Two marijuana ballot measures were resoundingly rejected by Kern County voters on Tuesday, with another appearing to lose by a narrow margin.

Measure J, which would have legalized medical marijuana dispensaries in the unincorporated areas of Kern County, fell well short. With all precincts reporting, 62 percent of voters rejected the measure while 38 percent supported it.

Another unincorporated county measure, Measure K, which would have legalized both recreational and medical dispensaries, lost by 54 to 46 percent.

The lone Bakersfield measure, Measure O, also failed to pass muster, 55 percent to 45 percent.

The three ballot measures asked voters to rescind bans on marijuana dispensaries in Kern County and the city of Bakersfield.

Measure J was brought forward by medical marijuana activists Jeff Jarvis and Heather Epps with local group Kern Citizens for Patient Rights, aside from rescinding the ban on medical marijuana dispensaries, it would have levied a 7.5 percent business tax to be levied on the dispensaries.

Measure K was largely funded by an industrial real estate investment group from Pacific Palisades-based Industrial Partners Group. It offered slightly more restrictive zoning rules than Measure J, while capping the amount of dispensaries at 35..

It would have created two zones along Interstate 5 for cultivation, processing and distribution facilities, and it would have applied a 5 percent gross receipts tax on any marijuana business including dispensaries.

Measure O was also brought to voters by Jarvis, Epps and the Kern Citizens for Patient Rights. It would have allowed medical marijuana dispensaries to operate within the city limits, applying a 7.5 percent business tax on dispensaries.

© 2018 The Bakersfield Californian (Bakersfield, Calif.). Visit The Bakersfield Californian at www.bakersfield.com. Distributed by Tribune Content Agency, LLC.

Voters will face a confusing ballot in November, especially when it comes to the three marijuana measures.

To help make sense of the confusion, and to bring new details on the two marijuana measures that will impact the unincorporated county, Planning and Natural Resources Department Director Lorelei Oviatt presented a new report to the supervisors that delved into the details of each measure.

Some of the details revealed how the county would be effected by the legalization of dispensaries in unincorporated county areas, which are currently banned, although possession and use have not been banned.

Oviatt recommended that a Cannabis Activity Enforcement Task Force comprised of employees from Kern County law enforcement and legal departments would need to be created to deal with the impacts of the dispensaries should either of the ballot measures pass.

The task force would cost $1.2 to $2.7 million, Oviatt said, although money from the state could be acquired to fully or partially fund the new county positions.

A team of 18 county employees from the Kern County Sheriff’s Office, District Attorney, County Counsel and support staff would make up the task force.

“No identified staffing has been noted,” Oviatt said at the meeting. “So this would be new staffing.”

During the meeting, county officials also delved into which voters within Kern County would be allowed to vote on which measures.

Measure J would legalize only medical marijuana dispensaries and create a 7.5 percent tax on adjusted gross income revenue.

Measure K would legalize both recreational and medical marijuana dispensaries and create a 5 percent tax on gross receipts from retail operations. The number of dispensaries would be capped at 35. Two zones would be created along Interstate 5 north and south of Bakersfield that would contain cultivation, processing and distribution facilities for marijuana operations.

Despite the fact that both measures would allow dispensaries to be set up in unincorporated county zones, all voters in the county – including those in cities – will be able to cast votes for the measures.

Bakersfield voters will also see a third marijuana measure on the ballot, Measure O, which is similar to Measure J, but would only impact the city of Bakersfield.

So effectively, someone in Bakersfield could vote against legalizing medical marijuana dispensaries within the city, but vote in favor of legalizing those same dispensaries in the unincorporated county.

Those living in cities without their own marijuana ballot measures will still be able to vote on Measures J and K, giving incorporated city voters a voice in matters of the unincorporated county.

© 2018 The Bakersfield Californian (Bakersfield, Calif.). Visit The Bakersfield Californian at www.bakersfield.com. Distributed by Tribune Content Agency, LLC.

Depending on where you live, you may see two marijuana measures on your ballot or just one.

Three initiatives by two citizens groups have qualified for the November Kern County ballot through signature drives that collected more signatures than 10 percent of the city and county’s voting population.

Although it is legal to possess and use marijuana products in California, a ban exists in both unincorporated county areas and within the city of Bakersfield on marijuana dispensaries.

Two of the measures would overturn the ban on medical marijuana dispensaries in the county and city respectively, while leaving in place the ban on recreational dispensaries.

The third measure would largely leave the bans in place, while allowing both recreational and medical dispensaries to operate in two designated locations along Interstate 5 located just north and south of Bakersfield.

Voters in unincorporated Kern County will see two measures on their ballots, while voters in Bakersfield will see just one.

A ballot measure must earn 50 percent plus 1 of the vote to become law.

If both county measures earn more than 50 percent of the vote, then whichever measure receives the most votes will become law.

MEASURE J

Brought forward by medical marijuana activists Jeff Jarvis and Heather Epps with the Kern Citizens for Patient Rights, the measure would largely overturn the ban on medical marijuana dispensaries, while leaving the ban in place for recreational dispensaries in unincorporated Kern County.

All medical marijuana dispensaries would be required to be licensed through the state, and land use permits would need to be required in order to operate.

The measure calls for a 7.5 percent business tax be placed on the income of all dispensaries that operate within the county, with the money going into the county general fund.

The dispensaries must be more than a thousand feet from schools, parks or youth centers and the county could adopt density requirements.

MEASURE K

Riverside Attorney Ben Eilenberg, with the group Committee for Safer Neighborhoods and Schools, led the effort to qualify a measure that would restrict marijuana dispensaries to two locations along Interstate 5.

One of the areas would be northwest of Bakersfield, encompassed by Brandt and Sullivan roads, along with Interstate 5.

The second area would be southeast of Bakersfield, encompassed by Old River and Copus roads along with New Rim Ditch.

Both recreational and medical dispensaries would be allowed, although the ordinance would cap the total amount of dispensaries at 35.

A 5 percent tax on gross receipts would be contributed to the county’s general fund.

MEASURE O

This measure is similar to Measure J. Jarvis and Epps with the Kern Citizens for Patient Rights brought the measure forward.

Like Measure J, Measure O would replace the current ban on medical marijuana dispensaries while leaving the ban on recreational marijuana dispensaries in place.

A state license will be required to operate, and dispensaries will not be allowed to be placed within 1,000 feet of schools, parks or youth centers.

A 7.5 percent business tax would be placed on all dispensaries that operate within the city.

© 2018 The Bakersfield Californian (Bakersfield, Calif.). Visit The Bakersfield Californian at www.bakersfield.com. Distributed by Tribune Content Agency, LLC.

When Chad Garcia left the army in 2014, the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs prescribed him a laundry list of drugs to help him deal with the injuries – mental and physical – he suffered during his service.

“The VA gives you a bag of medication,” he said. “We dub it the ‘combat cocktail.’”

Garcia, 36, had suffered four concussions during his time in the army. One concussion came from the explosion of an IED, another came after a rocket-propelled grenade went off nearby.

The hardest part of his service, he said, was watching his friends fall in combat.

“It’s not like I’m watching them die and nothing is going on,” he said. “I’m watching them die, and then having to fight at the same time.”

He served from 2001-14, with three deployments in Afghanistan, in stints with the 82nd Airborne Division and the 4th Brigade Combat Team, 25th Infantry Division. He eventually attained the rank of sergeant before being medically retired due to post-traumatic stress.

When he returned to Bakersfield, he found it difficult to live the life he wanted to.

“I was drinking down all these pills and trying to adjust myself to transition into civilian life, and it wasn’t working out,” he said.

His thoughts kept returning to his deployment, to what he could have done differently. He was paranoid and had severe mood swings.

“I was losing my family. I was becoming very suicidal myself,” he said.

Garcia eventually turned to medical marijuana after obtaining a prescription.

He now takes various forms of medical marijuana to “stay mellow” throughout the day. He uses a mixture of cannabidiol – a cannabis compound less psychoactive than THC – and indica, a cannabis strain believed to have relaxing effects.

“Just like every other medication, you’ve got to take doses, you’ve got to take it throughout the day,” Garcia said. “You can’t just wake up, take a bong rip, and expect it to work.”

The marijuana aided his symptoms much better than the medication prescribed by the VA, he said.

“I’ve seen a complete change in my temperament, a complete change in the way I interact with people,” he said. “Everybody who knows me has seen a change.”

When Garcia began using medical marijuana, he joined a contingent of the Kern County veteran community who use the drug to deal with maladies accrued while in the service.

Garcia has advocated to the Kern County Board of Supervisors for them to overturn the county’s ban on medical marijuana dispensaries.

He provided an informal survey he conducted to the supervisors, in which 52 of 88 respondents who identified themselves as local veterans said they had used cannabis to relieve health issues.

These veterans, along with every other medical marijuana user in the county, could soon be dealing with the closure of the local market.

All 31 medical marijuana dispensaries currently legally operating are scheduled to shut down Nov. 24 or shortly afterward.

The permits for the dispensaries were grandfathered in after the ban, with the November end date in place should nothing change.

“That would suck,” said U.S. Marine veteran Nick Miranda. “It would make me feel like I’m some kind of high school delinquent who is sneaking out of the house to meet up with a shady character. Veterans should be treated with more dignity than that.”

Miranda, 35, has a metal disk in his foot, placed there after he suffered a repetitive stress injury as a 50-caliber machine gunner on a helicopter during the Iraq War.

He served as a marine from 2006 to 2010, deploying to Iraq in 2007.

While on deployment, a dust storm caused a stomach infection, which impacted Miranda’s appetite.

When he returned to Kern County, he said he became addicted to hydrocodone, which had been prescribed to him by the VA.

“It was horrible,” he said. “The first thing I’d do when I woke up was reach for that pill bottle. It got to the point where I’d chew like three to five at a time and, boom, that would be my morning kick.”

When Miranda turned to marijuana, he found it treated him better than the medication he had been taking for his PTSD, foot injury, and stomach issues.

“It helps me relax, and function out in society without looking like this ADHD guy who is constantly looking like he’s uncomfortable,” he said.

Miranda does not think the situation in the county is ideal. He said the county’s current plan limits the products he is able to purchase, while counties to the west of Kern provide far more options to their customers.

He said most of the veterans he knows, even those who do not use medical marijuana, think the same way he does.

“Veterans, we all talk,” he said. “We’re scratching our heads trying to figure out what’s going on. This is not about political party, either. There are Democrats and Republican veterans. We’re all on the same page for this.”

There is a chance the market could soon open up. Voters this November will consider several ballot measures that could overturn the medical marijuana dispensary bans currently in place in Bakersfield and unincorporated Kern County.

The marijuana issues is unpopular among both the supervisors and the Bakersfield City Council.

Miranda said he hopes attitudes about marijuana will soon change throughout the county.

“I am a veteran. I am a marine,” he said. “I realize that for myself and many of our fellow veterans, this is something that we do need, and this is something that we need in Kern County.”

© 2018 The Bakersfield Californian (Bakersfield, Calif.). Visit The Bakersfield Californian at www.bakersfield.com. Distributed by Tribune Content Agency, LLC.

The Board of Supervisors voted Tuesday to put a sales tax increase and two measures regarding marijuana dispensaries before voters in unincorporated Kern County this November.

The first measure will ask voters to raise the sales tax rate by 1 percent in the unincorporated county areas, from 7.25 percent to 8.25 percent.

The other two measures, which qualified for the ballot through citizens’ initiatives, will ask voters to overturn the county’s ban on medical marijuana dispensaries, though they differ in how dispensaries would be regulated. One calls for state rules to govern local dispensaries; the other specifically states how many dispensaries would be allowed in the county and where they could be located.

The supervisors took nearly five hours to discuss all three measures, in addition to taking public comments on the proposed budget for this fiscal year.

They took up the tax issue first, which was proposed by Sheriff Donny Youngblood, who said he needs extra funds to bolster the ranks of his deputies. Without additional funds, he said he will have to shut down narcotics investigation units and shutter substations in areas of the county with low populations.

“This is a critical time in our county, and this is a critical time in law enforcement,” he said. “We are at a point where I don’t know if we have any other options.”

A crowd of supporters, mostly members of the county’s public safety departments, came out to speak in favor of the tax increase.

Deputies who patrol rural locations alone, like in Boron, testified that their closest backup is around 20 minutes away, leaving them vulnerable if anything should go wrong.

The supervisors voted 4-1 in favor of allowing the tax increase on the ballot. The measure needed a supermajority to pass.

Supervisor David Couch was the lone “no” vote.

“I don’t feel like we, as a board, have done as much as we can do before we turn to the voters,” Couch said.

Supervisors did add language to the measure requiring a five-member citizens oversight committee to advise the board on how the projected $35 million raised by the tax increase would be spent.

Money from the sales tax will be put into the county’s general fund to be delegated by the supervisors.

Currently, nearly 60 percent of the county’s general fund goes to public safety. Following that formula, the new sales tax would generate nearly $20 million for public safety, along with $6 million for parks and $680,000 for the county libraries, according to the County Administrative Office.

The funds would be legally required to be spent only in the unincorporated county areas.

The tax will not overlap with the city of Bakersfield’s proposed 1 percent sales tax increase, or the sales tax in any other incorporated part of the county.

Following their vote on the sales tax increase, supervisors went straight into a discussion on allowing the two medical marijuana dispensary measures onto the ballot.

The marijuana measures differ in how they would overturn the current ban. If both are approved by voters in November, whichever measure receives the most votes will become law.

Jeff Jarvis and Heather Epps brought forward the first marijuana initiative, with attorney Phil Ganong drafting the language. It would replace the county’s ban on medical marijuana dispensaries and replace it with current state regulations regarding dispensaries.

The second initiative, proposed by attorney Ben Eilenberg, would also overturn the state ban but would allow only 35 medical marijuana dispensaries, which would have to be located in two zones along Interstate 5.

Since both measures qualified for the ballot through citizens’ initiatives, supervisors didn’t have the option to reject the measures outright. They could either adopt one, put both measures on the ballot or request an impact report on both measures.

County Counsel Mark Nations told supervisors that adopting one measure over the other would likely lead to a legal challenge because both measures had come to the board on equal terms. And ordering a report on the measures would only have delayed them from being adopted or put on the ballot at a later date.

They voted 4-0 in favor of placing the measures on the ballot, with Supervisor Leticia Perez leaving the meeting before discussion of the issue took place.

Perez has been charged by the Kern County District Attorney with two misdemeanors related to conflict of interest violations with the marijuana industry. She has pleaded not guilty to the charges. Earlier this year she said she would abstain from all votes related to marijuana.

This year’s general election will take place Nov. 6. The county could be a much different place on Nov. 7.

© 2018 The Bakersfield Californian (Bakersfield, Calif.). Visit The Bakersfield Californian at www.bakersfield.com. Distributed by Tribune Content Agency, LLC.

Prosecutors have filed two misdemeanor charges against county Supervisor Leticia Perez regarding a conflict of interest between her role as supervisor and the California marijuana industry in what’s believed to be the first time a sitting supervisor has been criminally charged in Kern County.

District Attorney Lisa Green said the charges carry a maximum sentence of up to six months for each count, and one of the counts carries an additional potential punishment barring her from running for an elected office for four years. It would be up to a judge to decide whether to impose that ban.

Perez, 41, is set to be arraigned Wednesday.

Her attorney, H.A. Sala said the evidence does not support any alleged violations on the part of his client.

“The Kern County District Attorney’s office does not have a single email, text message, transcript or any reliable statement that Supervisor Perez’s decision on the cannabis vote was in any way compromised,” he said. “Supervisor Perez has always executed her official duties objectively, legally and in the best interests of her constituents and the residents of Kern County.”

Sala said the prosecution has based its case on “unreliable, unsubstantiated and conclusory statements” and he intends to vigorously defend these charges.

Green declined to go into detail regarding the investigation as the case is ongoing. She said Perez is not legally required to step down due to the charges, and any decision to leave office at this point is her own.

The first count states Perez “did make, participate in making or attempt to use her official position to influence a governmental decision in which she knew or had reason to know she had a financial interest … .”

Perez’s husband, Fernando Jara, owns Savage Communications, a consulting firm that has done some work on marijuana policy for several clients.

On Oct. 24, 2017, Perez was the sole supervisor to vote against a motion banning commercial cannabis.

In May, following comments regarding her potential conflict of interest, Perez announced she would no longer vote on issues related to the local licensing of cannabis operations.

The second count against Perez states that on April 3, 2017, she failed to file a statement “disclosing her investments, interests in real property, and income during the period of 2016,” also a misdemeanor.

The investigation also looked into allegations made against Supervisor Mike Maggard but found no wrongdoing on his part.

“I am grateful for the thorough investigation by the District Attorney’s office and the thoughtful conclusion from the DA exonerating me of these false accusations,” Maggard said in an emailed statement.

“We now need the justice system to follow its process to conclusion in order to remove corruption, self-serving influence, and suspicion from our local government. The people of our community deserve nothing less.”

Jara has said he got a job early in 2017 doing research for statewide medical marijuana interests who were interested in investing in the Central Valley.

He said he did profiles on marijuana businesses, the politics of the issue and potential for investment. He said he would also help arrange meetings between people in the industry.

He said he didn’t take any money for work in Kern County.

During a press conference held at his H Street office, Sala compared Perez’s case to that of another local politician who faced conflict-of-interest accusations.

Smith was accused of attempting “to use his official position to influence a governmental decision in which he had a financial interest” by addressing the Bakersfield Planning Commission on Dec. 4, 2014, on behalf of a client, the SB/RBLI Land Company LLC.

He agreed with and did not contest allegations made by the Fair Political Practices Commission’s enforcement division, and paid a $3,000 fine.

Sala noted that Smith, a “Caucasion male who is politically popular,” was not prosecuted in connection with the same allegations faced by his client, who is Hispanic.

“What does that tell you?” Sala said.

Perez, elected to the board of supervisors in 2012, is serving her third term in office.

She graduated from UC Santa Barbara in 2000 and worked as a community banker at Wells Fargo Bank until 2003 before heading to the Valparaiso University School of Law, where she graduated with her law degree in 2006.

She worked as a deputy political director for the United Farm Workers of America in Keene from 2007 to 2008 when she joined the Kern County Public Defender’s office as an indigent defense attorney.

© 2018 The Bakersfield Californian (Bakersfield, Calif.). Visit The Bakersfield Californian at www.bakersfield.com. Distributed by Tribune Content Agency, LLC.

A judge has denied a lawsuit against the city of Bakersfield that challenged ballot language asking voters to overturn a citywide ban on medicinal marijuana dispensaries.

The Kern Citizens for Patient rights alleged in the lawsuit that language drafted by the Bakersfield City Attorney’s Office in conjunction with the City Clerk would bias voters against the measure appearing on the ballot in the November election.

The group had sued to compel the city to draft new language to appear on the ballot. On Friday, a Kern County Superior Court judge rejected the group’s arguments, siding with the city.

“Our argument basically was that we complied with the law,” said Deputy City Attorney Richard Iger. “It’s not a real complicated issue.”

The state elections code requires that municipalities draft unbiased language for all initiatives that qualify for the ballot.

The Kern Citizens initiative, known as the Jarvis/Epps initiative after two of the group’s leaders, argued the language drafted by the city did not sufficiently describe the laws that would be approved should the measure pass in November.

The group collected almost 33,000 signatures from registered Bakersfield voters in 2016 to qualify the measure for the ballot.

The city drafted the following question to appear on the ballot, which was recently approved by the Bakersfield City Council: “Shall the City of Bakersfield adopt the following law: Shall the measure amending the Bakersfield Municipal Code to allow medical marijuana store front 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, [based on current information fiscal impact is unknown] be adopted?”

Attorney Phil Ganong, who represents the group and wrote the initiative, said the ballot language drafted by the city lacked basic elements like a fiscal impact report and a title, which should be included in the language.

“We’re entitled to have a true and unbiased ballot question as well as a summary,” he said. “We’re entitled to have the question drafted in a way that’s neither for or against the measure.”

He worried the 7.5 percent excise tax was not sufficiently explained in the ballot language, and said the language did not properly describe the regulatory system that would be enforced should the initiative succeed with the voters.

If the measure does pass, the ban on medicinal marijuana dispensaries within Bakersfield would be replaced with the rules set forth by the Medical Marijuana Regulation and Safety Act of 2015, which regulated medicinal marijuana use prior to recreational legalization.

Following the loss in court, Ganong filed an appeal with the Fifth District Court of Appeal.

“We’re hopeful and expecting that the appellate court will give us a quick answer on this,” he said.

Time is running out for all issues ballot-related.

Aug. 10 is the last day anything can be added to the ballot, with Aug. 15 being the last day anything can be amended or withdrawn.

The appeals court has not yet indicated whether or not it will take on the case.

Ganong said he was optimistic the lawsuit would succeed on appeal.

You can reach Sam Morgen at 661-395-7415 or smorgen@bakersfield.com. You can also follow him on Twitter @smorgenTBC.

—

©2018 The Bakersfield Californian (Bakersfield, Calif.)

Visit The Bakersfield Californian (Bakersfield, Calif.) at www.bakersfield.com

Distributed by Tribune Content Agency, LLC.

The current ban on medicinal marijuana dispensaries will remain in place in Kern County for the time being after the Kern County Board of Supervisors took no action on a proposal that could have led to the establishment of seven legal medicinal dispensaries throughout the county at a meeting Tuesday.

Citing the changing nature of the medicinal marijuana industry in the county, all supervisors – excluding Leticia Perez, who was absent – said they did not support the seven-dispensary plan, brought to the board by the Health and Social Services Subcommittee, which is comprised of Chairman Mike Maggard and Supervisor Mick Gleason as well as employees from the County Administrative Office.

The lack of action at Tuesday’s meeting could result in the closure of 31 Kern County medicinal dispensaries that are currently grandfathered into the law.

The licenses for those businesses are set expire Nov. 24.

If ballot initiatives fail, or the board does not amend the current ordinance, those businesses will be forced to close up shop.

At the meeting, numerous medicinal marijuana organizations showed up to state their case.

Their comments fell on some deaf ears.

“I don’t trust this industry,” Supervisor Mick Gleason said after public comments. “I’ve heard all of you talk. I don’t care for many of the things I hear. I don’t believe in the integrity of the system. I believe there are patients in need, and I believe marijuana can deliver a quality medicine, but I don’t believe that the industry is mature enough to deal with it without the fraud I see rampant in the industry.”

The proposal brought to the board would have allowed four of the seven shops to be located in the valley portion of Kern County, with the remaining three shops to be placed in eastern Kern.

The measure was meant to allow patients access to medical marijuana after the licenses for the 31 shops expire.

During public comments, numerous medicinal marijuana dispensary owners brought forward concerns that the seven-shop plan would create a de facto monopoly for a few businesses within the county.

Any businesses not lucky enough to obtain one of the seven licenses would have been unable to operate under the plan, with the seven licensed shops taking in all the profit.

The board has the option of reviewing the ban on medicinal marijuana facilities at a later date, but for the moment, the status quo will remain.

“Our concern is not who delivers or dispenses or makes available to the public medicinal marijuana, but that it be made available,” said Chairman Mike Maggard.

He said that given the option of delivery, as well as the possibility that cities within the county could legalize medicinal marijuana distribution, he did not support the seven-shop plan.

A ballot initiative for the City of Bakersfield will ask voters to lift the ban on medicinal marijuana dispensaries this November.

The cities of Arvin and California City are considering lifting the ban on adult use and medicinal marijuana dispensaries.

Multiple ballot initiatives are circulating the community to lift the county’s ban on medicinal marijuana dispensaries, with one initiative already being vetted by the county.

“I think that introduces a lot of things that we should consider before we move forward,” said Supervisor Zack Scrivner.

Those hoping for some kind of new direction for the future of medicinal marijuana in Kern County will just have to wait and see. For the moment, the ban remains.

© 2018 The Bakersfield Californian (Bakersfield, Calif.). Visit The Bakersfield Californian at www.bakersfield.com. Distributed by Tribune Content Agency, LLC.