The result is that county staff, board members and departments heads are due to sit down and look more closely at the draft ordinance, incorporate public input and come up with a second draft to bring back to the community. That next draft will be posted online at the county's Web site, www.co.lake.ca.us.
However, community members voiced concerns about being involved in that process going forward, saying that input at the meeting wasn't sufficient to address all of their rights.
The Aug. 4 discussion arose out of a May board meeting in which Community Development Department staff asked the board for direction on zoning as it related to dispensaries, collectives and clubs, as Lake County News has reported.
Out of that May discussion came the first draft of proposed zoning rules and use permit regulations for medical marijuana collectives and cooperatives.
Community Development Director Rick Coel said last week that the proposed ordinance is an attempt to address both distribution and cultivation sites.
“As you know this is a complicated issue with strong opinions on both sides,” he said.
He said the proposed rules became necessary because there are at least eight dispensaries – none of which are allowed by the county's current zoning ordinance – within the county's unincorporated areas. His department has received numerous complaints about dispensing activity and cultivation, both large grows and backyard cultivation.
A greater concern is the illegally excavated cultivation sites throughout the county, which Coel said are causing significant environmental damage, and leading to increased sedimentation and possible nutrient loading in Clear Lake.
Coel said the draft ordinance attempts to create a streamlined permitting process that links collectives and cooperatives with their own cultivation sites in a way that is consistent with state guidelines, while providing for safe and affordable access for patients.
Most of the cooperatives and collectives in the county are selling medical marijuana on consignment or outright. County staff doesn't believe that's in line with state Attorney General Jerry Brown's interpretation of the California Compassionate Use, Proposition 215, or the health and safety code, Coel said.
Another goal for the ordinance is to cut out the middle man and prevent medical marijuana costs from being driven up, said Coel.
He said a reasonable grace period should be allowed to get existing operations into compliance.
As his staff crafted the proposed regulations, they looked at what other jurisdictions throughout the state are doing. Coel said 32 cities and eight counties have ordinances that govern establishment of dispensaries, while more than 100 cities and seven counties have ordinances banning medical marijuana dispensaries. He said a “considerable number” of jurisdictions have moratoriums in place on any such activity.
Retired supervisor, attorney offer in-depth input
Retired District 1 Supervisor Ed Robey and Lower Lake attorney Ron Green took to the board a memorandum that was the result of their thorough, point-by-point assessment of the proposed rules. Robey said they wanted to help the board make the best public policy decision.
He suggested that cultivation and dispensing deserved separate areas of focus.
“They're both very different activities,” he said. “They have different land use implications. There's a lot of different issues involved in them.”
Green emphasized that dispensaries should be accessible, and patients shouldn't have to venture to the county's far corners to get their medicine.
He also questioned one of the ordinance's points, which suggested that all members of local cooperatives or collectives should be county residents. Green said there is nothing in California law or the attorney general's guidelines that restricts membership of cooperatives or collectives to a single county. “It appears unnecessary and unconstitutional, in fact,” Green said.
Referencing a Butte County appellate case in which a small, seven-person collective had its plants seized, Green explained that there is a difference between cultivation collectives, which specifically grow marijuana for medical use, and dispensary collectives, which only distribute and have no cultivation operation.
Based on the distinction between cultivation collectives and dispensary collectives, Green and Robey proposed the ordinance be split in two, which they pointed out had been the board's original intention, according to minutes from its May 12 meeting. Green said the current ordinance doesn't even take dispensary collectives into account because they don't have grow sites.
Board Chair Denise Rushing said she visited the four collective and cooperative store fronts in District 3, and when she asked the source of their marijuana, she said all of them identified their primary source as excess marijuana grown by members.
“The biggest problem you have is these illegal, large agricultural operations, these big cultivation sites, that are not regulated, there's no erosion control, they're too close to residential areas,” Robey said. “If I were making a suggestion I'd say tackle the cultivation part of it first.”
He agreed with a suggestion he'd previously heard about using the same rules to regulate the large cultivation sites as are used for vineyards.
Supervisor Rob Brown called the draft ordinance a beginning point.
While the marijuana crop for this year already has been grown, he was concerned that new dispensaries are opening up currently when there is no allowance for them in local ordinances yet.
One such place is opening on Cobb, he said. “The people who live up on Cobb are going crazy over that. They don't want it up there. And they want us, they expect us to do something,” he said.
Supervisor Jeff Smith said he wanted to see both cultivation and dispensing addressed. In the mean time, if outdoor grows are the subject of violations, the rules need to be enforced. “If it was a vineyard we'd be all over 'em right now.”
Coel said it would help if they could apply agricultural standards to the larger cultivation sites. There currently are 10 to 12 “pretty bad violation sites” the county is trying to address, he said.
“I don't care whether it's marijuana, tomatoes or corn – the grading ordinance has to be enforced,” said Supervisor Jim Comstock. He agreed, however, that dealing with dispensaries is an immediate need.
Rushing said both dispensing and cultivation are issues in District 3, where she is getting complaints about large grows, with residents concerned about the “criminal element” being drawn as a result.
Patients, advocates point out ordinance problems
David McCulloch, who runs a dispensary in Santa Rosa and formerly had D&M Compassion Center in Clearlake, told the board that its immediate concern should be dispensaries.
He said the county was putting two ordinances into one. “I'm really surprised at the lack of attention you placed on dispensaries themselves.”
Rushing asked him to point out specific areas that need work. McCulloch replied by taking issue with a requirement to provide member records to the sheriff upon request. Those records are private and confidential, said McCulloch. “You're going to be in court forever over that.”
He further pointed out problems with the ordinance's prohibition against growing outdoors on a parcel smaller than one acre in size, as well as the 10-acre minimum for a small collective.
He urged the board not to reinvent the wheel, and to look at Sonoma County, which has separate cultivation and distribution ordinances.
Attorney Bill McPike said there is probably nothing more confusing than medical marijuana laws.
Emphasizing that growing medical marijuana is a protected civil right in California, McPike explained that by legal definition the state doesn't have such a thing as a dispensary.
Looking at Attorney General Brown's guidelines, Rushing said the way the county envisioned the connection between grow sites and dispensaries “isn't exactly how it works.”
McPike suggested they look at collectives more as providing services and not sales. They could also be compared to a produce broker or farmers market. Collectives essentially facilitate transactions between members, he said.
During public comment, Martin Squire told the board that regardless of the county's policy, “the complaints won't stop,” and he suggested they create a complaint department. Squire added that the federal government's war on drugs is over.
Clearlake Oaks resident Ronda Mottlow said the proposed ordinance severely limits and restricts the access of patients and caregivers to medical marijuana through zoning amendments, which she said isn't in keeping with the spirit of Proposition 215 or SB 420, which offered further guidance on medical marijuana.
The county's health department, Mottlow suggested, is better suited to helping regulate collectives and cooperatives, including dealing with issues like record maintenance. Law enforcement's involvement should be restricted.
“There's no evidence that a well-run collective leads to crime. It's unfair to stigmatize legal patients by treating their collective like a criminal or a nuisance activity,” she said.
Restricting private land usage is a form of eminent domain, Mottlow suggested, and the county would need to address eminent domain procedures in trying to enforce the ordinance.
Thomas Wahl, who along with his partner uses medical marijuana, told the board, “It's really important that you recognize the rights of individual patients.”
Wahl said the federal government has created a black market that charges patients high prices, damages public lands and creates underground, untaxed business activity. He said sick people are being used as a political football.
Spring Valley resident Paula Vess said she and her husband live next to an eight-acre property where a large cultivation operation – which supplies the Northern California Collective and Vapor Lounge in Lower Lake – is going on next to a creek. She said she and her husband have been subject to ongoing harassment, which has had a devastating impact on their lives.
Vess said she doesn't want to take away medical marijuana. “I just don't think this is a normal way to live, and I can't imagine any of you would want to live like this, I really don't.”
Jim O'Dell, who said he grows six medical marijuana plants on his deck, said Vess' neighbors should be reprimanded for their behavior. But he was adamant that the proposed ordinance's requirements for cultivation site parcel sizes was “economic discrimination,” since many people can't afford to buy large parcels.
Will Larson, operator of Lower Lake's Tree of Life Holistic Healing Center, said he sympathized with Vess. He said the most sincere people in the medical marijuana community were at the hearing, and they want to get along with their neighbors.
Board decides next steps
Supervisor Anthony Farrington said the county needed to act swiftly relating to dispensaries, but in the spirit of Proposition 215 they needed to protect individuals' right to grow medical marijuana while addressing concerns by neighboring property owners.
Smith suggested involving Robey and Green, and he agreed about splitting the ordinance in two.
Rushing said the issue is more complex than she anticipated, although she felt they were close on some aspects of the ordinance.
Brown said the easiest thing would be to do nothing and act like the issue is going to go away. “That's not going to happen.”
He said he wanted to see the county's health department, the sheriff, district attorney, agricultural commission, air quality and planning all be involved in looking at the proposed regulations. Brown also wanted to see a moratorium on dispensaries until rules are put in place.
Farrington urged Robey to join the group, suggesting his land use perspective and advocate interest would balance the committee.
“Well, if you're going that way, I”ll do it,” said Robey, which received applause from the audience. During the meeting Green also agreed to work with the group.
Mottlow suggested having Americans for Safe Access be involved, since they've helped other communities craft rules.
Rushing wanted to put together a working group to pull together the best public policy they can. Smith said they were making it more complicated than they needed to, and that they had already indicated a group of people they wanted to look at the regulations.
Mottlow said the public portion of the meeting wasn't adequate to represent the public's concerns. She said the grading ordinance had public input; Rushing pointed out that process took three years.
Smith said they should take the information presented to them, and take another run at a new ordinance draft, which the public could then review.
Robey cautioned that a large committee can result in it taking forever to put together a document. He suggested the county might want to do separate workshops on dispensaries and cultivation issues.
The board ended by agreeing to give staff direction to come back with a revised ordinance that incorporated the suggestions offered at the meeting, which the public will again have the chance to consider and discuss.
E-mail Elizabeth Larson at
How to resolve AdBlock issue? 
