US Attorneys Melinda Haag, Benjamin B. Wagner, André Birotte Jr. and Laura E. Duffy said the statewide enforcement effort is focused on curtailing “the large, for-profit marijuana industry” that has developed in California since the passage of Proposition 215, the Compassionate Use Act of 1996.

In response to the stepped up enforcement actions announced this week, marijuana activists said the federal government's war on dispensaries could have adverse impacts on California, already suffering from budget struggles and several years of deep recession.

In particular, California NORML called the action “an example of unwarranted federal overregulation.”

California NORML estimates the California's medical marijuana industry accounts for between $1.5 billion and $4.5 billion in sales, tens of thousands jobs and more than $100 million in taxes.

In Lake County, the federal actions also raise questions about recently approved ordinances to regulate dispensaries and cultivation.

In the federal Northern District, which includes Lake County, owners of marijuana stores operating near schools and other locations where children congregate reportedly have been warned by Haag that their operations are subject to enhanced penalties and that real property involved in the operations is subject to seizure and forfeiture to the United States.

“Although our initial efforts in the Northern District focus on only certain marijuana stores, we will almost certainly be taking action against others,” said Haag. “None are immune from action by the federal government.”

Proposition 215, according to the federal prosecutors, has given rise to drug-trafficking enterprises that operate commercial grow operations and intricate distribution systems, and hundreds of marijuana stores across the state, and they're pledging to clamp down on such organizations.

While the voter-approved Proposition 215 decriminalizes marijuana's use for medical reasons in California, federal officials say that law conflicts with the federal Controlled Substances Act, which makes the sale and distribution of marijuana illegal.

They also allege that California's marijuana industry is not about compassion for the sick, but is using Proposition 215 as a cover for profiteering and criminal activity in the No. 1 producing marijuana state in the nation.

Actions federal officials have indicated they will take in the enforcement include civil forfeiture lawsuits against properties involved in drug trafficking activity; letters of warning to the owners and lien holders of properties where illegal marijuana sales are taking place; and criminal cases targeting commercial marijuana activities, including arrests over the past two weeks in cases filed in federal courts in Los Angeles, San Diego, Sacramento and Fresno.

The US Attorneys reported that dozens of letters have been sent over the past few days to the owners and lien holders of properties where commercial marijuana stores and grows are located.

Those letters have warned that property owners risk losing their property and money derived from renting the space used for marijuana sales.

In a Friday statement, Deputy Attorney General James Cole of the US Department of Justice said the department won't focus its investigative and prosecutorial resources on individual patients with serious illnesses like cancer or their immediate caregivers, but it will prosecute “significant violations” of the Controlled Substances Act and related federal laws.

“The federal enforcement actions are aimed at commercial marijuana operations, including marijuana grows, marijuana stores and mobile delivery services – all illegal activities that generate huge profits,” said Birotte, US Attorney for the Central District of California.

The action's timing and motivation is raising questions for marijuana proponents.

“In this time of economic hardship, it makes absolutely no sense to drive legal medical marijuana providers out of business, force consumers onto the criminal market, and suppress this economical alternative to more costly but less efficacious prescription medicines,” California NORML Director Dale Gieringer said in a statement on the group's Web site.

Unknown local impacts

Earlier this week, the federal Second District Court of Appeal struck down portions of a Long Beach ordinance regulating dispensaries and collectives through a permitting process, saying that such a process is preempted by federal law.

County Counsel Anita Grant and her staff had begun assessing that decision and its potential ramifications by the time the US Attorneys announced their crackdown late in the week.

Grant said Friday there weren't yet enough specifics to understand the overall significance on the local level of the stepped up federal enforcement actions, and what they might mean for the county's efforts to regulate the number of dispensaries as well as cultivation.

Both the appeals court decision and criminal enforcement may make a referendum against the supervisors' Aug. 16 passage of an ordinance limiting dispensaries in county jurisdiction to five a moot point.

This week county Registrar of Voters Diane Fridley said there were enough valid signatures submitted in support of the referendum to qualify it to go before the county's voters.

The referendum is due to go before the Board of Supervisors on Tuesday, Oct. 18, according to County Administrative Officer Kelly Cox.

At that time the board can choose to repeal the ordinance or put the referendum on the ballot, Cox said.

While it appears that the federal enforcement is going to focus on large-scale operations, Grant said her read of the issue so far is that any storefront commercial dispensary is considered an illicit operation by federal prosecutors – a point that was reinforced by Haag's Friday statement that “none are immune” from the crackdown.

Grant said she was not aware of federal officials contacting the county about its new marijuana enforcement campaign.

Likewise, District Attorney Don Anderson said Friday he hadn't been contacted regarding the federal actions.

Earlier this year local officials in some jurisdictions around the state had been warned by federal prosecutors that they could be criminally liable for permitting dispensary operations.

Lake County Community Development Director Rick Coel had Lake County News in previous interviews that his concerns about that potential liability had led him to try to craft local ordinances to protect the county.

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 Facebook at http://www.facebook.com/pages/Lake-County-News/143156775604?ref=mf and on YouTube at http://www.youtube.com/user/LakeCoNews .

SUPPLEMENTAL NOTICE OF INTENT TO ADOPT A

MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION

FOR AN ANNEXATION PROJECT

LEAD AGENCY:

City of Lakeport

Community Development Department

225 Park Street, Lakeport, CA 95453

PROJECT TITLE: AX 11-01 / ER 11-01 South Main Street / Soda Bay Road Annexation

PROJECT LOCATION: Approximately 197 acres / 54 parcels located south of the City of Lakeport City limits along the South Main Street and Soda Bay Road corridor east of State Highway 29.

PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Initial Study - Environmental Review of the proposed annexation of approximately 197 acres to the City of Lakeport.

Parcels within the project area are not listed on the active Hazardous Waste and Substances Sites List as set forth in Government Code Section 65962.5.

FINDINGS / DETERMINATION: The City has reviewed and considered the proposed project and has determined that the project will not have a significant effect on the environment, with substantial supporting evidence provided in the Initial Study. The City hereby prepares and proposes to adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration for this project.

PUBLIC MEETING: The City Council will consider the adoption of a Mitigated Negative Declaration of environmental impact on Tuesday, October 18, 2011, at 6:00 p.m. The meeting will be held in the Council Chambers of City Hall, located at 225 Park Street, at which time and place all interested persons may appear and be heard. If you have questions or comments, please call the Lakeport Community Development Department at 707-263-5613 ext. 28. A copy of the Initial Study is available for review at Lakeport City Hall and at www.cityoflakeport.com.

Dated this 7th day of October 2011.

_______________________________

ANDREW BRITTON

Planning Services Manager

The board approved the ordinance's initial reading in a 5-0 vote on Sept. 20, as Lake County News has reported.

The ordinance allows each qualified patient a maximum of six mature or 12 immature plants, with three patients able to grow up to 18 mature or 36 immature plants on properties one acre or larger, and still larger grows allowed on properties five acres or larger with a minor user permit.

On Tuesday the board repeated its unanimous vote, despite the fact that both Supervisor Anthony Farrington and Supervisor Denise Rushing had concerns about the new ordinance's rule against outdoor grows on any residentially zoned parcel, and on any parcel half an acre or less. Such grows would have to be indoors.

As a compromise to leaving that language intact, Community Development Director Rick Coel proposed that the board expand the definition of “indoor” to greenhouses with air filtration systems, which he said would abate nuisance-related odor issues and also cover other requirements, like screening and security.

Only a small group of community members spoke to the board regarding the ordinance on its second reading.

Two people, including Lower Lake attorney Ron Green, urged against its passage, saying that the board had “managed to anger thousands of medical marijuana patients and farmers on both ends of the spectrum.”

One man asked that the board make the rules governing cultivation even stricter, and Walter Zuercher of Kelseyville asked the board to move forward with the document as it was, telling the supervisors it was “absolutely necessary” that they pass it. He said more people hadn't spoken out because they're afraid of retaliation.

Both Coel and Sheriff Frank Rivero – who have worked closely on the proposed regulations – asked the board to go forward with accepting the ordinance.

Rivero commended the board for having “the guts” to pass the ordinance on its first reading two weeks ago. In that time he said he's heard from many people who are happy with the action.

He urged them to move forward and pass the second reading, which he said would allow his agency to start addressing cultivation-related issues.

“I believe we're well on our way to establishing something that can be a model to other counties for reasonableness, fairness,” while getting rid of some of the problems, Rivero said.

Coel told the board that after two years of working on the ordinance, he felt it had been thoroughly vetted in the public arena. He explained that medical marijuana growers don't have a constitutional right to grow however they want, wherever they want, and that cultivation can be regulated by law.

He said the ordinance will give law enforcement the needed guidelines, offer clear limits on how much can be grown on individual parcels and protect the property rights of people who don't use medical marijuana.

Rushing was concerned about the unintended consequences of the board's action at the Sept. 20 meeting, during which the board added language prohibiting grows on parcels less than a half-acre in size as well as banning outdoor cultivation in all residential zoning.

She said she wanted to form a committee to look at the ordinance, and wanted to drop the parcel size limitation altogether. “We've created a lot of energy around something that we don't need to.”

Farrington agreed with Rushing's concerns about unintended consequences, and worried how to balance nuisance complaints with patients' growing needs.

Coel said that without the ordinance's language, dealing with complaints would be too subjective and difficult for law enforcement.

Rushing argued that by limiting parcel sizes they were creating demand and criminalizing a large number of people.

Supervisor Rob Brown argued for leaving the parcel size limitation in, saying it made everyone's job easier, from Coel's to Rivero's.

“There's greed out there, that's what's driving this,” he said.

Since passing the ordinance's initial reading, Brown said he's received phone messages and e-mails from people who have “appreciated the fact that we have represented them,” adding that a lot of thought went into the document.

Rushing wanted a commitment from the board to make amendments to improve the document down the road. “If the citizens don't believe that this process will be fair they're just overturn it via referendum,” said Rushing.

Rushing was referring to a referendum effort under way to overturn a medical marijuana dispensaries ordinance the board passed this summer in a 3-2 vote, which she and Smith voted against.

Farrington, however, said a referendum on the cultivation ordinance could have “much graver” consequences than the dispensaries referendum.

He said there was a need to find a compromise for residential growers, which Coel offered in expanding the definition of indoor grows to include greenhouses.

But Coel insisted that he needed to keep language in place to deal with residential complaints. “They're tired of it,” he said, referring to community members who are dealing with nuisance grows in their neighborhoods.

Brown moved the ordinance with the new greenhouse language, which was accepted 5-0.

The ordinance will come back for another reading at 10:25 a.m. Tuesday, Oct. 11.

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 Facebook at http://www.facebook.com/pages/Lake-County-News/143156775604?ref=mf and on YouTube at http://www.youtube.com/user/LakeCoNews .

Negotiations will begin soon between the Lake County Redevelopment Agency and Marymount College regarding a college campus at the historic in Lucerne Hotel in Lucerne, Calif. Courtesy photo.

LAKEPORT, Calif. – After eight decades, the Lucerne Hotel may soon have a long-term use to match its importance as a county landmark.

In a unanimous Tuesday vote, the county's Board of Supervisors – sitting as the Lake County Redevelopment Agency Board of Directors – approved the selection of an initial proposal to base a college campus at the historic site, built at the end of the 1920s, on the cusp of the Great Depression.

Since its completion, the building has passed through numerous hands and uses, most falling far below its potential and grandeur. But that appears to be about to change, thanks to a proposal submitted by Southern California-based Marymount College.

County Administrative Officer Kelly Cox, who also is executive director of the redevelopment agency, took the proposal from Southern California-based Marymount College to the board.

Cox said the county sent out proposals to educational institutions statewide, seeking a partnership. They received two back, including Marymount's, which was ruled fully qualified.

What went before the board was not a fully fleshed out proposal, said Cox, nor was that the idea. Rather, he said the redevelopment agency wanted to have the opportunity to work with Marymount College to develop an agreement workable to both parties.

He said the county has been in frequent communications with the college, representatives of which have made visits to Lake County to see the hotel site. The county also has made contacts with stakeholders in the community.

Cox said of Marymount College, “They are very enthusiastic about the possibility of coming to Lake County and operating a facility here.”

As the county has spoken with the college officials, “It just becomes more and more evident to us that this is a great fit for Lake County,” Cox said.

He explained to the board that Marymount College is looking for an opportunity to provide education to the county's residents. Issues like the county's high poverty index, low income levels and high unemployment – which usually are viewed as negatives – are seen as an opportunity by college officials.

“They're looking for a way to help this community,” said Cox, adding. “I just think we're very fortunate to have their interest in this facility.”

Cox, who recommended the board move forward with accepting an initial proposal to start assessing the project, said he and some staff members are planning to visit Marymount's Southern California sites.

“I think it's worthwhile to do that,” he said, adding that they want to have Lake County Superintendent of Schools Wally Holbrook and Wilda Shock – who are members of the Lucerne Hotel Education Task Force – accompany them on the visit.

The possible wrinkle in the plan at present is that “the agency is effectively prohibited from entering into any contracts,” Cox explained.

That's because of a lawsuit against the state over legislation passed over the summer. The bills in question eliminate redevelopment agencies or require them to participate in a program in which they must pay part of their tax increment revenues into a state fund.

That's why redevelopment agency staff was only asking permission to start working with Marymount College officials, as a Supreme Court ruling on the suit isn't expected until January, according to Cox.

“There is always the possibility that the court could rule against the redevelopment agencies,” Cox said, and in that case he believes the county could secure the hotel's ownership from the agency and move forward.

“It's not going to be as easy without the redevelopment agency,” he added.

However, Cox – who has been one of the building's staunchest champions – said he saw the building as important to the county's future.

He said Marymount College is looking at a phased implementation of the campus plan, and would not be occupying the building all at once. Cox said he and Dr. Michael Brophy, Marymount College's president, have been discussing a way of allowing public access.

Under previous ownership, “Nobody could go into the building,” said Cox, who guaranteed that in an agreement with the college, “there will be ways to provide public access to the facility.”

Supervisor Denise Rushing, whose District 3 includes Lucerne, thanked Cox, and county Deputy Administrative Office Debra Sommerfield and Deputy Redevelopment Director Eric Seely for their efforts.

She said that during a visit to the county, Brophy met with Lucerne Hotel Education Task Force members; she also met with Brophy and spoke to him one on one.

“I was very impressed with his commitment to community,” said Rushing, pointing out that 70 percent of Marymount College's students are on financial aid.

She said college officials have indicated that they both want students to come from the outside but also want to offer county residents the opportunity to pursue advanced degrees.

“I found that really encouraging, especially his personal commitment,” Rushing said of Brophy.

Supervisor Anthony Farrington said the community will reap great benefits from the proposal, but wanted to make sure a “plan B” was in place in case the California Supreme Court rules against redevelopment.

He asked Cox if there was a benefit to offering the college formal reassurance that the county would step in if redevelopment wasn't an option.

“I think that would be great,” said Cox, who told the board he had indicated to Brophy that he believed that the board would be supportive without redevelopment.

Farrington asked that the county send Marymount College a letter expressing the commitment to the plan, with signature lines for all of the board members.

Farrington, who grew up in Lake County but had to leave in order to complete a four-year education, said the new campus would offer students of Mendocino College and Yuba College access to higher learning.

“It's something I'm very excited about,” he said. “Whatever it takes is what we should do.”

Supervisor Jeff Smith also congratulated county staff for their work on the proposal.

“It sent chills up my spine to think this is finally here” – or is getting close, he said, noting the opportunities that it will create.

Cox said the proposal is bringing to fruition a longterm county of bringing a four-year college to Lake County. “I think it's just a great opportunity.”

Supervisor Jim Comstock agreed. “I think a new door is about to open in Lake County.”

Rushing said Marymount also has expressed interest in working with other colleges and universities to offer programs here.

“The stars just may be aligned,” said Cox.

Marymount has been looking for a rural campus, and Cox said had the county worked on this proposal at any other time, they might not have gotten the same response.

Comstock said they hear a lot about luck. “The definition of luck is when opportunity meets preparation.”

Supervisor Rob Brown noted how quickly, and positively, the process has been moving. “It's just perfect for us.”

Cox agreed, adding that the county has only owned the Lucerne Hotel about a year. “It's pretty amazing that we've come as far as we have,” he said.

Rushing offered two motions – both getting 5-0 votes – to approve the proposal, and authorize Cox to begin negotiations and approve travel costs.

The vote received a round of applause from the gallery.

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 Facebook at http://www.facebook.com/pages/Lake-County-News/143156775604?ref=mf and on YouTube at http://www.youtube.com/user/LakeCoNews .

The board unanimously voted to appoint Cathy Saderlund, who began as an account clerk with the county 30 years ago and worked her way up through the ranks.

Saderlund was the only applicant to finish the remaining three years of Pam Cochrane's term.

Cochrane, reelected last November, announced in June that she would retire after 15 years in office. Her retirement date is Oct. 15, which is the date the board voted to make Saderlund's appointment effective.

Saderlund will serve as the county's chief financial officer, a role in which county departments' and special districts' finances – including accounting and auditing – will be under her supervision.

Although the board usually holds job interviews in closed session, they noted that Saderlund's was being held in open session because she was seeking an appointment to a normally elected position.

Over about a half hour, Saderlund fielded questions from the board, sharing her experience, knowledge of accounting systems and her vision of the clerk/auditor-controller's role in county government.

While working and balancing family and community commitments, Saderlund went back to school, earning an associate's degree at Mendocino College before transferring to Franklin University, where she earned her bachelor's degree in accounting.

Despite the challenges of all of those responsibilities, “It's been very rewarding,” said Saderlund.

In response to questions, Saderlund explained that the clerk/auditor-controller needs to make sure county departments are following financial regulations, but also must provide financial services to those departments.

“We need to keep everybody in compliance,” she said.

Saderlund currently oversees the department's employees, and has dealt with reviews and discipline, in addition to working in the accounting system.

When Supervisor Anthony Farrington asked her about her proudest accomplishment over the past five years, she said it was assembling the finest team the department has had.

Asked about how she would lead the department, Saderlund replied, “I absolutely believe it's hands on in addition to the oversight.”

Goals for her first six months will be to talk to customers, find out what the clerk/auditor-controller's office is doing well and where it can improve. She also wants to review the department's reconciliation process and move forward with payroll time reporting.

Supervisor Rob Brown said Saderlund is qualified, open to positive change and willing to work long hours. He moved to appoint her.

“It takes a lot of guts to go through a public interview,” said Supervisor Denise Rushing.

Rushing added that it also takes guts to run for office, and in Saderlund they were getting “the complete package,” someone who knows the system and wants the job.

Before the 5-0 vote was taken, Rushing said the clerk/auditor-controller's office will be in good hands with Saderlund in charge.

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 Facebook at http://www.facebook.com/pages/Lake-County-News/143156775604?ref=mf and on YouTube at http://www.youtube.com/user/LakeCoNews .

BOARD OF SUPERVISORS

COUNTY OF LAKE

NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING AND

SUMMARY OF PROPOSED ORDINANCE

NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Board of Supervisors, County of Lake, State of California, has set TUESDAY, OCTOBER 25, 2011, at 9:15 A.M., Board Chambers, Courthouse, Lakeport, as time and place to consider a proposed Ordinance extending Discretionary Planning Entitlements approved pursuant to Chapter 21 of the Lake County Code. A certified copy of the proposed Ordinance is available at the Office of the Clerk of the Board of Supervisors.

This ordinance proposes to grant a temporary, two-year time extension to entitlements such as use permits, general and specific plans of development, variances and design review permits that have been approved but have not yet been vested.

NOTICE IS FURTHER GIVEN that at said time and place any interested person may appear and be heard.

If you challenge the action of the Board of Supervisors on any of the above stated items in court, it may be limited to only those issues raised at the public hearing described in this notice or in written correspondence delivered to the Clerk of the Board of Supervisors at, or prior to, the public hearing.

KELLY F. COX

Clerk of the Board

By: Mireya G. Turner

Assistant Clerk to the Board