Community Development Director Rick Coel and county administration – including some members of the Board of Supervisors – began working on draft documents last year, and the Board of Supervisors passed an interim moratorium on the formation of dispensaries and collectives to allow the drafts to be completed.
Coel presented the documents to the board beginning at 10 a.m. Tuesday before a packed chamber.
Formal adoption wasn't possible or even expected Tuesday because of legal notification requirements, Coel said. “This is simply to get some feedback from your board on the various components in these ordinances,” and to get direction if they should move forward on the formal adoption process.
First up was the dispensary ordinance, followed later in the afternoon by an ordinance governing cultivation.
Regarding dispensaries and collectives, Coel had used ordinances from other parts of the state – notably Shasta County and the city of Arcata – to create guidelines that included setbacks; required distances from schools, parks and residential areas; major use permits; and C3, M1 and M2 zoning locations, of which there were 310 parcels consisting of 650 acres countywide, Coel said.
It was noted later in the meeting that, if all regulations such as setbacks and required distances were implemented, 111 of those parcels totaling 233 acres would be available as dispensary locations.
Annual compliance audits would be conducted jointly by Coel's department and the sheriff's office, he said.
He suggested that if dispensaries are to be operated in the county, strict controls should be in place to make sure they're operated correctly. Based on observations locally and in other jurisdictions, the majority of those seeking recommendations are in their 20s and 30s, and Coel said that the impact of dispensaries on the local economy is expected to be similar to that of casinos.
Coel said Tuesday that the discussion was “the first step in a lengthy process” that would include more public hearings before the Lake County Planning Commission and the supervisors.
Board Chair Anthony Farrington raised concerns about privacy in relation to a requirement for records. Supervisor Jeff Smith also questioned why the nonprofit collectives can't sell other paraphernalia, noting that the nonprofit Hospice Services of Lake County has a retail aspect in its local thrift shops.
In addition, Farrington questioned not making the C2 zoning district available to the establishments. Coel said C2 governs main streets, business districts and redevelopment areas. Some dispensaries already are located in those places, which has resulted in complaints to Coel's staff.
“It's a polarizing issue, that's the problem,” Coel said.
Supervisor Jim Comstock said a Middletown Realtor contacted him to complain about a collective being located next door and causing the loss of a real estate sale.
Supervisor Denise Rushing suggested making the C2 zoning available at a higher standard.
Farrington pointed out that the ordinance didn't permit edible products to be sold on premises. He said for some patients, such products are less carcinogenic and more palatable. Coel said that aspect came from other ordinances he'd used as a basis for the document.
When asked about having major use permits for dispensaries, Coel explained that it was proposed due to the complexity of the process, and his preference that the planning commission hear the cases. But ultimately he said it was up the board.
Over the next several hours, more than two dozen people spoke about their concerns over the ordinance or more general issues with medical marijuana use. Speakers included high schoolers who attended as part of a class to medical marijuana patients and activists.
Leah Palmer, who works with Dr. Milan Hopkins in Upper Lake, agreed with regulations for cannabis collectives, but asked that they not be moved from downtown areas. “We need safe access and that's what this is all about.”
Mike Lawrence, owner of the Northern California Collective in Lower Lake, was among several people who told the board that marijuana offered a potential source of economic vitality for the county, saying tens of thousands of investors are looking at the area.
With a November ballot measure seeking to make marijuana legal throughout the state, “This could make Lake County No. 1 in the nation,” Lawrence said.
Clearlake businesswoman Jeri Spittler said the revenues from the dispensaries are needed. “The dispensary isn't a negative in my neighborhood,” she said noting that the building in which the establishment is located is the cleanest it's ever looked.
Lower Lake attorney Ron Green had a number of issues with the ordinances as presented. He and retired District 1 Supervisor Ed Robey have worked on medical marijuana-related issues around the county, and he referred to two documents – including a proposed ordinance drafted by Robey – that had been sent to the board. Robey wasn't able to attend Tuesday.
Green said most dispensaries and collectives currently are located in C1 and C2 zoning, “and that's where they belong.”
Rather than a major use permit, Green said he and Robey proposed a licensing system. He said the 1,000-foot restrictions between dispensaries and many places is too limiting; rather, he suggested that they not be allowed within 500 feet of schools, with all other distance limitations dropped.
Green also argued that edibles are needed at dispensaries, as is the ability to cultivate small amounts of marijuana on the premises. Records requirements proposed in the ordinance violated federal health privacy rules, he said, and would have a “chilling effect” on the establishments.
He said there is no rush to finalize the dispensary ordinance, requesting that a citizens advisory committee be formed, an idea the board eventually rejected due to expectations of a years-long process.
Clearlake resident Joey Luiz said the dispensaries should be zoned the same as pharmacies. He said they were sitting “on top of an oil field in this county” when it came to medical marijuana. “It's going to be big.”
As a businessman, Luiz said he wants to see the county come out of poverty. “We need to make the right decision and show people that we are reasonable when it comes to marijuana.”
Dr. Rob Rosenthal of Middletown, who offers recommendations for medical marijuana patients, said it still has a “moral stigma” for some people.
“We are helping this country,” he said. “We are not helping to ruin this country.”
Joe Fernandez of Upper Lake, a Vietnam veteran injured in a a helicopter crash, said medical marijuana has helped him.
“I don't disagree that it has to be regulated, but we need to quit looking at it in a negative way,” he said.
Cultivation ordinance looks at small and large growing operations
During the afternoon discussion on cultivation, Coel explained that the draft ordinance sought to keep smaller grows out of sight to prevent crime, and to keep medical marijuana away from property lines and out of setbacks in order to deal with complaints from neighbors. He said on-site management practices are needed.
Qualifying patients need to occupy the dwelling where the growing takes place, and indoor cultivation with proper ventilation should be conducted within a spare room in order to prevent homes being purchased just for growing purposes, the documents said.
Larger operations required the same 300-foot buffs that other agriculture does, with a use permit for legal notification, a requirement that concerned some people due to fears of theft and other crimes. The ordinance requires that larger cultivation operations not take place on less than 10 acres, while smaller grows are limited to 60 square feet or 100 square feet for two people in a yard.
One of the reasons such guidelines are needed, said Coel, is that the state hasn't done a good job of defining the rules for medical marijuana.
Referring to information from California NORML, County Counsel Anita Grant said that the California Supreme Court ruled that state limits under SB 420 – a state law that set down guidelines allowing patients to have six mature or 12 immature plants, plus 8 ounces of processed marijuana – were unconstitutional, and that patients are entitled to have whatever amounts their doctors recommend.
Supervisor Rob Brown suggested that the concept of compassionate marijuana use has been lost by those people who simply want to make a profit.
During public comment, many community members asked for reasonable guidelines in order to grow their own medical marijuana. Some threatened litigation if their rights were hampered.
There also was criticism of the process to draft the documents so far. Smith said there was no more open and transparent way for the board to do business than to work on the issues publicly and in meetings.
“Let's find the best end result for everybody,” he said.
Dr. Janet Weiss, a Berkeley-based toxicologist and physicians who has worked on medical marijuana issues around the state, said the ordinance had good parts and other areas that needed to be fixed.
“It's an important starting point,” she said.
Ronda Mottlow urged the board to approach the ordinances in the “spirit of 215,” with the emphasis on safe access.
She asked if the cultivation restrictions would supersede the county's right to farm ordinance. Mottlow suggested that the ordinance's limits are unconstitutional and that the county is opening itself up to lawsuits.
Brown said one of his major complaints relates to backyard grows, noting that at a Kelseyville High School football game he could smell the stench from grows in backyards all over the town.
Rushing asked about using a “zip-tie” program such as is used in neighboring Mendocino County. The ties go around the bases of plants and help law enforcement determine if gardens are in compliance. Farrington suggested he and county Health Services Director Jim Brown could do outreach on the zip-ties to find out more.
Grant explained that Proposition 215, which decriminalized medical marijuana in 1996, is a protection from criminal prosecution. She said it doesn't prevent a local jurisdiction from implementing zoning rules.
Counties have been using their zoning authority to enact moratoriums, Grant pointed out. She said the courts also have “exhaustively” looked at the issues surrounding enforcement of local codes. There are many rights, she added, that cannot be employed in all locations.
Coel asked for six to eight weeks to bring back updated drafts of the ordinances that included suggestions made by the board Tuesday. First, however, he said he and his staff needed to work on a “ridiculously complex” housing element and its associated grants.
The board decided to continue working on the draft document to “dial it in” before beginning the formal legal process, which will include public notices and future hearings.
E-mail Elizabeth Larson at
How to resolve AdBlock issue? 
