How to resolve AdBlock issue? Supervisors vote to disband medicinal marijuana cultivation advisory board
LAKEPORT, Calif. – At the end of a nearly two-hour-long discussion, the Board of Supervisors chose to disband its medicinal marijuana cultivation advisory board in the wake of one of its members seeking a temporary restraining order and injunction over an interim urgency ordinance the board passed last week.
The decision came in spite of requests from advisory board members and community members on both sides of the marijuana issue to keep the group active until it could finish its work. The group's goal was to offer the board a set of final recommendations to use as the basis for a permanent ordinance.
The supervisors, however, voiced frustration with what they characterized as continued efforts by illegal growers to game the system and stop forward motion on regulations.
During the meeting, the board also was informed that a union has plans for rolling out a marijuana-based industry in the county and establishing the accompanying regulations to make it happen.
Supervisors Anthony Farrington and Denise Rushing took the proposal to disband the advisory board to the full Board of Supervisors. Both have served on the advisory board, and Farrington said they thought the members had “pure and legitimate” motives.
The advisory board’s suggestions had influenced the interim urgency ordinance the board accepted on July 9.
That ordinance allows for up to six plants to be grown outdoors on a half acre or less, 12 plants with a 75-foot setback on parcels of half an acre to one acre, 18 plants and a 150-foot setback on parcels one to five acres in size, 36 plants and a minimum 150 foot setback on five- to 40-acre parcels, and a maximum of 48 plants on parcels 40 acres and larger.
However, after one of the advisory group's members, Don Merrill, was listed among the plaintiffs in last week's filing of a temporary restraining order – the hearing for which was continued to July 27 – Farrington concluded that there was no point to moving forward.
Farrington said there is “another element out there that concerns me,” which he said is driven by more than concern for patients' rights and access to medicinal marijuana, and which uses patients as human shields, a sentiment Rushing shared in an email the group last Friday.
He felt his time was wasted. “The strategy of this is to keep this in play in perpetuity,” he said.
Farrington also suggested staff time and tax dollars were wasted while other matters waited for attention. “We are spending too much time on this.”
While he had been concerned about an injunction being filed – which is why he said he advocated to adjust the urgency ordinance's numbers upward from the original more stringent proposal – Farrington added that he never anticipated an advisory board member would have filed the action.
“To me that was greater insult to injury,” he said.
He added, “There will never be a balance that will come out of the committee on this issue. It will have to be decided by the electorate.”
Rushing said the matter had become very emotional for her. “I really had to think about why, because marijuana is not my issue.”
She said the issue that had caused her to run for office was healing Lake County and bringing the community together on a “controversial, divisive and complex issue” like medical marijuana.
She compared working on the committee to pulling people through a knothole. “It became abundantly clear to me that the strategy is to keep it in play.”
She said people are being used, and patients are afraid of being made criminals. “That's unfair.”
Rushing said she felt that the 45-day urgency ordinance is a good law that tried to balance all interests. “Lake County is in deep need of healing around this issue. I think it's a dream to think any action this board takes is actually going to solve the problem of growing marijuana in Lake County.”
There are people who see profit in marijuana, and others who need it for medical reasons. “The idea that this can go on unregulated is absolutely wrong. It can't, it has to be regulated,” Rushing said.
Rushing suggested it was a waste of time to keep going at the committee level, as it was playing right into the strategy of the big illegal growers to keep the matter going without a resolution.
She still wanted the matter resolved, and wanted people to be able to live in neighborhoods and not worry about crime and other associated issues. Rushing suggested the board could build a permanent set of regulations based on the urgency ordinance.
Supervisor Jeff Smith said he was disappointed the proposal to disband the committee was brought forward. “You guys have worked hard at this. We've used what you came up with this in this committee.”
He continued, “You act like you're defeated, you're not,” suggesting they shouldn't stop based on one man's actions. “You're so close to being there.”
Smith asked them to reconsider disbanding. “By stopping you send a signal that the other side has won.”
Supervisor Jim Comstock thanked Farrington and Rushing for their work, along with the advisory board members that acted in good faith.
“Those attempting to keep this in play, shame on you,” he said. “You are trying to take over the county.”
He added, “We're not going to stand for it. That's why we're here doing what we're doing.”
Comstock agreed with Farrington that an ultimate solution needed to go before voters. “Nothing else appears to work.”
Farrington told Smith he wasn't giving up, but was “providing leadership to get closure.” He said they were spending more time on this issue than others. “That's a problem and that's no longer acceptable to me.”
Farrington suggested that Smith could take his place on the advisory board, but he wouldn't continue with the group. “There comes a time where you have to fish or cut bait. I'm at that time.”
He said he's talked to a lot of growers, but when he tries to pin them down on federal legalization, they don't share the view that it's important.
He discussed having compliance meetings with growers and the sheriff's office, but said he was done with the committee.
Rushing said she would continue on the advisory committee if another board member served with her. She acknowledged that both she and Farrington had taken personal and political hits from both sides because of their work with the group.
“I'm trying to find the greater good of continuing the committee,” she said, suggesting that if they continued they should have a focused, strict deadline for coming up with final recommendations.
“I want to see a good ordinance come out of this that the people will not feel so upset about that they'll sign those petitions,” she said.
Board Chair Rob Brown told Farrington and Rushing, “I totally know where you are with this. I have my own frustrations.”
He recalled the special July 9 meeting the board held, and was disgusted by the behavior of the marijuana proponents, who he called “a bunch of whiny, pathetic punks.”
Community members urge continuing the advisory board
Numerous community members urged the board to keep the advisory board going.
Finley resident Phil Murphy suggested the board institute an ordinance with an appeals process for people who need higher plant amounts, which would give patients legal recourse if they felt the plant amounts were too limited.
“I think that every time this process has gone wrong is when people have tried to deal with it as if it's something completely unique,” Murphy said.
Lower Lake resident Victoria Brandon recognized the frustration felt by Rushing and Farrington. She acknowledged the process was messy, slow, expensive and tedious, but it was the best process they had.
Continuing the advisory board would address the public perception that it was only put in place to get Measure D, a cultivation ordinance put on the ballot by Lake County Citizens for Responsible Regulation – of which Merrill was a leader – and the Lake County Green Farmers, voted down, Brandon said.
She said the community didn't need more distrust of government, adding that Merrill's behavior was “inexcusable.”
Rushing agreed with there was a “pervasive cynicism,” with both she and Farrington accused of having ulterior motives. “The only motive I have right now is I really want a process that will work.”
At one point in the discussion, County Counsel Anita Grant advised the board that with a quorum of advisory board members present, it was not appropriate under the Brown Act to discuss particulars regarding what kinds of proposals they could make.
Dan Rush, a representative of United Food and Commercial Workers Union, which is signing up local marijuana growers as members, told the board, “If you look at the issue and think you'll solve it with an ordinance, that's craziness.”
He suggested the matter needed to be addressed on the local level in conjunction with statewide legislation that creates a Tenth Amendment assertion to protect cities and counties from federal intervention.
He said UFCW has targeted Lake County to settle the issue. “We do have a larger picture and a plan for Lake County that I think we can achieve that has to do with creating good paying jobs, and an industry,” as well as a commercial process, he said.
Rush said they could arrive at a “positive and productive scenario” that didn't involve a ballot measure, and he urged them to keep the committee together.
John Brosnan, president of the Lake County Green Farmers and an advisory board member, told Farrington that by resigning he was showing that he had lost faith in the group. Brosnan also suggested Farrington's resignation from the group would give rise to public doubt.
Farrington said the whole matter had led to paralysis, and that Merrill wasn't the only reason, but his involvement in the legal action proved to be “the last straw” for Farrington.
Bobby Dutcher of Kelseyville, another advisory board member, said it was disappointing to get the email from Rushing last week announcing the committee might be disbanded.
He wanted to keep going, noting the group had gotten issues with plants and acreage handled first. “I think the hardest part of this is behind us.”
Dutcher said he couldn't explain Merrill's behavior, but said he and others wanted to continue working.
Melissa Fulton, speaking as a Lakeport resident and not as chief executive officer of the Lake County Chamber of Commerce, agreed that a lot of time had gone into the effort, and that the advisory board should continue.
“The marijuana cultivation issue impacts every single one of us,” she said.
Fulton said there was an elephant in the room – the professional grower – “who's in it for the bucks.” Another issue came in the form of the union that has come to town. “That is going to compound the issues we're dealing with.”
Fulton also reminded the board, “No matter what you do, you're never going to satisfy the people who feel that we should have all out grows and all out dispensaries. You're never going to satisfy them.”
Rushing said the issue has dominated the landscape “literally and figuratively.” She suggested the committee meet one more time, for a daylong session, and “then we're done.”
Smith said he was willing to step up and take Farrington's place if necessary, but urged Farrington to give it one more meeting.
Farrington asked Community Development Director Rick Coel to weigh in.
Coel, who said he agreed with Farrington's concerns, has been in the middle of trying to sort out marijuana-related planning and zoning issues for three years. “No matter what you move forward with as a board as a county, it will be challenged.”
He said a tremendous amount of energy, time and expense has gone into the issue. Coel estimated that between 75 and 80 percent of his department's staff time was spent on dealing with marijuana.
He also liked Rushing's suggestion of giving it one more meeting to finish the advisory board's work.
Coel said he was sick and tired of the issue, just like the board, and that he felt the county was experiencing a “hostile takeover.”
He commended Farrington for his decision to leave and disband the advisory board. “This needs to come to an end.”
Law enforcement has the interim ordinance to use, and Coel pointed to the two-thirds vote against Measure D, as well as the recent reelection of board members. “I think you have direction from the community on this issue.”
During board deliberation, Farrington said he didn't think it was possible for the advisory board to settle the remaining issues in a one-day session. He said he wouldn't change his mind and he refused to remain a member of the group.
Rushing moved to have one more meeting with another supervisor added to the group, with continued county staff support for minute taking and other duties.
Smith seconded, but the motion failed when the board majority – Farrington, Brown and Comstock – voted it down.
Farrington then moved to disband the advisory board. That vote was 4-1, with Smith voting no.
Email Elizabeth Larson at
- Details
- Written by: Elizabeth Larson
Sales tax proposals in county considered; Clearlake moves forward with its own measure
LAKE COUNTY, Calif. – Local leaders are continuing discussions regarding proposed sales tax measures for the local ballot that could bring in revenue to address a variety of serious local concerns, from roads to Clearlake to code enforcement.
The Board of Supervisors last week again discussed whether to pursue a tax for lake maintenance and protections or a road improvement sales tax, with the board once again deciding to put off a decision until it knew what the city councils might do.
Last Thursday night, the Clearlake City Council voted unanimously to pursue its own citywide measure, a one-cent sales tax that would devote 75 percent to roads and 25 percent to code enforcement, with no sunset clause.
The council also supported, by consensus, the county’s lake sales tax proposal after hearing a presentation from Supervisor Anthony Farrington.
Farrington also is set to make a presentation on the lake sales tax proposal before the Lakeport City Council on Tuesday.
At its June 28 meeting, the Clearlake City Council had decided to forgo participation in a countywide road sales tax proposed by the Lake County/City Area Planning Council, which is the regional transportation planning agency.
At that point, any kind of road sales tax for the county looked to be dead in the water. County Public Works Department staff told both the council and the supervisors that state law didn’t include a way for unincorporated counties to implement such measures without the help of a city.
However, when Public Works Director Scott De Leon and his deputy director, Lars Ewing, went before the Board of Supervisors last Tuesday to deliver a revenue plan for how such sales tax revenues would be spent, they said they had discovered a way the county could move forward.
They said the Lake County/City Area Planning Council was proposing a sales tax measure through the California Public Utilities Commission, with the council to be the taxing authority. That pathway required approval from the city councils and supervisors, said De Leon.
De Leon said the alternative was for the Board of Supervisors to implement a sales tax measure under the state Revenue and Taxation Code, which gives the board taxing capability.
Revenue and Taxation Code Section 7285.5 states, “ … the board of supervisors of any county may levy, increase, or extend a transactions and use tax for specific purposes.”
County Counsel Anita Grant said the tax would need a four-fifths vote of the board and a two-thirds vote from the participating voters in order to pass.
She said state law sets a two-cent limit on the amount of local sales tax that can be set over state sales tax. Lakeport has a half-cent sales tax, Measure I, for roads and the city of Clearlake has the half-cent Measure P, which supports the police department.
Supervisor Denise Rushing said there may be two or three such measures competing on the ballot countywide, which will make it difficult for all to pass.
But with fundings sources running out, “We are against the wall,” noted Supervisor Jim Comstock.
De Leon said he understood the concern with competing measures, but he needed a way to maintain the county’s 612 miles of roads.
Farrington said the board was being “very optimistic” about the chances of a road tax passing. He found it problematic to have both lake and road sales taxes on the same ballot.
“I want us to have regional approaches,” he said. “I want to be able to work well with other jurisdictions and I don't want to shoot the city of Clearlake in the foot, either.”
De Leon said a quarter-cent sales tax could generate $1.2 million annually for the lake, while a half-cent would generate $2.4 million annually. Funds would be divided amongst invasives species prevention, mitigation of aquatic weeds and algae, and be used for matching funds for capital projects. He said an expenditure plan would be brought to the board annually.
Farrington said he thinks there is substantial support for a lake sales tax.
Board Chair Rob Brown said he felt the road tax was a more immediate need. Supervisor Jeff Smith, who lives on the lake, agreed with Brown. He said he couldn’t see south county areas like Hidden Valley Lake supporting a sales tax for Clear Lake. Comstock said he believed his south county constituency would support the roads.
“I disagree with pretty much all of you,” Farrington said.
Farrington said he wouldn’t support a road tax, emphasizing the lake’s needs and pointing out that just a few years ago the board was talking about quarantining the lake to protect it from invasive mussels.
“All we have now is a porous sticker program,” Farrington said, with no state support, and growing issues with algae and weeds. He said invasives will bring with them much higher rates for county water users.
“I don't think anybody here disagrees with you,” said Brown, agreeing that there was a need to deal with the potential of a quagga mussel infestation.
“We've spent a lot of money on the lake already the last few years and we still have weeds and algae,” Brown said, adding it would be a false expectation that all the problems can be resolved.
Rushing said her preference would be the lake.
Board members said they wanted to put off a decision until they could get input from the two cities councils. Grant reported that the county registrar said they would need to take action by Aug. 6 to put it on the November ballot.
Brown asked Lakeport City Manager Margaret Silveira, who was in the audience, if the Lakeport City Council would support the road tax proposal.
Silveira said she hadn’t seen the proposed formula, but she said she was concerned that a breakdown De Leon had presented only gave $60,000 to the city, which has high traffic volumes.
“I do agree both measures are very important to the county,” said Silveira.
Rushing told the board, “This is going to be tough, no matter what.”
De Leon said there are other options and formulas for how a road sales tax would be distributed. “We can develop a number of different scenarios.”
Silveira said that would be important to have ready for this week’s Lakeport City Council meeting.
The board is holding a special meeting beginning at 8 a.m. Wednesday in the board chambers to continue its consideration of the sales tax measures.
Clearlake City Council to move forward with sales tax measure
The Clearlake City Council last week decided to pursue a one-cent sales tax, with 75 percent – or an estimated $1,050,000 annually – to go to roads and the remaining 25 percent, or $350,000, to go to code enforcement, which includes animal control services, according to City Manager Joan Phillipe.
As part of the overall sales tax discussion, the council heard a presentation from Farrington on the lake sales tax proposal.
In his pitch to the Clearlake City Council, Farrington explained that the quality of the lake affects tourism for all of the county.
He said the county government had put aside one-time monies totaling $1.3 million for lake-related projects, including weed treatment. However, the funds aren’t available indefinitely.
“After this year there are no more dollars available,” he said.
Farrington acknowledged that he couldn’t pick a worse time to pitch the sales tax proposal, stating he’s never supported such a measure previously in his political career.
However, he pointed out, “We’re at a major crossroads,” emphasizing the need to secure an ongoing revenue stream for the lake.
Mayor Joey Luiz said he had been concerned about the countywide measure, but he acknowledged that the lake is a big issue. Luiz said he was confident that the initiative wouldn’t cause the city’s measure to fail.
“The lake is a huge problem over here,” said Vice Mayor Jeri Spittler. “It is horrifying and we need help.”
Council member Joyce Overton said she had been a member of the Clear Lake Advisory Committee, and she said there needed to be better oversight on lake issues.
“Nobody listens, so how is this going to be any different than what you already have in place?” she asked Farrington.
She said she was “all for the lake,” but feared too many sales tax proposals would doom them all. Spittler, however, said she thought the initiative could pass.
During the council’s deliberations on its own citywide measure, Councilman Curt Giambruno said the city looks terrible, garbage is piling up and something needs to be done on the code enforcement end.
“This community and the county need to get their act together and understand that the money doesn’t fall out of the sky,” he said.
Giambruno said he’s been a part of several previous sales tax measures, but he believed something had to be done. “If we want that smell out of the lake, we’ve got to pay.”
“I always get an extra twinkle in my eye when Curt and I agree 100 percent,” said Luiz.
While the roads wouldn’t completely be turned around if a measure were passed, Luiz said the funding the measure would bring in for roads – just over $1 million – would triple the city’s current road-related spending.
“You’re going to see a difference. I’m optimistic. It’s going to happen,” he said.
At the beginning of the meeting, during public comment, several community members had raised concerns over the city’s stretched animal control services. With animal control under code enforcement, Phillipe said she likely would reorganize staff if the sales tax measure passed.
Luiz said he wants to make sure future councils will put the money toward the streets, and not other uses. “I don’t know who’s going to sit here 10 years from now, 15 year from now.”
Chuck Leonard, a retired councilman, urged the council to make clear to the community that the sales tax primarily would support road reconstruction and potholes, not full paving, which it’s the responsibility of property owners to support financially.
Luiz said he already had a slogan in mind for the effort: “Better roads, cleaner neighborhoods.”
Email Elizabeth Larson at
- Details
- Written by: Elizabeth Larson
Supervisors to hold special Wednesday meeting on sales tax proposals
LAKEPORT, Calif. – The Board of Supervisors will hold a special meeting this week to discuss whether to move forward on two sales tax proposals for local roads and lake maintenance that would go before voters this fall.
The meeting will begin at 8 a.m. Wednesday, July 18, in the board chambers on the first floor of the Lake County Courthouse, 255 N. Forbes St., Lakeport.
The board called the meeting to continue a discussion from its July 10 regular meeting on two proposed county sales tax measures.
One would fund road maintenance, the other would benefit Clear Lake-related projects such as algae and weed abatement, and programs aimed at safeguarding the lake from devastating invasive species like the quagga and zebra mussels.
Supervisor Anthony Farrington is advocating for the lake tax. Last Thursday he made a presentation to the Clearlake City Council on the matter, receiving a consensus from the council to support the measure. He’s due to speak to the Lakeport City Council at its Tuesday meeting.
Last week, Supervisor Denise Rushing indicated her support for the lake proposal, while colleagues Jeff Smith, Rob Brown and Jim Comstock appeared to support the roads.
Also at the Wednesday special meeting, the board will discuss draft expenditure plans created by Lake County Public Works staff for various funding amounts generated by the proposed measures, and also will consider approval of the resolutions necessary to authorize the taxes for the November ballot.
Email Elizabeth Larson at
- Details
- Written by: Elizabeth Larson
Supervisors to consider disbanding Medicinal Marijuana Cultivation Advisory Board
LAKEPORT, Calif. – In response to a temporary restraining order filed last week against the county over its newly accepted interim urgency marijuana cultivation ordinance, the Board of Supervisors this week will consider disbanding the Medicinal Marijuana Cultivation Advisory Board, one of whose members was named as a part in the legal action.
The meeting will begin at 9 a.m. Tuesday, July 17, in the board chambers on the first floor of the Lake County Courthouse, 255 N. Forbes St., Lakeport. The meeting will be broadcast live on TV8.
At 9:45 a.m., Supervisors Anthony Farrington and Denise Rushing, who are members of the advisory board, are taking to their colleagues on the Board of Supervisors the proposal to disband the group.
Their memo to the board, authored by Farrington, can be seen below. It explains that advisory board member Don Merrill was named in the temporary restraining order action, filed last week, as Lake County News has reported. The identities of the three other plaintiffs in the case have not been made public.
The action was meant to stop the county from enforcing Ordinance No. 2977, which went into effect for 45 days after the board approved it at the end of a special daylong meeting on Monday, July 9.
Judge David Herrick heard the temporary restraining order request last Thursday, and continued the matter until July 27, finding that the evidence of harm submitted by the plaintiffs was not sufficient.
In their memo, Farrington and Rushing said that the ordinance integrates almost all of the plant numbers the advisory board previously had approved.
“Mr. Merrill, serving as a representative in the marijuana cultivation category, voted to approve these numbers, which he now claims are in violation of California state law and will cause him irreparable damage,” the memo stated.
Rushing and Farrington said they appreciated the work the advisory board has done so far, “and would like to recognize those on the advisory board who have approached this effort with good faith and dedication,” explaining that the work of those individuals “has made a difference in our understanding of this polarizing and complicated issue.”
However, they suggest that further dedication of staff and public time, effort and resources is “ill-advised.”
As such, they’re removing themselves from the advisory board and asking that the Board of Supervisors disband the advisory board, according to the memo.
Last Thursday, the same day as the initial hearing was held on the temporary restraining order, advisory board members were notified that their next meeting – which had been scheduled for Monday – was canceled, and that no further meetings were planned.
On Friday, Rushing sent out an email to advisory board members explaining the situation.
She said that while the board’s ordinance wasn’t perfect, “it is a good compromise that allows us to deal with the larger problem grows that affect the environment, the lake, and neighborhoods.”
She continued, “Every step of the way the board attempted to deal with the most important and immediate environmental and complaint-driven problems and in the end compromised regarding numbers of plants based on the early work of the cultivation committee.”
In her message, Rushing said Farrington had told her on Thursday that he would be resigning from the committee “because with this injunction filing it became clear that a key committee member will not be in a position to compromise on the final ordinance recommendation and that any action taken by the board will be challenged in court even those that reflect compromise.”
Rushing said a few things had become clear, among them, that it’s likely that any ordinance the board would pass ultimately would be challenged in court.
She said that with the injunction it is “clear that large growers intend to use the small medicinal patients as a human shield by scaring them into thinking the government is after their medicine all the while they are not looking out for their interests. This board compromised greatly to allow for those small grows in its urgency zoning ordinance.”
If the supervisors agree to disband the cultivation advisory board, “this means is that the final ordinance will be developed by the Board of Supervisors,” said Rushing. “My hope is that the Board will craft a fair cultivation zoning ordinance with the information the board already has, and the knowledge the committee members have shared with the two board members who sat on the committee.”
Some of the committee members responded with emails of their own, including Bob Dutcher, who said he would rather see Merrill removed and the rest of the committee allowed to continue its work.
Dutcher said the situation reflected badly on the Board of Supervisors. “As soon as Measure D failed the urgency ordinance came up to the chagrin of the medical marijuana community. Then a couple of days after a temporary ordinance is passed the committee is dissolved. This will lead to a distrust of the Board in the future.”
He questioned where the ordinance goes from here, adding, “I have nothing but contempt and disgust for the member that caused this.”
Farrington responded to the group later that day by warning them to stop further communication on the matter because he asserted that the emails constituted serial communications, which violates the Brown Act. The advisory board is subject to the Brown Act because it was appointed by the Board of Supervisors.
He urged everyone interested in the matter to attend the Tuesday meeting.
A full agenda follows. Some items are out of order due to an addendum being issued after the posting of the initial agenda.
TIMED ITEMS
9 a.m., A-1 to A-4: Approval of consent agenda, which includes items that are expected to be routine and noncontroversial, and will be acted upon by the board at one time without discussion; presentation of animals available for adoption at Lake County Animal Care and Control; consideration of items not appearing on the posted agenda, and contract change orders for current construction projects.
9:05 a.m.: Citizen's input. Any person may speak for three minutes about any subject of concern, provided that it is within the jurisdiction of the Board of Supervisors and is not already on the agenda. Prior to this time, speakers must fill out a slip giving name, address and subject (available in the clerk of the board’s office, first floor, courthouse).
9:15 a.m., A-6: Public hearing, protest Hearings for: (a) Annual water standby charges and delinquent water fees in County Service Areas Nos. 2, 6, 7, 13, 16, 18, 20, 21 and 22; (b) delinquent water fees in Kelseyville Waterworks District #3 for County Waterworks District #3; (c) Confirming collection of annual item (b) and board of lighting fees in County Service Area No. 1 - Clear Lake Keys Lighting; and (d) delinquent sewer fees in Lake County Sanitation District Sanitation District for item (d).
9:30 a.m., A-7: Continued from June 12, public hearing, discussion/consideration of appeal (AB 12-01) of the Planning Commission’s decision to deny the use permit (UP 11-09) for a five year time extension for an existing off-site advertising sign (billboard); appellant is La Monica Signs; site location is 255 Soda Bay Road, Lakeport (APN 008-019-64).
9:45 a.m., A-13: (a) Update on developments related to the progress of the Medicinal Marijuana Cultivation Advisory Board; and (b) consideration of proposed disbandment of the Medicinal Marijuana Cultivation Advisory Board.
NONTIMED ITEMS
A-8: Supervisors’ weekly calendar, travel and reports.
A-9: Consideration of the following appointments: Glenbrook Cemetery District, Hartley Cemetery District.
A-10: Consideration of proposed letter of support for AB 2443 (Williams) establishing a statewide boat fee to be used to help prevent and control quagga and zebra mussel infestation.
A-11: Consideration of request for Board direction regarding the filing of an application with the Lake Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCo) for exemption from a municipal service review, pursuant to Watershed Protection District Board Government Code 56128.
CLOSED SESSION
A-12: 1.Conference with Labor Negotiator: (a) County Negotiators: A. Grant, L. Guintivano, M. Perry, J. Hammond and A. Flora; and (b) Deputy District Attorney’s Association.
A-12: 2. Employee Disciplinary Appeal EDA 2012-05.
CONSENT AGENDA
C-1: Approve minutes of the Board of Supervisors meeting held on July 10, 2012.
C-2: Authorize the elections official to render all services necessary to conduct the city of Clearlake’s General Municipal Election on November 6, 2012, for the purpose of electing three (3) members of the Clearlake City Council, pursuant to the City’s Resolution No. 2012-22.
C-3: Approve amendment to the agreement between the county of Lake and the State Department of Alcohol and Drug Programs, for an increase of $86,218, for FY 2012-13 substance use disorder services, and authorize the chair to sign.
C-4: Approve third amendment to agreement between the county of Lake and Anasazi Software Inc., for a maximum amount of $70,000 annually, for FY 2012-13 and subsequent years’ for software and maintenance services, and authorize the chair to sign.
C-5: Adopt resolution approving the submittal of a functional classifications change for local streets and roads to the State of California, Department of Transportation (Merritt Road and Gaddy Lane).
LAKE COUNTY SANITATION DISTRICT BOARD OF DIRECTORS
C-6: (a) Approve easement deed and direct clerk to certify for recordation (APN 039-333-21 – Martin Ramos and Olga Contreras), and approve right of way agreement between the county of Lake and Martin Ramos and Olga Contreras for the construction of the wastewater force main sanitary sewer line; (b) approve easement deed and direct clerk to certify for recordation (APNs 039-372-04 & 06 – Robert Adelman), and approve right of way agreement between the county of Lake and Robert Adelman for the construction of the wastewater force main sanitary sewer line; and (c) approve easement deed and direct clerk to certify for recordation (APN 039-332-20 – Lenda Dragoman), and approve right of way agreement between the county of Lake and Lenda Dragoman for the construction of the wastewater force main sanitary sewer line, and authorize the chair to sign the agreements.
C-7: Approve minutes of the Board of Supervisors meeting held on July 9, 2012.
Email Elizabeth Larson at
- Details
- Written by: Elizabeth Larson
Lakeport City Council to hold public hearings on police pension, fee for cable access TV station, signage
LAKEPORT, Calif. – This Tuesday the Lakeport City Council will hold public hearings on changes to police pensions, signage regulations and the proposal to increase Mediacom user fees in order to support the local public access television station.
The council will meet beginning at 6 p.m. Tuesday, July 17, in the council chambers at Lakeport City Hall, 225 Park St.
The public hearings will include a hearing on an ordinance to amend the contract between the Board of Administration of the California Public Employees’ Retirement System and the council to provide the 3 percent at 55 full formula for Lakeport Police Officers Association members, up from the current 2 percent at 50 plan.
The proposal is the result of negotiations related to a lawsuit the Lakeport Police Officers Association filed last year. That arose from the council’s refusal in 2010 to follow through on a promise made in a 2006 contract to give police officers a 3 percent at 50 retirement package.
There also will be a hearing on the adoption of an ordinance related to the amendment of sign criteria and regulations for large individual retail buildings and large commercial shopping centers.
The third public hearing of the meeting will relate to the adoption of a proposed ordinance to assess a 1-percent pass-through fee on Mediacom subscribers in the city in order to fund TV8, the county’s public access station, based in Clearlake.
Under council business, Public Works Director Mark Brannigan will present a utility rate analysis, and the council will consider having staff mail out a special public hearing notice regarding water and sewer rates.
Supervisor Anthony Farrington will make a presentation to the council regarding countywide sales tax measures for transportation and lake programs.
In other business, Lakeport Community Development Director Richard Knoll will take to the council the Forbes Creek Neighborhood Improvement Study.
An ordinance amending Section 2.16.020 of the Lakeport Municipal Code regarding Lakeport Planning Commission dates also will be introduced, with a public hearing to be set for 6 p.m. Tuesday, Sept. 4.
Also on Tuesday, the Lakeport Main Street Association Design Committee will make a presentation regarding a project to install distinctive street signs in the historic downtown area.
The council also will hold a closed session to discuss a case of pending litigation, Operating Engineers Local Union No. 3 and Lakeport Police Officers Association v. City of Lakeport, Lakeport City Council (Lake County Superior Court Case No. CV410232).
Email Elizabeth Larson at
071712 Lakeport City Council Packet - Part One071712 Lakeport City Council Packet - Part Two
- Details
- Written by: Elizabeth Larson
