Webinar – El Dorado County Personal Medical Ordinance Changes

Our office will be holding a webinar to provide patients, in El Dorado County, with information on how to stay safe under the amended ordinance. The webinar will be:

DATE: Friday, May 22, 2020

TIME: 4pm – 6pm

To Attend The Meeting:

Please click the link below to join the webinar:


Or iPhone one-tap :
US: +16699009128,,84131117541# or +13462487799,,84131117541#
Or Telephone:
Dial(for higher quality, dial a number based on your current location):
US: +1 669 900 9128 or +1 346 248 7799 or +1 253 215 8782 or +1 301 715 8592 or +1 312 626 6799 or +1 646 558 8656
Webinar ID: 841 3111 7541
International numbers available: https://us02web.zoom.us/u/kb7HJzAVrZ


We have created a folder of documents to assist you in understanding the changes to the ordinance and stay safe under the rules. To access the folder click the link below:


To Make A Donation


Click The Donate Button

Addendum To Planning Commission Agenda of March 26, 2020

***This updated Agenda was put out by El Dorado County 3/20/20


County of El Dorado Public Meeting Protocol In Response to Coronavirus COVID-19
California Governor Gavin Newsom issued Executive Order N-29-20 on March 17, 2020,
relating to the convening of public meetings in light of the COVID-19 pandemic.
At this time, the County of El Dorado Planning Commission meetings will be limited to
hear only those items related to immediate public peace, health, and safety issues and
Permit Streamlining Act items that cannot be delayed by Tolling Agreement, as provided
in the publicly posted agenda notice and until further notice.

Accordingly, and as included in the attached staff memo, staff will be requesting
continuance of item No. 4 to hear the Central El Dorado Hills Specific Plan project to a
date certain of April 23, 2020.

Pursuant to the Executive Order and to maintain the orderly conduct of the meeting, the
County of El Dorado will allow Planning Commissioners to attend the meeting
telephonically and to participate in the meeting to the same extent as if they were

In order to ensure compliance with federal and state guidance regarding large
gatherings and social distancing and in accordance with State of California Executive
Order N-29-20, to provide the public with the opportunity to provide comments to the
Commission, the Commission is providing a call in number (please see below). When
you hear the item called that you wish to comment on, please call the number and await
your opportunity to speak. Your call will be muted upon joining the meeting and, when
you are notified that your call has been unmuted, you may speak for three minutes or as
otherwise provided by the Commission Chair. While speaking, please reduce any
background noise to ensure that your comments can be heard.

Dial in line – 1-669-900-9128
Meeting ID – 393 945 785

You may also view the meeting through the Granicus livestream

Members of the public who wish to participate may appear at the public meeting held in
the Board Chambers and are to maintain a minimum six-foot buffer between you and
others, as suggested by the State Department of Public Health. Additional seating for
the Commission meeting is available in the lobby of Building A.

Planning Commission audio recordings, Agendas, Staff Reports, Supplemental Materials and Minutes are available on the internet at:

To listen to open session portions of the meeting in real time, dial (530) 621-7603. This specialized dial-in number is programmed for listening only and is operable when the audio system inside the meeting room is activated. Please be advised that callers will experience silence anytime the Commission is not actively meeting, such as during a break period.

The County of El Dorado is committed to ensuring that persons with disabilities are provided the resources to participate in its public meetings. If you require accommodation, please contact the Clerk to the Planning Commission at 530-621-5355 or via e-mail, planning@edcgov.us.

All Planning Commission hearings are recorded. An audio recording of this meeting will be published to the website. Please note that due to technology limitations, the link will be labeled as “Video” although only audio will play. The meeting is not video recorded***.

***The Planning Commission meeting of March 26, 2020 will be video recorded and available for Live Web Streaming on the internet at: http://eldorado.legistar.com/Calendar.aspx

The Planning Commission is concerned that written information submitted to the Planning Commission the day of the Commission meeting may not receive the attention it deserves. Planning Services cannot guarantee that any FAX, email, or mail received the day of the meeting will be delivered to the Commission prior to action on the subject matter.

For purposes of the Brown Act, Section 54954.2(a), the numbered items on this agenda give a brief description of each item to be discussed. Recommendations of the staff, as shown, do not prevent the Commission from taking other action.

Staff materials related to an item on this agenda submitted to the Commission after distribution of the agenda packet are available for inspection during normal business hours in Planning Services located at 2850 Fairlane Court, Placerville, CA. Such documents are also available on the Commission’s Meeting Agenda webpage subject to staff’s ability to post the documents before the meeting.

El Dorado County Planning Commission

Response to Proposed Amendments To Zoning Ordinance Section 130.14.260

***This position statement has been submitted to the Planning Commission as a public comment. For information on how to submit your own public comment please see my recent post El Dorado County Call To Action:

Dear Sir/Madam,

These are very uncertain times with the COVID-19 virus lurking and there exists the possibility that the public hearing, on the above-referenced cannabis ordinance changes, will not go forward in the usual public forum. It is my hope that a way can be found to address the legitimate concerns of responsible medical cannabis patients in El Dorado County and allow enforcement to move forward. Please accept this letter as my public statement concerning the proposed changes to the county’s personal medical cultivation ordinance.

Medical cannabis patients have a longstanding and trusted relationship with the Board Of Supervisors. Responsible patients worked with prior Supervisors to craft what has been known as Ordinance 5,000. Under the current code sections concerning personal medical cannabis cultivation, patients with a physician recommendation, or a cannabis caregiver [1], are allowed to cultivate up to 200 square feet of flowering canopy. Further, two or three patients, or a caregiver, are allowed to cultivate 400 or 600 square feet respectively, on designated parcels. These code sections have been in place, and apparently working for responsible patients or caregivers, for years. The murder of Deputy Ishmael has changed all things cannabis in El Dorado County.

It is apparent from reading the proposed changes to the county cannabis cultivation code sections that simplicity is the goal. State law, as passed by Proposition 64 in 2016, allows six (6) cannabis plants to be cultivated by an adult 21 or over per residence. State medical cannabis laws, specifically Health & Safety Code section 11362.77 [2], provide for a medical cannabis patient to cultivate six (6) flowering OR twelve (12) immature plants per patient. Local jurisdictions are authorized to establish guidelines that exceed these numbers. Further, a physician can recommend an increase in these numbers, but ultimately, the patient’s needs are what would control. What is being proposed is an elimination of any distinction between adult and medical cultivation and restricting plant numbers to six (6) per residence. Although a set number of plants will make it easier for law enforcement to determine if a cannabis garden is in compliance, there are legitimate, responsible medical cannabis patients that require more plant numbers to meet their reasonable cannabis needs. A compromise would seem in order.

Requirements for state commercial licensing, where medical cannabis patients are concerned, are defined in Business and Professions Code 26033 [3] . It is clear that a qualified patient who is cultivating for their own personal medical needs are exempt from state commercial cannabis license requirements. Additionally, legitimate caregivers may provide for up to five (5) qualified medical patients and be exempt from the requirement of state commercial cannabis licensing. Further, H & S Code 11362.77, supra, gives counties and cities the legal right and power to enact local guidelines that exceed the 6 flowering plant limit outlined in that code section.   

It is my experience that many, if not most, legitimate medical cannabis patients are able to meet their needs with six (6) outdoor, full sun cannabis plants. However, there are patients that cultivate cannabis cultivars, or cultivation techniques, that do not produce enough cannabis flowers from six (6) plants to meet their needs and therefore, additional plants are grown, within the 200 square foot allowance. I would urge the Planning Commission to consider an alternative of six (6) plants OR 200 square feet of flowering canopy if additional plants are needed. Additionally, I would urge the Commission to consider allowing up to three (3) patients, or a caregiver, to cultivate on a parcel under the present parcel zones listed in the personal medical cannabis cultivation standards. I would also urge the Commission to consider a process to apply for a waiver of these cultivation requirements that would allow input from recommending physicians and advise any government personnel investigating a parcel where a waiver is in place. Because of the sensitive nature of cannabis cultivation, especially under federal law, the specifics of any parcel with a waiver could be exempted from official requests for public information.

The murder of Deputy Ishmael has hit our entire community very hard, but nothing compared to his family and the law enforcement community. The medical cannabis community is particularly troubled since Deputy Ishmael was led to believe he was investigating a theft from a legitimate medical cannabis garden. The criminal actions of the property owner and the cartel enforcers are being prosecuted and let’s hope the system effectively deals with all of them. The entire county is encouraging effective enforcement of ALL laws that are broken during the illegal cultivation of cannabis. The medical cannabis community would like to see enforcement that affords legitimate patients the cannabis they need for their medical conditions. It is hoped that an effective county code can be crafted that accomplishes both.

Respectively submitted:


Dale Schafer Esq

Attorney at Law


[1]Health and Safety Code Section 11362.7 

(d) “Primary caregiver” means the individual, designated by a qualified patient, who has consistently assumed responsibility for the housing, health, or safety of that patient, and may include any of the following:

(1) In a case in which a qualified patient or person with an identification card receives medical care or supportive services, or both, from a clinic licensed pursuant to Chapter 1 (commencing with Section 1200) of Division 2, a health care facility licensed pursuant to Chapter 2 (commencing with Section 1250) of Division 2, a residential care facility for persons with chronic life-threatening illness licensed pursuant to Chapter 3.01 (commencing with Section 1568.01) of Division 2, a residential care facility for the elderly licensed pursuant to Chapter 3.2 (commencing with Section 1569) of Division 2, a hospice, or a home health agency licensed pursuant to Chapter 8 (commencing with Section 1725) of Division 2, the owner or operator, or no more than three employees who are designated by the owner or operator, of the clinic, facility, hospice, or home health agency, if designated as a primary caregiver by that qualified patient or person with an identification card.

(2) An individual who has been designated as a primary caregiver by more than one qualified patient or person with an identification card, if every qualified patient or person with an identification card who has designated that individual as a primary caregiver resides in the same city or county as the primary caregiver.

(3) An individual who has been designated as a primary caregiver by a qualified patient or person with an identification card who resides in a city or county other than that of the primary caregiver, if the individual has not been designated as a primary caregiver by any other qualified patient or person with an identification card.

(e) A primary caregiver shall be at least 18 years of age, unless the primary caregiver is the parent of a minor child who is a qualified patient or a person with an identification card or the primary caregiver is a person otherwise entitled to make medical decisions under state law pursuant to Section 6922, 7002, 7050, or 7120 of the Family Code.

(f) “Qualified patient” means a person who is entitled to the protections of Section 11362.5, but who does not have an identification card issued pursuant to this article.

[2] Health and Safety Code Section 11362.77 

(a) A qualified patient or primary caregiver may possess no more than eight ounces of dried marijuana per qualified patient. In addition, a qualified patient or primary caregiver may also maintain no more than six mature or 12 immature marijuana plants per qualified patient

(b) If a qualified patient or primary caregiver has a doctor s recommendation that this quantity does not meet the qualified patient s medical needs, the qualified patient or primary caregiver may possess an amount of marijuana consistent with the patient s needs.

(c) Counties and cities may retain or enact medical marijuana guidelines allowing qualified patients or primary caregivers to exceed the state limits set forth in subdivision (a).

[3] Business and Professions Code 26033 

(a) A qualified patient, as defined in Section 11362.7 of the Health and Safety Code, who cultivates, possesses, stores, manufactures, or transports cannabis exclusively for his or her personal medical use but who does not provide, donate, sell, or distribute cannabis to any other person is not thereby engaged in commercial cannabis activity and is therefore exempt from the licensure requirements of this division.

(b) A primary caregiver who cultivates, possesses, stores, manufactures, transports, donates, or provides cannabis exclusively for the personal medical purposes of no more than five specified qualified patients for whom he or she is the primary caregiver within the meaning of Section 11362.7 of the Health and Safety Code, but who does not receive remuneration for these activities except for compensation in full compliance with subdivision (c) of Section 11362.765 of the Health and Safety Code, is exempt from the licensure requirements of this division.

The Launch of Agora C Business Services

Agora C Business Services exists to solve the critical issues facing cannabis operators, both large and small. Their unique approach is not only what differentiates them, but also what makes them successful. They provide a broad range of services and solutions to help “grey market” cannabis operations transition into the regulated market, achieve their vision and optimize performance and productivity.

Agora C Business Services is the culmination of a restructuring of the Law Office of Dale Schafer, in order to lower the legal fees associated with entering or transitioning to the regulated cannabis market and service more cannabis operators in CA. By contracting with Agora C Business services, I can lower the cost for 3/4 of the necessary work required to obtain “Local Authorization” and a state license for CA cannabis businesses. I can also help operators to formulate good teams and train those teams in all areas necessary to adequately run a cannabis corporation, thereby helping those businesses to be as sustainable as possible.

I would encourage anyone seeking to enter or transition into California’s regulated cannabis market to visit the Agora C Business Services website and subscribe for all upcoming events and information on the opening of the El Dorado County Resource Center.


ANNOUNCEMENT – El Dorado County Board of Supervisors Meeting to Certify Commercial Cannabis Measures and Direct Office of Administration

12/4/18 @1:00pm
“Chief Administrative Office recommending the Board: 1) Receive and file a presentation outlining next steps and an estimated timeline for the development of the County’s Commercial Cannabis Program, pursuant to voter-approved Measures (pending certification), and; 2) Adopt and authorize the Chair to sign Resolution 243-2018, amending the Authorized Personnel Allocation Resolution 132-2018, thereby adding one Principal Management Analyst allocation to the Chief Administrative Office to allow staff to adequate time toward the development of the Commercial Cannabis Program, while continuing to address other County priorities as well as manage the budget and operational responsibilities within the CAO’s office. (Est. Time: 30 min.)”

Law Office of Dale Schafer November 2018 Cannabis Voter Guide

Courtesy of DrugSense.org, California City & County Regulation Watch and CANORML is the November 2018 Cannabis Voter Guide. Please note that this voter guide is NOT intended to instruct potential voters on how to vote. The November 2018 Cannabis Voter Guide is simply a list compiled to help you make the best decision for you.




No state official has done more to champion legal marijuana than Democratic frontrunner Lt. Gov. Gavin Newsom. A longtime advocate of drug harm reduction, Newsom convened a Blue Ribbon Task Force on legalization that served as a blueprint for Prop 64, which he backed strongly. Some worry that Newsom is partial to big-money interests. As of last July, he had received over $300K in donations from the cannabis industry. Newsom has a history of leadership on other social issues, most notably gay marriage, which he championed as Mayor of San Francisco, as well as gun control and single-payer health care. Newsom has dealt with personal issues, including a bout with alcohol and cocaine addiction, but has recovered with impressive dynamism reminiscent of JFK.

Republican businessman James Cox made news when he said, “I’d like to go to the Portugal system where they actually put people who use marijuana in hospitals and cure them of their substance abuse. I’m not interested in jailing recreational marijuana users, and I’m certainly for medical marijuana.” He now says, “I’m not necessarily demanding that it [hospitalization] be done with regard to cannabis.” Among other nutty ideas, Cox has proposed that California be governed by a 12,000 – person “citizens legislature.”


Incumbent Xavier Becerra was appointed by Gov. Brown to fill the seat of Sen. Kamala Harris. Since taking office, Becerra has aggressively moved to protect California’s interests against federal interference. Admitting to have tried pot “at a younger time,” he has vowed to protect the state’s legalization law against federal intrusion by A.G. Jeff Sessions. Becerra represented downtown L.A. in Congress from 1993 to 2017, where he posted an excellent voting record on drug and criminal justice reform, without taking an active role in advocating for them.

The Republican challenger is Stephen Bailey, a former judge running on a law-and-order platform who has called Becerra “soft on crime.” Asked by the Claremont Independent if he supports marijuana legalization, Bailey replied, “I think classifying marijuana as a schedule one is a mistake on the federal side. The reason for that is because schedule one assumes that there’s no medicinal value in that particular drug. I think that’s been proven incorrect. It also curtails research on marijuana in this case.”

He added, “Marijuana has changed over the last couple decades. The people who cultivate marijuana are good farmers, and have actually enhanced the percentage of THC in marijuana from in the 1960s—it might be roughly three percent—t’s now running at 18 to 22 percent. I have had kids in front of me from my time serving on juvenile court, that I had seen for a period of time, that became paranoid from using marijuana. Marijuana impairs the brain’s ability to function properly and it has a negative impact on a significant number of users. What we’ve done with the wholesale legalization of marijuana down to the recreational level is creating a long-term public health crisis.”

Asked whether he would defend Prop. 64, Bailey replied, “The voters passed Proposition 64. Whether I think it’s the best public policy is immaterial. As Attorney General, my duty is to defend the laws of the state and I intend to do that, whether I have reservations about marijuana or not.”


State Senator Ed Hernández (D-Asuza), has consistently voted well and thoughtfully on cannabis issues, medical and otherwise. An optometrist, he has taken a special interest in health care access and pharmaceutical drugs. Hernandez sponsored legislation to outlaw the dangerous synthetic marijuana substitute “Spice” and to raise the tobacco smoking age to 21.

His challenger Eleni Kounalakis, who won 24% of the vote in the primary to Hernandez’s 20%, is a former ambassador to Hungary (in the Obama administration). During the 2016 election cycle, she was a fundraiser for Hillary Clinton’s 2016 presidential campaign and part of Clinton’s foreign policy advisory team. When asked whether or not she supports medical or recreational legalization, her campaign responded, “California voted to legalize the recreational use of marijuana, and Eleni believes that now we need to make sure that the implementation of the law protects the public, especially our kids. Regulations must be put in place for a wide-range of aspects, from ensuring products are properly labeled, to setting up a banking system which keeps the industry from operating on an all-cash basis. Legalization poses other new challenges to public safety that must also be addressed, including a possible increase in people driving under the influence. Eleni believes we can develop effective regulatory practices to address these problems by imposing taxes, ensuring strict identification for purchases, and proposing and supporting bills that are specifically designed to protect our kids, and the public at large.”


The Democrats have a fine candidate in State Controller Betty Yee. When serving on the Board of Equalization in 2009, Yee emerged as one of the first state officials to publicly advocate legally taxed and regulated cannabis. Yee actively courted the medical cannabis community, and enjoys wide support from both business and consumer interests.


The Democrats have another fine candidate in Fiona Ma, who like Yee before her now serves on the Board of Equalization from San Francisco. Upon joining the board, she took a serious interest in the cannabis industry, talking to farmers and touring businesses to figure out how they could best be integrated in California’s legal economy. Like Treasurer Chiang, she has struggled to figure out how to provide banking services to cannabis businesses so they can stop having to deal in cash. Her efforts have won her support from the cannabis community.



During her long career in public office, incumbent Dianne Feinstein has been a staunch opponent of all things marijuana. Though praised as a moderate on other issues, Feinstein has been one of the Senate’s leading drug warriors, vociferously opposing Prop. 215 and 64, and using her power on the Senate Judiciary Committee to block rescheduling, water down sentencing reform, impose tougher penalties against drugs and their users, and criminalize more drugs. Shamefully, Sen. Feinstein was the only Democrat on the Judiciary Committee to vote against an amendment to prohibit Attorney General Jeff Sessions from interfering in California’s medical marijuana law, and another to protect banks from being prosecuted for serving the cannabis industry. Her stubbornness has led many Californians to think she is too old and out of touch for the job. In a stunning move, the state Democratic party declined to endorse her at its convention.

Finally, in a stunning announcement one week before the start of primary voting, Sen. Feinstein announced that she is shifting her position and would drop her opposition to legal cannabis. Feinstein’s views are said to have been changed by meeting constituents, especially those with young kids who have benefited from medical cannabis. “Federal law enforcement agents should not arrest Californians who are adhering to California law,” said Feinstein. Sen. Feinstein is now a co-sponsor of the STATES Act, which would amend federal law to legalize actions that are legal under state marijuana laws. This is a welcome if long overdue act by the senior Democrat on the Judiciary Committee, though many voters are asking themselves whether it is too little, too late.

State Senate President Pro Tem Kevin de León (D- L.A.) is Feinstein’s challenger. De León is campaigning from the progressive left as an energetic, young advocate for protecting immigrants, the environment and clean energy, and other progressive issues. In the legislature, De León was not a vocal leader on drug or criminal justice reform, but consistently voted right. Just before Feinstein’s about-face, de León announced that he would back Sen. Cory Booker’s Marijuana Justice Act. “Cory Booker’s bill recognizes that legal cannabis is the law of the land in California and many other states. More importantly, it corrects deep-rooted racial disparities in the criminal justice system.” he tweeted. Speaking at the State of Marijuana Conference in Long Beach, he promised, “I’ll be your champion in the fight to deschedule cannabis at the federal level, so we can strengthen the Golden State’s flourishing cannabis industry.”



California is a prime battleground in the struggle for control of Congress. Although most districts are sure wins for incumbents, Democrats have mounted strong challenges in several currently Republican seats. San Franciso’s Rep. Nancy Pelosi, who stands in line to become Speaker if the Democrats flip the House, has made it known she thinks marijuana reform should be an important Congressional priority. On the other hand, Republican Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy of Bakersfield, the top candidate for Speaker if the Republicans hold the House, has consistently opposed cannabis reform bills in Congress. California’s Democratic delegation has consistently voted well on marijuana issues, while most Republicans have voted poorly. Three notable Republican exceptions are Dana Rohrabacher (O.C.), Tom McClintock (Tahoe), and Duncan Hunter (San Diego), all of whom are strong conservatives who have co-sponsored bills to end federal cannabis prohibition.



Most districts are sure wins for incumbents; some key or contested districts are:

4th C.D. – Roseville/El Dorado Co.- Incumbent Republican Tom McClintock is a rock-ribbed, small-government conservative who opposes federal interference in California’s marijuana laws. He co-sponsored an amendment that would have barred the U.S. Dept. of Justice from spending funds to undermine state adult-use legalization laws. His opponent is Democrat Jessica Morse, whose views are unknown.

8th C.D. – Mono/Inyo/SBd County – This all-Republican race has former Assemblyman Tim Donnelly challenging incumbent Paul Cook, who has a dismal “F” voting record. Donnelly, a hard-core Tea Party conservative, sponsored drug decriminalization legislation in the Assembly to help reduce prison overcrowding, although he opposed the Medical Marijuana Regulation and Safety Act to legally license medical marijuana production.

10th C.D. – Modesto/Manteca – Incumbent Republican Jeff Denham is a social conservative with an atrocious voting record. His opponent is Democrat Josh Harder

21nd C.D. – Bakersfield/Kings/Fresno- Incumbent Republican David Valadao co-sponsored a hemp bill, but has voted against every marijuana reform measure and opposes recreational legalization. HIs opponent, Democrat TJ Cox, is in favor of legalization.

22nd C.D. – Fresno – Incumbent Republican Devin Nunes, a social conservative with an “F” voting record on marijuana, is notorious outside this Republican-leaning district for his partisan mishandling of the Russian investigation. His Democratic opponent, former prosecutor Andrew Janz, supports taking cannabis off Schedule One and re-doing the federal sentencing guidelines.

25th C.D. – Palmdale/Santa Clarita – Incumbent Republican Steve Knight has a mediocre voting record, having opposed the Rohrbacher-Farr and McClintock-Polis amendments to protect California’s marijuana laws from federal interference, while supporting medical use by veterans and saying it should be reclassified to Schedule III. He is opposed by Democrat Katherine Hill, whose campaign says she supports California voters’ decision to legalize marijuana and likewise federal legislation to protect it.

39th C.D. – Fullerton – In this open seat formerly held by Republican Edward Royce, former Naval officer and lottery winner Gil Cisneros (D) faces former legislator Young Kim (R). Kim has a poor voting record, except on more recent regulatory bills, and she opposed Prop. 64. According to VoteSmart, Cisneros supports recreational marijuana legalization.

45th C.D. – Irvine – Incumbent Republican Mimi Walters has a NORML “D” rating in Congress and was on DPFCA’s State Senate Hall of Shame. She faces Democrat Katie Porter, a consumer protection lawyer and former student of Sen. Elizabeth Warren at Harvard Law, who expressed “strong support” for marijuana reform measures on Cal NORML’s candidate questionnaire.

48th C.D. – Republican Dana Rohrabacher has been a leading champion for cannabis in Congress, being the co-sponsor of the Rohrabacher-Blumenauer (or -Farr) Amendment that currently bars the U.S. Dept. of Justice from spending funds to undermine state medical marijuana laws. Rohrabacher is also facing criticism over what he claims were innocent meetings with Russian officials implicated in the Mueller investigation. His Democratic challenger, Harley Rouda, is solid on marijuana issues, having responded positively regarding all aspects of marijuana legalization on a Cal NORML candidate questionnaire.

49th C.D. – Oceanside/Dana Point – Vying for Darrell Issa’s vacant seat are BOE member Diane Harkey (R) and Attorney Mike Levin (D). Harkey had a lousy voting record when she was in the Assembly. From her position on the BOE she opined, “The cannabis initiative pads the pockets of the industry participants, funds a growing bureaucracy, promotes the products and, when considering the potential cost or unintended consequences, has very little direct benefit to our existing state budget. If all goes according to plan and marijuana becomes our new ‘cash’ crop replacing existing agriculture, California could be on its way to establishing the next big tobacco industry and the first banana republic in the nation.”

50th C.D. – San Diego – Embattled incumbent Duncan D. Hunter, who is fighting an indictment for misusing campaign funds, is one of the few Republicans who has taken a strong stance for marijuana reform. He co-sponsored the “Respect State Marijuana Laws Act of 2015” the CARERS Act, and Charlotte’s Web Medical Access Act. He has also been a proponent of e-cigs and vaporizers. Hunter won an “All-Star” rating from the San Diego Association of Cannabis Professionals. So did his opponent, Democratic party activist and businessman Ammar Campa Najjar, who says he will work “proactively” toward national cannabis reform if elected.

Other Pro-Reform Congress Members who have co-sponsored legalization bills, but aren’t in competitive races::

Dist. 01 – N. Coast – Jared Huffman (D)

Dist. 09 – Antioch – Jerry McNerney (D)

Dist. 13 – Oakland – Barbara Lee (D)

Dist. 15 – Pleasanton –Eric Swalwell (D)

Dist. 17 – Santa Clara – Ro Khanna (D)

Dist. 18 – Palo Alto – Anna Eshoo (D)

Dist. 19 – San Jose – Zoe Lofgren (D)

Dist. 24 – Santa Barabara/SLO – Salud Carbajal (D)

Dist. 30 – LA Valley – Brad Sherman (D)

Dist. 33 – LA – Ted Lieu (D)

Dist. 46 – Santa Ana – Lou Correa (D)

Dist. 47 – Long Beach – Alan Lowenthal (D)



Few seats are expected to change hands in the state legislature, which is firmly controlled by the Democrats. By and large, Democrats have voted well and Republicans poorly on cannabis-related issues, but this isn’t true in all cases (for example Palmdale AD 36 and San Bernardino AD 40).

(Click here for 2017-18 DPFCA Voting Scorecard of all incumbent State Senators and Assemblymembers. Listed below are candidates running in this year’s election.)




District 8 (Amador, Calaveras, Fresno, Inyo, Madera, Mariposa, Mono, Sacramento, Stanislaus, Tulare, Tuolumne) – Republican contender and Fresno county supervisor Andreas Borgeas does not support the use or sale of marijuana. He faces Democrat Paulina Miranda.

District 12 (Fresno, Madera, Merced, Monterey, San Benito, Stanislaus) – Assemblywoman Anna Caballero has a good voting record. She faces Madera County Supervisor Rob Poythress.

District 16 (Kern, Riverside, San Bernardino, Tulare) – Democratic archeologist and activist Ruth Musser-Lopez faces former Assemblywoman Shannon Grove (R), who has a dismal voting record.

District 22 (Los Angeles) – Assemblyman Mike Eng, who has a good voting record, faces fellow Democrat Susan Rubio.

District 32 (Los Angeles, Orange) – Democrat Bob Archuleta, a Pico Rivera City Councilman, faces Republican attorney Rita Topalian.

Other Senators with notably good records, but not in competitive races:

Dist 02 (North Coast) – Mike McGuire (D)

Dist 10 (Fremont) – Bob Wieckowski (D)

Dist 18 (LA/Van Nuys) –Robert Hertzberg (D)

Dist 30 (LA) – Holly Mitchell (D)


AD 15 – Berkeley/Oakland – Two Democrats are running in this race. Richmond Councilmember Jovanka Beckles is running a progressive, “people-powered” campaign. Her platform advocates criminal justice reform: “Mass incarceration must be ended, drug offenses should result in rehabilitation, not imprisonment, and the use of illegal drugs should be decriminalized.” Her opponent, Obama aide and campaign organizer Buffy Wicks, is endorsed by Gavin Newsom and Kamala Harris and also has favorable views on criminal justice reform.

AD 36 – Palmdale – Incumbent Assemblyman Tom Lackey has been the leading Republican sponsor of legislation to advance the legal licensing of cannabis, including a bill to lower Prop. 64 taxes in order to help the licensed industry compete against the black market. His opponent, former Assemblyman Steve Fox, posted the worst voting record of any Democrat in the legislature, an atrocious 0% in 2013/4.

AD 40 – San Bernardino – Republican Henry Nickels, the Mayor Pro Tem of San Bernardino City, has worked constructively with the cannabis industry to try to establish local regulations. His opponent, Democrat James Ramos, has opposed cannabis licensing efforts as a member of the county board of supervisors.

AD 42 – Yucca Valley– Like most of his fellow Republicans, incumbent Chad Mayes has a sub-par voting record. His opponent, DeniAntoinette Mazingo, has expressed support for Prop. 64 and protecting the rights of medical marijuana patients, and is endorsed by the Brownie Mary Democratic Club.

AD 76 Oceanside: Two Democrats are vying for the seat of outgoing Asm. Rocky Chavez. Elizabeth Warren (no relation) supports both adult and medical use of cannabis, which she calls a “wonder plant.” The views of her opponent, Tasha Boerner Horvath, aren’t known.

Other Assembly Members with notably positive records, but not in competitive races:

Dist 13 (Stockton) Susan Eggman (D)

Dist 18 (Oakland) Rob Bonta (D)

Dist 20 (Hayward) Bill Quirk (D)

Dist 27 (San Jose) Ash Kalra (D)

Dist 59 (LA) Reggie Jones-Sawyer (D)

Dist 64 (Carson) Mike Gipson (D)




  • Berkeley City Council District 4 – Kate Harrison has a good record on the council.
  • Emeryville City CouncilDianne Martinez recommended by local advocates.
  • Fremont City Council District 2 – Cullen Tiernan favors licensed cannabis sales; CC District 3: David Bonaccorsirecommended by local advocates.
  • Hayward Mayor – Barbara Halliday; Councilmember – Aisha Wahab recommended by local advocate
  • Newark City Council – Mike Bucci recommended by local advocates
  • Oakland City Council District 4 – Local advocates recommend both Sheng Thao, Chief of Staff for pro-cannabis At-Large Councilmember Rebecca Kaplan, and Matt Hummel, Chair of the Cannabis Regulatory Commission.
  • San Leandro City Council District 1- Deborah Cox; CC District 3 – Victor Aguilar; CC District 5 – Corina Lopez recommended by local advocates.
  • Union City CouncilHarris Mojadedi recommended by local advocates.


  • Chico – Cannabis supporters Alex Brown, Rich Ober, and Scott Huber are running for city council.
  • OrovilleMarlene del Rosario, Art Hatley, and Jack Berry (a mix of progressives and conservatives) are supportive candidates. Also, as per Jessica MacKenzie, Vice Mayor and councilmember Janet Goodson is running for mayor and also supports the ordinances.


Fifth District supervisorial candidate Ben Stopper has support of local activists, as does Third District candidate Marist Calloway. For sheriff, Rick DiBasilio is the favored candidate.


Advocates are still struggling to win local approval for licensed cannabis providers in this county that voted 61% for Prop 64.

  • Concord City Council District 2 – Candidate Kenji Yamada favors licensed adult use cannabis sales.
  • Walnut Creek City Council – Candidate Iman Novin favors licensing cannabis outlets in the city.


South Lake Tahoe – Cannabis activist Cody Bass is running for City Council on a platform to support local businesses and youth programs.


Dana Point – In the District 1 city council race, Amy Foell says, “It’s about time marijuana became legalized for recreational use just like alcohol. Dana Point has been prudent to restrict recreational operations within city limits. However, we should permit delivery service and cultivation for residents.” Her opponent Joseph “Joe” Jaeger does not support marijuana-related businesses in the city of Dana Point and Joe Muller did not support Prop 64.


Napa City Council – Medical cannabis advocate James Hinton is one of five candidates running for two spots on city council. “The city needs to permit adult use and marginalize the black market” he says.


Portola – Cannabis advocate Kimberly Anne Scales-Scott is running for City Council. Read more.


Supervisor District 4: Former DA Bonnie Dumanis, infamous for her zealous prosecution of medical cannabis cases, is opposed by Democrat Nathan Fletcher, who has the support of the San Diego Association of Cannabis Professionals.

Supervisor District 5: Michelle Gomez would like to reverse the county’s ban on cannabis facilities.


Lompoc Mayor: Jim Mosby (Current City Council Member with 2 years left on term) voted for “open market,” voted for no caps on cannabis businesses, voted to permit cannabis lounges/on-sight consumption, voted to allow for personal grows outdoor or indoors up to 6 plants (recreational). Voted originally for no local taxes on cannabis. Voted No tax on local medical cannabis. Opponent Jennelle Osborne is pro-cannabis but advocated for limited amount of cannabis businesses, advocated for lottery system for “limited market” as opposed to an “open market,” voted for on-sight consumption/lounges, advocated to only allow 2 or 3 plants to be grown outside personally (recreational). Advocated and voted for several local taxes. Voted No local tax on medical cannabis.

City Council District 2: Victor Vega (incumbent) same record as Mosby.

City Council District 3: Dirk Starbuck: same record.


Vallejo – Cannabis advocate Hakeem Brown is running for city council.




County measures affect only unincorporated areas, not cities within the county.




Measure S

asks, “To protect essential municipal services, including repairing public facilities, reducing traffic congestion, and improving pedestrian and bicycle safety; and to support regulation of the cannabis industry, and preserve the City of Emeryville’s long-term financial stability, shall the ordinance to impose a business tax of up to 6% of gross receipts on all cannabis businesses within Emeryville?”


City Business Tax

Measure V would amend the marijuana business tax law to: allow marijuana business to deduct the cost of raw materials from their gross receipts and to pay taxes on a quarterly basis; and allow the city council to amend the law in any manner that does not increase the tax rate (including lowering taxes). Endorsed by Cal NORML.

Union City

Measure DD

reads, “To maintain/enhance essential city services including 911 dispatch/neighborhood police patrols/emergency response times; after-school programs for children/teens; keeping fire stations open full time; and other essential services shall a measure be adopted establishing a Union City cannabis business tax at a maximum rate of $12.00 per square foot for cultivation and 6% of gross receipts for others, until ended by voters, providing $1,400,000 annually, requiring oversight and no money for Sacramento?”




Measure T

asks, “To fund general municipal expenses such as police, fire, roads and recreation, shall the City of Oroville adopt an ordinance authorizing an annual Cannabis Business Tax on cannabis businesses upon their gross receipts at a rate not to exceed 10%, with initial rates of 5% on retailers, manufacturers, and cultivators; 3% on distributors and nurseries; 0% on testing laboratories; and 8% on microbusiness estimated to generate $300,000 to $600,000 annually until repealed by the voters?”



Measure R asks: “Shall the County tax cannabis (marijuana) businesses in the unincorporated area at annual rates up to $7.00 per canopy square foot for cultivation (adjustable for inflation) and up to 4% of gross receipts for all other cannabis businesses including retailers, to generate an estimated $1.7 to $4.4 million annually to fund general County expenses such as public safety, health services, and environmental protection, and levied until repealed by the voters or Board of Supervisors?” Endorsed by Contra Costa NORML.



“Shall Del Norte County establish taxes upon commercial cannabis activity in the following amounts: 2-6 percent of the gross receipts of a non-medicinal cannabis retailer, 1-3 percent of the gross receipts of a cannabis manufacturer, $1 per square foot of outdoor cultivation area and $3 per square foot of indoor cultivation area?”



El Dorado County has five different measures on the ballot; in addition, the city of Placerville has its own measure.

  • Measure N would regulate and impose a general tax on commercial cannabis activity at rates up to: $30 per square foot or 15% for cultivation; 10% for distribution, manufacturing, and retail; and 5% for testing laboratories
  • Measure P would allow for outdoor and mixed-light (greenhouse) commercial cannabis cultivation for medicinal use on parcels of at least 10 acres that are restricted in canopy size, required to pay a County commercial cannabis tax
  • Measure Q would allow for outdoor and mixed-light (greenhouse) commercial cannabis cultivation for recreational adult use on parcels of at least 10 acres that are restricted in canopy size, required to pay a County commercial cannabis tax
  • Measure R would allow for the retail sale, delivery, distribution, and indoor cultivation of commercial cannabis for medicinal use on parcels that are restricted in number and concentration, required to pay a County commercial cannabis tax
  • Measure S would allow for the retail sale, delivery, distribution, and indoor cultivation of commercial cannabis for recreational adult use on parcels that are restricted in number and concentration, required to pay a County commercial cannabis tax


Measure M says, “Shall the measure establishing a cannabis (marijuana) businesses tax at annual rates not to exceed $10.00 per canopy square foot for cultivation (adjustable for inflation), 8% of gross receipts for retail cannabis businesses, and 4% for all other cannabis businesses; which is expected to generate an estimated $50,000 to $70,000 annually and will be levied until repealed by the voters or the City Council in order to fund general municipal expenses, be adopted?”



Fresno (city)

Measure A Marijuana business tax would allow the county to tax marijuana businesses at rates of up to $12 per canopy square foot and up to 10 percent of gross receipts for medical dispensaries and other marijuana businesses, with revenue dedicated to the city’s general fund and a community benefit fund. Endorsed by NORML advocates in Fresno.




Measure K seeks to place a 15 percent gross tax on sales of Cannabis cultivated locally and sold outside the area. It would also collect a 25-dollar-per-square-foot tax on facilities used for cultivation.

City of Imperial

Measure I

would impose a cannabis tax not to exceed $10 per canopy square foot for cultivation, 6% of gross receipts for retail businesses, and 4% for all other cannabis businesses.



Two measures are on the ballot in Kern; in addition, the cities of Arvin and Bakersfield have their own measures.

  • The first county measure, sponsored by Jeff Jarvis and Heather Epps, would replace the county’s current ban on unincorporated area dispensaries with state regulations and guidelines on the industry. Commercial adult-use recreational sales and cultivation would still be banned, but medicinal sales and cultivation, testing, distribution and other activities would be allowed. Regulation would be done through ministerial land-use permits and levy a 7.5 percent business tax on operations.
  • The second was brought forth by attorney Ben Eilenberg on behalf of the Committee for Safer Neighborhoods and Schools, with the goal to regulate both commercial adult use and medical. Commercial businesses (except retail and testing), such as manufacturing, cultivation and distribution would be required to operate in one of two zones adjacent to the I-5 corridor in western Kern County. It would also cap the number of retail dispensaries to 35, require regulation via ministerial approval of land-use permits, with exception of retail outlets, which would need a conditional-use permit, and provides a mechanism for fees and taxes on cannabis activities, including a 5 percent tax on gross retail receipts.


Cannabis Tax Measure would establish a tax of up to 6% of gross revenues on commercial cannabis business operations, excepting cultivation, and a tax of up to $6 per square foot of space used for commercial cannabis cultivation, as adjusted annually by CPI.


After 32,790 signatures were submitted to the city by Kern Citizens for Patient Rights, the November ballot will read, “Shall the measure amending the Bakersfield Municipal Code to allow medical marijuana storefront dispensaries, cultivation sites, manufacturers, distributors, and delivery operations with a valid permit, and which will impose a 7.5 percent excise tax that will last until terminated by voters, be adopted?”



Measure K

reads, “Shall Article VII be added to Chapter 18 of the Lake County Code imposing a Cannabis Business Tax in the unincorporated areas of the county, which, as of January 2021, shall impose an annual tax of $1.00 per square foot for nursery cultivation, 4% of gross receipts on a cannabis dispensary, micro-business, or delivery business, and 2.5% of gross receipts on a cannabis manufacturing, processing, transportation, distribution, or other type of cannabis business?”



Measure M

asks, “Shall an ordinance be adopted imposing a Cannabis Business Tax of up to $3.00 per square foot of canopy space, per year for cultivators, and up to 8% on gross receipts of all other cannabis businesses operating in the unincorporated areas of Lassen County, with funds staying in the County general fund for unrestricted general revenue purposes?”



Los Angeles (city)

Measure B, to establish a charter bank in the city, is said to be aimed at allowing banking for cannabis businesses.


Measure G asks, “Shall the ordinance be adopted to (1) allow and regulate cannabis (marijuana) businesses; (2) permit existing medical marijuana dispensaries to sell and deliver recreational (adult use) cannabis; and (3) impose a new general tax of 2.5% of gross receipts from sales of non-medical cannabis, the revenues from which may be used for general city purposes, until repealed by voters, which tax is estimated to raise approximately $75,000-$ 150,000 annually?”


Measure CT: Commercial Cannabis Activity Tax. To fund general municipal expenses such as police, fire, roads, and recreation, shall the City tax cannabis (marijuana) businesses at an annual rate not to exceed 10% of gross receipts for all commercial cannabis activities conducted in the City which is expected to generate an estimated $1.2 million to $1.6 million annually and will be levied until repealed by the voters or the City Council?


Measure PC, The Cannabis Business Tax Measure asks: Shall the City tax cannabis (marijuana) businesses at annual rates up to $10.00 per canopy square foot for cultivation, and up to 6% of gross receipts for all other cannabis businesses?




Measure I – Would set initial tax rates of: $7 per square foot of canopy space in a facility that uses exclusively artificial lighting, $4 for mixed light, and $1 for nurseries. In addition, it would set taxes of (1%) on cannabis labs, 4% on retailers, 2% on distributors, and 2.5% on processing.




Measure V asks, “Shall the ordinance permitting operation in the City of Marina of certain cannabis businesses and establishing a business license tax for such businesses at rates not to exceed 5% of gross receipts, to continue until repealed by the voters and, according to proponents, potentially generating $40,000 to $200,000 annually be adopted?




Would tax cannabis businesses at annual rates not to exceed $10.00 per canopy square foot for cultivation (adjustable for inflation), 6% of gross receipts for retail cannabis businesses, and 4% for all other cannabis businesses.



Measure B would impose a 2% tax on net profits from cannabis businesses, which can be raised at a rate of 1% per year by the city council for not more than four years. Keep Plumas Green site.




Measure O would impose a 10% tax on the gross receipts of cannabis retail businesses in city (with the tax continuing until repealed, and the rate potentially increasing to 15%).

Hemet (2 measures)

  •  Measure Y:  Shall the privately proposed measure be adopted allowing an unlimited number of non-retail cannabis businesses in manufacturing zones without a city-issued discretionary approval, subject to limited separation requirements, giving certain cannabis business operators priority over others in establishing their businesses in the City, and taxing cannabis businesses at the rate of $10 / square foot of space used in connection with commercial cannabis activity, estimated to yield $1,000,000 in revenues annually and in perpetuity.
  • Measure Z:  Shall the City-sponsored measure be adopted establishing a tax on cannabis businesses at the maximum rates of 25% of gross revenues or $30 / square foot of cultivation space, which will apply to illegally operating businesses and, if action is taken after December 31, 2020 to permit cannabis businesses, will apply to legally-established cannabis businesses, estimated to generate at least $3,500,000 annually in perpetuity if cannabis businesses are permitted; and prohibiting cannabis businesses through December 31, 2020?

Jurupa Valley

Measure L asks, “Shall the ordinance which legalizes retail cannabis sales and commercial cannabis activity in certain zones, imposes operational requirements, and imposes an annual general tax of up to $25 per square foot of space used for retail cannabis sales and up to $3 per square foot for space used for other commercial cannabis activity (potentially generating $196,875 annually from retail sales and an unknown amount from other commercial activity and continuing until repealed) be adopted?”

Moreno Valley

Shall an ordinance be adopted maintaining safe, clean public areas/improving local services including neighborhood police patrols, fire, 911 response; gang, youth violence prevention, after-school programs; combat robberies/burglaries; repair potholes; unrestricted general revenue purposes; by establishing a tax not exceeding 8% of gross receipts /$15 per square foot for cultivation, generating approximately $2,200,000 annually until ended by voters, with independent audits, public review, all funds used locally?


Shall the measure known as the COMMERCIAL MARIJUANA DISTRIBUTION AND MANUFACTURING OPERATIONS TAX MEASURE, estimated to annually collect $2.3 million from commercial marijuana distribution and manufacturing operations (through a maximum tax rate of ten cents for each $1 of proceeds), to be administered and implemented pursuant to Chapter 3.40 of Title 3 of the Perris Municipal Code, with no sunset clause, be adopted?




Measure S

would impose a tax of up to $5 / sq. ft. utilized in connection with cannabis cultivation or nursery, subject to adjustment by the city council; and up to a maximum of 5% of gross receipts on cannabis processing, testing, distribution, retail, sale or delivery, etc.


Measure U

would tax cannabis businesses up to 10% of gross receipts and up to $25 pet sq. ft. of cannabis cultivation.


Measure T

would impose a cultivation tax on commercial cannabis cultivation of up to $15 per square foot; other cannabis businesses would pay a tax of 1%–6% of the proceeds.

San Bernardino (city) (2 measures)

would impose a cannabis cultivation tax of $7 per sq. ft. of canopy for artificial lighting; $4 for mixed-light; $2 for no artificial light; and $1 for nurseries. It would further tax 1% for cannabis testing labs, 2% for distributors, 2.5% for manufacturers, and 4% for retailers or delivery services.

would impose regulations on cannabis businesses, including allowing for fees to be imposed by the city, and establishing penalties for violating the ordinance. The measure was drafted by the city council in response to lawsuits brought against its 2016 measures N and O.



Chula Vista

Measure Q would impose a business license tax of at least 5%—and up to 15%—of gross receipts on cannabis (marijuana) businesses; and at least $5—and up to $25—per square foot on space dedicated to cannabis cultivation, to “raise an estimated $6,000,000 per year, until voters change or repeal it, to fund general City services, including enforcement efforts against cannabis business that are operating illegally.”

La Mesa

Measure V would allow the city to tax cannabis businesses at annual rates not to exceed $10.00 per canopy square foot for cultivation and 6% of gross receipts for all other businesses, “generating an estimated $1,500,000 to $2,000,000 annually, to fund general municipal expenses including police and fire, roads, and recreation.”

Vista (3 measures)

  • Measure Z, the “citizen measure,” would authorize the commercial storefront retail sales of medicinal cannabis by up to 11 retailers in the city, to be located in any of Vista’s commercial, industrial, business park, and mixed-use zoning districts; and impose a 7% special use tax on gross receipts.
  • Measure AA, the “city council cannabis business tax,” would impose tax on marijuana cultivation at $14/square foot and gross receipts of marijuana businesses at rates not exceeding 8% on manufacturing and distribution; 10% on medicinal retail; 12% on adult-use retail; and 3.5% on testing.
  • Measure BB, the “city council medicinal cannabis business ordinance,” would authorize only the commercial delivery of medicinal cannabis in the City of Vista by up to three non-storefront (delivery only) retailers, plus up to two product safety testing laboratories, limiting these business to industrial-type zones and authorizing and directing the City Council to establish licensing and operating regulations protecting public safety, health, security, and community welfare.



Proposition D Marijuana Business Tax Increase would tax marijuana businesses with gross receipts over $500,000 at a rate between 1 percent and 5 percent, exempting retail sales of medical marijuana, and expanding the marijuana business tax to businesses not physically located in San Francisco. Opposed by the SF Chronicle, Sen. Wiener, and the Brownie Mary Democratic Club of SF. Taxes cannabis at rates far higher than comparable businesses.



Measure B reads: “To support early childhood education, drug prevention, literacy, and other programs for children and youth; public health; public safety and enforcement of cannabis laws; shall an ordinance imposing a special tax on commercial cannabis businesses in unincorporated San Joaquin County at a rate of 3.5% to 8% of gross receipts, with an additional cultivation Square Footage Payment of $2.00 per square foot of cultivation space annually adjusted by Consumer Price Index (CPI) thereafter, be adopted?”


Measure D would allow the City of Tracy adopt an ordinance establishing a special tax on cannabis businesses at annual rates, not to exceed $12.00 per canopy square foot for cultivation (adjusted for inflation), 6% of gross receipts for retail cannabis businesses, and 4% for all other businesses; which is expected to generate an estimated $35,000 to $100,000 annually to fund police and code enforcement services and that shall be levied until repealed by voters.



Measure B would impose a Cannabis Business Tax of up to 10% on gross receipts of cannabis businesses operating in unincorporated areas of San Luis Obispo County.

San Luis Obispo (city)

Measure F would establish a cannabis business tax up to 10% of gross receipts for retail and businesses and up to $10.00 per canopy square foot for cultivation.

Paso Robles

Measure I would enact tax on cannabis-related activities of up to $20 per square foot for cultivation/processing; up to 10% of gross receipts for transportation; up to 15% of gross receipts for manufacturing, testing, and distribution; and up to 10% of gross receipts for dispensaries.



Daly City

Measure UU

would establish a tax of up to 10% for cannabis businesses that may be permitted in the future.

Half Moon Bay (2-5 measures?)

would impose taxes not to exceed $2-$10 per square foot for cultivation, and 6% of gross receipts for retail, 2.5% for testing, 3% for distribution, and 4% for manufacturing.

asks if existing commercial greenhouses in the city can be permitted for cannabis nurseries.

In addition, advisory measures Measure EE

, Measure SS

and/or Measure MM

ask voters about regulating and licensing cannabis businesses, limited to two retail facilities.

Redwood City

This measure will impose a maximum tax of 10% on all commercial cannabis activities in Redwood City, with initial rates set for various types of businesses.

San Carlos

Measure NN

asks: Shall an ordinance be adopted establishing an ongoing excise tax on any cannabis business that opens, up to 10% of gross receipts of each business?

South San Francisco

Measure LL

would permit taxation of up to 5% on gross receipts for cannabis businesses, with varying rates depending on the type.




Measure Z asks, “Shall an ordinance be adopted establishing a Cannabis Business Tax on gross receipts of cannabis businesses from the sale of cannabis and related products, whether at wholesale or retail, at a rate not to exceed 10%, with initial rates of 5% (retailers), 2% (manufacturers), 4% (cultivators), and 1% (distributors and nurseries) estimated to raise $334,000 to $1,423,000 to fund general municipal services such as street repair, parks and police, until ended by voters?”


Measure D reads, “Shall a measure imposing a CANNABIS TAX of six cents per $1.00 of non-medical retail sales proceeds, one cent per $1.00 of cultivation proceeds, flat $15,000 for net income less than $2 Million and $30,000 for net income of $2 Million and more of manufacturing/distribution proceeds, a total aggregate tax of six cents per $1.00 of microbusinesses proceeds, no tax on testing, with no sunset clause, estimated to collect $130,000 to $470,000, annually, be adopted?”


Measure F asks, “Shall an ordinance be adopted establishing a cannabis business tax on gross receipts of cannabis businesses from the sale of cannabis and cannabis products, at a rate not to exceed 10%, with initial rate of 5% and a maximum annual increase of 1% up to the maximum rate, to fund general municipal services such as street repair, parks, and law enforcement, until ended by voters?



Morgan Hill

Measure I would authorize the city to tax marijuana businesses at annual rates up to $15.00 per canopy square foot for cultivation and up to 10 percent of gross receipts for all other marijuana businesses.

Mountain View

Measure Q would allow the taxation of marijuana businesses up to 9 percent of gross receipts to fund general city purposes.

Santa Clara (city)

Measure M would authorize the city to tax commercial marijuana businesses up to 10% of gross receipts and up to $25 per square foot for cultivation.




Measure I would authorize the city to tax marijuana businesses at a rate of up to 7 percent to fund general city purposes.




Shall the City of Redding adopt a business tax on cannabis cultivation businesses up to $25 per square foot of cultivation area and on cannabis manufacturing, processing, laboratory testing, delivery, storage, distribution, and retail sale up to 10% of gross receipts, to enhance and maintain vital public safety services, reduce crime, and protect other general services with all funds to be spent for unrestricted general revenue purposes, generating approximately $750,000 annually?




Would impose a cannabis industry tax at a rate not to exceed up to $3.50 per dry-weight ounce of cannabis flower, cannabis leaves, fresh cannabis plant, and up to 10% of gross receipts per quarter for other commercial cannabis businesses.

Mt. Shasta

Measure S

asks voters if an ordinance shall be adopted to “impose a Cannabis Industry Tax on the privilege of commercially cultivating, manufacturing, processing, storing, laboratory testing, labeling, packaging, distributing, or sale of cannabis and cannabis products?”




Measure E

would impose a cannabis business tax at annual rates not to exceed $10.00 per canopy square foot for commercial cannabis cultivation (adjustable for inflation) and 6% of gross receipts for all other cannabis businesses.


Measure C would impose a local general tax on cannabis businesses at rates not exceeding 15% of gross receipts and $25 per square foot of space used for commercial cannabis activities (annually adjusted by CPI).



Sonoma (city)

Shall the Initiative Measure amending the Municipal Code to permit personal cannabis cultivation on all residential properties and establishment and operation of cannabis businesses within the City, including commercial cultivation, manufacturing, retail, delivery, distribution, testing, and special events be adopted?




Shall the measure adopting an ordinance authorizing the City Council of the City of Patterson to impose a business license tax at a rate of up to fifteen percent (15%) of gross receipts on cannabis businesses and dispensaries, to help fund general municipal services, be adopted?


Measure B would impose a business license tax at a rate of up to ten percent (10%) of gross receipts on cannabis businesses and dispensaries.




“Shall an ordinance be adopted authorizing a commercial cannabis business tax in the City of Lindsay on commercial cannabis businesses up to $25 per square foot (annually adjusted by CPI) or up to 10% of gross receipts, as set by City Council, to maintain essential public safety and general City services including, but not limited to, police, drug addiction and gang prevention, park maintenance, street maintenance for Lindsay residents, generating undetermined revenue, potentially up to $500,000 to $3.5 million until repealed?




Measure T would regulate and authorize medical cannabis cultivation through a permitting process; require security including cameras, inspections, odor control, record keeping, employee background checks; and limit locations to indoor and only in industrial or commercial zones and 600 feet from schools, day care centers and youth centers.


Measure G reads, “To fund general City services, including public safety, recreation, repairing and improving city streets, library services, and senior services, shall the City tax cannabis (marijuana) businesses at annual rates not to exceed $10.00 per canopy square foot for cultivation (adjustable for inflation), 6% of gross receipts for retail cannabis businesses, and 4% for all other cannabis businesses; which is expected to generate an estimated $1.2 to $2.5 million annually?”

Santa Paula

Measure N reads, “Shall the City of Santa Paula adopt an ordinance enacting a tax on cannabis businesses of up to $25.00 per square foot of space utilized for cannabis cultivation/processing, and up to 10% of gross receipts from the sale of cannabis and related products, potentially generating $500,000 annually for street repair, police enforcement and other unrestricted general revenue purposes, until ended by voters?”

Simi Valley (3 measures)

  • Measure Q reads, “Shall the measure to fund, for unrestricted general revenue purposes such as public safety, infrastructure, and streets, which taxes cannabis (marijuana) businesses at annual rates not to exceed $10.00 per canopy square foot for cultivation (adjustable for inflation), 6% of gross receipts for retail cannabis businesses, and 4% or less for all other cannabis businesses, generating an unknown amount of revenue and levied until repealed by the voters or the City Council be adopted?”
  • Measure R says, “Shall the City Council allow marijuana-related businesses, such as cultivation, manufacturing, distribution, testing facilities, and deliveries to operate in the City?
  • Putting the “seamy” in “Simi,” Measure S asks, “If the City allows marijuana-related businesses to operate in the future, should those businesses be limited to operate only in the City’s Sexually Oriented Business Overlay Zone?”

Thousand Oaks

Measure P says, “To fund general municipal expenses such as police, roads, and libraries, shall the City tax cannabis (marijuana) businesses at annual rates not to exceed $10.00 per canopy square foot for cultivation (adjustable for inflation), 6% of gross receipts for retail cannabis businesses, and 4% for all other cannabis businesses; which is expected to generate an estimated $130,000 to $150,000 annually and will be levied until repealed by the voters or the City Council?


El Dorado County To Hear Cannabis Ad-Hoc Committee and Chief Administration Office Recommendation For Ballot Measure

Tomorrow, July 17, 2018, the El Dorado County Board of Supervisors will take up an agenda item hearing a recommendation, by the Cannabis Ad-Hoc Committee and the Chief Administration Office, for a November ballot Commercial Cannabis Tax Measure. The agenda item reads as follows:

 Ad Hoc Cannabis Committee, in coordination with the Chief Administrative Office recommending the Board: 1) Approve and authorize the Chair to sign the following Resolutions to place the following ballot measures on the ballot for the November 2018 election which will enable voters to decide whether to allow different aspects of commercial cannabis and its taxation: a) Resolution 140-2018, which will be one ballot measure, create a general commercial cannabis tax, with tax rate ranges that allows for the Board to set the tax rates for different commercial uses (e.g. outdoor cultivation, indoor cultivation, dispensary/retail sales, etc.) and a discretionary permitting process, with public feedback and an extensive enforcement program with a fine schedule for illegal commercial cannabis activity or violations of the County regulations. b) Resolution 141-2018, allow for the outdoor and mixed light (e.g. greenhouse) cultivation of medicinal commercial cannabis with limits on the location of cultivation, amount of operations, and size of operations with rules to protect neighborhood

The agenda item, #35, is set to be heard in the 10:30am time slot. and 10 documents will be reviewed as a part of the Board’s approval process. Those documents can be viewed here.

Location, of the meeting, will be at 330 Fair Lane, Placerville, CA 95667

El Dorado County – Seven Ad Hoc Cannabis Meetings Announced

Seven Ad Hoc Cannabis Meetings Announced

Seven Ad Hoc Cannabis Meetings Announced

Carla Hass
(530) 621-4609

(PLACERVILLE, CA) – The following seven meetings of the El Dorado County ad hoc Cannabis Committee meeting are scheduled between today and May 14th.

WHAT: Ad hoc Cannabis Committee meetings

WHEN: All meetings are from 3:00 pm-5:00 pm

  • Monday, March 5th (Outdoor/Cottage)
  • Monday, March 12th (Indoor/Mixed Light/Cottage)
  • Monday, March 19th (Dispensaries/Deliveries/Distribution)
  • Monday, April 23rd (Microbusiness/Nurseries/Testing)
  • Monday, April 30th (Manufacturing)
  • Monday, May 7th (Tax Rates/Funding)
  • Monday, May 14th (Administering a Program/What does it look like?)

WHERE: All meetings will take place at the County Board of Supervisors Chambers 330 Fair Lane Placerville, CA

WHO: Members of the ad hoc Cannabis Committee, Supervisors Michael Ranalli and Sue Novasel
El Dorado County Staff
Members of the public are invited to attend

Status Update

I know that it has been awhile, since my last post, and for that I am sorry. However, I have been doing many things to further my understanding, of the California Medical Cannabis and new Adult-Use Cannabis Regulations, as well as establish relationships with local and state agencies.


Photo courtesy of ICBC


I was at the International Cannabis Business Conference, in San Francisco, on Friday and had the luxury of listening to Lori Ajax (California’s Cannabis Czar) speak about the upcoming cannabis permitting process.

We now know that:
1. The State of California is set to begin taking applications, as planned, on 1/1/2018.
2. Now is the time to begin establishing relationships, with your local officials, since it will be impossible to obtain a state permit without local permission.
3. The State has no idea of how the federal government will proceed but they have set themselves up under Obama’s language, which is the best they can do for now.
We have been working to establish relationships with the following local Boards:
Sacramento City, Yolo County, Calaveras County, The City of Coalinga, El Dorado County, Nevada County, and Placer County.