CLEARLAKE, Calif. – The Clearlake City Council on Thursday held its second reading of a new ordinance to tighten regulations on the cultivation of medical marijuana in the city, and ended by making minor changes that will require it be brought back for a final reading next month.
Ordinance No. 181-2016 bans commercial cultivation; implements a six-plant limits on parcels of all sizes; prohibits – as current regulations do – growing on vacant parcels or within 600 feet of schools or daycare centers; requires that grows be away from creeks, drainages and Clear Lake; keeps grows away from mixed use residential, scenic corridor or beautification zones; and implements a $150-per-year permit fee for grows, among other rules.
The ordinance was crafted by a council-appointed ad hoc committee that included council members Russ Perdock and Bruno Sabatier, plus Lakeside Herbal Solutions dispensary owner Liz Byrd, Realtor Dave Hughes, business owners Dan Griffin and Vince Metzger, and Lake County Fire Protection District Chief Willie Sapeta.
The ad hoc committee began meeting Oct. 7. Two days later, Gov. Jerry Brown signed the three-bill package known as the Medical Marijuana Regulation and Safety Act.
Perdock, who since the committee began has become mayor, pointed out during the Thursday meeting that the state law maintains the ability of local governments to implement regulations and fees.
“The ball's in our court,” Perdock said during the discussion.
The draft ordinance was sent to the Clearlake Planning Commission in December, where commissioners voted unanimously to recommend council approval.
The council took that recommendation and unanimously passed the ordinance's first reading on Jan. 14.
After a brief report from City Manager Greg Folsom the council discussed some of the points of the ordinance on Thursday.
During that discussion it was discovered that a suggestion Sabatier had made at the previous meeting about changing setbacks from 10 feet to 5 feet – which didn't have consensus – had been mistakenly worked into the document's language by staff.
One of the changes the council had approved previously was removing a permanent ban for growing violations on properties due to the possibility of changing ownership, with the ad hoc committee's recommendation of a permanent ban changed to a five-year growing prohibition.
Sabatier said he had been approached by large landowners about the new rules, and he was not aware of complaints on large properties. He indicated he would like to reconsider allowing larger plant numbers on bigger parcels.
Vice Mayor Gina Fortino Dickson said that she wanted to make sure that all outstanding fines are paid by growers found to be out of compliance before the city issues new permits.
Folsom asked City Attorney Ryan Jones if that requirement to be current on payment of fines could be done by city policy or if it needed to be included in the ordinance. Jones suggested the latter.
Councilwoman Joyce Overton said she liked the ordinance as it was – in reference to Sabatier's suggestion of reconsidering larger grows on larger properties – but agreed to Fortino Dickson's proposed change on fine payment.
“I believe our ordinance is clean,” said Councilwoman Denise Loustalot, saying clear rules needed to be established throughout the city.
Until Thursday's meeting, the ordinance had drawn little public comment other than from a few owners of large properties wanting the ability to grow larger amounts of marijuana, as is the case under the current city ordinance.
Eight community members on Thursday night spoke to the council, five of them against the ordinance and three of them for it.
One man, who did not give his name and who left the chambers shortly after speaking, said the ordinance “is not going to fly,” and that the city cannot put such restrictions “on people who are sick.”
He took particular issue with the requirement for confining grows to 10-foot by 10-foot fenced and locked areas, and claimed at least 12 plants are needed to fight cancer.
Earl Richardson, a large property owner who also spoke at the Jan. 14 council meeting, said he wanted the council to amend the ordinance to enable larger grows under a conditional process.
“I think the ordinance that you have put together is perfect for this town,” said Marie Weathers, adding she didn't think there are many grows on the larger 40-acre plots. “I'm looking for stronger penalties if they violate.”
Liz Byrd, who served on the ad hoc committee, said her dispensary operates with compassion and ensures those who need medicine have it. She supported the ordinance, telling the council, “The product that is grown here needs to remain here.”
She said the community needs to take care of its own, not have warehouses full of product going somewhere else.
Another man said the council was creating a haven for carpetbagging with small grows, and that they could expect that marijuana legalization was coming.
“Let's get something right for once,” he said. “It's a lot of work to get it right the second time.”
While Fortino Dickson agreed that the future likely will see the legalization of commercial, nonmedicinal growing, “At this moment in time I don't think we're ready to deal with that.”
She said she believed some of the changes sought relating to larger properties should be taken up in the form of a dispensary ordinance.
Loustalot also was against making changes, explaining that the council needed to be clear and precise, and that it had the best ordinance it can have at this time.
Perdock said the ad hoc committee was meant to focus on residential areas. They weren't trying to deny people medicine but to stop violent crimes.
He said the city is willing to reconvene the ad hoc committee to talk about compassion centers and dispensaries. “ We as a council have to look at all of those sites.”
Sabatier said the matter of large grows in residential areas is not an issue of patients but of criminals. “We need to really differentiate between a patient and a criminal.”
He added of cultivation, “It needs to stay out of the residential areas, like we're trying to do … it needs to remain that way forever.”
Sabatier said he agreed with Perdock and wanted to continue discussing the issue of larger properties in the future, especially as laws change. He said he hoped they could bring back the ad hoc committee to consider additional issues.
Sabatier moved to approve the ordinance's second reading, with the modifications to the setback number and the fines payment, which will require the document be brought back again for another reading before being finalized. The council voted to support the ordinance 5-0.
In other business, the council heard a presentation from Susan Jen of the Health Leadership Network, and Terry Krieg, whose firm was hired to do the city's annual audit, gave a presentation on the audit and noted changes in state law.
Also on Thursday, the council debated two items that council members had pulled from the consent agenda – a job description for a community development management position to oversee animal control operations that Folsom was told to bring back in two weeks and whether to approve a $35,000 contract for preparing the Austin Park master plan, which Sabatier voted against.
The meeting ended with Perdock paying tribute to Folsom's father, Mel, who died of cancer earlier this month.
Perdock, who lost his mother to cancer, dedicated the meeting to the elder Folsom, who was a Marine who went on to college where he studied engineering, earning his degree and going on to pursue a career as an engineer.
The council honored him with a standing ovation. The gestures left the city manager visibly moved.
Email Elizabeth Larson at This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. . Follow her on Twitter, @ERLarson, or Lake County News, @LakeCoNews.
012816 Clearlake City Council - Medical marijuana cultivation Ordinance No. 181-2016 by LakeCoNews