On the board’s agenda was the second reading of an ordinance amending Article 72 of the Lake County Code to allow the outdoor cultivation of medical marijuana, or cannabis, in the "RL" or Rural Lands zoning designation.
The ordinance also creates a certification of compliance process for cannabis cultivation.
The board last week voted unanimously to approve the ordinance’s first reading.
Planning staffer Mireya Turner told Lake County News that the ordinance before the board on Tuesday is separate from a larger ordinance called the “replacement” ordinance, meant to fully update Article 72, which was passed by voters in 2014 as Measure N.
The updates to county rules have been necessitated by changes at the state level, including last November’s Proposition 64, plus more recent changes adopted by the State Legislature in the form of SB 94 in June.
Turner said the ordinance on Tuesday’s agenda – which she referred to as the “small” one, when compared with the larger, more comprehensive ordinance – specifically is meant to add the Rural Lands designation into the county’s noncommercial cultivation rules.
“This still does not allow for commercial cannabis cultivation,” she said.
It’s the larger replacement ordinance that addresses commercial activities, she explained.
On Tuesday, the board had been set to approve the second reading of the ordinance but changed course on a key provision that they had accepted last week.
Specifically, they began discussing the implications of a clause that required approval of such grows by the lienholder on properties where grows are proposed.
Board Chair Jeff Smith raised issue with that lienholder clause, noting that the original intent was to protect property owners.
He wanted to bring it up to see if other board members agreed that it was unfair, acknowledging that he had received a phone call and other messages related to the issue.
Three of the other four board members agreed while Supervisor Rob Brown did not.
Supervisor Moke Simon said a renter getting permission from a property owner to grow marijuana “is more than reasonable.”
Brown said it was irresponsible of the board to go back and forth on the matter. “We knew exactly what it meant.”
He suggested that the board might as well let those lodging complaints write the ordinance and then rubber stamp it.
Brown said he was exhausted over the matter, and Supervisor Jim Steele said he was too, adding that growers were going to need to adhere to the rules the county implements.
“I’m not optimistic that’s going to happen,” said Brown. “I think we’re selling out our county.”
Ultimately, Simon, Smith, Steele and Tina Scott decided they didn’t want to include the provision while Brown held firm and argued to keep it.
Smith said that he wanted to instead make it a landlord issue.
At the suggestion of County Counsel Anita Grant, the board took the lienholder clause out and replaced it with a requirement that if an applicant is a renter of the property where marijuana is proposed to be grown, they must submit written approval for the permit from the property owner.
Grant said that because there already is similar language elsewhere in Article 72, the change doesn’t require that the document has to be sent back to the Lake County Planning Commission.
However, because the change the board made Tuesday was substantive in nature, Tuesday’s approval by the board became the updated document’s first reading. A second reading is expected to take place at next week’s meeting.
The board voted 4-1 on three separate motions – to change the wording, to read the ordinance in title only and to advance the first reading – to move the document forward, with Brown the lone dissenting vote each time.
New law appears to change deadlines
Meanwhile, the ordinance with comprehensive changes to Article 72 – the “big one,” as Turner called it – is set to go back to the Lake County Planning Commission on Oct. 12.
She said the commission already has had a public hearing on that larger ordinance and it’s expected that commissioners will have consensus and give clear direction to staff on how to proceed at the October meeting.
While the county is trying to get its ordinances finished by the end of the year – and may well succeed based on the progress so far – Turner said SB 94 may make the previous state requirement for local jurisdictions to have rules in place for governing marijuana-related activities moot.
She said the state will now send a notification to cities and counties when they receive applications for growing activities in those areas.
At that point, the local jurisdiction can say those projects do or don’t adhere to local rules, or that they’re still working on finalizing their guidelines, she said.
If local jurisdictions are silent on such permit applications, the law will allow the state to issue the permits, Turner said. That makes it important to address every single permit, regardless of the status of local rules.
Turner, who also is a member of the Lakeport City Council, said she was relieved by the new flexibility in the state regulations, as the city of Lakeport also is working to have its rules in place.
On Sept. 20, the Lakeport Planning Commission held a special meeting to consider the first draft of proposed regulations to govern commercial cannabis activities in the city, as Lake County News has reported.
A key concern for commissioners and city staff during the meeting is attempting to meet the state’s original end-of-year deadline.
In the case of the county, Turner said it could well be done with its work to craft the updated rules by year’s end.
The work on these ordinance updates has been under way for a few years now. Originally, an ad hoc committee that had significant law enforcement presence on it looked at the document, and when it was concluded it was going to be primarily a land use issue, the ordinance’s development reverted to the Community Development Department, Turner explained.
She said Community Development Director Bob Massarelli released the larger revision ordinance document to the public for review about a month and a half ago, so it shouldn’t have a lot of surprises for community members who are concerned about the rules.
That work, she said, is expected to help the process when that larger document finally gets to the Board of Supervisors. “All that prep work will allow us to go smoothly through the board meeting.”
She added, “I’m always hopeful.”
If the new rules aren’t in effect by the end of the year, Turner said she expected it won’t be much longer than that into the new year.
For updates and information on the county’s cannabis policy development, check out the county Web page at http://www.co.lake.ca.us/Government/Directory/CodeEnforcement/Cannabis.htm.
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.
Article 72 Revision Amended Draft by LakeCoNews on Scribd