City Council "Passes Pot Around the Room"

Read, Discuss.:)





Council passes around pot, passes cannabis standards â?? November 11, 2008

[align=center]Kevin L. Hoover
Eye Editor [/align]

CITY HALL â?? The City Council last week signed off on draft standards for medical marijuana, including far-reaching regulations governing cannabis dispensaries and home cultivation by Prop 215 patients. The standards attempt to eliminate illegal for-profit home cultivation as well.

The council meeting covered familiar ground, but this time included props â?? including actual cannabis.

The new standards limit home cultivation for Prop 215 patients to 50 square feet with 1,200 watts of lighting and a 10-foot height limit. Use of growth-stimulating gases is prohibited. Homegrown medical marijuana may not be sold, and a patient may only maintain one grow. Homes with grows must retain functional kitchens, bathrooms and bedrooms and canâ??t stink up the neighborhood.

Those who require more than 50 square feet of cultivation for their medical needs may be granted a variance to grow in up to 100 square feet with extra fire safety measures in the form of greenboard firewalls.

No more than four medical marijuana cooperatives/collectives may operate in Arcata, and if one closes, the limit drops and stays at three. A cannabis center may not use more than 1,500 square feet or 25 percent of its floor space for growing.
The centers canâ??t buy from grow houses. They must develop detailed Operations Manuals documenting patients screening procedures and tracking data for cannabis acquisition and dispensation. They must develop energy conservation and waste recycling procedures. Annual performance reviews are required. A proposed limit of four dispensed ounces of cannabis per patient per month came under fire, with heavy criticism from patients, caregivers and clinicians.

Councilmember Harmony Groves had been in the forefront of questioning the four-ounce limit, which was intended to limit resale of dispensed marijuana onto the street market. Groves wondered why the City was halving the state Attorney Generalâ??s standard of eight dispensed ounces per month.
To help visualize the quantity, Police Chief Randy Mendosa had prepared sealed two plastic packages of seized marijuana in four- and eight-ounce quantities. Weighed out by the PD evidence technician, Mendosa had obtained legal clkearance from the District Attorney's office to make the demonstration.

As Mendosa passed the plump pot pouches up to the council dais for inspection, Councilmember Paul Pitino erupted in objections as to the point of the exercise.
â??We all know what it looks like,â?� he said twice.

â??â??We allâ?? may, but a lot of us may not,â?� responded Mayor Mark Wheetley.

Community Development Director Larry Oetker, who had requested the demonstration, agreed. â??Just because we live in Humboldt County, everybody does not know what four ounces or eight ounces of marijuana looks like.â?�

â??It just feels a little strange to me,â?� Pitino said. â??A cubic inch of mercury is a pound,â?� he added helpfully.

Eventually, the four-ounce limit was dropped.

Some citizens wondered how the fancy new standards regarding grow houses will be enforced. Under the standards, citizens may complain to Community Development about suspected illegal grows, which will trigger code enforcement by the City via property inspections and, if a grow house is discovered, possible electrical power disconnection and nuisance abatement proceedings. Complaints will be kept confidential unless subpoenaed by a court in an ensuing criminal case.

The cannabis regs, Ordinance No. 1382, were approved for introduction and maybe adopted at the City Councilâ??s Nov. 19 meeting.

[align=center]Kevin L. Hoover
Eye Editor [/align]

ARCATA â?? When Bruce Fisher rented his parentsâ?? former home on Terrace Avenue last February, he made sure that it wouldnâ??t be turned into another marijuana grow house. His mother had taken â??immaculateâ?� care of the home, which had just been repainted and, in its safe neighborhood and near-forest setting off California Avenue, was ideal for a family or Humboldt State University students.

Having been warned of the property damage that frequently goes along with indoor cannabis cultivation, Fisher hired a reputable property management firm to screen applicants and included language in the rental agreement prohibiting modifications to the house and any activity which would violate state and federal law, which includes marijuana cultivation.

The home was advertised, prospective tenants applied, were screened, approved, signed the rental agreement, moved in and converted it into a grow house.
Unaware of this, on Oct. 23, Fisher went to the house to meet with a contractor to plan repairs to an outdoor deck. There, he noticed water dripping into an unfinished basement area through floorboards in an upstairs laundry room. While 24 hours notice is required for a rental inspection, plumbing problems and possible water damage allow landlords to enter property for an emergency inspection. So, though no one was home, Fisher went in.

First, he said, â??the smell hit you.â?� Then, as he walked the house, he found that it had been minimally occupied but fully ravaged by the tenants in service of a multi-room cannabis cultivation and processing operation (see photos, page A7).

The source of the water leakage was an overflowing irrigation reservoir in the laundry room, the floor of which glistened with standing water interspersed with soaked pellets of growing medium and pot leaves. An adjacent carpeted room was also soaked, with dark footprints where the waterlogged carpet had been mooshed down by people walking through.

Two upstairs rooms were converted for growing, with large frames containing the plastic-enclosed grows. Lights hung from hooks punched into the ceiling and large holes had been cut into the ceiling through which large ducts had been snaked. A carbon dioxide infusion system fed the growth-stimulating gas from tanks through ducts to the plants. Other ducts carried away exhaust through the houseâ??s attic.

The priority appeared to have been cannabis, with honoring the rental agreement and respect for their landlordâ??s house a negligible consideration.

â??There was total disregard for the property,â?� Fisher said. â??They didnâ??t have to be as destructive as they were.â?�

Other than the elaborate cannabis cultivation apparatus, furnishings in the home were minimal, but similar to those found in other grow houses, right down to the Prop 215 recommendations posted on the wall, signed by the infamous Dr. Hany Assad.

(Illegal grow houses often sport posted cannabis recommendations signed by Assad and Dr. Ken Miller, who has said he bases his diagnoses on â??sound science.â?� At last weekâ??s City Council meeting, Miller told the council it should outlaw residental growing entirely.)

A flatscreen video setup in the living room was surrounded by scattered action-adventure DVDs, while the kitchen counters were piled with empty Budweiser cans and DiGiorno Pizza boxes. Various surfaces were coated with ashes, wisps of marijuana leaf and used razor blades. Unsmoked cigarettes, plastic wrappers and other litter were strewn about on the floor.

One bedroom had been used for sleeping, with a mattress and sleeping bag on the floor in a corner and a heap of dirty laundry next to it.

Fisher concluded that the tenants likely hadnâ??t been living at the home other than when they were tending their grow. The only mail in the house was a stack of opened utility bills, including two PG&E electricity bills â?? one for about $1,000, another for about $3,000.

Fisher called Police Chief Randy Mendosa, who came to the scene. Mendosa, in turn, called in an officer from the Humboldt County Drug Task Force.

â??They werenâ??t very adroit growers,â?� Mendosa said after viewing the sloppy scene.
One of the rooms had recently been harvested, with two large black trash bags of shake still there, left over from processing out the lucrative bud.

With fewer than 100 plants remaining, police decided that, given the posted 215 recommendations, there wasnâ??t enough cannabis remaining to successfully prosecute the tenants.

The property management company located the two tenants in Sacramento and gave them three days to remove the marijuana and illegal modifications.

The two later showed up at the house while Fisher was there, greeting him with â??Howâ??s it going?â?�

â??Not good,â?� Fisher told them. A discussion ensued about how the tenants didnâ??t have to be so destructive in their growing operations.

â??Weâ??re not assholes,â?� they assured him.

Later, the two were to meet with the property management company, but, said Fisher, they â??blew offâ?� two meetings, never showing up.

Now, Fisher has undertaken repair of his parentsâ?? house. Costs are unclear and still mounting. Carpeting has had to be pulled up and will be replaced. Once the extent of the mold is ascertained and expunged and holes in ceilings fixed, repainting can get underway.

Costs have surpassed the $1,000 insurance deductible. If they exceed the tenantsâ?? $2,500 cleaning deposit, the insurance carrier may choose to file a civil suit against the tenants.

Even though the grow has been removed, the house wonâ??t be available to help relieve Arcataâ??s housing shortage, because, like other landlords, Fisher has decided not to risk the likelihood that new tenants will turn the house into another indoor farm.

â??Weâ??ll remove that house from potential rental,â?� Fisher said. â??Itâ??s a shame, because the HSU students need somewhere to live.â?�

So now, what do you think?:jointsmile:

In the first post. I still don't like the way every city and county in cali can write a different law governing cannabis. It needs to be made uniform throughout the state.
I hope the insurance company sues the growers in the second article. The growers should have been taking better care of the house.

this kind of thing that is going too give them just the ammo they need too reverse prop215 !! these kind of peoples need to be stopped cash croppers !

its ridiculous that if one dispensary goes down then reopening another is out of the question. just another plan to diminish the co ops.. :(

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by killerweed420

In the first post. I still don't like the way every city and county in cali can write a different law governing cannabis. It needs to be made uniform throughout the state.
I hope the insurance company sues the growers in the second article. The growers should have been taking better care of the house.

---

They(cities&counties) can only changes the laws to up the amounts not go lower than the state guidelines which are also unconstitutional....

I'm just curious if the bags made it back to their owners, 'a little light' ... ;)