Imagine commercial cannabis?


The Citizens Group for a Responsible Cannabis Ordinance (CGRCO) does not seek to prevent the responsible adult use of cannabis. We also support the compassionate use of marijuana for the treatment of medical conditions. California voters spoke in November 2016 by passing Prop. 64, and we respect their vote.

Prop. 64 gives counties and municipalities the right to restrict cannabis activities. Our ordinance draft allows the growing of up to six plants per residence and allows for delivery of medical marijuana, but prohibits commercial cannabis. We have submitted our proposed ordinance to the Planning Commission through our county’s Board of Supervisors.

There is an initiative that will likely appear on the November ballot that would bypass the Board of Supervisors. It’s titled, “Medicinal and Adult Use of Cannabis Ordinance.”

We are puzzled by its title because it seems to lead citizens to think there are legal protections needed to ensure residents’ rights to use cannabis legally under Propositions 64 and 215 and Senate Bill 94. This right has already been established with the passage of the two propositions.

Certain restrictions?

The reality is that this ordinance will allow any and all forms of commercial cannabis activity. It includes the following paragraph:

“In November 2016, a majority of voters of Plumas County voted to approve Proposition 64, the Adult Use of Marijuana Act (AUMA). Under Proposition 64, adults 21 years of age or older may legally grow, possess, and use cannabis for non-medicinal purposes, with certain restrictions.”

This language acknowledges that “certain restrictions” apply with the legalization of recreational marijuana. What are they?

Counties and cities were given the power to define how—and if—commercial grow operations would operate. They were also given the power to regulate how individuals can grow plants for personal use. Should this initiative pass, county government will have no say in either situation.

By their own admission, the writers of this initiative concede that commercial cannabis cultivation would lead to “deleterious population growth and a strain on limited County resources.”

From their ordinance:

“In order to limit potentially deleterious population growth that may follow approval of commercial cannabis activity in the County, and in order to avoid the strain on limited County resources that such a spike in population growth may cause, the County will place a temporary limit on the number of Licenses issued to Non-Residents.”

Ask yourself this: Would Plumas County benefit from an influx of people connected to commercial cannabis? Even the initiative writers admit that such an influx would put a “strain on limited County resources.”

Proposition 64 was narrowly approved in Plumas County by a 52% to 48% vote. The commercial growers would have you believe that it passed overwhelmingly here; it did not.

If you voted for the approval of Proposition 64, did you think you were simply voting to decriminalize the possession and selling of cannabis and make recreational cannabis legal?

Did you imagine that the passage of Prop. 64 would lead to a ballot initiative that would allow large commercial growing operations here in Plumas County?

Did you imagine that dispensaries—including onsite consumption dispensaries—would come to our county?

Clouding the issue

When the Keep Plumas Green group obtained the signatures needed to get their ordinance on the November 2018 ballot, do you suppose they told signers that onsite consumption could include public events at locations around Plumas County?

Was it made clear that a “caregiver” would be able to grow up to 36 plants (their own and up to 5 other users) next to your home and would be exempt from licensing requirements?

Was it made clear that commercial operations could be located close to your child’s K-12 school or preschool with only a 600 foot or 1,000 foot buffer depending on the type of commercial operation?

Was it made clear that local growers would be given exceptions from meeting CEQA (California Environmental Quality Act) requirements?

Was it made clear that by going through the initiative process their ordinance would evade the (now underway) usual county planning process?

The (CGRCO) in no way seeks to prevent the responsible adult use of recreational marijuana or the use of medical marijuana. Don’t let the proponents of this self-serving initiative deceive you. Their goal is to allow commercial marijuana activities in all corners of our county.

Encourage your family, friends, and neighbors to help spread the word. Go to the CGRCO website ( to register your support. We also have a Facebook page at

Stand with us against the proliferation of commercial cannabis in Plumas County.

5 comments on “Imagine commercial cannabis?

  1. Chelsea Bunch says:

    1. “The reality is that this ordinance would allow any and all forms of commercial cannabis activity”.

    False. It prohibits license types: 5,5A, 5B, 3A, and 7; medicinal and adult use. All of this is in Chapter 6 of MAUCO. Type 5 is large cultivation sites, type 3A is large indoor sites, and type 7 is volatile manufacturing.

    2. “Ask yourself, would Pumas County benefit from an influx of people connected to commercial cannabis?”

    That’s a trick question. I don’t know of any municipality that can handle an influx of a large population overnight, without draining resources. Calaveras is a great example of not being mindful that slow and steady growth is key to homeostasis in a community where not everyone wants the same thing as their neighbor. Our County has a budget problem, a behavioral health problem, and many other issues that aren’t so black and white, so why not ease into navigating economic growth and adjusting once real statistical data is quantified?

    3. “Did you imagine that the passage of Prop 64 would lead to a ballot initiative that would allow large commercial growing operations here in Plumas County?”

    False. Again, large grow types, and even some medium, have been prohibited in MAUCO. It can be found in Chapter 6.

    4. Was it made clear that going through the initiative process their ordinance would evade the usual county process?

    “Evade”? How is this evading? I’m not sorry I used my right as a citizen to handle what the Supervisors failed to for two years. The Cannabis Working Group’s ordinance didn’t meet the regulations released by the state in December 2017, 250+ pages of new legislation. The Cannabis Working Group’s Ordinance was outdated within days of them handing it over to the Planning Commission.

    Further, what is “usual”? There’s innate rights every human has in America. As a woman veteran, I didn’t defend our nation and grow up quickly so that I could come home and not have rights. The freedom to petition is equally as important as freedom of speech, freedom of religion, freedom of assembly, and so on. In closing, a quote from some raggedy piece of hemp paper, called the Declaration of Independence, “In every stage of these Oppressions We have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A Prince whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people.”

  2. Kathy Felker says:

    1. Allow all forms of Cannabis:

    While license type 7 is prohibited (use of volatile solvents) license type 6 does allow extraction using mechanical methods or nonvolatile solvents

    2. Influx of people:

    As far as an influx of people from commercial cannabis is concerned, MAUCO actually states that commercial cultivation of marijuana would lead to “deleterious population growth and a strain on limited County resources.” Thank you for admitting that this is going to be a big problem for the county. The fact that your ordinance only allows priority licensing to local residents for one year is self serving and an attempt to get a head start on the competition that will surely begin once the December 2019 licensing restrictions to non-residents expires.

    3. Large grow sites:

    License type 5A. Without getting too much in the weeds (excuse the pun) MAUCO does not allow outdoor grows greater than 1 acre. Let’s look at this closer. One acre = 43,560 sq ft. Allowing 9 sq feet for each marijuana plant = 4,840 plants per acre. Sounds like large marijuana grow to me.

    License type 5A, 5B, 3A: Does not allow anything greater than 22,000 sq ft. That’s great, but…….

    License type 2, 2A, 2B: Allows up to 10,000 sq ft. Let’s do the same math. These licenses would allow 1,111 marijuana plants. Sounds like a large marijuana grow to me.

    License type 3: Allows an acre of cultivation. This would be the same number of plants as 5A = 4,840 plants. Sounds like a large marijuana grow to me.

    License type 3B: Allows up to 22,000 sq ft. This would be 2,444 plants per site. Sounds like a large marijuana grow to me.

    5. Right to have an initiative

    Yes, you have the citizens right to the initiative process and to place your ordinance on the ballot. But is that the right thing for Plumas County? Prop 64 gave counties and municipalities the right to restrict cannabis activities. By submitting MAUCO, you went around the usual county planning process. You have taken the entire cannabis question out of our elected Board of Supervisors hands.

    6. In conclusion, I would like to thank you for your service to our country. By the way, you indicated in a previous article in the newspaper that the moratorium ends in May of 2018. You are incorrect. The moratorium ends in October 2019.

    1. Chelsea Bunch says:

      1. Forms of Cannabis:
      You are correct. License type 6 is nonvolatile, I feel the name is, well, self explanatory. So no alcohol, butane, no blow up honey oil labs etc. It’s how people make butter, topical products like lotions and soaps. It’s heat and pressure methods.

      2. Influx of people:
      It is not self serving. The premise behind “priority licensing” is that in the US, California’s police power comes from the Tenth Amendment of the Constitution, which grants the power to establish and enforce laws protecting the welfare, safety, and health of the public, which is important, as I assume you’ve been following other counties.
      For every nine residents, one non resident will be issued a license, in which all sunsets 2019. I’ve spoken with other County Counsels in California and it absolutely stands up in law.

      3. “Large” grow sites:
      Correct, MAUCO does not allow 5A, a “large grow”.
      “License type 2, 2A, 2B: Allows up to 10,000 sq ft. Let’s do the same math. These licenses would allow 1,111 marijuana plants. Sounds like a large marijuana grow to me.”
      If you want to take what the state calls “type 2s”, and change them all to large, that’s your right, size is, after-all, relative to each. But that’s not how the State, namely the Water Board sees it, or they would have asked for different annual compliance fees and put different square footage maximums, and would have just named them all Type 5s.

      “License type 3: Allows an acre of cultivation. This would be the same number of plants as 5A = 4,840 plants. Sounds like a large marijuana grow to me.”

      False. Type 3 allows up to 10,000 sq ft. outdoor, not an acre, not considered a large grow, it’s considered “medium”.

      “License type 3B: Allows up to 22,000 sq ft. This would be 2,444 plants per site. Sounds like a large marijuana grow to me.”
      Mixed Light (3B) comes with requirements, like a greenhouse, which comes with other requirements, such as light, security, employee, land, water, the list of requirements goes on, which meets tier 2 in the States fees, as a “medium grow”.

      5. Right to have an initiative
      Your definition of “usual” is not mine. My child is autistic, so to say “standard, normal, usual” won’t ever mean the same to you as it does to me, I believe you and I will have to agree to disagree about civil liberties… although I can say the Supreme Court would rule in my favor ;p
      My son needs cannabis accessible, safe, and affordable. I hope you, and the others, can understand why I put myself out there and spent months (years) drafting it to meet the needs of this County. I did not take the entire cannabis question out of our elected BOS hands. I’ve met one on one multiple times with Thrall, Goss, and Simpson. I knew and still know exactly what each BOS approved and disapproved of all of 2017, and the end of 2016… I did my homework.

      6. And I would like to say thank you for replying in a professional and courteous manner. Next week or so the board will be revisiting this cultivation moratorium… please stay tuned. You are sort of right, it most likely will become a 12 month revised moratorium.

      7. I will not be replying on this website anymore, as the ‘WebMaster” prefers to make derogatory names about me (Founding Mothers, Potriot), which in the end ruins any level of respectful discourse. See you tomorrow, and please do introduce yourself to me 🙂

  3. Webmaster says:

    Hi, Chelsea. Thanks for commenting.

    1. The ordinance in question would allow virtually any and all forms of cannabis activity. Citing a few license type exceptions doesn’t mitigate the allowance of virtually every other form.

    Large cultivation sites? What’s your definition of large? An ordinance that restricts outdoor grows to one acre or less still allows thousands of plants per acre. And not allowing “volatile manufacturing” is misleading. Volatile is a word that doesn’t accurately describe “honey oil” extraction methods.

    There are less flammable agents that can be used and some that aren’t flammable at all, but manufacturing with alcohol, chloroform, ice water, ethanol, or carbon dioxide has its dangers and drawbacks in cost and time.

    The truth is that manufacturing with butane is the cheapest, easiest and quickest—and most dangerous method. Why should we believe that any ordinance that allows the manufacturing of honey oil in Plumas would prevent people from continuing to go the quick and easy route? Enforcement will only happen we someone gets caught or hurt. Colorado is four years ahead of us, and they’re having a devil of a time enforcing “gray area” infractions like butane honey oil manufacturing.

    2. There’s nothing tricky about the writer’s question: “Ask yourself, would Pumas County benefit from an influx of people connected to commercial cannabis?” The trick is introduced in your rebuttal. The question is not about an influx of a “large population overnight.” It’s not about size or speed; it’s about human nature. Here’s the key phrase: “… influx of people connected to commercial cannabis.”

    We can all agree that our county’s resources are strained and that more people coming in will strain and drain them further. The truth is that your ordinance would attract many people who would likely be more interested in simply making money from cannabis and much less interested in the welfare of our county. This is what was meant by the writer’s question.

    3. Rather than use True/False declarations, please keep in mind that your version of “large grows” does not jibe with our understanding of the size and number of grows we think would damaging to Plumas County. We can agree that the most common understanding of Prop. 64 concerns personal use, not potential commercial activity. The writer’s question cannot be answered in true or false terms.

    4. I look at your group’s attempt to get a commercial cannabis ordinance passed though the ballot as not an evasion, but as you seem to see it—as a workaround. It’s a perfectly legal exercise of citizens’ rights. This doesn’t mean that it’s wise and there’s no rationale to likening your group’s “cause” to that of our nation and founding fathers.

    Your commercial cannabis cause is laced with much more self-interest and disregard (or delusion) of what’s best for the common good. Please don’t elevate your interests or perceived cause to that of our country’s independence. You’re not fighting any tyranny in permissive California. I, too, am a veteran, and I don’t see anyone in our state or county endangering any right I helped defend.

    1. Chelsea Bunch says:

      1.Butane and alcohol fall under volatile, which is prohibited under MAUCO, under license type 7, the “honey oil” you speak of. But now you’re saying people are just going to do what they want, when they want, and not care about the law, or any ordinance? If that’s now your stance, than maybe you should support MAUCO, as it comes with enforcement, abatement, and fines for illegal activity. My definition of “Large grows” is in line with California’s three tier system of cultivation license types, it can be found here:

      I did not “site a few license types” to be prohibited. Rather, they are the most controversial and progressive license types allowed in the State.

      2. So your hold up is about class? Because my thing is about micro-economics, and how growth takes regulations, foreshadowing, and finding solutions from other counties in maintaining the welfare of it’s residents.

      3. Again, the definition of what a large grow is in State terms, is answered in #1. Further, I DO NOT agree that Prop 64 was written for just personal use, that it never mentioned commercial activity. THE VERY FIRST CHAPTER, very first paragraph of Prop 64 states:
      (b) The purpose and intent of this division is to establish a comprehensive system to control and regulate the cultivation, distribution, transport, storage, manufacturing, processing, and sale of both of the following:
      (1) Medicinal cannabis and medicinal cannabis products for patients with valid physician’s recommendations.
      (2) Adult-use cannabis and adult-use cannabis products for adults 21 years of age and over.(c) In the furtherance of subdivision (b), this division sets forth the power and duties of the state agencies responsible for controlling and regulating the commercial medicinal and adult-use cannabis industry.

      4. I don’t “see it” as a workaround. Rather, I “see it” as a civil liberty and right we all possess, and something that has held up since 1776. The quote I referenced, which is the antecedent of the rights of people to petition, was obviously too scholarly for you to comprehend. I can, and will, liken a citizen’s initiative to a document written hundreds of years ago; as it is the basis of these civil rights, and why MAUCO is as legal as your right to call me “Founding Mother” and “Potriot”– to publish slanderous misrepresentations about me personally, but also MAUCO, in which I have to constantly correct you, is still your right to free speech, unless I use my rights, and pursue a libel/defamatory suit. You’re uninformed, and are now lashing out in a very desperate manner, I wish you the best. So thank you also for your service, even if you don’t cognize what freedoms you, at one time, stood for.

Leave a Reply