Measure S: Reply to Nevada County's brief

8/11/2019 Measure S: Reply to Nevada County's brief

1/11

1

2

3

45

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

1718

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Stephen A. Munkelt, SBN 80449MUNKELT LAW OFFICE356 Providence Mine Road, Suite ENevada City, CA 95959Tel: (530) 265-8508Fax: (530) 265-0881

[email protected] for Patricia Smith

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

COUNTY OF NEVADA

PATRICIA SMITH, Elector,

Petitioner,v.

COUNTY OF NEVADA AND GREGORYDIAZ, Election Official,

Respondents.

Case No. CU14-080755

PETITIONERS REPLY TO OPPOSITION

DATE: 10/3/14TIME: 10:00 amDEPT: 6

I.

THERE IS NO DISPUTE ABOUT THE ADOPTION OF BALLOT

LANGUAGE IN RESOLUTION 14-140.

Petitioner included a brief history of Measure S in the petition, acknowledging the adoption of

the ballot language in Resolution 14-140 on April 22 by the Boards of Supervisors. This was to provide

context to the current Petition. Petitioner agrees with respondents that the information was available to

the public. Therefore, there is no objection to the court taking judicial notice of the documents submitted

by respondents to fill out the record. At this point, however, the history has little relevance to the issues

before the court.

What is relevant, as noted in the Opposition at page 2, lines 15-18, are the statutory grounds for

relief outlined in Elections Code 13314. (Statutory references hereafter are to the Elections Code unless

otherwise indicated.) The statute raises two questions: 1) Is the language presently on the ballot in

violation of a statute or the constitution; and 2) If so, would the issuance of the writ substantially

interfere with the conduct of the election? These will be addressed in II and III, below.


2/11

1

2

3

45

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

1718

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

II.

THE PRESENT BALLOT LANGUAGE VIOLATES THE CODE

AND CONSTITUTION UNDER BOTH THE LOCAL INITIATIVE

PROCEDURE AND THE STATE PROCEDURE.

The constitutional guarantees of equal protection and freedom of speech as applied to publicelections mean, in practical effect, that the wording on a ballot or the structure of the ballot cannot favor

a particular partisan position. [Citations omitted] The ballot title, for example, must not be false,

misleading, or partial to one side. [] We understand partial to mean [that] the council's language

signals to voters the council's view of how they should vote, or casts a favorable light on one side of the

[issue] while disparaging the opposing view. (McDonough v. Superior Court(2012) 204 Cal. App. 4th

1169, 1174.)

The present language regarding Measure S and printed adjacent to the yes or no vote violates

this constitutional principle. It describes the Measure as allowing increased marijuana cultivation with

reduced regulation, and elimination of nuisance controls. These points, however, properly belong in the

ballot arguments [opposing] the measure, not in the ballot question, which must be cast in neutral,

unbiased language. (McDonough, supra, 204 Cal App 4that 1176.) As with the pension measure before

the court inMcDonoughthe language signals to voters the Board of Supervisors view of how they

should vote.Petitioner believes the present language also violates the Elections Code, both under the local

ordinance statutes, and under the state procedures. (Statutory references hereafter are to the Elections

Code unless otherwise indicated.)

For a local initiative like Measure S the County Counsel is to draft a ballot title and ballot

summary which are a true and impartial statement of the purpose of the proposed measure in such

language that the ballot title shall neither be an argument, nor be likely to create prejudice, for or against

the proposed measure. (See 9105(a).) That language is then required to appear on the circulating

petitions, and apparently may also be used in voter information materials. (See 9105( c).) A true copy

of the petitions circulated for Measure S is attached as Exhibit C and incorporated here by reference.

With statewide initiatives the Attorney General is required to draft the ballot title and summary

under the same requirement for a true and impartial statement of the purpose of the proposed measure


3/11

1

2

3

45

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

1718

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

in such language that the ballot title shall neither be an argument, nor be likely to create prejudice, for or

against the proposed measure. (See 9051( c).) One significant difference in the two types of ballot

summary is that the local statement can be up to 500 words, while the state is limited to 100. (Compare

9051(a)(1) and 9105(a).) County Counsels summary for Measure S runs to 462 words. (For ease ofcomparison, Exhibit D is attached and incorporated here with the current ballot text, the official ballot

title, and the drafters title.)

Another difference between state and local rules is the use of the term ballot label to describe

the language which will appear next to the yes or no vote. (See 9051(b).) This is also the section

which requires the label to include a financial impact summary, with a condensed version of the ballot

title and summary - in no more than 75 words. (Id.)

The statute for language next to the voting choice for a local initiative measure is 13119. It does

not refer to the ballot title or summary, and says the words on the ballot shall be "Shall the ordinance

(stating the nature thereof) be adopted?" For symmetry, and hopefully to avoid confusion, petitioner will

refer to this language as the ballot label. (This convention appears to have been adopted by

respondents. See Opposition page 4 lines 7-8.)

Petitioner believes the legislature has carefully circumscribed each of these schemes to prohibit

ballot labels which are partisan, argumentative, or promote a specific vote. The ballot label for MeasureS flunks this test, as set forth in the petition at paragraphs 22 - 26. A simple statement which would

satisfy the ballot label requirements under both 13119 and 9051 is: Shall the ordinance repealing

ordinance 2349 and enacting new medical marijuana cultivation standards be adopted?

Petitioner respectfully asks the court to find that the current ballot label is in violation of the code

and constitution for the reasons set forth above.

III.

THE BALLOT LABEL CAN BE CORRECTED WITHOUT

SUBSTANTIAL INTERFERENCE WITH THE CONDUCT OF

THE ELECTION.

Respondents take the position that any order granting relief would substantially interfere with the

conduct of the election. (Opposition Part III.) However, practical experience does not support such an

absolute position. For example, respondent Diaz was required to delay the mailing of ballots for the


4/11

1

2

3

45

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

1718

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

primary election in June of this year because of printing errors. Just in todays Sacramento Bee (10/2/14)

there was a report of printing errors requiring correction at significant cost. (See Exhibit E, incorporated

here by reference.)

This absolute position is also contrary to the courts analysis inMcDonough, supra. The City ofSan Jose argued that any delay would substantially interfere with the election. The court of appeal

demurred, acknowledging the legitimate interest in distributing materials in a timely manner, but

concluding we cannot elevate that concern above our duty to address the important substantive

questions raised in this petition. (204 Cal App 4that 1174.)

Therefore, if the court should find under the first prong of 13314(a)(2) that the current ballot

label is in violation of the code or constitution, the court should then proceed to evaluate the specific

practical limitations in correcting the error. If there is a remedy (such as reprinting) which can be

accomplished without preventing the conduct of a fair election, the court should order relief.

Respectfully Submitted,

October 2, 2014

Stephen A. Munkelt


5/11

Medical Marijuana Cultivation Measure | Nevada County Registered Voters | Page 1 of 4

Initiative Measure to be Submitted Directly to the Voters.The County Counsel of Nevada County, California has prepared the following title and summary:

BALLOT TITLE: Medical Marijuana Cultivation Measure

BALLOT SUMMARY:

If adopted by a majority of the voters, this initiative would repeal existing County regulations as containedin Nevada County Ordinance No. 2349 and establish new regulations regarding the size, location andmanner in which marijuana may be cultivated for medical purposes by qualified individuals inunincorporated areas of Nevada County. Under the proposed initiative, medical marijuana cultivation maybe undertaken by a Qualified Patient(s) or a Qualified Caregiver(s) on a legal parcel or legal premisesoccupied by at least one such qualified persons, whether or not the property is the person's primaryresidence. The proposed initiative would protect collectives and cooperatives who comply with the newregulations from civil or criminal prosecution or punishment under local law.

The proposed initiative would amend existing law regarding the size of cultivation areas by (a) increasingthe maximum square footage allowed for indoor cultivation in all areas; (b) eliminating square footagelimitations and increasing the number of plants allowed in outdoor grow areas for properties over two acreslocated in R-1, R-2, and R-3 residential zones; (c) eliminating square footage limitations, using plant countsfor establishing outdoor cultivation limitations, and increasing the maximum size of indoor and outdoorgrow areas on properties located in residential-agricultural (RA), agricultural (AG and AE), forest reserve(FR) and timber production (TPZ) zones (ranging from twenty-four (24) immature or eighteen (18) matureplants on parcels of less than 5 acres to a maximum of 99 immature plants or 60 mature plants on parcels of30 acres or more); and (d) eliminating cultivation restrictions for properties in all other zoning districts.

The proposed initiative would amend existing law regarding the locations of cultivation areas by (a)reducing required distances between cultivation areas and adjacent residences; (b) reducing the required

distances between cultivation areas and schools, churches, parks and other youth oriented facilities from1000' to 600'; (c) eliminating requirements for minimum distances between cultivation areas and school busstops, school evacuation sites, and outdoor living areas on adjacent parcels; (d) eliminating minimumdistance requirements in mobile home parks; and (e) changing the manner in which setbacks are measured.

The proposed initiative would also amend existing law by redefining the term "marijuana" to include onlythe "usable portions" of the plant (excluding stalks or roots), and eliminating various regulations andrestrictions pertaining to the cultivation of marijuana including: (a) odor control, noise, dust, traffic, glare,noxious gasses, and smoke restrictions; (b) fencing and security requirements; (c) fence and garden heightlimitations; (d) the requirement that tenants obtain written, notarized consent to cultivate medicalmarijuana from the legal parcel owner; (e) restrictions regarding the use or storage of hazardous materials;(f) indoor and outdoor lighting restrictions and anti-glare requirements; and (g) restrictions on terracing ofcultivation areas.

Notice of Intention to Circulate Petition

Notice is hereby given by the persons whose names appear hereon of their intention to circulate a petition withinthe County of Nevada for the purpose of scheduling a Special Election to replace Ordinance 2349, Article 5,Chapter IV of the Nevada County General Code with the Safe Cultivation Act of Nevada County.

A statement of the reasons for the proposed action as contemplated in the petition is as follows:

Ordinance #2349 imposes inter alia fencing requirements that are unreasonable, overly restrictive, costly, and inmany cases unnecessary to obscure the garden from public view.

Ordinance #2349 recognizes the right of patients to cultivate medical marijuana individually or collectively, butdoes not allow additional space to accommodate the needs of Collective members.

The square foot restrictions do not allow the majority of patients to grow a sufficient amount of medicine to meettheir medical needs. This creates an environment where patients may have to obtain their medicine from illegal oruntested sources.

The prohibition of terracing is contrary to soil erosion control and water conservation practices.

Requiring a garden to be located on a contiguous single plane is unrealistic, overly restrictive, burdensome andunworkable in the hill country of Nevada County.

Requiring the posting of Doctor recommendations in plain view is an infringement of medical privacy rights.

Requiring a notarized landlord letter of permission to cultivate medicine violates the 5th Amendment of the U.S.Constitution and the California State Constitution Article 1 Sec. 15, 24.

Neither State nor Federal law includes school bus stops in the setback requirements. One reason school bus stopsare not made public is to protect children from predators.

The current ordinance defines Greenhouses as Indoor Cultivation which excludes them from being used forOutdoor Cultivation. The use of Greenhouses should be encouraged in all circumstances to control odor, obscurethe garden from public view, and to enhance security protections.

For reasons stated and unstated that the proponents of the Safe Cultivation Act of Nevada County submit thisnotice of intent to submit the question to the voters in a Special Election.

The intent of this action is as follows but is not limited to the following.

(A) To protect and preserve the will of the citizens of Nevada County as expressed by their majority vote insupport of Proposition 215 in the 1996 election.

(B) To insure that Qualified Patients individually or collectively have the ability to cultivate a sufficient amount ofmedicine to treat their respective ailments and conditions as determined by a Licensed California physician.

(C) To balance the medical needs of patient(s) with the rights of their neighbors to the quiet enjoyment of theirproperties.

(D) To strike a balance between novice and M gardener's skills in determining the amount of medicine to begrown.

(E) To protect the private property rights of`the citizens of Nevada County.

(continued)


6/11


The Safe Cultivation Act of Nevada County

Whereas a majority of Nevada County citizens voted for Prop 215, andWhereas the intent of Prop 215 and SB 420 Health & Safety Code Sec.11362.7 was to insure that any patient in need of Medical Marijuana hassafe, affordable and convenient access to Medical Marijuana,andWhereas Medical marijuana has been found to be an effective therapy

for treating many conditions and debilitating diseases, andWhereas the California Attorney General's "Guidelines for the Securityand Non-Diversion of Marijuana Grown for Medical Purposesacknowledges Collectives and Cooperatives that provide medicine fortheir members comply with State law, andWhereas the California Supreme Court in the City of Riverside v TheInland Empire Patients Health & Wellbeing Collective decisionacknowledged that it was incumbent on citizens to use the initiativeprocess to define regulations in their communities,Whereas strict regulations ensure the non-diversion of MedicalMarijuana into the illicit drug market,

THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the County of Nevada doeshereby enact the following:

Section 1. TITLEThese provisions of the Nevada County General Code shall be known asthe Safe Cultivation Act of Nevada County

Section 2. PURPOSE AND INTENT

To help ensure that Qualified Patients of Nevada County can cultivate orobtain cannabis for medical purposes when deemed appropriate by a

licensed physician in accordance with CA law.

To create clear guidelines for the cultivation, distribution, transportation,storage, and use practices for Medical Marijuana in unincorporated areaof Nevada County.

To amend Ordinance #2349 Article 5 of Chapter IV of the NevadaCounty General Code pertaining to the cultivation of Medical Marijuanaand replace it with the Safe Cultivation Act of Nevada County.Nothing in this Ordinance purports to permit activities that are otherwiseillegal under state or local law.

Section 3. DEFINITIONS

Marijuana shall be defined as the usable medicinal parts of the plant.(a) "Usable marijuana" means the seeds, leaves and flowers ofmarijuana and any mixture or preparation made from marijuana.(b) The term does not include the stalks or roots of the plant. QualifiedPatient, Qualified Caregiver, Collective are the same as those in Healthand Safety Code Sec11362.7 (SB420).

Indoor Cultivation shall apply to any legal structure, such as, a PrimaryResidence, Guest House, Outbuildings, Barns, as defined by NevadaCounty Code. For purposes of this ordinance, the use of a Greenhouseis considered "outside" cultivation.

Section 4. LAND USE CODE AMENDED

(1) Ordinance #2349 Article 5, Chapter IV of the Nevada County GeneralCode is hereby repealed and replaced as follows:(A)Medical Marijuana Cultivation may only be undertaken by QualifiedPatient(s) or a Qualified Primary Caregiver on a Legal Parcel or a LegalPremises that is occupied by at least one Qualified Patient or QualifiedCaregiver.

(B) Pursuant to this Ordinance, Collectives and Cooperatives that receivecompensation for actual expenses incurred in carrying out activities thatare in compliance with these guidelines, including reasonablecompensation incurred for services provided to the members or theorganization, shall not be subject to prosecution or punishment eithercivilly or criminally, solely on that basis.

(C) Indoor Cultivation may occur within any legal structure that meets allapplicable provisions of the County's Land Use and Development Code.Cultivation within any detached accessory structure that does not meetthe definition of Indoor, such as a Greenhouse, shall be consideredOutdoor Cultivation.

(D) All electrical and plumbing used for Indoor Cultivation of MedicalMarijuana shall be installed according to all applicable County Codes.

(E) The following limitations apply to Cultivation of Medical Marijuanalocated on Residential properties within the unincorporated area ofNevada County.(1) Premises located within any area zoned primarily for residential uses(e.g. R-1, R-2 or R-3) shall be limited to the following:a. The defined areas of cultivation are in accordance with this section,and the cultivation does not exceed the allowances listed below.1. Indoor Grow areas are restricted to one hundred (100) square feet inR-1, R-2, and R-3 zones. An additional allowance of one hundred (100)square feet of indoor cultivation is allowed if two (2) or more patients liveon the property.a. The indoor space may be divided to allow for a Vegetative Room anda Flowering Room. The total cultivation area shall not exceed themaximum allowable space.

(continued)

The Safe Cultivation Act of Nevada County (continued)

b. Indoor Grows in Residential Zones R1 - R3 shall not exceed twohundred (200)square feet regardless of the number of qualifiedpatients that live on the premises.

c. Precautions shall be taken to mitigate the odor, light, or noisefrom disturbing neighbors, i.e., install carbon filters and block lightfrom escaping outside the Cultivation Room.

2. R-1, R-2, and R-3 Parcels on less than two (2) acres are limited toIndoor Cultivation only.

3. Residential Parcels located in Residential Zones R-1, R-2, or R-3, overtwo (2) acres are restricted to twelve (12) immature plants or six (6) matureplants for Outdoor Cultivation regardless of the number ofqualified patients that reside on the parcel.

4. The use of Greenhouses is encouraged to control odors, obscure thegarden from public sight, and increase safety measures. If enclosed withina Greenhouse, the plant count on R-1, R-2, and R-3 parcels over twoacres shall be increased to twelve (12) mature plants.

(F) The following limitations apply to the Cultivation of Medical Marijuanafor properties zoned RA, AG, AE, FR, or TPZ, located within theunincorporated area of Nevada County. Indoor andOutdoor Cultivation may occur simultaneously.

1. For parcels less than five (5) acres, twenty-four (24)immature oreighteen (18) mature plants may be cultivated outdoors. One hundred(100) square feet of Indoor Cultivation per Qualified Patient is allowed witha maximum of two hundred (200) square feet regardless of the number ofmembers patients in the Collective or Cooperative.

2. For parcels five (5) acres, but less than ten (10) acres, thirty-six (36)immature or twenty-four (24) mature plants may be cultivated outdoors.One hundred (100) square feet of Indoor Cultivation per Qualified Patientis allowed with a maximum of three hundred (300) square feet regardlessof the number of members in the Collective orCooperative.

3. For parcels ten (10) acres, but less than twenty (20)acres, forty-eight(48) immature or thirty-six (36) mature plants may be cultivated outdoors.One hundred (100) square feet of Indoor Cultivation per Qualified Patientis allowed with a maximum of four hundred (400) square feet regardless ofthe number of members in the Collective orCooperative.

4. For parcels twenty acres (20) acres, but less than thirty (30) acres, atotal of 60 immature or forty-eight (48) mature plants may be cultivatedoutdoors. One hundred (100) square feet of Indoor Cultivation perQualified Patient is allowed with a maximum of five hundred (500) squarefeet regardless of the number of members in the Collective or Cooperative.

5. For parcels thirty (30) acres or more, a total of ninety-nine (99) immatureplants or sixty (60) mature plants may be cultivated outdoors. One hundred(100) square feet of Indoor Cultivation per Qualified Patient is allowed witha maximum of six hundred (600) square feet regardless of the number ofmembers in the Collective or Cooperative.

(G) The following setbacks shall apply to all Outdoor Cultivation areas andshall be measured in a straight line from the nearest point of theCultivation area to the nearest exterior wall of the neighboring primaryliving structure and/or rental units if occupied.

(1) On all Residential R-1, R-2 and R-3 Parcels, the Cultivation Area shallbe at least one hundred (100) feet from any legal residence located on anadjacent separate Legal Parcel measured from the edge of the cannabisgarden to the closest exterior wall of the primary residence next door.

(2) On all Parcels zoned RA, AG, AE, FR, or TPZ, the Cultivation Areashall be at least two hundred (200) feet from any legal residence locatedon an adjacent separate Legal Parcel measured from the edge of thecannabis garden to the closest exterior wall of the primary residence nextdoor.

(3) Pursuant to CA State law, all Marijuana Cultivation Areas shall be atleast 600' (feet) from any School, Church, Public Park, licensed ChildCare Center, or any facilities that primary cater to children.

(4) Marijuana shall not be visible from the Public View at any stage ofgrowth when viewed from ground level.

(5) Wherever Medical Marijuana is grown, a copy of a current, valid State-issued MMJ Identification Card, or Physician Recommendation or Affidavitshall be posted inside theCultivation Area.

Severability of ProvisionsThe provisions of this act are severable. If any provision of this act or itsapplication is held invalid, that invalidity shall not affect other provisions orapplications that can be given effectwithout the invalid provision or application.


7/11




BALLOT SUMMARY:

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 inwhich marijuana may be cultivated for medical purposes by qualified individuals in unincorporated areas ofNevada County. Under the proposed initiative, medical marijuana cultivation may be undertaken by aQualified Patient(s) or a Qualified Caregiver(s) on a legal parcel or legal premises occupied by at least onesuch qualified persons, whether or not the property is the person's primary residence. The proposed initiativewould protect collectives and cooperatives who comply with the new regulations from civil or criminalprosecution or punishment under local law.

The proposed initiative would amend existing law regarding the size of cultivation areas by (a) increasing themaximum square footage allowed for indoor cultivation in all areas; (b) eliminating square footage limitationsand increasing the number of plants allowed in outdoor grow areas for properties over two acres located in R-1, R-2, and R-3 residential zones; (c) eliminating square footage limitations, using plant counts for establishingoutdoor cultivation limitations, and increasing the maximum size of indoor and outdoor grow areas onproperties located in residential-agricultural (RA), agricultural (AG and AE), forest reserve (FR) and timberproduction (TPZ) zones (ranging from twenty-four (24) immature or eighteen (18) mature plants on parcels ofless than 5 acres to a maximum of 99 immature plants or 60 mature plants on parcels of 30 acres or more); and(d) eliminating cultivation restrictions for properties in all other zoning districts.

The proposed initiative would amend existing law regarding the locations of cultivation areas by (a) reducingrequired distances between cultivation areas and adjacent residences; (b) reducing the required distancesbetween cultivation areas and schools, churches, parks and other youth oriented facilities from 1000' to 600';

(c) eliminating requirements for minimum distances between cultivation areas and school bus stops, schoolevacuation sites, and outdoor living areas on adjacent parcels; (d) eliminating minimum distance requirementsin mobile home parks; and (e) changing the manner in which setbacks are measured.

The proposed initiative would also amend existing law by redefining the term "marijuana" to include only the"usable portions" of the plant (excluding stalks or roots), and eliminating various regulations and restrictionspertaining to the cultivation of marijuana including: (a) odor control, noise, dust, traffic, glare, noxious gasses,and smoke restrictions; (b) fencing and security requirements; (c) fence and garden height limitations; (d) therequirement that tenants obtain written, notarized consent to cultivate medical marijuana from the legalparcel owner; (e) restrictions regarding the use or storage of hazardous materials; (f) indoor and outdoorlighting restrictions and anti-glare requirements; and (g) restrictions on terracing of cultivation areas.

"NOTICE TO THE PUBLIC" : THIS PETITION MAY BE CIRCULATED BY A

PAID SIGNATURE GATHERER OR A VOLUNTEER. YOU HAVE THE RIGHT TO ASK


8/11




BALLOT SUMMARY:

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 inwhich marijuana may be cultivated for medical purposes by qualified individuals in unincorporated areas ofNevada County. Under the proposed initiative, medical marijuana cultivation may be undertaken by aQualified Patient(s) or a Qualified Caregiver(s) on a legal parcel or legal premises occupied by at least onesuch qualified persons, whether or not the property is the person's primary residence. The proposed initiativewould protect collectives and cooperatives who comply with the new regulations from civil or criminalprosecution or punishment under local law.

The proposed initiative would amend existing law regarding the size of cultivation areas by (a) increasing themaximum square footage allowed for indoor cultivation in all areas; (b) eliminating square footage limitationsand increasing the number of plants allowed in outdoor grow areas for properties over two acres located in R-1, R-2, and R-3 residential zones; (c) eliminating square footage limitations, using plant counts for establishingoutdoor cultivation limitations, and increasing the maximum size of indoor and outdoor grow areas onproperties located in residential-agricultural (RA), agricultural (AG and AE), forest reserve (FR) and timberproduction (TPZ) zones (ranging from twenty-four (24) immature or eighteen (18) mature plants on parcels ofless than 5 acres to a maximum of 99 immature plants or 60 mature plants on parcels of 30 acres or more); and(d) eliminating cultivation restrictions for properties in all other zoning districts.

The proposed initiative would amend existing law regarding the locations of cultivation areas by (a) reducingrequired distances between cultivation areas and adjacent residences; (b) reducing the required distances

between cultivation areas and schools, churches, parks and other youth oriented facilities from 1000' to 600';(c) eliminating requirements for minimum distances between cultivation areas and school bus stops, schoolevacuation sites, and outdoor living areas on adjacent parcels; (d) eliminating minimum distance requirementsin mobile home parks; and (e) changing the manner in which setbacks are measured.

The proposed initiative would also amend existing law by redefining the term "marijuana" to include only the"usable portions" of the plant (excluding stalks or roots), and eliminating various regulations and restrictionspertaining to the cultivation of marijuana including: (a) odor control, noise, dust, traffic, glare, noxious gasses,and smoke restrictions; (b) fencing and security requirements; (c) fence and garden height limitations; (d) therequirement that tenants obtain written, notarized consent to cultivate medical marijuana from the legalparcel owner; (e) restrictions regarding the use or storage of hazardous materials; (f) indoor and outdoorlighting restrictions and anti-glare requirements; and (g) restrictions on terracing of cultivation areas.

"NOTICE TO THE PUBLIC" : THIS PETITION MAY BE CIRCULATED BY A

PAID SIGNATURE GATHERER OR A VOLUNTEER. YOU HAVE THE RIGHT TO ASK

(continued)

DECLARATION OF CIRCULATOR (To be completed in circulator's own hand after the above signatures have been obtained.)

I, ____________________________________________________, am a voter or am qualified to register to vote in the State of

California. My RESIDENTIAL ADDRESS IS: _________________________________________________________________.

I circulated this section of the petition and witnessed each of the appended signatures being written. Each signature on thispetition is, to the bes of my information and belief, the genuine signature of the person whose name it purports to be. All

signatures on this document were obtained between the dates of ___________________ and ______________________.

I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true and correct.Executed on ___________ , at _______________, California. Signature of Circulator: ________________________________


9/11

EXHIBIT D

Current Text Appearing 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 oreliminate setback requirements between cultivation areas and adjacent residences and sensitive

uses; and (c) eliminate various marijuana cultivation regulations and restrictions related to

nuisance control?

Official Ballot Title:

Medical Marijuana Cultivation Measure

Drafters Title of the Measure:

The Safe Cultivation Act of Nevada County

Exhibit D


10/11

Page I of

Publication: The Sacramento

Bee;

Date: Oct 2 2014;

Section:

Front Page;

Page:

Al

ELECTION

2014

allot goofs y county costly

TAXPAYERS FOOT $68,500 BILL FOR OMITTED INFO

By Sam Stanton [email protected]

A pair

o

blunders by the Sacramento County elections office that omitted information from the sample ballot

booklet sent to thousands of registered voters is costing taxpayers more than $68,000 and has the potential to

affect voting in the Nov. 4 election.

The county failed to include the state Democratic Party's list

o

endorsed candidates in the sample ballot, but

did print the Republican and American Independent party endorsements. It also failed to print a candidate

statement from Toni Colley-Perry, who is running for an open seat on the Sacramento City Council.

This is a serious, serious thing, said Colley-Perry, who paid the $400 fee to have her statement printed along

with those of the other three candidates. I'm flabbergasted, basically.

Sacramento County Registrar

o

Voters Jill LaVine blamed the errors on a confusing mix

o

information coming

in by mail, email, fax and telephone and said her office would work harder to ensure that such omissions do not

occur again.

Regardless

o

what happened, it didn't get put in and we're going to make it right, LaVine said.

The omission

o

the Democratic Party's endorsement list led La Vine to notify members of the county Board of

Supervisors in an email Friday that she planned to send out a post card to all registered voters with the

Democratic endorsements.

But that plan raised objections from Ted Wolter, chief of staff to Republican Supervisor Roberta MacGlashan,

who said it would result

in

voters getting a mailer from the county that could unfairly benefit one party over the

others.

Regardless

o

which party it was, you're sending a letter at taxpayer expense and it's drawing attention to one

party or campaign, Wolter said Wednesday. You need to be equitable.

Obviously, I think it's not ideal to have to take a special step to resolve a conflict like this, he added.

Now, the plan is for LaVine's office to mail out a card to all

o

the county's nearly 700,000 voters listing the

endorsements issued by each

o

the three parties that submitted lists to be printed in the sample ballot. The cost:

$58,000 for printing and $8,000 in postage.

The cards will be printed with the county seal and the words Revised Party Endorsement Page Enclosed -

Open Immediately, and will be mailed by the weekend in hopes

o

having them arrive before voting begins

Monday, LaVine said.

The registrar also plans to post a copy

o

the endorsement list at polling places, La Vine said.

Typically, voters take the sample ballot to polling places or use them at home to decide how to cast their ballots.

Parties that wanted their list of endorsed candidates printed in the ballot had until Aug. 13 to submit the names to

the registrar, and the Republicans and American Independents sent over an email and a hard copy before the

deadline, LaVine said.

The Democratic Party faxed its list over on Aug. 11, then followed up with a phone call to confirm it had arrived,

Democratic spokesman Tenoch Flores said.

Flores provided a fax confirmation showing its list was received by the county at :23 a.m. on Aug. 11, but the

county subsequently said the list was never received and printed the ballot with the endorsements

o

the other two

parties.

The county made a mistake, he said. They are going to remedy that mistake by sending out an updated list

that's going to include all of the major party endorsements.

He added that Sacramento was the onl county in which the party had experienced such a problem.

EXH BIT

http://digital olivesoftware com/Olive/ODE/SacBeePP/PrintComponentView htm 10/2/2014


11/11

Page 2 of

But it's not the only issue with the sample ballot.

Four candidates are vying to finish the term for the Meadowviewbased District 8 seat on the Sacramento City

Council. The office was left vacant after incumbent Bonnie Pannell resigned in June because of a neurological

disorder.

Colley-Perry is competing against Larry Carr, Ronald Bell and Ted Ware for the post, but her effort may be

hampered by the sample ballot's exclusion of her statement, in which candidates typically state their credentials

and reasons for running.

The county blew it, Colley-Perry said, adding that the registrar's solution - mailing out all four candidate

statements to 22,000 voters in the district - simply gives the other three candidates twice s much expos\Jre to

voters. I don't know i f that's a fair remedy.

LaVine said the mailing will cost an additional $2,500 in taxpayer funds. She said Colley-Perry's statement had

been received but that a mix-up kept it from being printed.

We received the information in an email, and it did not get put in the proper place, LaVine said. So, with

information coming at us from all directions, we are working on some verification and check lists that we'll put into

place.

One election expert said bal lot problems do occur but that Sacramento's problem was a new one.

I've never heard of it before, but good grief, what are you going to do? You've got to correct the mistake, said

UC Davis political science professor Robert Huckfeldt.

I

would think it really sort

of

compromises the whole

process if you don't.

Call The Bee's Sam Stanton, (916) 321-1091.

Date post:	02-Jun-2018
Category:	Documents
Upload:	yubanet
View:	218 times
Download:	0 times

Measure S: Reply to Nevada County's brief

Documents