Cannabis Cultivators Registration Process Under Development

Even as they prepare to interview applicants for the new Medical Cannabis Cultivation Licensing Official, Santa Cruz County staff are busy creating forms for a "registration" process for growers hoping to seek a local license.  Word is that they hope to have an online system and an information page up sometime in August.

The County is also looking to fill code enforcement and resource planner positions to support the program.  Applications for one of those positions closes on Friday July 22.  More information about those jobs can be found here:  http://www.jobaps.com/SCRUZ/

To "preserve a place in line" for a local license, qualified growers will be required to register their intent during a 90 day window.  Qualified personal grows, with no intent to share or sell product are not required to register.

The second reading of the revised dispensary ordinance is scheduled for the next Board of Supervisors meeting on Aug 2nd.  If approved, application forms for a local license for the 14 eligible dispensary operators will be posted.

In the meantime the proposed new cultivation ordinance is being reviewed by various County Commissions including the Fire Advisory Committee which meets Wednesday, Jul 20 at 4pm in Felton.  The Commission on the Environment will take up the matter at their next meeting, Wed July 27 in the Board of Supervisors Chambers at 5pm.

The Water Advisory Commissions will meet on Wed Aug 3, 4pm and the Fish and Wildlife Commission meets on Thursday Aug 4 at 7pm.  Both groups meet at the County Government Center, check their websites for exact locations.

Cannabis Committee Recommends "Provisional" Licensing for Small Home Grows

More Recommendations to Be Sent to Board of Supervisors

By Jim Coffis

In another marathon meeting, the Santa Cruz County Cannabis Cultivation Choices Committee (C4) added to the list of recommendations they are forwarding to the Board of Supervisors.

On Tuesday morning the The Board of Supervisors accepted a number of recommendations from their 13 member citizens group and directed County staff to consider how they could be incorporated into a new ordinance.  Later in the day the C4 met to consider a long list of additional recommendations including the creation of a “Provisional” license meant to provide existing cultivators with some time to become fully compliant with the the new ordinance while the County creates a local licensing system.  

While deferring on the specific details of the "provisional license", the group voted 8-2 to recommend small home growers be included in the program. In their previous meeting they had split 6-7 on recommending a license tier for home based occupations, effectively banning the smallest growers.

How the recommendation will be received by the Board of Supervisors remains to be seen but it does provide hope for thousands of current cultivators who felt they were being ignored in favor of larger scale operations.

In other significant recommendations the group voted in favor of allowing sales outside of the County, against a numerical cap on licenses, and to give priority to growers who could show proof that they had been operating in the County prior to Jan 1, 2016.

They also urged the BOS to pass a resolution calling on the Federal Government to declassify Marijuana from the schedule of dangerous drugs.

The full Board is expected to consider all the offered recommendations and others in the coming weeks. County staff is hoping to present language for the ordinance as well as an implementation schedule before summer.

Group Votes to Recommend Ban on Sale of Santa Cruz Home Grown Pot

Also Recommended: New Taxes, Ban on GMO, Provisional Licensing Program

Jim Coffis

The 13 member Santa Cruz County Cannabis Cultivation Choices Committee (C4) tasked with developing recommendations on the regulation of cannabis cultivation in Santa Cruz County is recommending a ban on all GMO cannabis and almost all home grown plants.

(Cultivation strictly for personal medical use - no sale or donation, would be allowed, with some restrictions.)

They also recommended giving licensing priority to growers and sites where cultivation has occurred prior to Jan 1, 2016 with a provisional licensing program for grows that meet “basic standards”.

By a reported 11-2, C-4 members also voted to recommend a new tax measure for the November 2016 ballot.

In all, the committee voted on over 20 specific policy statements at their last meeting March 29.  They’re scheduled to meet again Tuesday (12:30 Simpkins Center) and take up an additional 40 or more issues that they will send on to County Staff and the Board of Supervisors as recommendations for use in drafting a permanent local ordinance.  

Supervisors will hear all of the recommendations on April 19th and give further direction to the County Counsel who anticipates presenting a draft of a final ordinance by the end of May.   

While the group reached unanimous agreement on the GMO ban, they split 6-7 on permitting the home grows. 

The recommendations, if accepted, would ban all grows of any size, indoor or out, on parcels less than one acre except for so called indoor “warehouse” grows on selected commercial and manufacturing zones (C-4, M-1, M-2, M-3). Cultivators in those zones could grow up to the maximum allowable state limit of 22,000 square feet. 

It's estimated that more than two thirds of current grow sites could become illegal if the current recommendations were adopted.

Santa Cruz County Cannabis Cultivation Confusion Continues

Contention and Chaos over Cannabis Committee Report will Delay BOS Action

Jim Coffis

The Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors (BOS) was expected to take up cannabis cultivation at their next regular meeting on April 12.  At this time it appears the matter will  be put off until April 19th at the earliest because the Cannabis Cultivation Choices Committee has failed to reach agreement on some of their recommendations.

Last December, the BOS approved adding a new chapter to the County Code creating the “Medical Cannabis Cultivation Licensing Program” (MCCLP).  They also approved two categories of commercial cannabis cultivation and extended the term of their 13 member Cannabis Cultivation Choices Committee (C4). They asked the committee to provide additional recommendations for indoor and outdoor cultivation as well as to consider other issues related to business of medical cannabis like processing, distribution, transport, testing, etc.  

County Counsel Dana McCrae and her Chief Assistant Jason Heath, drafted what may have been the first local licensing ordinance in the state. At the time, it was offered as  a “foundation” with more “floors” and “finishing work” to come.  7.128 was adopted unanimously by the BOS but the previous ordinance 7.126 remained on the books.  

Additional confusion occurred after conflicting reports recently emerged, allegedly from the Sheriff’s office, giving the impression that the 7.126 would still be enforced but somewhat differently this year.  

Many County growers are anxious to learn exactly what the local legal framework will be as they prepare for their next growing season. Some are hoping to be ready to submit applications for state licenses when they become available.  A local license is a prerequisite.

Memorable 25th Meeting of the C4  

Despite meeting weekly, sometimes for 6 and 7 hours, the C4 had not reached agreement on all elements of their cultivation recommendations as of their last regular meeting on Tuesday March 29th.

Operating under a “nothing is final until it’s all final” approach and earnestly trying to reach the widest possible consensus, the C4 meetings have at times become tense as members circled back to issues thought resolved or they dealt with misunderstandings and disagreements about the process for addressing various sticking points.  

The last several meetings of the C4 were among their most contentious, with their last meeting, March 29th, almost ending before it started. Ultimately they met until late at night, long after most of the public had left.  

A number of C4 members expressed dissatisfaction that no final language options were available before or even at the meeting.  They agreed to proceed and did take a number of up or down votes but by their scheduled adjournment time of 7pm they were still considering a list of remaining unresolved issues.  They chose to postpone decisions on some but to order dinner and continue to work on others in hopes of finalizing something they could agree to send to the BOS.

Among the known remaining issues unresolved were those dealing with the smallest grow sizes affecting the largest number of local growers. Among their final votes late Tuesday, the committee split 6-7 on a proposal to license “home based cultivation”.

As a result, many of the county’s oldest small growers and established collectives would be banned outright and become ineligible for state licensing.

The C4 will meet again at 12:30 next Tuesday, Apr 12th, at the Simpklns Center with a goal of getting back on the BOS agenda by April 19th.

2016 Santa Cruz County Cultivators Outreach Nets Lots of Numbers

Jim Coffis

Estimates on the total number of Santa Cruz County Residents who are growing pot vary widely but the first ever survey of local cultivators sheds some light on where, why and how cultivation occurs.

The Santa Cruz County Cultivators Outreach 2016, an anonymous online and paper survey, conducted by a group of Cannabis advocacy groups with cooperation from local dispensaries and garden supply vendors netted over 275 responses and a wealth of information.

70% of respondents say they are growing for their own personal use although many of them also admit to selling their product.  48% indicated they sell or donate product to local collectives or dispensaries and 30% say they sell outside of Santa Cruz County.

Local dispensaries reported $32 million in total sales last year but less than half of the growers indicated that some or all of their crop went to one the 14 approved outlets in the County.

Growers were asked about the approximate number of plants grown with various ranges from less than 10 to more than 1000. and the approximate square footage used to grow, using ranges from less than 100 sq ft to over 5000 sq ft.  Using the most conservative estimates, this group of growers accounted for over 40,000 plants on a combined total of less than 10 acres. 62% grow fewer than 100 plants.

 

Most respondents were growing outdoors, many in the Santa Cruz Mountains and nearly half in the Fifth Supervisorial district.  Among the largest growers by plant count more than half are in Districts 2 and 4 in the south county.  Overall 42% of all grows are indoors including 64% of the largest..  

Over 50% of indoor and 48% of outdoor grows are on parcels under one acre. 52% of all grows are on parcels zoned R(Residential) or RR (Rural residential).

The County Board of Supervisors will take up new cultivation regulations at a special meeting scheduled for April 12.  The appointed citizens committee (C4) formed to provide recommendations will begin finalizing their report at a special meeting on March 30th, time and place yet to be announced.

Santa Cruz County Cannabis Cultivation Policy Remains a Mystery

Jim Coffis

If anyone is telling you they know what the legal landscape for medical cannabis will be in Santa Cruz County this year or next they are pulling your leg. There are more initiatives, proposals and opinions going around regarding the regulation of cannabis now than at any time in the last 20 years with more likely to come.

Under current Santa Cruz County ordinance 7.126, commercial cultivation is illegal. Violators are given “limited immunity” from prosecution if they follow certain enumerated conditions like limiting the size of their grow to 99 plants and selling only to one of the local dispensaries.  

A year ago the County Board of Supervisors (BOS) responding to claims that the ordinance had failed and was unworkable, voted 3-2 to completely ban cultivation except for personal use. That action resulted in a rapid and widespread backlash by local cannabis growers and advocates. A campaign was quickly organized to gather signatures for a referendum effectively suspending the implementation of the ban. Rather than risk a ballot initiative asking voters to uphold the ban, the BOS voted to rescind it and revert to the previous ordinance (7.126).

In the meantime the California state legislature passed a series of bills collectively known as the Medical Marijuana and Safety Act (MMRSA) which created a state licensing system with a variety of restrictions and conditions depending upon the size and type of operation.  Cities and Counties were assured they could maintain local control if they likewise passed specific ordinances permitting or banning cultivator licenses in their jurisdictions.  

Humboldt County became the first County in the state to begin accepting applications for local licenses this week.  Santa Cruz County, by passing what they said was an “interim” ordinance in December, indicated they would likely issue licenses for some commercial cultivation but details remain to be worked out.

So far this year 18 counties and over 200 cities in the state have enacted complete bans on all commercial cultivation while a number of other jurisdictions are still debating the issue.  .  

Locally the City of Scotts Valley adopted a complete ban on all commercial activities, save for “discrete delivery”.  In Watsonville an ordinance permitting large scale indoor cultivation appears likely to be adopted.  There is a ban in Capitola and the City of Santa Cruz has had an ordinance permitting limited cultivation since 2010. In Monterey County an ordinance is being reviewed that would allow large scale greenhouse grows.

In Santa Cruz County, the BOS appointed 13 citizens, including 5 cannabis community advocates to the Cannabis Cultivation Choices Committee and asked them to try and reach consensus on policy recommendations.  Dubbed the C4, the group  has been meeting since September.  They have already recommended that the County create a licensing program, that growers be allowed to sell outside of the County and that plant count limits be dropped in favor of square footage limits. Additional recommendations are expected from the group sometime in March.

Meanwhile the County Counsel’s office has been meeting with the Sheriff and other County departments as they continue to “build out” the interim ordinance (7.128) which the Board adopted in December with the expectation that further enhancements and amendments would be coming. It remains unclear how closely the County Counsel will incorporate specific recommendations coming out of the C4 in any new language they present to the Board.  

Meanwhile some local cannabis advocacy groups are considering an initiative for the ballot that could put the decision in the hands of County voters as early as this June.  

Some neighborhood groups and other anti-cannabis factions are busy lobbying individual Supervisors to prohibit cultivation in different parts of the County. In addition it's an election year for three of the five Supervisors. One person has announced they will run against incumbent Supervisor Zach Friend who has supported a ban on any outdoor cultivation even for personal use in the Second District.

Also up for re-election is Fifth District Supervisor Bruce McPherson. McPherson initially supported the ban but lately has been open to finding a solution that ensures environmental protection while permitting what has been a positive economic activity in his district. In April McPherson wrote that "There have been growers in the Santa Cruz Mountains for decades and I expect there will be for decades to come."

Whether those growers can expect any resolution to their legal status will continue to be a mystery - at least for the time being.

The 13 member Santa Cruz County Cultivation Choices Committee will meet again Tuesday at noon at the Simpkins Center to continue their discussions.  The meetings are open to the Public.

LOCAL GROUP TO SURVEY COUNTY CANNABIS CULTIVATORS

SCM² Surveying County Cannabis Growers

Jim Coffis

Ben Lomond, CA. A local grassroots advocacy organization is conducting a survey of cannabis growers in Santa Cruz County.  The SCM² Cannabis Cultivation Survey 2016 will seek to provide data that policy makers can evaluate as they continue to develop a local licensing program expected to roll out in the next year.

Almost 20 years ago, over 70% of Santa Cruz County voters approved Proposition 215, the medical cannabis initiative.  Since then, several thousand residents have received the required medical recommendation which allows cultivation, with restrictions, for personal use. Since then hundreds if not thousands of residents have planted the crop.  Some indoors, in garages, closets or commercial buildings, others outdoors in backyards, greenhouses or remote parcels.  

Speculation varies wildly about the number and location of growers - both personal and commercial - as well as about the size of their crops.  How many growers and grow sites there are in the County remains unknown.

Last year over $32 million of retail sales were recorded by 14 local dispensaries.

Few believe those sales, as big as they sound, accounts for all or even most of the cannabis being grown in Santa Cruz.  Some growers consume all of their grow.  Others grow as part of a membership collective and still others sell some or all of their crop directly to consumers or processors both within and outside of Santa Cruz County.

The Board of Supervisors recently approved plans to license some small scale grow operations and regulations for larger operations are being contemplated.  How many licenses will be issued will in some part be decided by how many growers currently operate in the County.

Santa Cruz Mountains for Sustainable Cannabis Medicine (SCM²) is conducting the survey with the cooperation of other advocacy groups, local dispensaries, vendors and media outlets. The goal is to reach as many Santa Cruz County residents who are growing or planning to grow cannabis whether for their own personal use or for use by others.

The survey is available online by going to http://scm2.net or in hard copy at local dispensaries. It’s completely anonymous and can be completed in a few minutes.  Results will be published and shared with policy makers.

About Santa Cruz Mountains for Sustainable Medical Cannabis (SCM²):

SCM² was formed in 2014 by a group of Santa Cruz Mountain medical cannabis cultivators, processors, patients and supporters in order to share information about proposed changes to the County medical cannabis ordinances.  They have held public meetings and forums to inform and gather information about medical cannabis cultivation policies, proposals and best practices.  They played a key role in initiating the petition drive to overturn the Board of Supervisors ban on cultivation and they have a seat on the County Cannabis Cultivation Choices Committee (C4).

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.