Presentation describing the proposed Fresno County cannabis ban, which is set for final approval Jan. 7, 2014. The ordinance would ban all types and sizes of cannabis gardens, indoors and outdoors, regardless of zoning, parcel size or patient recommendation.

1. Fresno County cannabis ban:
Issues and alternatives
Presented by
FresnoCannabis.org

2. Overview
Fresno County supervisors will vote Jan. 7 to
ban ALL CANNABIS CULTIVATION

3. Overview
Fresno County supervisors will vote Jan. 7 to
ban ALL CANNABIS CULTIVATION
➲
Background: Hundreds of large grow sites,
citizen complaints, spotty enforcement.

4. Overview
Fresno County supervisors will vote Jan. 7 to
ban ALL CANNABIS CULTIVATION
➲
Background: Hundreds of large grow sites,
citizen complaints, spotty enforcement.
➲
Review of California cannabis laws:
Proposition 215 and SB 420.

5. Overview
Fresno County supervisors will vote Jan. 7 to
ban ALL CANNABIS CULTIVATION
➲
Background: Hundreds of large grow sites,
citizen complaints, spotty enforcement.
➲
Review of California cannabis laws:
Proposition 215 and SB 420.
➲
Review of current county ordinance.

6. Overview
Fresno County supervisors will vote Jan. 7 to
ban ALL CANNABIS CULTIVATION
➲
Background: Hundreds of large grow sites,
citizen complaints, spotty enforcement.
➲
Review of California cannabis laws:
Proposition 215 and SB 420.
➲
Review of current county ordinance.
➲
Review of the proposed ordinance.

7. Overview
Fresno County supervisors will vote Jan. 7 to
ban ALL CANNABIS CULTIVATION
➲
Background: Hundreds of large grow sites,
citizen complaints, spotty enforcement.
➲
Review of California cannabis laws:
Proposition 215 and SB 420.
➲
Review of current county ordinance.
➲
Review of the proposed ordinance.
➲
Environmental/ag considerations.

8. Overview
Fresno County supervisors will vote Jan. 7 to
ban ALL CANNABIS CULTIVATION
➲
Background: Hundreds of large grow sites,
citizen complaints, spotty enforcement.
➲
Review of California cannabis laws:
Proposition 215 and SB 420.
➲
Review of current county ordinance.
➲
Review of the proposed ordinance.
➲
Environmental/ag considerations.
➲
Open government and due process.

9. Background
Hundreds of large cannabis gardens create
problems for neighbors, law enforcement.

10. Background
Hundreds of large cannabis gardens create
problems for neighbors, law enforcement.
This 2013 raid near Sanger seized >10,000 plants.

11. Background
Hundreds of large cannabis gardens create
problems for neighbors, law enforcement.
➲
Complaints include nuisance odors, pumping
from depleted aquifers, frequent reports of
shootings, theft and other criminal behavior.

12. Background
Hundreds of large cannabis gardens create
problems for neighbors, law enforcement.
➲
Complaints include nuisance odors, pumping
from depleted aquifers, frequent reports of
shootings, theft and other criminal behavior.
➲
Because grow sites are nominally compliant
with state cannabis laws, investigative and
enforcement options can be limited.

13. Background
Hundreds of large cannabis gardens create
problems for neighbors, law enforcement.
➲
Complaints include nuisance odors, pumping
from depleted aquifers, frequent reports of
shootings, theft and other criminal behavior.
➲
Because grow sites are nominally compliant
with state cannabis laws, investigative and
enforcement options can be limited.
➲
Only a fraction of gardens are abated.

14. Background
Hundreds of large cannabis gardens create
problems for neighbors, law enforcement.
➲
Complaints include nuisance odors, pumping
from depleted aquifers, frequent reports of
shootings, theft and other criminal behavior.
➲
Because grow sites are nominally compliant
with state cannabis laws, investigative and
enforcement options can be limited.
➲
Only a fraction of gardens are abated.
➲
Conclusion: County law is ineffective.

15. Background
Hundreds of large cannabis gardens create
problems for neighbors, law enforcement.
➲
Complaints include nuisance odors, pumping
from depleted aquifers, frequent reports of
shootings, theft and other criminal behavior.
➲
Because grow sites are nominally compliant
with state cannabis laws, investigative and
enforcement options can be limited.
➲
Only a fraction of gardens are abated.
➲
Conclusion: County law is ineffective.
➲
Hypothesis: Fines will reduce problem.

16. California cannabis laws
The Compassionate Use Act (Prop. 215) was
enacted by California voters in 1996.

17. California cannabis laws
The Compassionate Use Act (Prop. 215) was
enacted by California voters in 1996.
➲
Created affirmative defense to state
criminal statutes prohibiting cannabis
possession and cultivation …

18. California cannabis laws
The Compassionate Use Act (Prop. 215) was
enacted by California voters in 1996.
➲
Created affirmative defense to state
criminal statutes prohibiting cannabis
possession and cultivation … ONLY.

19. California cannabis laws
The Compassionate Use Act (Prop. 215) was
enacted by California voters in 1996.
➲
Created affirmative defense to state
criminal statutes prohibiting cannabis
possession and cultivation … ONLY.
➲
No immunity from arrest or prosecution.

20. California cannabis laws
The Compassionate Use Act (Prop. 215) was
enacted by California voters in 1996.
➲
Created affirmative defense to state
criminal statutes prohibiting cannabis
possession and cultivation … ONLY.
➲
No immunity from arrest or prosecution.
➲
Defense available only to “qualified
patients” and “primary caregivers.”

21. California cannabis laws
The Compassionate Use Act (Prop. 215) was
enacted by California voters in 1996.
➲
Created affirmative defense to state
criminal statutes prohibiting cannabis
possession and cultivation … ONLY.
➲
No immunity from arrest or prosecution.
➲
Defense available only to “qualified
patients” and “primary caregivers.”
➲
No provision for collective growing.

22. California cannabis laws
The Compassionate Use Act (Prop. 215) was
enacted by California voters in 1996.
➲
Created affirmative defense to state
criminal statutes prohibiting cannabis
possession and cultivation … ONLY.
➲
No immunity from arrest or prosecution.
➲
Defense available only to “qualified
patients” and “primary caregivers.”
➲
No provision for collective growing.
➲
No statewide rules or regulations.

23. California cannabis laws
The Medical Marijuana Program Act (Senate
Bill 420) was enacted by the California
Legislature in 2003. Its goals:

24. California cannabis laws
The Medical Marijuana Program Act (Senate
Bill 420) was enacted by the California
Legislature in 2003. Its goals:
➲
Clarification of scope of Prop. 215.

25. California cannabis laws
The Medical Marijuana Program Act (Senate
Bill 420) was enacted by the California
Legislature in 2003. Its goals:
➲
Clarification of scope of Prop. 215.
➲
Facilitate prompt IDs of qualified patients.

26. California cannabis laws
The Medical Marijuana Program Act (Senate
Bill 420) was enacted by the California
Legislature in 2003. Its goals:
➲
Clarification of scope of Prop. 215.
➲
Facilitate prompt IDs of qualified patients.
➲
Provide guidance to law enforcement.

27. California cannabis laws
The Medical Marijuana Program Act (Senate
Bill 420) was enacted by the California
Legislature in 2003. Its goals:
➲
Clarification of scope of Prop. 215.
➲
Facilitate prompt IDs of qualified patients.
➲
Provide guidance to law enforcement.
➲
Promote uniformity among counties.

28. California cannabis laws
The Medical Marijuana Program Act (Senate
Bill 420) was enacted by the California
Legislature in 2003. Its goals:
➲
Clarification of scope of Prop. 215.
➲
Facilitate prompt IDs of qualified patients.
➲
Provide guidance to law enforcement.
➲
Promote uniformity among counties.
➲
Enhance safe access by providing
for collective cultivation projects.

29. California cannabis laws
Senate Bill 420 made several changes:

30. California cannabis laws
Senate Bill 420 made several changes:
➲
Created a voluntary state ID card program,
overseen by county health departments.

31. California cannabis laws
Senate Bill 420 made several changes:
➲
Created a voluntary state ID card program,
overseen by county health departments.
➲
Expanded affirmative defense to include
possession, possession for sale, cultivation,
transportation, maintaining a drug house
and creating a public nuisance.

32. California cannabis laws
Senate Bill 420 made several changes:
➲
Created a voluntary state ID card program,
overseen by county health departments.
➲
Expanded affirmative defense to include
possession, possession for sale, cultivation,
transportation, maintaining a drug house
and creating a public nuisance.
➲
Barred arrests for state ID cardholders,
unless other crimes observed.

33. California cannabis laws
Senate Bill 420 made several changes:
➲
Created a voluntary state ID card program,
overseen by county health departments.
➲
Expanded affirmative defense to include
possession, possession for sale, cultivation,
transportation, maintaining a drug house
and creating a public nuisance.
➲
Barred arrests for state ID cardholders,
unless other crimes observed.
➲
Set 6-plant cultivation threshold.

34. Fresno County cannabis laws
➲
In July 2010, the Board of Supervisors
passed an urgency ordinance banning
medical cannabis dispensaries.

35. Fresno County cannabis laws
➲
In July 2010, the Board of Supervisors
passed an urgency ordinance banning
medical cannabis dispensaries.
➲
One month later, the moratorium was
extended to July 2012.

36. Fresno County cannabis laws
➲
In July 2010, the Board of Supervisors
passed an urgency ordinance banning
medical cannabis dispensaries.
➲
One month later, the moratorium was
extended to July 2012.
➲
In August 2011, supervisors permanently
banned dispensaries, placed heavy
restrictions on cultivation facilities, and
banned consumption except at home.

37. Fresno County cannabis laws
➲
In July 2010, the Board of Supervisors
passed an urgency ordinance banning
medical cannabis dispensaries.
➲
One month later, the moratorium was
extended to July 2012.
➲
In August 2011, supervisors permanently
banned dispensaries, placed heavy
restrictions on cultivation facilities, and
banned consumption except at home.
➲
The legality of the law is in dispute.

38. Fresno County cannabis laws
➲
In July 2010, the Board of Supervisors
passed an urgency ordinance banning
medical cannabis dispensaries.
➲
One month later, the moratorium was
extended to July 2012.
➲
In August 2011, supervisors permanently
banned dispensaries, placed heavy
restrictions on cultivation facilities, and
banned consumption except at home.
➲
The legality of the law is in dispute.
➲
Trial is set for February 2014.

39. Fresno County cannabis laws
➲
In September 2013, the Fresno County
Sheriff's Department proposed a new law
similar to Kern County's ordinance.

40. Fresno County cannabis laws
➲
In September 2013, the Fresno County
Sheriff's Department proposed a new law
similar to Kern County's ordinance.
➲
The proposed Fresno County law set fines
of $1,000/plant/day in excess of 12 plants.

41. Fresno County cannabis laws
➲
In September 2013, the Fresno County
Sheriff's Department proposed a new law
similar to Kern County's ordinance.
➲
The proposed Fresno County law set fines
of $1,000/plant/day in excess of 12 plants.
➲
The proposed law allowed violations to be
charged as criminal misdemeanors.

42. Fresno County cannabis laws
➲
In September 2013, the Fresno County
Sheriff's Department proposed a new law
similar to Kern County's ordinance.
➲
The proposed Fresno County law set fines
of $1,000/plant/day in excess of 12 plants.
➲
The proposed law allowed violations to be
charged as criminal misdemeanors.
➲
The sheriff was granted discretionary
authority to impose even higher fines.

43. Fresno County cannabis laws
➲
In September 2013, the Fresno County
Sheriff's Department proposed a new law
similar to Kern County's ordinance.
➲
The proposed Fresno County law set fines
of $1,000/plant/day in excess of 12 plants.
➲
The proposed law allowed violations to be
charged as criminal misdemeanors.
➲
The sheriff was granted discretionary
authority to impose even higher fines.
➲
Warrantless property inspections.

44. Fresno County cannabis laws
➲
In October 2013, the Board of Supervisors
backed away from the 12-plant limit and
directed county counsel to come back with
an ordinance banning all cultivation.

45. Fresno County cannabis laws
➲
In October 2013, the Board of Supervisors
backed away from the 12-plant limit and
directed county counsel to come back with
an ordinance banning all cultivation.
➲
The first reading of the total growing ban
was heard on Dec. 10. The board rejected
an alternative plan to allow small-scale
cultivation in homes and outbuildings.

46. Fresno County cannabis laws
➲
In October 2013, the Board of Supervisors
backed away from the 12-plant limit and
directed county counsel to come back with
an ordinance banning all cultivation.
➲
The first reading of the total growing ban
was heard on Dec. 10. The board rejected
an alternative plan to allow small-scale
cultivation in homes and outbuildings.
➲
The ordinance comes back Jan. 7 for
second reading and final passage.

47. Fresno County cannabis laws
➲
In October 2013, the Board of Supervisors
backed away from the 12-plant limit and
directed county counsel to come back with
an ordinance banning all cultivation.
➲
The first reading of the total growing ban
was heard on Dec. 10. The board rejected
an alternative plan to allow small-scale
cultivation in homes and outbuildings.
➲
The ordinance comes back Jan. 7 for
second reading and final passage.
➲
The ban takes effect 30 days later.

48. Fresno County cannabis ban
➲
Applies to indoor AND outdoor growing.

49. Fresno County cannabis ban
➲
Applies to indoor AND outdoor growing.
➲
Zero plants are allowed, regardless of
recommendation or medical need.

50. Fresno County cannabis ban
➲
Applies to indoor AND outdoor growing.
➲
Zero plants are allowed, regardless of
recommendation or medical need.
➲
Violations can be charged as criminal
misdemeanors, punishable with fines
and/or jail terms of up to six months.

51. Fresno County cannabis ban
➲
Applies to indoor AND outdoor growing.
➲
Zero plants are allowed, regardless of
recommendation or medical need.
➲
Violations can be charged as criminal
misdemeanors, punishable with fines
and/or jail terms of up to six months.
➲
Fines start at $1,000 per plant, PLUS...

52. Fresno County cannabis ban
➲
Applies to indoor AND outdoor growing.
➲
Zero plants are allowed, regardless of
recommendation or medical need.
➲
Violations can be charged as criminal
misdemeanors, punishable with fines
and/or jail terms of up to six months.
➲
Fines start at $1,000 per plant, PLUS...
➲
$100 per plant per day if not abated.

53. Fresno County cannabis ban
➲
Applies to indoor AND outdoor growing.
➲
Zero plants are allowed, regardless of
recommendation or medical need.
➲
Violations can be charged as criminal
misdemeanors, punishable with fines
and/or jail terms of up to six months.
➲
Fines start at $1,000 per plant, PLUS...
➲
$100 per plant per day if not abated.
➲
Court costs and “maximum” interest.

54. Fresno County cannabis ban
➲
Applies to indoor AND outdoor growing.
➲
Zero plants are allowed, regardless of
recommendation or medical need.
➲
Violations can be charged as criminal
misdemeanors, punishable with fines
and/or jail terms of up to six months.
➲
Fines start at $1,000 per plant, PLUS...
➲
$100 per plant per day if not abated.
➲
Court costs and “maximum” interest.
➲
Property liens for unpaid fines.

55. Environmental/agricultural
➲
Fresno County planners have prepared a
“Negative Declaration” for board approval.

56. Environmental/agricultural
➲
Fresno County planners have prepared a
“Negative Declaration” for board approval.
➲
The “neg deg” says the growing ban will not
negatively impact the environment.

57. Environmental/agricultural
➲
Fresno County planners have prepared a
“Negative Declaration” for board approval.
➲
The “neg deg” says the growing ban will not
negatively impact the environment.
➲
Wake-up call: Between 3% and 8% of all
household electricity in California is used to
grow cannabis with high-intensity lighting,
air conditioners and other costly equipment.

58. Environmental/agricultural
➲
Fresno County planners have prepared a
“Negative Declaration” for board approval.
➲
The “neg deg” says the growing ban will not
negatively impact the environment.
➲
Wake-up call: Between 3% and 8% of all
household electricity in California is used to
grow cannabis with high-intensity lighting,
air conditioners and other costly equipment.

59. Environmental/agricultural
➲
Fresno County planners have prepared a
“Negative Declaration” for board approval.
➲
The “neg deg” says the growing ban will not
negatively impact the environment.
➲
Wake-up call: Between 3% and 8% of all
household electricity in California is used to
grow cannabis with high-intensity lighting,
air conditioners and other costly equipment.
➲
Outdoor growing bans (and total bans)
drive growers indoors, boosting the
generation of greenhouse gases.

60. Environmental/agricultural

61. Environmental/agricultural
➲
Fresno County is the richest agricultural
county in the world, but some farmlands
suffer from high salinity and/or lack of water.

62. Environmental/agricultural
➲
Fresno County is the richest agricultural
county in the world, but some farmlands
suffer from high salinity and/or lack of water.
➲
In September, Gov. Brown signed SB 566,
the California Industrial Hemp Farming Act.
The bill clears the way for hemp farming in
the Central Valley with federal approval.

63. Environmental/agricultural
➲
Fresno County is the richest agricultural
county in the world, but some farmlands
suffer from high salinity and/or lack of water.
➲
In September, Gov. Brown signed SB 566,
the California Industrial Hemp Farming Act.
The bill clears the way for hemp farming in
the Central Valley with federal approval.
➲
Adult-use cannabis was legalized by
Washington and Colorado, and
California will follow suit in 2016.

64. Environmental/agricultural
➲
Fresno County is the richest agricultural
county in the world, but some farmlands
suffer from high salinity and/or lack of water.
➲
In September, Gov. Brown signed SB 566,
the California Industrial Hemp Farming Act.
The bill clears the way for hemp farming in
the Central Valley with federal approval.
➲
Adult-use cannabis was legalized by
Washington and Colorado, and
California will follow suit in 2016.
➲
Sustainable outdoor growing is best for
patients, farmers and the environment!

65. Open government / due process
➲
The Fresno County supervisors and sheriff
have gone “rogue” by refusing to observe
California's medical cannabis laws.

66. Open government / due process
➲
The Fresno County supervisors and sheriff
have gone “rogue” by refusing to observe
California's medical cannabis laws.
➲
The ordinance is being fast-tracked around
the Fresno County Planning Commission,
so planners have no ability to provide input.

67. Open government / due process
➲
The Fresno County supervisors and sheriff
have gone “rogue” by refusing to observe
California's medical cannabis laws.
➲
The ordinance is being fast-tracked around
the Fresno County Planning Commission,
so planners have no ability to provide input.
➲
Heavier fines for growing cannabis than for
all other categories of “public nuisance.”

68. Open government / due process
➲
The Fresno County supervisors and sheriff
have gone “rogue” by refusing to observe
California's medical cannabis laws.
➲
The ordinance is being fast-tracked around
the Fresno County Planning Commission,
so planners have no ability to provide input.
➲
Heavier fines for growing cannabis than for
all other categories of “public nuisance.”
➲
No substantial evidence to support
findings of no environmental impact.

69. Open government / due process
➲
The Fresno County supervisors and sheriff
have gone “rogue” by refusing to observe
California's medical cannabis laws.
➲
The ordinance is being fast-tracked around
the Fresno County Planning Commission,
so planners have no ability to provide input.
➲
Heavier fines for growing cannabis than for
all other categories of “public nuisance.”
➲
No substantial evidence to support
findings of no environmental impact.
➲
County can't enforce existing laws.

70. What's next...
➲
Public comment period for Initial Study 6770
ends on Dec. 27, 2013.

71. What's next...
➲
Public comment period for Initial Study 6770
ends on Dec. 27, 2013.
➲
The staff recommendation to adopt the
Negative Declaration will be presented to
supervisors on January 7, when the
ordinance comes up for a final vote.

72. What's next...
➲
Public comment period for Initial Study 6770
ends on Dec. 27, 2013.
➲
The staff recommendation to adopt the
Negative Declaration will be presented to
supervisors on January 7, when the
ordinance comes up for a final vote.
➲
If passed as expected, the total growing ban
takes effect on or about February 7, 2014.

73. What's next...
➲
Public comment period for Initial Study 6770
ends on Dec. 27, 2013.
➲
The staff recommendation to adopt the
Negative Declaration will be presented to
supervisors on January 7, when the
ordinance comes up for a final vote.
➲
If passed as expected, the total growing ban
takes effect on or about February 7, 2014.
➲
A legal challenge to the ban is likely.

74. Fresno County cannabis ban:
Issues and alternatives
Presented by
FresnoCannabis.org