LAKEPORT – In a lengthy discussion punctuated by both emotion and frustration, the Board of Supervisors began the process of exploring how to handle medical marijuana dispensaries, clubs and collectives in the context of the county zoning ordinance.

During the two-and-a-half-hour-long discussion on Tuesday afternoon, it became clear that the way ahead won't necessarily be quick or easy, but will require careful research, which the board asked county staff to begin.

The board also plans to tackle two separate issues related to medical marijuana – not just the dispensaries and collectives but also where cultivation is most appropriate in an effort to allow patients to get their medication and neighbors to be comfortable.

The supervisors' chambers was packed with county residents, many of them medical marijuana users who shared their own stories using the drug.

The issues of medical marijuana and the zoning ordinance first arose on April 21, as Lake County News has reported. At that meeting, Community Development Director Rick Coel presented to the board several proposed amendments to the county's zoning ordinance, including one dealing with medical marijuana clubs, collectives and dispensaries.

The same day, six notices of violation had gone out to dispensaries and collectives around the county, telling them to cease operation. However, on April 21 the board asked Coel to rescind those notices while the issues are worked out.

On Tuesday Coel led with a presentation to the board on what he saw as two separate but related issues, cultivation sites and dispensaries and collectives.

He presented several slides of cultivation sites on private properties around the county, which showed various grading violations, with steep cuts placed in hillsides in serpentine soil, driveways and roads built without permits, significant tree removal, no stormwater or erosion measures put in place, and seasonal creeks being dammed for water or otherwise interrupted by growing plants in creek channels and riparian plains.

Coel said complaints from neighbors brought up the dispensary issue. He said there are six dispensaries in Lake County, with a seventh opening up in Clearlake Oaks.

The county's zoning ordinance says that if a use isn't specifically listed in a zoning district, it's not allowed, and dispensaries aren't listed, he said.

County Counsel Anita Grant, referring to the California Attorney General's medical marijuana guidelines for law enforcement released last August, said the guidelines acknowledge that dispensaries aren't recognized under California law.

However, the law does recognize medical marijuana cooperatives and collectives, which are nonprofit operations. Grant said cooperatives must file articles of incorporation with the state, and are strictly regulated. Collectives are not defined in state law, and the attorney general suggests they may need to organize like businesses do, such as with licenses or permits.

Coel, borrowing information from the California Police Chiefs Association, said cooperatives and collectives are intended to facilitate and coordinate medical marijuana transactions, and should not buy from or sell to nonmembers. He said there are no local policies for licensing such entities.

The issue of semantics came up several times Tuesday. Supervisor Anthony Farrington asked about the difference in terminology regarding dispensaries, collectives and cooperatives. Coel said what they are called depends on how they were operating.

Differing viewpoints from community

During the public comment period, the board heard from 38 people, from neighbors who didn't want medical marijuana activities taking place near their homes to collective owners to patients who shared their stories of how the drug has helped them.

Neighbors of cultivation operations, such as Paula Vess of Spring Valley, are concerned about the possibility of crime. “The only thing I can tell you is the fear that we live daily with what could happen.”

Clear Lake Riviera resident Linda Tellardin didn't like a dispensary being located in that residential neighborhood, adding that medical marijuana is “not a cure for anything,” a comment that elicited laughter from the audience.

As the statements grew increasingly passionate, Supervisor Rob Brown noted that the issue came down to zoning issues and the law.

“It's apparent to me that we don't have discretion as to whether or not we can allow dispensaries in the county of Lake,” he said.

Supervisor Jeff Smith agreed, explaining that they've put vineyards through similar scrutiny when there were environmental concerns such as being too close to a creek.

Steve Hillman, a medical marijuana patient who deals with extreme pain due to having titanium plates in his neck, asked where he would get his medicine if dispensaries and collectives aren't allowed locally.

Hiram Dukes, president of the Adams Springs Water Co., was concerned about water-intensive growing systems like hydroponics, which he said local wells couldn't support, especially in the current drought situation.

Ronda Mottlow told the board that voters had approved Proposition 215 – California's Compassionate Use Act – in 1996, the state Legislature reaffirmed it with SB 420 and it received further support from the attorney general's guidelines.

“I don't understand what we're trying to accomplish here,” said Mottlow, suggesting that the county was attempting to subvert state law instead of carrying it out.

Without collectives, said Mottlow, many patients will have no safe or reliable access to medication. “This isn't a zoning issue. This is a patient's right to access.”

William Larson, owner of Tree of Life Holistic Healing Center in Lower Lake, said he's located his collective in a business district, has gone to the state several times to ensure he's in compliance with the law and only grows 25 plants on two acres to adhere to the attorney general's guidelines. He invited all of the supervisors as well as some members of the audience concerned about collectives to visit his.

David McCullick, who used to operate D&M Compassion Center in Clearlake before switching over to operating one in Sonoma County where he lives, said people who use those services aren't “degenerate thugs.”

McCullick told the board that they don't need to reinvent the wheel – that other areas are dealing successfully with medical marijuana.

Upper Lake medical marijuana grower Eddy Lepp, who is set to be sentenced next Monday in a federal marijuana case, chastised the board, saying he's attempted to work with the county for 10 years on medical marijuana. “I've bent over backwards to deal with you people.”

He asked the board where in the law it says he's bound to obey their codes, ordinances and guidelines.

Spring Valley resident Phil Gangwer suggested that the county was big enough to find a place where cultivation and distribution could take place, but he said it shouldn't take place in residential areas.

Ron Kiczenski told the board he has been working on medical marijuana litigation for 17 years and rules outside of Proposition 215 “are pretty well meaningless,” because the proposition can't be limited legally.

However, Grant pointed out, “There's no right of Americans that's absolute.”

Thomas Wahl who uses medical marijuana along with his partner, Steven Scott, said he considers ordinances limiting his usage to be sanctions against his property rights, which the supervisors took an oath to uphold. “By God, I want you to adhere to your oath.”

Valerie Adase, who said her eyesight was saved when medical marijuana stopped the progression of her glaucoma, said collectives and cooperatives are necessary. “Our marijuana doesn't magically appear under our pillows every night.”

Clearlake resident Henry Citti credited the drug with saving his life, and said he should be forced to be a criminal. “It's in your hands to make it fair,” he told the board.

Richard Barrett suggested the board should take a tour of local collectives before making a decision.

Sarah Shrader, a community liaison for Americans for Safe Access, said the group has seen a lot of actions by local governments across the state. “We've never heard of dispensaries being forced to close.”

She asked how the county could tell the groups they're out of compliance if there are no laws to adhere to, and added that the creation of ordinances for storefront dispensaries is happening across the state.

Lower Lake attorney Ron Green said he's had many clients over the years who have benefited from medical marijuana. “The marijuana dispensaries are not hurting anyone,” he said.

Board determines what to do next

Board Chair Denise Rushing asked Grant about the board's options. Grant suggested they could look at a licensing and permitting process, and whether they want to allow communal cultivation in agricultural areas.

Brown said he was interested in visiting the collectives, as it had been suggested.

Noting “I'm not up here to please everybody,” Brown said cultivation is a huge issue in residential areas. “If we're going to handle this in a rational way, we have to look at it objectively.”

He said the issue has arisen because of significant abuses, such as a grow within 100 feet of Kelseyville High School.

Farrington, who noted that he supported Proposition 215 as a private citizen, said he knew it was ripe for potential abuse. However, he felt supporting it was the right decision, and he believed the majority of Californians believed the same.

“As board members it's not our job to get between the patient and the physician,” said Farrington, who added that his own mother, who died early last year of cancer, had used medical marijuana for a time to try to try to improve her appetite.

He said he would direct staff to look at what other jurisdictions are doing and try to bring local dispensaries, collectives and cooperatives into compliance so patients have access, a sentiment which drew applause.

Rushing said she also believed people had a right to their medicine, and wanted to visit local collectives. “I believe that this board and this staff is creative enough to come up with something that is consistent with 215,” she said, which is where the work should begin.

She said that the grows that have environmental issues need to be addressed, and the county also needs to determine the dividing line between growing for personal and commercial use. As she and fellow board members begin visiting the collectives, Rushing said she wanted staff to being looking at business rules and Proposition 215 guidelines.

“There's another element to this that we need to consider,” said Brown. “We are a land of laws and we have to abide by them whether we like it or not.”

He said he wanted input from Sheriff Rod Mitchell – who was present throughout the meeting along with Lt. Dave Garzoli – and District Attorney Jon Hopkins.

Mitchell said he felt it was unfair of the board to tell Coel to bring something back for their consideration without more detailed instructions. “If I were sitting in Rick's position I would say what, what do you want me to bring you?”

Rushing suggested that Coel come back with how Sonoma County developed its guidelines.

Mitchell said this will be a new area of consideration for his agency.

He said his office receives calls from people growing medical marijuana in their homes. Sheriff's officials walk in, inspect the setups and walk out. “We're living up to the expectations of California law.”

Brown asked about how he deals with collectives, an area about which Mitchell said he was reticent.

“Anytime cash exchanges hands for a controlled substance that's unlawful on its face is potentially criminal,” he said, noting that his staff would need to look at every individual case.

“I think there's a potential for it being problematic,” he said, adding his recommendations wouldn't be consistent with those from most of the people in the room. How the local ordinances will be enforced will be an issue.

Mitchell said he supported SB 420 – passed by the Legislation in 2003 to, among other things, establish an identification card system and other guidelines – in an attempt to get clarity on medical marijuana law. He said he needs a law he can enforce that's easily understood with no ambiguity, because the lack of clarity has cost his office thousands of staff hours.

“We will work with you to help carry out your board's direction,” he said.

“We don't have clear direction,” said Smith. “We have to make it up as we go along.”

Rushing said the board needs to determine where cooperatives can be, define the circumstances for permits and define collectives. If another jurisdiction already has outlined those issues, they can use those guidelines.

“I support anything that makes it look more like an ABC license, frankly,” said Mitchell, referring to the procedure for alcohol licensing.

Rushing said the board needs to take up distribution and cultivation separately. She said they will be scheduled for further discussion at upcoming meetings.

E-mail Elizabeth Larson at This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. .