Yuba County, California, Medical Cannabis Cultivation and Commerce, Measure E (November 2016)
| Measure E: Yuba County Medical Cannabis Cultivation and Commerce |
|---|
|
| The basics |
| Election date: |
| November 8, 2016 |
| Status: |
 Defeated
|
| Topic: |
| Local marijuana |
| Related articles |
| Local marijuana on the ballot November 8, 2016 ballot measures in California Yuba County, California ballot measures |
| See also |
| Yuba County, California |
A medical marijuana measure was on the ballot for voters in Yuba County, California, on November 8, 2016. It was defeated.
| A yes vote was a vote in favor of allowing the cultivation, manufacturing, distribution, and transportation of medical cannabis in Yuba County. |
| A no vote was a vote against allowing the cultivation, manufacturing, distribution, and transportation of medical cannabis in Yuba County. |
Election results
| Measure E | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Result | Votes | Percentage | ||
| No | 11,960 | 54.78% | ||
| Yes | 9,871 | 45.22% | ||
- Election results from Yuba County Registrar of Voters
Text of measure
Ballot question
The following question appeared on the ballot:[1]
| “ |
Shall the ordinance that would allow for commercial medical cannabis activity in Yuba County and establish regulations to generally regulate the cultivation, manufacturing, distribution, and transportation of medical cannabis within the County be adopted?[2] |
” |
Impartial analysis
The following impartial analysis of the measure was prepared by the office of the Yuba County Counsel:
| “ |
Approval of Measure E would amend Title 12 of Yuba County Code and establish regulations regarding the cultivation of medical cannabis and related commercial activities within Yuba County consistent with the Medical Marijuana Regulation and Safety Act. The Medical Marijuana Regulation and Safety Act, enacted by the California legislature, creates a comprehensive state licensing system for the commercial cultivation, manufacture, retail sale, transport, distribution, delivery, and testing of medical cannabis. The Act requires all persons and entities engaged in medical cannabis related commercial activity to have a state license and a license, permit, or other authorization from their local government. Upon voter approval, Measure E would authorize medical cannabis related commercial acitivity in Yuba County. The initiative would establish regulations to generally regulate the cultivation, manufacturing, distribution, and transportation of medical cannabis within the County. All existing cannabis cultivation and commercial cannabis operations would be required to comply with the new regulations within 12 months of adoption. Absent a local regulatory system allowing for commercial medical cannabis activity, individuals and businesses would be prohibited from engaging in such activity in Yuba County. Approval of Measure E, would provide a regulatory system to meet the local permit, license or other authorization requirement of the Act. The regulations would establish specific land use requirements in existing zoning districts for the cultivation of medical cannabis and related commercial activities and establish requirements and procedures for obtaining zoning clearances, administrative use permits, and conditional use permits for such uses. The regulations would requirem permits for all commercial cannabis activities and would require that the scale of agricultural cannabis operations be consistent with the Medical Marijuana Regulation and Safety Act. The regulations would establish design requirements that vary by zoning district for parcels that contain cannabis cultivations including required permanent residences in certain zoning districts, limits on the size of cultivation areas, fencing and screening requirements, required setbacks, security measure requirements, required access by emergency personnel and limits on external signage. All applicants for permits for the cultivation, manufacturing, distribution, and transportation of medical cannabis would be required to provide, in part, written consent from the landowner if the applicant was not themselves the record title owner of the parcel, a site plan for areas of cultivation on the parcel, and a description of legal water sources and irrigation plan. If Measure E is approved the regulations would be enforced pursuant to Yuba County Code chapter 12.10, which establishes land use permit revocation procedures. Cannabis would not be classified as a nuisance unless a person or entity is in violation of the regulations of their related permit. Measure E was placed on the ballot by an initiative petition signed by the requisite nummber of registered voters of Yuba County. All residents of Yuba County are voting on Measure E. The measure may be passed by majority of the voters voting in its favor.[2] |
” |
| —Yuba County Counsel[1] | ||
Full text
The full text of the measure is available here.
Support
Supporters
The following individuals signed the official argument in favor of the measure:[1]
- George Powers
- Peter Allison
Arguments in favor
Official argument
The following official argument was submitted in favor of the measure:[1]
| “ |
This measure proposes sensible regulation in accordance with the state statute and law known as the Medical Marijuana Regulation and Safety Act, the MMRSA. Regulation must be sensible and feasible to encourage a desire to participate. Sensible regulation allows for internal self regulation as witnessed with dispensaries in Southern California and Arizona. Those who pay the fees and taxes do not approve of neighboring illegitimate activities. The current ordinance forces patients to grow indoors. This is ecologically irresponsible. Sun grown cannabis uses one third the amount of water and 98% less energy. Outdoor cultivation is carbon negative. Indoor cultivation creates massive amounts of Co2 emissions. The state water board has implemented a permitting program to regulate water use and discharge with outdoor cannabis cultivation. For Yuba county to enroll, we must have a county outdoor cultivation permitting program. The opposition may argue it's written for pot heads to grow pot. This measure is written to mirror and comply with state legislation, the MMRSA. That argument would by association, be saying the state assemblymen and senators are pot heads. Any sane person will realize this is not true. California law makers realized the war on a God given plant has failed miserably. Medical marijuana is gaining exponential favor as a natural remedy and economy booster. It's more intelligent to regulate and control, as opposed to wasting tax payers's money in attempt to prohibit medical marijuana. Tax payers should not bare the burden of medical marijuana regulation and safety costs. The farmers should pay for the enforcement, as it is with any agricultural crop. This measure decreases county spending while increasing county income. Calaveras county generated over 3,000,000 dollars with their permitting program. This figure does not include tax monies or local farming expenditures. Local agriculture means local economic stimulus. [2] |
” |
Opposition
Opponents
The following individuals signed the official argument against the measure:[1]
- Steven L. Durfor, Sheriff Yuba County
- Patrick J. McGrath, Yuba County District Attorney
- James L. Arnold, Yuba County Probation Chief
- Virginia Black, Retired Yuba Co. Sheriff
- Richard Teagarden, Retired Yuba County Superintendent
Arguments against
Official argument
The following official argument was submitted in opposition to the measure:[1]
| “ |
Law Enforcement, Community Leaders, Educators and Medical Professionals urge you to Vote NO on Measure E. Last June Yuba County residents soundly rejected the return of outdoor marijuana cultivation, defeating Measure A 62% to 38%. Marijuana proponents have now returned with Measure E, which is intended to establish the wholesale industrialization of commercial marijuana in Yuba County. Measure E will authorize not only commercial cultivation, but the for-profit sale; distribution, and manufacture of marijuana products where we live. Measure E is more expansive than anything previously proposed in Yuba County by commercial marijuana special interests. For instance, large outdoor grows would be allowed - a 20 acre parcel could grow up to an acre of marijuana and hundreds of plants. Grows in residential neighborhoods are only required to be 30 feet from a neighbor's property. "Indoor cultivation" would not require a structure with a solid roof, wall, or floor - it would not even need to be permitted under the California Building Code. Measure E is also terribly written. It is a mish-mash of badly defined and contradictory land use provisions which are inconsistent with our current Development Code and General Plan. For example, it provides for possible marijuana development in special recreation areas like the Spenceville Wildlife Refuge. Churches and drug treatment facilities are protected in some provisions, but not in others. Some cultivation permits would require compliance with pesticide and herbicide regulations and others would not. Worse yet, Measure E says that if a commercial marijuana business submits a permit application by July 1, 2017, they are allowed to cultivate, manufacture, or sell marijuana for 10 years - regardless of whether the application is approved. Prop 215 was about the medical needs of seriously ill persons. Measure E is about marijuana industrialization and profit. Vote no on Measure E. [2] |
” |
Path to the ballot
This measure was put on the ballot through a successful initiative petition campaign.
Recent news
The link below is to the most recent stories in a Google news search for the terms Yuba County Local marijuana. These results are automatically generated from Google. Ballotpedia does not curate or endorse these articles.
See also
External links
Footnotes
 |
State of California Sacramento (capital) |
|---|---|
| Elections |
What's on my ballot? | Elections in 2025 | How to vote | How to run for office | Ballot measures |
| Government |
Who represents me? | U.S. President | U.S. Congress | Federal courts | State executives | State legislature | State and local courts | Counties | Cities | School districts | Public policy |
