Local Government

LAKE COUNTY, Calif. – Thousands of utility customers around California are asking not to have wireless SmartMeters, although so far the total number is far less than anticipated in an opt-out plan accepted earlier this month.

On Feb. 1 the California Public Utilities Commission approved a proposal allowing Pacific Gas & Electric Co. customers throughout California to opt out of having wireless SmartMeters, including being able to retain analog meters, as Lake County News has reported.

When that decision was made, PG&E had installed nine million of the wireless meters around the state, and had 900,000 meters yet to install.

At the same time, 31,000 of the 40,000 electric meters in Lake County had been replaced with SmartMeters, PG&E said.

The Lake County Board of Supervisors and the cities of Lakeport and Clearlake all passed temporary moratoriums on SmartMeter installations last year in response to public concerns.

PG&E spokesperson Brandi Ehlers told Lake County News that the company is tracking the number of customers who choose to opt out of the program.

As of this month, 4,400 customers systemwide had asked to opt out, said Ehlers.

Of that number, 150 customers in Lake County had opted out, she said.

That’s far less than the 148,500 customers PG&E used as a basis to estimate the costs of running the opt-out program.

Based on that number of customers not taking part in the program, PG&E – in its filing with the CPUC – said it would cost $113.4 million for 2012 and 2013 to implement the opt-out program.

Customers wanting not to have the meters, however, must pay one-time and ongoing fees to participate in the program, based on the proposal the CPUC accepted.

For low-income customers, they must pay a one-time fee of $10 and $5 a month. Other customers must pay a one-time fee of $75, and monthly fees of $10, according to the opt-out plan parameters.

For customers who are on the installation delay list, PG&E is asking them to opt out by May 1.

For more information about the opt-out program, and to ask not to participate, visit http://www.pge.com/myhome/customerservice/smartmeter/optout/.

E-mail Elizabeth Larson at This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. . Follow Lake County News on Twitter at http://twitter.com/LakeCoNews, on Tumblr at www.lakeconews.tumblr.com, on Google+, on Facebook at www.facebook.com/pages/Lake-County-News/143156775604?ref=mf and on YouTube at www.youtube.com/user/LakeCoNews .

CLEARLAKE, Calif. – Clearlake’s new police chief was selected to attend a national training on leadership and management for rural law enforcement.

Craig Clausen – who the Clearlake City Council decided last week to appoint to the Clearlake Police chief’s job on a permanent basis – was among 30 law enforcement executives from across the United States chosen to participate in the ninth annual “Leading by Legacy” training, hosted by the International Association of Chiefs of Police.

The association reported that the training’s goal was to enhance the leadership and management skill set of each participant and provide strategies to promote leadership development within their own agency.

Such strategies lead to agency stability and delivery of quality services to the community each participant services, the association said.

During the two and a half day training – which took place over the weekend and concluded Monday in Phoenix, Ariz. – Clausen and the other selected participants explored leadership and management issues on motivation, managing change, succession planning and engaging the community, among other topics.

The training also considered accountability and included an exchange of ideas regarding current law enforcement leadership challenges and concerns.

Clausen and his fellow participants in the training engaged in developing action plans in order to adopt new strategies for proactive implementation of leadership strategies when they return to their departments.

Expenses for participants to attend the Leading by Legacy training were covered under a grant to the International Association of Chiefs of Police from the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act through the Bureau of Justice Assistance, U.S. Department of Justice.
                  
Follow Lake County News on Twitter at http://twitter.com/LakeCoNews, on Tumblr at www.lakeconews.tumblr.com, on Google+, on Facebook at www.facebook.com/pages/Lake-County-News/143156775604?ref=mf and on YouTube at www.youtube.com/user/LakeCoNews .

LAKEPORT, Calif. – The Lakeport City Council has called a special meeting for Tuesday, Feb. 28, to discuss a contract award.

The meeting will begin at 4:30 p.m. in the council chambers at Lakeport City Hall, 225 Park St.

The council will discuss awarding a contract for the design of U.S. Department of Agriculture Rural Development projects.

CLEARLAKE, Calif. – The Clearlake City Council on Thursday night reached consensus to appoint the city’s interim police chief to the job permanently, a decision that came after a sometimes heated session in which some council members clashed.

Craig Clausen, a 16-year veteran of the department who has held the job since the start of 2011 following the retirement of Chief Allan McClain, received the support of a majority of the council, as well as a large segment of those who came to witness the hour-and-a-half-long discussion.

The council also directed interim City Administrator Joan Phillipe to begin the process of negotiating a contract with Clausen.

But the decision was far from easy, and the council was not united.

Mayor Joey Luiz, Council member Judy Thein and Councilman Curt Giambruno were firmly supportive of giving Clausen the job, while Council member Joyce Overton and Vice Mayor Jeri Spittler preferred an open recruitment.

Spittler, in particular, disagreed with giving Clausen the job permanently, and at various points in the meeting she argued both with Clausen and Luiz.

Community members who supported Clausen lauded him for weathering a difficult year, but still managing to raise morale, expanding programs with creativity and not cash, suffeing through “political throw downs” and traumatic events – such as the mass shooting last summer that killed toddler Skyler Rapp – and gaining the full support of his staff.

Opponents found flaws in the department, wanting an outside choice to bring the kind of change that they didn’t feel Clausen had accomplished.

Longtime Clearlake resident and retired sheriff’s lieutenant Carl Webb told the council, “Peace  officers rarely take this on as a job. It's a career for them.”

He supported Clausen’s selection, explaining that if the council wasn’t willing to look within, it would send the wrong message to young officers now working their way up through the ranks.

Shirley Howland wanted the council to go out to recruitment, which she said had been used previously. She said Clausen could still apply for the job “just like everybody else.”

Chuck Leonard, a former councilman, questioned why they should go outside of the city if they were happy with what they had. “I think the only ones I hear complaining about the police department have been arrested or their family and friends have been arrested.”

Bob Malley, another former councilman, three time mayor and former deputy sheriff, said Clausen’s efforts – including opening up more community conversations through social media and beginning a community patrol – is bringing to fruition things the council had requested of the agency.

If the council wanted to recruit, Malley said, then it should have started six months ago.

Officer Ryan Peterson read a letter from the Clearlake Police Officers Association asking the council to give Clausen the job permanently.

The association pointed out that Clausen has maintained the department in the face of budgetary challenges and personnel shortages, worked to get a school resource officer for Konocti Unified and started a community policing program.

Overton, who called the matter “a very stressful thing,” said, “This is one of the best police departments we’ve had ever since I’ve been here.”

She said she felt it was important that officers respected their boss, and that Clausen had done a good job as interim chief.

Thein said Clausen was “homegrown,” having been raised in the county and staying to make his life and career here. “This is not a stepping stone for him. His whole life is Lake County.”

Thein, who has been through previous open recruitments, said they haven’t always been successful. When it came to hiring McClain the city spent well over $80,000 to hire, and had to end up raising its pay scale in order to attract applicants with appropriate experience and skills.

She pointed out that the city of Lakeport hired its new chief, Brad Rasmussen, last year from within, and that Konocti Unified Superintendent Dr. Bill MacDougall also worked his way up in the district.

“We can do the same thing here with Craig,” said Thein, who noted that he best embodied what she was looking for in a police chief.

Spittler said she supported the police department, and insisted that she had no personal agenda in her desire for an open recruitment.

“I don’t understand the blinders,” she said, referring to the choice to appoint Clausen, who she said could apply for the job.

Referring to recent performance evaluations of Clausen – which had been mentioned earlier in the meeting – Spittler said, “I wish the walls had eyes,” adding she wished sometimes that such discussions weren’t in closed session.

At that point Clausen said something quietly that wasn’t audible to the audience, causing Spittler to accuse him of threatening her. Clausen, in turn, referenced government code about disclosure of closed session matters. Luiz banged the gavel and to the two not to interact.

Giambruno recalled that when interim Police Chief Larry Todd helped the city recruit McClain, he had told the council that in four or five years, when they needed another chief, they needed only to look within the department, as Clausen would be the most qualified to take over.

In Giambruno’s assessment, Todd was right on target, and he wanted to appoint Clausen immediately.

A divisive process

Luiz spoke at length about his support of Clausen, and his concerns over the divisiveness of the process, bullying communications he received from opponents of the appointment, and the heightened rhetoric and emotion around the police chief’s selection.

He said the decision, for him, was mainly about public safety. “It can’t be guided by a personal opinion and it’s beyond even the evaluation of one man. It’s a decision that need s lot of reason, consideration and examination.”

Over the past year Luiz has spent more than 100 hours riding with Clearlake Police officers as they make their rounds of the city. With the majority of the city’s funds going toward the police department, Luiz said he wanted to better understand how the agency worked.

As he had at a recent meeting, Luiz lauded the department for being accepting, and said he didn’t want to harm the morale of the department’s officers.

“My decision here is going to be based on fact,” he said, detailing Clausen’s long history of service, his proactive work on community oriented policing, hiring of new officers, improving of morale, and how his department hunted and apprehended all suspects in “one of the most brutal and heartbreaking crimes in the city’s history,” referring to the Skyler Rapp murder.

When the sheriff’s office drug its feet on a school resource officer, Clausen stepped in, said Luiz. He raised concerns about hundreds of felons coming back onto the streets due to correctional realignment, noting that in the face of those circumstances the city needed experience and stability.

Luiz said he didn’t want to see the city go backwards, and that for the first time he saw a light on the horizon for the city, a chance to have a steady course and no longer be in transition.

“I will not support going out, and I will not support approving any other contract but that of Craig Clausen,” said Luiz, receiving a round of applause.

Spittler maintained that they should look outside the city. “I am asking for an open recruitment. I think it would serve my city the best.”

Overton asked about doing a new background on Clausen, which Phillipe said the council could direct her to do. Luiz didn’t support such a step, which was done when Clausen was hired.

Thein also didn’t want to prolong the matter. “We’ve beat this to death.”

Luiz agreed, saying that he wasn’t willing to put Clausen or the council through that process. “For me that’s not intelligent government,” he said, adding, “I do not want to play the game anymore.”

Spittler wanted to continue questioning Clausen about what she said was a threat against her earlier in the meeting, which angered members of the audience.

“Really, Vice Mayor Spittler,” said Luiz, telling Spittler that she had been warned both by Clausen and himself because she went off topic.

Phillipe said she will sit down with Clausen and begin discussing points of a proposed contract, which she will bring to the council in a future closed session for fine tuning. The final contract, Phillipe said, must eventually be approved in an open council meeting.

E-mail Elizabeth Larson at This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. . Follow Lake County News on Twitter at http://twitter.com/LakeCoNews, on Tumblr at www.lakeconews.tumblr.com, on Google+, on Facebook at www.facebook.com/pages/Lake-County-News/143156775604?ref=mf and on YouTube at www.youtube.com/user/LakeCoNews .

LAKEPORT, Calif. – The Board of Supervisors voted Tuesday to place a proposed marijuana cultivation initiative on the ballot this June rather than adopt it as a county ordinance, as board members pointed out that the document needed changes that they would have no latitude to make.

During Tuesday’s discussion, it was explained that because the Lake County Medical Marijuana Cultivation Act of 2012 has followed the initiative process, the board – and even the initiative’s proponents – cannot make changes to the document now, but would need to go out to the voters every time modifications were necessary.

Registrar of Voters Diane Fridley told the board it costs $12,000 just to consolidate such votes into other elections.

County department heads also pointed out in their reports and at the meeting that the initiative conflicts with county laws, and contains a clause that would allow it to override existing county regulations.

The proposed initiative allows qualified patients, primary caregivers, collectives and dispensaries to grow up to 12 plants on parcels of a half-acre or less or 24 plants on a half acre or more in residential districts, and up to 84 plants on parcels seven acres or more.

Supervisor Denise Rushing suggested that the county should use the proposed initiative as the basis for a new ordinance, make the necessary changes and attempt to have it finished by the summer.

One of the main points of concern related to the initiative invocation of the Lake County Right to Farm Ordinance, which is meant to protect commercial farming.

Senior Deputy County Counsel Bob Bridges had stated in his report to the board that the conflicts between the Right to Farm Ordinance’s intent and the initiative could result in federal scrutiny and possible action against the county.

Don Merrill, spokesman for the Lake County Green Farmers and Lake County Citizens for Responsible Regulation – the initiative’s proponents – told the board that home invasions don’t just occur because of marijuana, pointing out that his home was hit in 2008 for a coin collection.

He argued that it wasn’t accurate, as stated in department head reports, that marijuana has never been an agricultural crop.

Merrill also asked the board to adopt the initiative as an ordinance ahead of growing season, as now there are no limits and both sides are asking for regulations.

“We’re locked into something with a lot of flaws in it,” said Rushing, explaining that the county needed more flexibility to make a better ordinance.

Merrill said the initiative’s proponents stand ready to support changes after it’s passed. But board members pointed out it would need to go to a countywide vote of the citizens, which would be a lengthy process.

“That’s the problem with it,” said Board Chair Rob Brown.

Craig Shannon, Lake County Farm Bureau president, told the supervisors that the Farm Bureau board was taking a position against the initiative.

He said federal law continues to classify marijuana as an illegal substance, and it therefore has not been recognized or regulated by the U.S. Department of Agriculture or the California Department of Food and Agriculture.

Shannon said the Lake County Farm Bureau was not in favor of any crop being added to local agriculture until it’s recognized by those agencies and subjected to the same taxation rules as other crops.

Community Development Director Rick Coel said that the initiative would be “worse than the status quo,” as it would conflict with county zoning laws, including allowing for cultivation on vacant parcels and grows with no buffers.

“There are abilities now to at least slow down the illegal operations that are occurring,” he said.

Coel added, “This ordinance could create additional land use conflicts that we do have some limited control over at this time.”

Rushing asked Coel if county law would prevail if it conflicted with the initiative. Coel said no, that it contains a provision that makes it prevail over county law.

“I think we’re going to have an increase in land use conflicts throughout the county,” Coel said.

Lower Lake resident Victoria Brandon, who was a member of the committee that wrote the Lake County General Plan Land Use Element, called the situation “a lost opportunity,” and said the proposed initiative has a lot of flaws.

She suggested the Lake County Green Farmers should have based the initiative on the county’s agriculture planning element, not the Right to Farm Ordinance, which would have minimized the conflict.

Brandon believed that both the county ordinance and the Lake County Green Farmers’ initiative were written when “only one side of the issue was at the table at that time.”

She called the proposed initiative a “nuclear option.”

A better process would have been to follow the one used in creating the county’s grading ordinance several years ago, Brandon said. That included many people from different perspectives who sat down together and worked it out.

Brandon said regulation is needed of the “very high value crop,” and if the ordinance is voted down, she said the county could produce something workable. She suggested the board put it to a vote of the people.

County Agriculture Commissioner Steve Hajik also asked the board not to approve the ordinance, but to let it go to a vote. He said it would be crossways with federal, state and county law, and also pointed out conflicts with the Right to Farm Ordinance.

Lower Lake attorney Ron Green, who was reportedly involved with crafting the initiative, argued that there were minor problems – “if any” – with it and urged the board to accept it in time for growing season.

“It’s certainly better than nothing,” he said. “There might be a couple of holes in it, but those can be fixed.”

He said the ordinance would give the county tools to deal with huge grows in residential areas, and even on the largest acreage would limit grow size to 84 plants.

Green said it’s a land use ordinance. “If there are bugs in this ordinance that will become apparent in this growing season,” he said, and amendments could be placed on the November or June 2013 ballots.

He said he felt that all of the department heads had watched “Reefer Madness” before sitting down to write their reports, and called concerns such as those raised by Sheriff Frank Rivero about lack of criminal penalties “nonsense.”

Farrington said he felt the board was overthinking the matter, and that it should put it on the ballot.

“We can’t predict what the voters are going to do,” but Farrington didn’t feel that the $12,000 cost per ballot amendment was expensive, pointing out the county spends more on other things.

Supervisor Jeff Smith moved to put the issue on the June 5 ballot, which the board voted to approve 5-0.

E-mail Elizabeth Larson at This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. . Follow Lake County News on Twitter at http://twitter.com/LakeCoNews, on Tumblr at www.lakeconews.tumblr.com, on Google+, on Facebook at www.facebook.com/pages/Lake-County-News/143156775604?ref=mf and on YouTube at www.youtube.com/user/LakeCoNews .

LAKE COUNTY, Calif. – As it prepared to discuss placing a proposed marijuana cultivation initiative on the June 5 ballot, the Board of Supervisors on Tuesday had a considerable number of comments and reports to consider.

The board voted 5-0 to place the Lake County Medical Marijuana Cultivation Act of 2012 on the June Ballot.

The proposed initiative allows qualified patients, primary caregivers, collectives and dispensaries to grow up to 12 plants on parcels of a half-acre or less or 24 plants on a half acre or more in residential districts, and up to 84 plans on parcels seven acres or more.

Lake County Citizens for Responsible Regulations and Lake County Green Farmers Association are behind the effort to get the initiative on the ballot.

Previously, they also collected signatures for a referendum on the county’s marijuana cultivation ordinance, passed last fall. The board rescinded that ordinance last month, as Lake County News has reported.

For Tuesday’s meeting, the board had several new documents submitted for the initiative issue, including additional letters from county department heads, the Lake County Farm Bureau, homeowners and the Lake County Association of Realtors.

Previously they had received reports from the County Counsel’s Office, Probation Department and Community Development Department

Linda Beil, a Lake Pillsbury homeowner, submitted her concerns to the board, explaining that she and fellow homeowners felt marijuana cultivation had no place in their subdivision, where it is threatening “our safety, out water supply, our environment.”

Beil reported that one grower is cutting down old growth trees in order to expand cultivation and that homeowners fear retaliation for speaking out.

The Realtors association said they’re concerned about property rights and infringements, and that growing marijuana falls into the nuisance category due to its offensive odor, the fact that it attracts crime such as home invasion robberies and damage done to residential units lowers property values.

Unlike the county’s ordinance, the proposed initiative does not require tenants to disclose grows to landlords, and the association said that could expose landlords to property seizure by the federal government. The group also is concerned that Realtors could be targeted for prosecution if their clients are involved in growing activities.

Among the department heads weighing in were County Administrative Officer Kelly Cox and Debra Sommerfield, deputy county administrative officer for economic development.

The memorandum to the board Cox and Sommerfield submitted suggested that the initiative’s passage would “negatively influence the perception of Lake County in the eyes of current visitor types, and potentially contribute to a decline in family-oriented travel to Lake County,” while also attracting “other types of visitors.”

They also raised concerns about the impact on agriculture and downstream runoff affected by herbicides, fertilizers and other chemicals.

Lake County Air Quality Management District Air Pollution Control Officer Doug Gearhart said the primary issue for his agency is nuisance odors from the plants. High sensitivity in some people can lead to medical issues.

“Air Districts statewide are discussing the issue of nuisance odor from medical marijuana growing operations, and several other Air Districts in the state already have on-the-ground experience trying to deal with odors,” he wrote. “Reports indicate significant resource expenditure with very little benefit to reducing nuisance odors and no clear path forward to prevent future nuisance conditions.”

He said very little can be done to an established grow site to mitigate odors, and the Lake County Air Quality Management District is restricted in its response by its federal mandates.

“Anything short of removal of the nuisance-causing plants could be considered a violation of our Federal mandates, placing the LCAQMD and staff at risk,” he said.

Staff safety in such investigations also would be a concern, he said.

If the Board of Supervisors directs his agency to implement a program related to marijuana, “It is likely to have a significant fiscal impact on the LCAQMD and the County,” Gearhart concluded.

District Attorney Don Anderson said he could not take a position on the document, which he said addresses land use and does not establish criminal penalties, and therefore would not have a fiscal impact on his office or give him prosecutorial authority.

“This office can not take a position on whether or not this ordinance would be beneficial or detrimental to the county,” Anderson wrote.

Sheriff Frank Rivero came out against the initiative. In his analysis, Rivero noted that the proposed plant quantities “far exceed the accepted legitimate medical needs of an average individual patient.”

He said the document also fails to set penalties for violations, and he argues that the initiative – which he does not believe could withstand judicial scrutiny – would prevent criminal prosecutions for the cultivation of an unlimited number of plants and interfere with his agency’s authority to even investigate such complaints.

“It’s worth reiterating at this point that the basic and undisputed tenets of California jurisprudence dictates that local ordinances cannot run contrary to state laws and survive judicial reviews,” Rivero’s letter to the board stated.

He added, “I supported the previous ordinances recently passed and subsequently rescinded by the Board providing legitimate medical marijuana patients safe access. But, for the reasons outlined in this document, I believe the ordinance now before the Board conflicts with the best interests of Lake County’s residents.”

Proponents respond

Lake County Citizens for Responsible Regulations submitted comments on each of the department reports Monday night.

The group countered the department heads’ findings, arguing that they failed to acknowledge “the current and longtime financial benefits to the county of responsible cannabis cultivation,” don’t give justifications for some of their statements and confused land use provisions.

The group’s response also suggested that, “Given the economy, the price of gas, and the algae problem in Clear Lake, traditional tourism is likely to continue to decline. It is time for the county to reverse its policy, allow dispensaries around the lake, and promote cannabis tourism.”

Regarding concerns about the Right to Farm Ordinance, the group suggested that common sense dictates that cannabis “is a plant and an agricultural crop, just like corn, grapes and tobacco, federal law notwithstanding. Since medical cannabis is a legal agricultural (cultivated and farmed) crop in California, it should be entitled to the same protects under the Right to Farm Ordinance as any other agricultural crop.”

Further, the group objected to county counsel’s analysis that the Right to Farm Ordinance only applies to agricultural activities conducted for commercial purposes, and offer a broader definition.

“That being said, the large collective gardens are generally commercial operations, with the primary grower being paid an income from the other collective members for his or her efforts. There is a legal distinction between making an income and making a ‘profit,’” the group contended, adding that California law does not prevent a cannabis provider from making a profit, “despite a widespread misperception to the contrary.”

The matter, ultimately, may be left up to the California Supreme Court to decide, but in the mean time the group quoted a Feb. 7 letter from retired state Sen. John Vasconcellos, a member of the Medical Marijuana Task Force that drafted SB 420, “The Medical Marijuana Program Act of 2003.”

Vasconcellos said that the bill’s language neither prohibits nor explicitly authorizes profit, and was carefully worded to accommodate differing opinions of task force members, some of whom wanted to outlaw profit and others who did not.

Vasconcellos’ letter said nobody is required to obtain authorization from the state Legislature to make a profit, adding, “The language does not in any respect purport to prohibit profit – if that had been the intent, the language would have so stated clearly. It obviously does no such thing.”

He said a similar section governing collectives and cooperatives also is silent on the profit issue.

Regarding issues brought up by Community Development, Water Resources and other departments about impacts on neighbors, water sources, use of fertilizers and pesticides, and overall impact quality of life, the group said that the ordinance would limit grow sizes, thereby addressing those concerns.

All of the documents are posted below.

E-mail Elizabeth Larson at This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. . Follow Lake County News on Twitter at http://twitter.com/LakeCoNews, on Tumblr at www.lakeconews.tumblr.com, on Google+, on Facebook at www.facebook.com/pages/Lake-County-News/143156775604?ref=mf and on YouTube at www.youtube.com/user/LakeCoNews .


022112 Board of Supervisors - Marijuana Initiative Analysis022112 BOS - Additional Marijuana Initiative Reports110411 Lake County Marijuana Cultivation Initiative

LCNews

Award winning journalism on the shores of Clear Lake. 

 

Search