Nevada County Medical Marijuana Cultivation, Measure S (November 2014)

Voting on Marijuana
Ballot Measures
By state
By year
Not on ballot
Local Local marijuana Local marijuana tax

A Nevada County Medical Marijuana Cultivation, Measure S ballot question, also known as the Safe Cultivation Act of Nevada County, was on the November 4, 2014 election ballot for voters in Nevada County, California. It was defeated.

If approved, Measure S would have overturned the county's Ordinance 2349 - enacted in May 2012 to regulate and restrict the medical marijuana cultivation in the county - and replaced it with new provisions to regulate cannabis growers.

Supporters of Measure S argued that the county's ordinance imposed unreasonable restrictions and was unenforceable, while Measure S provisions would have allowed for enforcement, safe and nuisance-free marijuana grows and accessible, convenient access to cannabis for patients.

Opponents claimed that Measure S would have taken a liberal and lax set of restrictions and make them even more liberal, doing away with provisions necessary to keep the county free of marijuana-related violence, noise and odor nuisances and drug abuse.

Election results

Nevada County Measure S
Result		Votes	Percentage
d No		25,664	66.41%
Yes		12,980	33.59%

Election results via: Nevada County Elections Office

Provisions

According to a study published by The Union, the following table shows the differences between the county's Ordinance 2349, which would continue to regulate medical marijuana if Measure S is rejected, and Measure S, which would replace Ordinance 2349 if approved:

Comparison of current Nevada County Ordinance 2349 to proposed Citizen-Initiated Measure S
Council Ordinance 2349		Citizen-initiated Measure S
requires cannabis to be kept out of sight and smell	suggests filters to control smell
allows cultivation at a patient's or caregiver's primary residence only	allows cultivation anywhere occupied by at least one patient or caregiver and allows collective operator to be paid ("occupy" not defined)
allows a maximum 100 sq. ft. grow area indoors in residential areas	allows 100 sq. ft. grow area for single-occupancy indoor location and 200 sq. ft. grow area for multiple-occupancy indoor area in R-1, R-2 and R-3 residential areas
allows 75 sq. ft. grow area or 6 plants on outdoor plots greater than 2 acres in residential areas	no outdoor sq. ft. restriction; allows 12 immature plants or 6 mature plants outdoors and 12 plants in greenhouse R-1, R-2 and R-3 residential areas
for areas zoned for agriculture (AG, AE), Forest Reserve (FR) or Timber Production (TPZ), 100 sq. ft. allowed indoors or 150 sq. ft. outdoors on parcels less than 2 acres	for areas zoned for agriculture (AG, AE), Forest Reserve (FR) or Timber Production (TPZ), 100 sq. ft./patient allowed indoors (max 200 sq. ft.) or max of 24 immature/18 mature plants outdoors on parcels less than 5 acres
for areas zoned for agriculture (AG, AE), Forest Reserve (FR) or Timber Production (TPZ), 100 sq. ft. indoors or 300 sq. ft. outdoors on 2-5 acre parcels	for areas zoned for agriculture (AG, AE), Forest Reserve (FR) or Timber Production (TPZ), 100 sq. ft./patient indoors (max 300 sq. ft.) or max of 36 immature/24 mature plants outdoors on 5-10 acres of land
for areas zoned for agriculture (AG, AE), Forest Reserve (FR) or Timber Production (TPZ), 100 sq. ft. indoors or 400 sq. ft. outdoors on 5-10 acre parcels	for areas zoned for agriculture (AG, AE), Forest Reserve (FR) or Timber Production (TPZ), 100 sq. ft./patient indoors (max 400 sq. ft.) or max of 48 immature/36 mature plants outdoors on 10-20 acres of land
for areas zoned for agriculture (AG, AE), Forest Reserve (FR) or Timber Production (TPZ), 100 sq. ft. indoors or 600 sq. ft. outdoors on 10-20 acre parcels	for areas zoned for agriculture (AG, AE), Forest Reserve (FR) or Timber Production (TPZ), 100 sq. ft./patient indoors (max 500 sq. ft.) or max of 60 immature/48 mature plants outdoors on 20-30 acres of land
for areas zoned for agriculture (AG, AE), Forest Reserve (FR) or Timber Production (TPZ), 100 sq. ft. indoors or 1,000 sq. ft. outdoors on 20+ acre parcels	for areas zoned for agriculture (AG, AE), Forest Reserve (FR) or Timber Production (TPZ), 100 sq. ft./patient indoors (max 600 sq. ft.) or max of 99 immature/60 mature plants outdoors on 30+ acres of land
All cultivation prohibited in all other zones, including airport, commercial, business-park, office-professional, SDA, industrial, rural or estate	No restrictions on cultivation in all other zones, including airport, commercial, business-park, office-professional, SDA, industrial, rural or estate
Restrictions for areas zoned for residential use apply to areas zoned for Residential-Agricultural (R-A) - See above	Restrictions for areas zoned for agriculture (AG, AE), Forest Reserve (FR) or Timber Production (TPZ) apply to areas zoned for Residential-Agricultural (R-A) - See above
requires continuous, unbroken cultivation area per property/parcel	allows cultivation areas to be broken up on any given property/parcel
prohibits terracing - requires growing area to be on a flat surface	allows terracing - does not restrict growing area to a flat surface
requires sight-obscuring fence of 6-8 feet with a locked gate around growing area	encourages use of greenhouse to obscure view & for safety
requires lights to be shielded, turned downward and to stay inside of parcel boundaries - no outdoor lights allowed	prohibits lights from disturbing neighbors
prohibits marijuana plants from being visible from roads or to exceed the height of required fence	prohibits marijuana seeds, leaves or flowers from being visible to public from ground level view
1,000 ft. minimum buffer from schools, churches, parks, daycare centers, school bus stops and youth facilities	600 ft. minimum buffer from schools, churches, parks and daycare and children facilities
for areas zoned for agriculture (AG, AE), Forest Reserve (FR) or Timber Production (TPZ), cultivation must be between 100 and 300 ft from neighboring residences or outdoor living areas	for areas zoned for agriculture (AG, AE, R-A), Forest Reserve (FR) or Timber Production (TPZ), cultivation must be 200 ft. from exterior wall of adjacent residence
for residential areas, including areas zoned for Residential-Agriculture, 100-200 ft. minimum buffer from adjacent residence	for residential areas, 100 ft. minimum buffer from closest exterior wall of adjacent residence
cultivators on rental land must have written permission from landlord	no restrictions regarding rental land
marijuana-related changes to electrical or plumbing systems requires county permit	marijuana-related changes to electrical or plumbing systems must follow county construction codes
requires posting of State Medical Marijuana ID, Dr. recommendation and landlord's permission letter outside cultivation area	requires posting of State Medical Marijuana ID and Dr. recommendation inside cultivation area
has rules concerning enforcement, public nuisance notices and abatement	has no such rules

Text of measure

Ballot question

The question on the ballot:

“

Shall medical marijuana cultivation in Nevada County be allowed to expand by amending the County's General Code to (a) increase the allowed sizes of cultivation areas; (b) reduce or eliminate setback requirements between cultivation areas and adjacent residences and sensitive uses; and (c) eliminate various marijuana cultivation regulations and restrictions related to nuisance control?

”

Impartial analysis

The following impartial analysis was provided for Measure S by the office of the county counsel:

“	If adopted by a majority of the voters, this initiative would repeal existing County regulations as contained in Nevada County Ordinance No. 2349 and establish new regulations regarding the size, location and manner in which medical marijuana may be cultivated in unincorporated areas of the County. Under the proposed initiative, medical marijuana may be cultivated by a Qualified Patient(s) or a Qualified Caregiver(s) on a legal parcel or premises occupied by at least one such qualified person, whether or not the property is the cultivator's primary residence. The proposed initiative would protect collectives and cooperatives who comply with these new regulations from civil or criminal prosecution or punishment under local law. The proposed initiative amends existing law regarding the sizes of cultivation areas by increasing the maximum area allowed for indoor cultivation in all zones; eliminating square footage limitations and increasing the number of plants allowed outdoors for properties over two acres located in R-1, R-2, and R-3 zones; eliminating square footage limitations, using plant counts to establish outdoor cultivation limitations, and increasing the maximum size of indoor and outdoor grow areas on properties in residential-agricultural (RA), agricultural (AG, AE), forest reserve (FR) and timber production zones (TPZ) (new limits range from 24 immature or 18 mature plants on parcels of less than 5 acres to 99 immature plants or 60 mature plants on parcels of 30 acres or more); and eliminating a prohibition against cultivating in all other zones. The proposed initiative amends existing law regarding the locations of cultivation areas by reducing minimum distances between cultivation areas and adjacent residences; reducing minimum distances between cultivation areas and schools, churches, parks and youth oriented facilities from 1000' to 600'; eliminating minimum distances between cultivation areas and school bus stops, school evacuation sites, and outdoor living areas on adjacent parcels; eliminating minimum distances in mobilehome parks; and changing the manner in which setbacks are measured. The proposed initiative amends existing law by redefining the term "marijuana" to include only "usable portions" of the plant (excluding stalks or roots). The proposed initiative also amends existing law by eliminating marijuana cultivation regulations including: odor control, noise, dust, traffic, glare, noxious gasses, and smoke restrictions; fencing and security requirements; fence and garden height limitations; the requirement that tenants obtain written, notarized consent to cultivate marijuana from the legal parcel owner; restrictions on use and storage of hazardous materials; lighting and glare restrictions; and restrictions on terracing cultivation areas. A "yes" vote on Measure S is a vote to repeal existing law and to approve the new provisions contained in Measure S. A "no" vote on Measure S is a vote against repealing existing law and against approving the new provisions contained in Measure S. (quote)	”
—Nevada County Counsel

Full text

The full text of the ordinance that would have been enacted by the approval of Measure S is available here.

Support

Supporters

The Americans for Safe Access-Nevada County (ASA) was behind this initiative.

Measure S NevadaCounty, "Good Neighbors #1 - Yes on S," accessed September 15, 2014

The ASA website listed the following endorsements of Measure S:

• NORML
• Veterans for Medical Cannabis Access
• Kathryn Doolittle, Emma Nevada House
• Dan Wheat, A to Z Hardware
• Darin Ferguson, UFCW (United Food & Commercial Workers)
• Dr. Harvey Bigelsen
• Moms4MedicalMarijuana
• Merry Jane's
• Stephen Munkelt, Attorney & Law
• Jeffrey Lake, Attorney & Law
• Hometown Hydroponics
• (Christian) Crusaders for Mercy
• CannabisCuresCancer.Org Info and CO-OP

The Nevada County Democratic Party officially endorsed a "yes" vote on Measure S.

There was an official support website called Yes on Measure S.

Arguments in favor

Measure S NevadaCounty, "Good Neighbors #3 - Yes on S," accessed September 15, 2014

Supporters argued that Measure S fixes problems with the original county ordinance - Ordinance 2349 - and makes medical cannabis restrictions both safer for the county and more enforceable for the police and sheriff officers, as well as making medical marijuana more accessible for sick people and needy patients.

The Nevada County ASA argued that the county's ordinance is deliberately impossible to follow. Two of the chief examples of problems with the Ordinance 2349 provided by the ASA are requirements for (1) completely level and flat growing areas and (2) provisions establishing abandoned school bus stops as locations used in minimum setback buffers. The ballot argument in favor of Measure S says, “Measure S solves these flaws with sensible solutions."

The Yes on Measure S campaign website listed the following ten reasons to vote in favor of Measure S:

“

Because sometimes marijuana is the only medicine that works to relieve seizures, nausea from chemo treatments, and chronic pain without the side effects of opiates. Because Measure S is a sensible solution between the needs of patients and the rights of homeowners. Because a total ban on Outdoor Cultivation is likely if the measure fails. Because moving Collectives to AG-zoned parcels will alleviate the “nuisance” factor in residential neighborhoods. Because we are tired of the government’s overreach into our personal lives. Because marijuana is safer than pharmaceutical drugs. Someone dies every 19 seconds from prescription drugs. Because the County’s Cultivation ordinance discriminates against disabled patients. Because medical marijuana cultivators do not cause environmental damage. Because it will free up law enforcement to go after the illegal growers in our forests who are armed and dangerous. Because the citizens of CA (and Nevada County) voted for Prop 215 to supply safe access to patients in need.

”

Videos

The following videos in Support of Measure S were released by Measure S supporters:

MeasureS NevadaCounty, "Good Neighbors #2 - Yes on S," accessed September 15, 2014

MeasureS NevadaCounty, "Einstein - Yes on S," accessed September 15, 2014

MeasureS NevadaCounty, "Sheriff Mack - Yes on S," accessed September 15, 2014

Opposition

Opponents

The county supervisors generally supported their own measure and oppose Measure S, which would revoke it.

Jo Ann Rebane, who was the second vice president and legislative chair for the Nevada County Republican Women Federated, opposed Measure S.

The members of the Nevada County Republican Party unanimously approved a resolution opposing Measure S.

Keith Royal, the Nevada County Sheriff/Coroner, was opposed to Measure S.

Arguments against

The general position taken by opponents of Measure S was that Measure S was trying to take a liberal set of regulations and make them even more liberal and lax. They argued that the initiative removes important protections for residents who do not want to be bothered with the noise and smell associated with marijuana grows and also opens the county up to more marijuana-related criminal activity by not giving law enforcement the tools necessary to quickly and unequivocally put a stop to irresponsible growers.

The official opposing argument said, “Those of us who live in residential neighborhoods and on agricultural properties have a right to expect protection from nuisance and public safety issues associated with marijuana cultivation. Measure S removes that protection and returns Nevada County to a time when law enforcement lacked tools to protect us against nuisance growers.”

Supporters of the county ordinance, who opposed Measure S, also argued, “Measure S dramatically changes regulations regarding size, location and manner in which marijuana may be cultivated and removes important neighborhood protections from nuisances associated with larger marijuana grows, including: odors, noise, dust, traffic, glare and hazardous materials." They also argue that Measure S “removes fencing, height and security requirements that reduce criminal activity, exposures to children and neighborhood intimidation.”

In an opinion piece featured by The Union, Jo Ann Rebane, who was the second vice president and legislative chair for the Nevada County Republican Women Federated, wrote arguments opposing Measure S. Below is an excerpt from her article:

“	According to Nevada County Supervisor Richard Anderson, proponents of Measure S want voters to replace a liberal ordinance with a more liberal ordinance. The current medical marijuana cultivation ordinance, adopted in May 2012 specifies where, how, and how much medical marijuana may be cultivated in unincorporated residential and agricultural areas of the county. The current ordinance has enforcement, appeal and abatement provisions, and provides the community a means to alleviate nuisance marijuana “grows” and encourages those who legitimately grow it for their personal medical use to be good neighbors. Measure S reached our ballot as an initiative — written for and circulated by the Nevada County branch of Americans for Safe Access, possibly as a test case for a statewide push at a later date. The Nevada County Board of Supervisors, the Coalition for a Drug Free Nevada County and the Nevada County Republican Party each oppose Measure S. They find that, if approved, every aspect of the current medical marijuana cultivation ordinance would be loosened, favoring growers and disadvantaging the general welfare of the community. Measure S weakens and removes current code provisions. Measure S increases the allowed square footage of indoor “grows” by 500 percent in the extreme. Measure S replaces the square footage limits for outdoor “grows” with specific immature and mature marijuana plant numbers and allows indoor and outdoor cultivation on the same parcel. Measure S also allows renters to cultivate medical marijuana without obtaining their landlord’s written permission to use his property in that way and to make changes to his electrical and plumbing systems without his knowledge. Measure S allows cultivation of medical marijuana without limitation in and on parcels zoned for commercial, business park, office professional, airport, and industrial. Finally, Measure S reduces the set-back buffer distance from schools, churches, parks, day-care centers and youth facilities by 40 percent and removes set-back requirements from outdoor living areas and school bus stops. Sheriff Keith Royal notes that Measure S eliminates enforcement, appeal, and abatement provisions which will leave the county no means to respond to citizen complaints regarding nuisance marijuana “grows.” When does a garden become a commercial truck farm?	”
—Jo Ann Rebane, the second vice president and legislative chair for the Nevada County Republican Women Federated

The Nevada County Republican Party passed a resolution opposing Measure S. Below is an excerpt from that resolution:

“	WHEREAS, Measure S has qualified for the November ballot and seeks to expand the rights of marijuana growers without protecting the right of individual property owners; WHEREAS, Measure S significantly reduces and in many instances eliminates the ability of County law enforcement to enforce growing restrictions; WHEREAS, the Nevada County Republican Party believes that the expansion of marijuana growing rights under Measure S would be detrimental to the residents of this County by impinging upon the quiet enjoyment of personal property by having to be subjected to: odors, fumes, pesticides, ground water contamination, creased crime and health concerns related to expanded marijuana growing; WHEREAS, the passage of Measure S will encourage the expansion of illegal marijuana growing by lessening the penalties and impeding the enforcement by County officials; and, WHEREAS, the only purpose in passing Measure S would be to increase marijuana growing in the county and substantially reduce enforcement measures and penalties for those violating the regulations. THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the Nevada County Republican Party opposes Measure S and urges all voters (regardless of party affiliation) to protect the health, safety and quiet enjoyment of all County Residents by voting No on Measure S.	”
—Nevada County GOP

Keith Royal, the Nevada County Sheriff/Coroner, wrote an opinion piece in opposition to Measure S that was published by The Union. In his article, Royal opened by saying, "You know the saying, 'Walk a mile in my shoes,' and if you were to take a walk with me, I believe that you would understand why I encourage you to Vote No on Measure S."

He then testified about the boost in marijuana growth in the county, the increased crime and harm he has seen this bring to the residents and the success current county supervisor-approved regulations have had in combating the spike in crime. He argued that marijuana growers support Measure S because it is too lenient and will allow them to grow more marijuana, causing all of the same problems the county experience before. Sheriff Royal concluded by writing:

“	The current ordinance provides a balance between those who need to grow medicinal marijuana, and the quality of life of their neighbors. Let’s not take any steps backward, let’s keep walking forward. The current ordinance is the “sensible solution,” and it is working. Vote No on Measure S.	”
—Keith Royal, Nevada County Sheriff/Coroner

Reports and analyses

The Union released a study comparing the county's Ordinance 2349 and Measure S. The full text of that study is available here.

Related measures

Recreational

a Washington D.C. Marijuana Legalization, Initiative 71 (November 2014)

Colorado:

• Nine local 2014 marijuana measures in Colorado

Maine:

a City of Lewiston Recreational Marijuana Legalization Measure (November 2014)
a City of South Portland Recreational Marijuana Legalization Measure (November 2014)
Town of York Recreational Marijuana Legalization Measure (November 2014)

Massachusetts:

• Massachusetts Congressional Districts Marijuana Legalization Public Policy Question Advisory Votes - Eight Districts (November 2014)

Michigan:

• Local marijuana measures in Michigan

New Mexico:

a Santa Fe County Marijuana Decriminalization Advisory Question (November 2014)
a Bernalillo County Marijuana Decriminalization Advisory Question, Measure 1 (November 2014)
City of Albuquerque Marijuana Decriminalization Measure (November 2014)
City of Santa Fe Marijuana Decriminalization Initiative (November 2014)

Wisconsin:

a Dane County State Legalization of Marijuana Referendum (April 2014)

Medical

California:

a City of Santa Ana Council-Referred Medical Marijuana Regulation Ordinance, Measure BB (November 2014)
d City of Santa Ana Medical Cannabis Restriction and Limitation Initiative, Measure CC (November 2014)
d City of La Mesa Medical Marijuana Initiative, Proposition J (November 2014)
d City of Encinitas Medical Marijuana Initiative, Proposition F (November 2014)
d Nevada County Medical Marijuana Cultivation, Measure S (November 2014)
a Butte County Medical Marijuana Ordinance 4075 Referendum, Measure A (November 2014)
d Butte County Medical Marijuana Initiative, Measure B (November 2014)
a Shasta County Outdoor Medical Marijuana Ordinance Referendum, Measure A (November 2014)
d Lake County "Medical Marijuana Control Act" Initiative, Measure O (November 2014)
d Lake County "Freedom to Garden Human Rights Restoration Act" Initiative, Measure P (November 2014)
d City of Weed Permitting Licensing of Medical Marijuana Dispensaries Advisory Question, Measure L (November 2014)
a City of Weed Outdoor Marijuana Cultivation Ban Advisory Question, Measure K (November 2014)
a Lake County Marijuana Cultivation Ordinance 2997 Referendum, Measure N (June 2014)
City of Imperial Beach "Compassionate Access Ordinance" Medical Marijuana Dispensaries Act (June 2014)
City of Napa Medical Marijuana Dispensary Referendum (November 2014)
City of San Jose Medical Marijuana Regulation Act of 2014 (November 2014)

See also

• Local marijuana on the ballot
• Nevada County, California ballot measures
• November 4, 2014 ballot measures in California

External links

Suggest a link

• Nevada County Elections Office website

Support

• Yes on Measure S website
• Nevada County Americans for Safe Access website

Opposition

• Nevada County Republican Party website
• Nevada GOP website, "Resolution opposing Measure S," accessed September 16, 2014