In the 3-1 vote, with Supervisor Anthony Farrington voting no, the supervisors directed marketing, Lake County Water Resources, Lake County Air Quality Management District, the agricultural commissioner, the Community Development Department, county counsel, the Lake County Sheriff’s Office, the Lake County District Attorney’s Office and Lake County Probation to weigh in on the possible impacts of the “Lake County Medical Marijuana Cultivation Act of 2012.”
The proposed initiative was submitted by the Lake County Citizens for Responsible Regulations and Lake County Green Farmers Association, which gathered signatures for the effort.
Lake County Registrar of Voters Diane Fridley took to the board an elections official’s certificate on the proposed initiative at the Tuesday meeting.
Her report said that 3,285 signatures were submitted in support of the initiative, with her staff checking all of those signatures.
Of those, 2,134 were found sufficient, just 19 more than the required 2,115, Fridley reported. Approximately 1,151 signatures were found not to be sufficient, with 787 of those from people who are not registered to vote in the county.
Fridley said the board needed to decide whether to accept the initiative in its entirely as a county ordinance or to put it before the voters this June.
The board also had the option of asking county departments to study and report on the proposed initiative’s impacts, Fridley said.
Farrington asked County Counsel Anita Grant if the board could amend the initiative if it adopted the document as a county ordinance.
Grant said no, that it couldn’t be amended or repealed unless voted upon by the county’s electorate.
Don Merrill, a spokesman for the Lake County Citizens for Responsible Regulations and Lake County Green Farmers Association, addressed issues of concern, including the document allowing for the growing of up to 84 plants on larger parcels. He also said the groups did not agree that marijuana leads to more crimes.
He argued that the document gave the county new authority to deal with nuisance issues, a position with which Grant – when asked to respond by Board Chair Rob Brown – didn’t agree.
The document does have a severability clause as most ordinances do. “It doesn’t necessarily mean the county is going to gain a particular authority,” she said.
Merrill said the groups urged the board to accept their initiative as an ordinance.
Brown supported doing the report to understand the impacts, which he said are going to be significant. He also suggested there was a bias in the information the groups had presented to the board in favor of the initiative.
Lower Lake attorney Ron Green asked the board to adopt the initiative. If they waited to put it on the June ballot, and it failed, he said they would have nothing in place during the upcoming growing season.
“This ordinance may not be perfect but it gives the county a way to deal with the huge grows,” said Green.
He also maintained that it would allow for smaller grows on residential parcels to be abated if they proved to be nuisances.
“I urge the board to adopt this,” he said. “Give it a chance.”
In response to Green’s request that the board give the document a chance, Brown said, “I keep hearing you say things that are so ironic.”
Brown said the board had asked for its marijuana cultivation ordinance, Ordinance No. 2960, adopted last fall, also to be given a chance.
However, the Lake County Citizens for Responsible Regulations and Lake County Green Farmers Association gathered signatures for a referendum on that document, which the board rescinded Jan. 3, deciding it would not put it on the June ballot, Brown pointed out.
Green said they needed something in place to deal with large grows, and commented that even banks attract crime. Brown responded that in the past month there have been more home invasion robberies due to marijuana than there have been bank robberies in the county’s entire history.
The board also raised concerns about protections for marijuana growing under the Right to Farm Ordinance. Green said those protections would not extend to residential or suburban reserve zoning.
Farrington questioned if they could abate smaller nuisance grows, even if they were under the 12 plant limit in residential areas. Green maintained they could.
Farrington asked Grant if she agreed with that interpretation.
Grant said she found Green’s interpretation “reasonable,” but noted that there are other possible interpretations, and predicted it would be tested because of the way it was generally crafted.
“It can go either way is essentially what I am telling you,” she said.
“It’s not clear cut,” said Brown.
Like Brown, Supervisor Jeff Smith said he found it ironic to hear the initiative’s proponents asking that their document be given a chance, when they didn’t give the county’s ordinance a chance. He supported studying the initiative’s impacts.
“Let’s look at it and at least we’ll be better informed how to answer questions when it does go on the ballot,” he said.
Comstock agreed, adding that he could foresee huge challenges regarding the document’s interpretation.
He added, “Our ordinance was a compromise. There are no compromises here.”
John Brosnan of Upper Lake, who has identified himself to Lake County News as president of the Lake County Green Farmers Association, told the board the initiative had arisen because the county’s ordinance prevented outdoor grows in residential areas.
He said the county can’t corral all of its marijuana-related issues in one ordinance. He added that the federal government is overstepping its boundaries regarding marijuana.
“I can assure you the reason we started an ordinance was the residential use,” replied Brown.
Brown predicted the initiative would fail at the June election. “The folks are sick of it,” he said of residential grows.
Walter Zuercher of the Clearlake Riviera agreed, noting they were against growing marijuana in residential areas. Over the last four to five years it had resulted in a lot of problems in the subdivision, he said.
Regarding the initiative, Brown noted, “I’m sure I’m not the only one that resents the fact this is being considered an agricultural crop.”
Smith said he has received numerous complaints about marijuana grows in residential areas, with people losing their basic rights to use their properties. “That is ridiculous to me and that is why we had to take the stand we took in our ordinance.”
He said the marijuana advocacy groups have put themselves in the position of not having a document in place by June because of their opposition to the county’s cultivation ordinance. Smith added that he wanted to see the report on the initiative’s possible repercussions.
Green said the county already has the power to act on nuisance grows. Smith responded that the homeowners he’s spoken to are afraid of possible repercussions if they make reports.
Farrington wanted the board to take action to put the initiative on the ballot Tuesday. He also questioned the time and resources that would be spent on completing a report.
However, Comstock, Brown and Smith favored the report, which Grant said would consider impacts on fiscal-related matters, land use, infrastructure, business and employment, vacant parcels, agriculture and law enforcement. Brown added that it was the board’s job to determine the initiative’s impacts on the county.
The board voted 3-1 to direct the report be made, and that it be brought back by Feb. 21, at which time they must make a decision.
Grant pointed out that if the reports come back showing that the initiative would be a viable county ordinance, that the board’s position is not intractable, and that the supervisors can consider adopting it at that time.
E-mail Elizabeth Larson at
012412 Elections Officer Certification - Marijuana Culivation Initiative
How to resolve AdBlock issue? 
