Cal City enforcement of pot odor rules tightened

CALIFORNIA CITY — To combat the problem of odor stemming from the city’s growing cannabis industry, the City Council, on Tuesday, agreed to step up enforcement of odor-control requirements and phase out the use of temporary greenhouses for cultivation.

The original ordinance approved by the city allowing the cultivation, manufacture and sale of cannabis in the community, includes odor control requirements. However, many residents have complained that those requirements are not being met and that the smell is overpowering some neighborhoods.

Mayor Pro Tem Ron Smith, a longtime opponent

of the cannabis industry and who brought forth the issue to the Council, noted the ordinance specifically states that odor be “not detectable off-site” of any cannabis business and lists means of prevention.

“I don’t know how it could be any clearer,” he said of the ordinance. “I don’t know how it could be any more specific. According to this, our citizens should not be smelling skunk in any part of our town.”

All of the permitted cannabis businesses in the city agreed to abide by the ordinance, he said.

Smith requested the city initiate “maximum enforcement” of the ordinance to ensure cannabis businesses comply.

“This is what the citizens were promised,” he said. “We need to have maximum enforcement. Enough is enough.”

One issue with enforcement is conclusively, and objectively, determining that any smell is coming from a specific business, Fire Chief Jeremy Kosick said. In some cases, his code enforcement officers have been unable to determine if the smell is coming from a business or from a legal, private grow.

Because enforcement is subjective, it is difficult to take to court.

“It’s still a very gray area, in my opinion,” Kosick said.

There is a system of escalating fines, as set forth in the process in the ordinance, for those businesses found to be in violation, with a maximum fine of $1,000 per day per offense, he said.

Some residents spoke against targeting the cannabis industry, as the city needs the tax revenue from it, and accused the city of violating other laws on its own.

Councilmember Michael Kulikoff cautioned that code enforcement staff isn’t available to enforce the odor control ordinance and while the odor may be the noticeable problem, it is not the most important issue facing code enforcement.

Smith said these businesses have had years, in some cases, to comply with the ordinance.

“We have an ordinance, this is supposed to mean something,” he said.

Kulikoff cast the lone dissenting vote against Smith’s motion to move to maximum enforcement of the odor regulations.

In a related, but separate, discussion and vote, the Council agreed to stop all new temporary greenhouse permits and to work with the companies with existing greenhouses to develop a timeframe to bring them into compliance.

The matter was brought forward by Councilmember Jim Creighton, regarding the plastic-covered “hoop houses” that were allowed for those cultivation businesses that were unable to obtain power for their locations, and were intended as a stopgap until power could be available.

The agreement allowing temporary greenhouses was approved, in October 2018, stating the greenhouses were to be used for two to five years, according to Creighton’s report.

Residents’ concerns regarding the lack of adequate odor control on these structures, voiced at the time the temporary greenhouse agreement was passed, have been proven correct.

“There’s no way on God’s green Earth that you can stop cannabis odor emitting from those structures,” Creighton said.

“In my opinion, in five years, they have done nothing. They’ve simply gone on knowing the city wouldn’t do anything and hoping it would go on forever.”

His report noted that phasing out the temporary greenhouses may have a negative effect on the city’s finances, as some may choose to leave the city instead of moving to a permanent structure.

Smith suggested a deadline of one year for the growers to move from a temporary greenhouse to a permanent structure.

Others, however, cautioned that the timeframe may not be enough for some to come into compliance, especially with building permit backlogs.

Kulikoff suggested a meeting with growers to see if they have suggestions about replacing the temporary greenhouses and to hear what problems they have with complying.

“Does our ordinance mean anything, or do we get manipulated subjectively because a group comes in, raises their voice, gets mad?” Smith asked.

Kulikoff also questioned the city’s ability for enforcement.

Kosick said his staff is taxed to address the enforcement it does now. Ideally, every cannabis business would be inspected at least quarterly to make sure they are in compliance with the city’s ordinances.

“I just think if we pass anything, today, it’s just going to be a continued ‘we can’t enforce’ and they know it,” Kulikoff said.

As with the earlier decision, he cast the only dissenting vote on the motion to stop issuing permits for temporary greenhouses and to work with the individual growers to develop a timeline for them to come into compliance.