Council Vote to Send pot growers indoors

[nitram]

Author:By SETH FREEDLAND

Date: Sunday, February 05, 2006

source: Source

 

City Council votes to require pot cultivation be indoors

 

 

The Ukiah City Council's ongoing modification of its marijuana cultivation ordinance took another divergent leap Wednesday, when the council voted to require that all cultivation take place indoors.

 

The council members chose to focus on the public safety and quality of life concerns neighbors of pot-growing Ukiahans have delivered to city staff. After four months of administering the ordinance, various issues, including odor and air quality complaints, and an increase in acts of violence and intimidation, led the city to move all medicinal pot growing out of the public domain.

 

The city's definition of "indoors" directly means within a "fully enclosed and secure structure," which could include a greenhouse with lockable doors. This shift also eliminates any needed distance from schools or parks.

Members of the vocal pro-medicinal pot community spoke privately before the meeting of the financial barrier indoor growing would create for cannabis patients. Pebbles Trippet, of the Medical Marijuana Patients Union, called heat lamps and other apparatuses "prohibitively expensive" to grow her medicine. She added that the equipment was potentially dangerous as well, considering many cannabis users are elderly.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

"prohibitively expensive" - :thumbsup

[nitram]

If you don't know where this progressive place is it is nestled in the Ukiah Valley

 

Located in the heart of Mendocino County and the Redwood Empire.

 

Ykiah

[XPATSEEDS]

A little futher reading for those who want it..

 

Link to PDF... much nicer to read.

 

Direct Link to PDF

 

Xpat...

 

SUBJECT: INTRODUCTION OF ORDINANCE REVISING SECTION 9254, ENTITLED “MARIJUANA CULTIVATION” TO DIVISION 9, CHAPTER 2, ARTICLE 19 OF THE UKIAH CITY CODE

SUMMARY: Last October, the City Council discussed possible revisions to the marijuana cultivation ordinance to simplify enforcement and make the ordinance more defensible against legal challenge. After discussing possible revisions, the Council referred the draft ordinance to the Planning Commission for a public hearing and recommendation.

On December 14, 2005, the Planning Commission conducted a public hearing and discussed the proposed ordinance revisions with Staff, the City Attorney, and interested members of the public. After hearing from representatives from the National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws (NORML) and the Medical Marijuana Patients Union, the Planning Commission unanimously agreed to recommend that the City Council introduce and adopt the ordinance revising the marijuana cultivation regulations as proposed by the City Attorney and Staff.

(continued on page 2)

RECOMMENDED ACTION: 1) Conduct a public hearing; and 2) Introduce the Ordinance revising Section 9254 entitled “Marijuana Cultivation” to Division 9, Chapter 2, Article 19 of the Ukiah City Code.

ALTERNATIVE COUNCIL POLICY OPTION: Do not introduce the Ordinance and provide direction to Staff.

Citizens Advised: Interested groups, organizations, and members of the public

Requested by: Charley Stump, Director of Planning and Community Development

Prepared by: Charley Stump, Director of Planning and Community Development

Coordinated with: Candace Horsley, City Manager and David Rapport, City Attorney

Attachments:

1. Ordinance for Introduction

2. Planning Commission Staff Report, dated December 14, 2005

3. Planning Commission minutes, dated December 14, 2005

APPROVED:

Candace Horsley, City Manager

1

2

THE PROPOSED REVISIONS: This revised ordinance avoids several problems posed by the existing ordinance:

1. It eliminates the Use Permit requirement which is problematic for the following reasons:

a. The public notice requirements of the ordinance publicizes where marijuana is being grown, which is contrary to one of the purposes of the ordinance; to avoid marijuana from being an attractive nuisance.

b. The public notice, public hearing and public record features of the permit have been argued to violate the privacy rights of a marijuana patient.

c. By issuing a permit, the City may, in fact, be authorizing an activity which is a violation of the federal Controlled Substances Act.

d. Requiring an application for a permit has been argued to violate a marijuana grower's 5th Amendment right against self-incrimination by requiring him or her to admit in the application to a violation of federal law.

e. The elimination of the permitting requirements will reduce administrative burdens on the City's planning department. Conversely, it will eliminate an argument that the permit is a de facto prohibition, because it is so burdensome. In fact, no one has yet filed for a Use Permit.

2. Eliminating the six plants per parcel limitation in residential zoning districts avoids the potential conflict with SB 420. Adding the language that allows for the abatement of a public nuisance caused by indoor or outdoor growing addresses the problem of someone growing so much marijuana on the property, even indoors, as to create public nuisance. If that is happening at a particular address, a civil action can be filed to abate the specific nuisance impacts involved.

3. If all marijuana is required to be grown within a secure structure, there is less demonstrable need for banning cultivation within a stated distance of public facilities such as schools or parks. Moreover, eliminating this prohibition:

a. Eliminates another argument that the ordinance violates SB 420; and

b. Allows a patient who is using marijuana to grow small quantities indoors within 200 or 300 feet of a school, as long as that activity does not create a public nuisance.

 

CONCLUSION: Staff and the Planning Commission are proposing to revise the marijuana cultivation regulations after four months of administering the ordinance. Based on enforcement experiences in response to complaints about marijuana cultivation, as well as legal issues identified by the City Attorney, the changes are suggested to simplify and reduce the burden of enforcement and make the ordinance more defensible against legal challenges.

Staff and the Planning Commission also believe that a simple ban on outdoor cultivation will alleviate many of the complaints the City has received. Finally, the draft ordinance would authorize a civil injunctive action if specific public nuisance impacts of indoor cultivation exist in individual cases.

RECOMMENDATION: 1) Conduct a public hearing; and 2) Introduce the Ordinance revising Section 9254 entitled “Marijuana Cultivation” to Division 9, Chapter 2, Article 19 of the Ukiah City Code.

[fsagertyaef]

where is this place i looked at all of the links and looked at a few jobs there tried to find a map but i couldnt any help somene

[nitram]

 

 

Ukiah

Umatilla County,

Oregon

 

USA.