support County Counsel’s recommendations for an initial licensing scheme and we are confident that with more time we will deliver a comprehensive set of recommendations that are realistic, safe, efficient, and will benefit the entire community.”

Committee member D’Angelo Carmine “Cricket” Roberto spoke next.  He represents the group Responsible Cultivation Santa Cruz (RCSC) one of five cannabis business sector organizations with seats on the Committee.  

He also spoke about the shared vision among the C4: “We all believe that protecting our youth, our neighborhoods, and our environment are as equally important as providing an adequate supply of medical cannabis to qualified patients.”

Saying that the C4 has been  “a great catalyst for the community at large to discuss the challenges our county faces”  Roberto dismissed what he said was  “the perceived threat of corporations flooding into Santa Cruz buying land to set up shop (as) unrealistic to their bottom line. Quality over quantity should be how we remain distinct.”

He said good regulations would establish the appropriate limits on any potential abuses.

Both Johnson and Roberto spoke about the value and importance of trust, and Roberto said that  

“Trust is not a one way street but rather an intersection where the potential for disaster exists along with the potential for an elegant display of cooperation.”

He added, “Not one point of view is more or less important than the other – they must co-exist. Every voice in this conversation is valuable.”

He ended by inviting the County Counsel and the Supervisors to join with the C4 “to create a stable and sustainable example of a functioning community where our shared values are revered throughout the state of California and beyond.”

Over two dozen members of the public, including other members of the C4, then shared their support or concerns before Supervisor Zach Friend offered a motion to accept the recommendations, extend the term of the C4 through June and approve the draft ordinance in concept.

Friend said that we are at a “significant time of opportunity to establish a collective good”  He praised the work of the C4 as a great example of community participation.

Supervisor John Leopold seconded the motion and also heaped praise on the C4 for taking up the issue after the Board’s “failed attempt” to reach consensus.

Supervisor Bruce McPherson indicated his support for the draft ordinance saying it provided both “local control and flexibility”.

Supervisor Ryan Coonerty also expressed his gratitude for the work of the C4 but cautioned them saying “Be careful when politicians praise your work.  It usually means they expect a lot more.”  

Coonerty also mentioned he was glad to see the State had chosen to treat cannabis as an agricultural crop and that he was looking forward to recommendations on the other pieces of the supply chain.

After Board Chair Greg Caput joined the chorus of praise for the work of the C4, noting that he had heard from many complimenting individuals on the C4 and that he understood they had put in in excess of 100 hours working to date. He said this was not his number one priority but that he was prepared to “go along for now.”

He expressed concern for restrictions on the possession of firearms, saying that raised “second amendment issues” with him.

The vote was called and all five Supervisors voiced support.

County Counsel Commits Grand Theft, Steals C4 Thunder, Key Recommendations

Jim Coffis

Members of the Santa Cruz County Cannabis Cultivation Choices Committee met Thursday afternoon in the Board chambers in what was supposed to be a final dress rehearsal for their presentation of preliminary recommendations to the Supervisors on Tuesday. Instead, County Counsel Dana McRae presented a proposed a new chapter to the existing ordinance that would make Santa Cruz one of the first counties in the State to develop a local license for commercial cultivation.

The C4 had come to agreement earlier that the county should permit commercial activity but had struggled with specific language around size and location.  They were set to offer recommendations that the Board develop an interim license allowing commercial grows of up to 100 square feet on parcels of at least five acres and to eliminate the restriction that sellers be tied to local dispensaries and drop the 99 plant cap on all grows.

McRae said her office was paying attention to the views being expressed by the Committee. Specifically the switch from plant count to canopy size and lifting the restriction on “in county only” sales were included into the new rules.
  

Before walking the committee through the 14 page ordinance, Chief Assistant County Counsel Jason Heath stressed  that the proposal should be seen as the “foundation and framing of a building” that still needs finishing touches and could be built upon in the future to add more “floors” to address additional licensing categories and concerns.

The new chapter to the County Code would create a “Medical Cannabis Cultivation Licensing Program” (MCCLP) to be administered by a Licensing Officer appointed by and reporting to the County Administrative Officer.

Two categories of commercial cannabis cultivation would be created for the unincorporated areas of the county:  A “Cottage Garden License” for up to 200 square feet of canopy and a “Level One Cultivator License” for up to 500 square feet of canopy.  

A long list of restrictions would govern the issuance of both licenses and fees charged for applications and licenses would be used to fund and enforce the MCCLP.

McRae and Heath both expressed appreciation for the work of the C4 and indicated they would support an extension of their term to allow the group to consider more policy recommendations regarding other aspects of the business like larger indoor grows, manufacturing, testing and distribution.  

After the presentation the C4 voted unanimous support for the new ordinance as a “transitional step” to comply with the new State regulations while reserving the right to offer amendments and new language to encourage compliance and deal with larger commercial activities.

(The Board of Supervisors is scheduled to take up the matter at 1:30 on Tuesday, December 8.  To comment for the public record you can use the online form by clicking the envelope next to item #59 on the Board Agenda before 8:30am on Tuesday.)

Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors Will Consider Licensing Cannabis Cultivation

Jim Coffis

The 13 member panel appointed in August by the Board of Supervisors to come up with recommendations on regulations for medical cannabis cultivation will propose that the county drop the current 99 plant count restriction and eliminate the requirement that growers have a direct connection with one of the 13 local dispensaries.  The Santa Cruz County Cannabis Cultivation Choices Committee (C4) will also recommend adoption of an ordinance establishing a license for small scale commercial grows no larger than 100 sq ft throughout the county with a variety of restrictions.  

They will also ask the Board to extend their term for 6 months so that they can develop additional recommendations relative to the licensing process for larger scale operations as well as manufacturing, testing, distribution and retail sales..  

The BOS will take up the matter at their regular meeting on Tuesday Dec. 8.

Current county rules prohibit the cultivation of cannabis except for personal use with a medical recommendation and provides “limited immunity” to those growing for sale in one of the 13 county dispensaries.  In both cases growers were limited to no more than 99 plants.

In March the Board of Supervisors voted 3-2 to effectively ban all commercial grows.  A citizen’s referendum, spearheaded by a coalition of medical cannabis advocates, prevented that ordinance from taking effect and the Board subsequently repealed it.  Since that time, a number of local growers who believed they were operating in compliance with the previous - now current - ordinance have been arrested or have seen their crops destroyed by Sheriff’s deputies.

The C4 began meeting in September with a goal of developing recommendations to create a new county ordinance that dealt with the environmental and neighborhood concerns that led to the ban while ensuring safe access to medical cannabis for county residents.  

In the meantime the State of California adopted the Medical Marijuana Regulation and Safety Act (MMRSA) that creates a comprehensive licensing scheme to regulate a commercial medical cannabis market from seed to sale.  

Local jurisdictions throughout California face a March 1st deadline to either expressly prohibit or regulate cannabis cultivation within their borders or the state becomes the sole licensing authority for that jurisdiction. Millions of dollars in potential revenue from licensing fees and local taxes could be at stake.  

Prior to the adoption of MMRSA, local law enforcement could seek prosecution of commercial growers under state laws even if a local jurisdiction had more permissive ordinances. If the board accepts the recommendations it will provide local growers, for the first time, the ability to operate legally if they are otherwise in compliance with state and local laws.  

Cannabis Committee Continues to Seek Consensus on Licensing Process

Jim Coffis

The Santa Cruz County Cannabis Cultivation Choices Committee (SCCC4) meets for their 10th time Tues 9am at the Simpkins Center.  While they’ve yet to make any recommendations - the 13 members  have come to a couple of unanimous decisions including pursuing some kind of licensing scheme and signalling they are against plant counts in favor of canopy size or sq footage as a measure.- they are getting closer to crafting specific recommendations around the kinds of restrictions that should be enforced to protect neighborhoods and the environment.  

They will continue to discuss those issues and others like who can get a license and how that process might work.

They’ll also hear about a public meeting held Friday in  Bonny Doon.

The Board of Supervisors has asked for recommendations from the group as well as from County staff to be presented at their December 8th meeting

Note: There will be a public meeting in Ben Lomond Wed night 6pm at the Highlands Park Senior Center to learn more about the new state law and the progress of the C4

The Santa Cruz County Cannabis Cultivation Choices Committee (C4) Meeting Number 9

Jim Coffis

The C4 will begin the nuts and bolts work of creating recommendations to present to the Board of Supervisors at their next meeting Tuesday 9am at the Simpkins Center.

After spending most of their last meeting hearing from representatives from Community Prevention Partners on issues affecting youth and adolescents the group decided to begin focusing on reaching consensus around specific recommendations they can present to the Board of Supervisors.

The Committee has previously agreed to try and establish a framework which would provide for local licensing but they will spend their next four meetings trying to hammer out the specific parameters for such a program like where and how large such operations ought to be as well as what restrictions they would like to see imposed.

The passage of legislation in Sacramento establishing the framework for state licensing has created a greater sense of urgency for local jurisdictions to act.  On October 23rd Supervisors Leopold and McPherson requested the full board hold a public hearing on December 8th to consider an interim ordinance to license the commercial cultivation of medical cannabis.  

They’ve asked the C4 to provide recommendations for their consideration.  

No specific recommendations have yet come out of the Committee and while the 13 members have generally seemed positive about their ability to reach consensus, some have questioned whether they can do so on the existing timeline.  

It’s expected that the committee could focus on at least these issues tomorrow:

• Repealing the current county ordinance that bans all commercial medical cannabis cultivation or processing. (7.126.030)
• Defining the types of commercial cultivation operations
• Determining the size(s) to be allowed and how that will be measured
• Determine whether there should be total restrictions in any parts of the county
• Determine whether product can be sold outside of the county
• Determine who should get licenses, under what conditions and who will issue them

Passion and Progress at County Cannabis Committee Meeting

Jim Coffis

The Board of Supervisors may soon get a recommendation from their citizens committee to create a clear path to legitimacy for cannabis businesses in the County.  Twenty three years after 76% of voters approved local Measure A, providing that citizens should be allowed access to medical marijuana, the County may soon make legal the process which provides the ability for patients to gain that access without having to grow and process themselves.

At the 6th meeting of the Santa Cruz County Cannabis Cultivation Choices Committee (C4) all thirteen appointees expressed agreement that their focus should be on establishing an acceptable local licensing scheme to permit commercial cannabis cultivation.  In the first vote they’ve taken to consider a specific policy recommendation the group unanimously decided to move toward a County administered licensing system that would likely include at least cultivators and processors.  They will begin working on the details at their next meeting.

In another vote the committee was split on whether or not to invite Sheriff Jim Hart to a future meeting.  After considerable discussion they decided to request that he meet privately with a sub-committee to be headed by Eric Hammer.  

As momentous as their decision to pursue licensing over other options was, the most impressive and dramatic moments of the four hour meeting came later.  After a presentation from a south county cultivator and product producer who narrated a slide show that demonstrated the high level of sophistication and expertise involved in his ten year old operation.

Near the end of his presentation he described how Sheriff’s officers raided his home and business, destroyed his crop and confiscated personal property including his phone.  He described himself as a “refugee from the war on drugs”.

His statement elicited a passionate response from committee member Pat Malo who said that people who are dedicated to producing medicine “for our parents, our friends and our community live in constant fear.  We are not all equals at this table." he said  "Some of us go to sleep each night wondering if tomorrow will be the day they come for us.”

Two of the attorneys on the committee, Rahn Garcia and Steve Premo expressed their personal appreciation for his efforts drawing applause from the rest of the committee.

County Cannabis Committee to Discuss Local Licensing at Tues Meeting

Jim Coffis

The Santa Cruz County Cannabis Cultivation Choices Committee (C4) will consider local licensing as a way to bring county regulations into line with new state laws as they hold their 7th meeting on Tues, 9am at the Simpkins Center.

At their last meeting the committee voted to begin discussing licensing as specific policy they might recommend the Board of Supervisors consider.  The committee agreed to push back or eliminate some additional planned presentations from outside experts and county staff in order to begin substantive discussions.  

Currently all commercial cannabis cultivation is illegal in Santa Cruz County.  Some protection from prosecution exists for growers who abide by a list of restrictions.  In Sacramento new legislation has been signed that will provide growers as well as other commercial cannabis operations with state issued licenses.  Local jurisdictions can still be the ultimate arbiters as they can ban or enforce more stringent regulations than the state has prescribed.

At last Tuesday’s meeting County Consultant Eric Olsen, set the stage with his now familiar “Context for Conversation” slide shows.

He asked committee members to consider whether existing agricultural regulations are sufficient or whether there might be reasons to impose additional requirements.  He provided a list of “potential concerns” including these

• Land conversion
• Grading
• Electricity usage
• Water usage, quality, & agricultural discharges
• Woodland & riparian habitat protection, etc.  
• Pesticide, chemical, & worker safety
• Seed to sale traceability

• Cannabis is a drug
• Youth & neighborhood protection
• High value cash business = increased risk?
• Diversion into black market
• Go slow: New county standards could encourage gold rush
• Regulatory capacity

He told the group that their initial focus should be on cultivation and offered these questions as a suggested framework for policy development:  

• What types of cultivation should be licensed? E.g. indoor, outdoor, greenhouses
• How much should licensees be allowed to grow?
• Who should be eligible for licenses?
• In what parts of the county?
• Under what conditions?

The group then heard a presentation from Kristen Nevedahl, a Humboldt County mom and gardener who is the director of Patient Focused Certification a national project of the Americans for Safe Access Foundation.  Nevedahl’s presentation focused on the difference between regulations on the number of plants vs canopy size.  She also showed how efficient outdoor operations can reduce water requirements and have a much lower carbon footprint than indoor grows.  

Nevedahl advocated for education and training for growers, processors, and regulators.

The official notes of the meeting have not yet been published but the meeting also included the conclusion of a presentation by the industry reps on the committee as well as discussions about the allocation of Measure K funds.  

Reporting back on a committee request regarding what action the county was taking regarding aligning with the new state law, Susan Pearlman said that Supervisor Leopold was drafting a letter to the County Counsel.

Citizens’ Cannabis Group Continues Deliberations

Cannabis Advocate to Speak at Next Meeting of C4

Jim Coffis

The Santa Cruz County Cannabis Cultivation Choices Committee (C4) departed from their published agenda last Tuesday and after hearing more presentations from county officials, focused on economic development particularly with regards to cannabis cultivation in the Santa Cruz Mountains.

At their next meeting, Tues 9am at Simpkins Center, they will consider yet another revised calendar and hear from County Staff about any steps being taken to address deadlines set for local jurisdictions included in the new State law.

The committee will also hear from Kristin Nevedal, director of the Patient Focused Certification program from Americans for Safe Access, vice chair of the Emerald Growers Association in Humboldt County and instructor at Oaksterdam University on environmental sustainability and best management practices.

At their fifth meeting the C4 heard a brief summary of the comprehensive new State laws on cannabis cultivation but continued to avoid any specific policy recommendations they intend to recommend to the Board of Supervisors by the end of the year.

The meeting included a pair of presentations by County planners Kristen Kittleson and Matt Johnson. Kittleson spoke about the effects on the watershed from erosion and runoff.  She noted that cannabis cultivation is only the latest and not the only activity that puts pressure on the ecosystem particularly the spawning of Coho and Steelhead.  She suggested the panel consider policies that focused on protecting the watershed including limiting the amount of timberland conversion, establishing appropriate buffers from creeks and streams, promoting best practices to limit pesticide and nitrate run-offs and possibly requiring a conservation plan from cultivators.

Matt Johnson, the County Environmental Planner discussed the conundrum that some of the most sensitive habitats like the sandhills are also among the most favored for outdoor cannabis cultivation.  He noted the fees associated with environmental assessments are significant and cautioned that there was a tipping point when it comes to regulations and permits that when reached causes people to work outside of the system.

Both Johnson and Kittleson agreed that there are rules and regulations currently in the County code sufficient to deal with most of the issues being discussed but that too often people ignore them.      

After a recess and in groups of three, the committee members discussed a wide variety of topics from licensing and fees to grow sizes, to approvals, inspections and enforcement.  Each group reported out a list of ideas. (Complete lists are included the meeting notes prepared by Susan Pearlman.)

There was more discussion, but no resolution, about  whether or not Sheriff Hart would be invited to share his thoughts.  Proposed local neighborhood meetings and field trips were also discussed.