LAKEPORT, Calif. – Wanting to create an ordinance that would be workable and defensible from legal challenges, the Lakeport City Council on Tuesday voted unanimously to send a staff-written draft medical marijuana cultivation ordinance back to a committee whose membership will be expanded to include community members and stakeholders.
The proposed ordinance would have prohibited outdoor cultivation and required all marijuana growing to take place in outdoor accessory structures.
Council members felt the proposed ordinance would open the city to legal challenges, was too limiting and would make growing financially out of the reach of many medical marijuana patients.
City Attorney Steve Brookes was absent for the discussion due to attending a training, so Healdsburg City Attorney Michael Gogna sat in on the meeting to answer the council's legal questions, and Lakeport Police Chief Brad Rasmussen presented the draft document.
The draft ordinance and staff report begin on page 42 of the council agenda packet, posted below.
Rasmussen said that the city has received numerous complaints about medical marijuana cultivation over the last several years.
In 2007 the council passed an ordinance banning all cultivation in the city limits. However, Rasmussen explained, “That ordinance has not proven to be effective, we have not been able to enforce it,” and the city is concerned about potential liability.
Staff asked the council to consider sending the draft ordinance on to the Lakeport Planning Commission to determine if it conformed with the city's general plan.
Councilman Kenny Parlet asked Rasmussen if he felt the draft ordinance would work, and Rasmussen said he did. “I think you have to look at your community and see if it works within that community,” Rasmussen said.
Parlet asked if Rasmussen felt it was the best starting point. “I do, yes,” said Rasmussen, who had assisted with drafting it.
Lower Lake attorney Ron Green, representing the Emerald Unity Coalition – a group that includes Americans for Safe Access, United Food and Commercial Workers Union, Lake County Green Farmers, California NORML, the Emerald Growers Association and others – called the proposed ordinance “a total ban on cultivation,” adding it was unconstitutional.
He warned the council that they could face expensive litigation, and said Americans for Safe Access was seriously considering suing Lakeport if the council passed the ordinance.
Green suggested they should create a representative committee to create a better ordinance.
City resident Howard Holtz called the proposed ordinance “de facto prohibition.”
Going point by point through his specific areas of concern, Holtz said the city was putting patients at higher risk of theft and violating personal property rights by requiring they sign up for inspections and building permits. He said the document discriminated against growers due to odor issues, and unreasonably limited power wattage and areas of the city where marijuana can be grown.
City resident Bob Bridges, who also is senior deputy county counsel for the county of Lake, told the council, “I have a little different perspective on this ordinance than the last two speakers.”
He continued, “I've reviewed your ordinance very carefully. It has excellent findings. It's well drafted.”
Bridges, who has defended the county's medical marijuana cultivation ordinance in court, said his main concern was over the vested rights theory, which has been a problem for the county in enforcing its ordinance during the first year.
He said if it takes two to three months for the city to finalize its ordinance, they will find people already getting started with their grows, which could give them legal footing to continue their activity under the vested rights argument.
Bridges said the crop “is something we really don't need in our neighborhoods,” and reminded the council that the 1996 Compassionate Use Act that allowed medical marijuana does not paralyze the city's police powers.
He said Tehama County has an ordinance similar to the one proposed by the city, and it has survived a challenge in Tehama County Superior Court and is now moving up to the appellate court.
“I wouldn't let Mr. Green's argument scare you off,” he said.
Kim Beall, who owns a child care facility, questioned if her facility would have the 300-foot setback from grows applicable to schools, playgrounds and other places where children congregate, based on the ordinance's language. Staff said yes.
She said she didn't care if people wanted to use marijuana, but added that she doesn't like being overwhelmed by the smell in her backyard.
She said some people “are getting out of hand” with growing, which is why the ordinance has resulted.
Beall said she didn't think growers would like any ordinance the city created. “I don't think it's fair to the people who are in Lakeport and really don't want to be around it.”
Rasmussen said the proposed ordinance was meant to deal with situations such as one home in the city where 160 plants are being grown indoors and neighbors are complaining.
“One hundred and 60 plants, in my professional opinion, is unreasonable and it creates the neighborhood nuisance complaints that we're dealing with on a regular basis,” Rasmussen said.
That nuisance grow, he said, is for medical purposes, and there is nothing he can do to address it other than through measures offered in city building codes, which don't offer an easy process.
Planning Services Manager Andrew Britton added that the city's formal nuisance procedure is cumbersome and takes a lot of time.
Councilman Martin Scheel asked Green and Holtz for their best ideas about how many plants are needed to meet patient needs. Green said case law allowed individuals to grow as much as they need for their personal use and collectives to grow as much as they need for collective use. He said more plants are needed when growing indoors.
“There's no real answer to your question except that it varies greatly,” Green said.
Scheel asked how the city would deal with nuisance odors, questioning if a new administrative citation process – which had its first reading Tuesday night – would be enough. Rasmussen didn't think it would be. “We need a reasonable marijuana cultivation ordinance,” Rasmussen said.
Parlet said he was worried about the potential for the city being taken to court over an ordinance, but added, “I don't think we have enough laws to do what we need to do here.”
He said there was the potential for the ordinance to become “this battle where you can't win.”
Parlet and his fellow council members agreed it would be good to get the input of stakeholders.
Gogna told the council that the decision, ultimately, was up to them. He pointed to the policy challenges, noting that the courts haven't been able to strike the right balance between medical marijuana users' rights and the associated nuisances.
He suggested council members focus their discussion on finding the right policy balance, “recognizing you're not going to strike it.”
Scheel said one of his big concerns was that the ordinance, as written, was so restrictive that it only afforded those with a lot of money the ability to grow. “I really believe this is cost prohibitive unless you have substantial financial means.”
He said that marijuana grows have caused nuisances in his neighborhood, too. “It is not pleasant in the summertime to be in my backyard.”
However, Scheel said the bottom line is that the city needed to make sure that those who need medical marijuana have access to it.
Parlet said they needed to take their time and come up with a good ordinance.
Engstrom told the audience that he hoped they were getting the feeling that the council listens and that its members hadn't come to the meeting with their minds made up, but instead were trying to meet the needs of medical marijuana users.
Councilmember Stacey Mattina moved to send the draft ordinance back to the city committee, the new version of which will be composed of two council members, two stakeholders, two community members and necessary staff. Beall and Holtz both volunteered to serve on the committee.
The council vote on Mattina's motion was 5-0.
Separately, the council decided not to pursue an interim ordinance, but to devote time to creating permanent regulations. They were concerned that rushing into an interim ordinance could expose them to legal problems, which Gogna confirmed could happen.
Gogna also offered an alternative method of dealing with nuisances.
He said those experiencing excessive odor and vandalism as a result of grows can seek remedies in small claims court on an individual basis.
Gogna said a group of community members in Santa Rosa targeted drug houses and got repeated judgments. In the case of one property, those judgments totaled about $80,000.
“Those kinds of self-help actions get the attention of property owners,” he said.
Gogna told the council that community members “don't have to wait for you to take action to take their own action.”
Email Elizabeth Larson at This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. . Follow her on Twitter, @ERLarson, or Lake County News, @LakeCoNews.
Lakeport City Council agenda packet, Feb. 5, 2013 by LakeCoNews