The board approved the ordinance's initial reading in a 5-0 vote on Sept. 20, as Lake County News has reported.
The ordinance allows each qualified patient a maximum of six mature or 12 immature plants, with three patients able to grow up to 18 mature or 36 immature plants on properties one acre or larger, and still larger grows allowed on properties five acres or larger with a minor user permit.
On Tuesday the board repeated its unanimous vote, despite the fact that both Supervisor Anthony Farrington and Supervisor Denise Rushing had concerns about the new ordinance's rule against outdoor grows on any residentially zoned parcel, and on any parcel half an acre or less. Such grows would have to be indoors.
As a compromise to leaving that language intact, Community Development Director Rick Coel proposed that the board expand the definition of “indoor” to greenhouses with air filtration systems, which he said would abate nuisance-related odor issues and also cover other requirements, like screening and security.
Only a small group of community members spoke to the board regarding the ordinance on its second reading.
Two people, including Lower Lake attorney Ron Green, urged against its passage, saying that the board had “managed to anger thousands of medical marijuana patients and farmers on both ends of the spectrum.”
One man asked that the board make the rules governing cultivation even stricter, and Walter Zuercher of Kelseyville asked the board to move forward with the document as it was, telling the supervisors it was “absolutely necessary” that they pass it. He said more people hadn't spoken out because they're afraid of retaliation.
Both Coel and Sheriff Frank Rivero – who have worked closely on the proposed regulations – asked the board to go forward with accepting the ordinance.
Rivero commended the board for having “the guts” to pass the ordinance on its first reading two weeks ago. In that time he said he's heard from many people who are happy with the action.
He urged them to move forward and pass the second reading, which he said would allow his agency to start addressing cultivation-related issues.
“I believe we're well on our way to establishing something that can be a model to other counties for reasonableness, fairness,” while getting rid of some of the problems, Rivero said.
Coel told the board that after two years of working on the ordinance, he felt it had been thoroughly vetted in the public arena. He explained that medical marijuana growers don't have a constitutional right to grow however they want, wherever they want, and that cultivation can be regulated by law.
He said the ordinance will give law enforcement the needed guidelines, offer clear limits on how much can be grown on individual parcels and protect the property rights of people who don't use medical marijuana.
Rushing was concerned about the unintended consequences of the board's action at the Sept. 20 meeting, during which the board added language prohibiting grows on parcels less than a half-acre in size as well as banning outdoor cultivation in all residential zoning.
She said she wanted to form a committee to look at the ordinance, and wanted to drop the parcel size limitation altogether. “We've created a lot of energy around something that we don't need to.”
Farrington agreed with Rushing's concerns about unintended consequences, and worried how to balance nuisance complaints with patients' growing needs.
Coel said that without the ordinance's language, dealing with complaints would be too subjective and difficult for law enforcement.
Rushing argued that by limiting parcel sizes they were creating demand and criminalizing a large number of people.
Supervisor Rob Brown argued for leaving the parcel size limitation in, saying it made everyone's job easier, from Coel's to Rivero's.
“There's greed out there, that's what's driving this,” he said.
Since passing the ordinance's initial reading, Brown said he's received phone messages and e-mails from people who have “appreciated the fact that we have represented them,” adding that a lot of thought went into the document.
Rushing wanted a commitment from the board to make amendments to improve the document down the road. “If the citizens don't believe that this process will be fair they're just overturn it via referendum,” said Rushing.
Rushing was referring to a referendum effort under way to overturn a medical marijuana dispensaries ordinance the board passed this summer in a 3-2 vote, which she and Smith voted against.
Farrington, however, said a referendum on the cultivation ordinance could have “much graver” consequences than the dispensaries referendum.
He said there was a need to find a compromise for residential growers, which Coel offered in expanding the definition of indoor grows to include greenhouses.
But Coel insisted that he needed to keep language in place to deal with residential complaints. “They're tired of it,” he said, referring to community members who are dealing with nuisance grows in their neighborhoods.
Brown moved the ordinance with the new greenhouse language, which was accepted 5-0.
The ordinance will come back for another reading at 10:25 a.m. Tuesday, Oct. 11.
E-mail Elizabeth Larson at
How to resolve AdBlock issue? 
