Lemoore reviews cannabis ordinance, council questions dispensary limits, development agreements and noise complaints from outdoor cultivation

City planning staff and the police chief briefed the Lemoore City Council on Aug. 5 about the city—s cannabis ordinance, permitted operations and fees, and complaints about noise from outdoor cannabis cultivation.

Christina Valdez, who presented the ordinance review, summarized allowable operations (cultivation, manufacturing, testing, distribution, dispensaries and deliveries), the requirement for site-specific regulatory permits and project development agreements, and the city—s limit of no more than one cannabis dispensary per 12,000 residents. She said that the ordinance—s population formula currently allows two dispensaries, but the city holds three dispensary licenses under development agreements; Valdez noted that one licensee, Basecamp, is licensed but not operating as a dispensary and another, listed as "Hold My Beer," received a project development agreement in July 2021 but has not opened.

Valdez said cultivation, manufacturing, testing and distribution are primarily permitted in the city—s industrial zone south of the city, while dispensaries are allowed in downtown and commercial zones. She told council that development agreements vary: some agreements include long terms (she referenced examples of about 20 years), some include a "me-too" clause that lowers fees for earlier agreements if later agreements set a lower fee, and several agreements reference license types (for example, microbusiness) that are not explicitly listed in the municipal code. Valdez said the city collects multiple cannabis-related fees (business license, regulatory permit and a revenue-raising fee) and that cannabis revenue has held steady at about $370,000 a year; she said staff will report back with a comparison to the ordinance figures where asterisks appear in the fee schedule.

Public safety and noise: The police chief reported on noise complaints tied to a cannabis cultivator—s use of air cannons (propane-powered bird-scaring devices). The chief said the city—s municipal code (noise provisions cited by staff) includes an agricultural exception for mobile noise sources associated with agricultural operations and referenced the state—s Right to Farm Act (cited in the meeting as Civil Code section 3482.5), which limits local nuisance regulation of established agricultural operations. The chief said the city issued a citation under Penal Code section 415 (disturbing the peace) after an air cannon fired during a restricted time and that the case is pending with the county district attorney; he said the DA had not yet acted on the citation as of the meeting.

The chief said the cultivator initially told city staff they would comply with hours of operation but that the message did not reliably reach employees; staff reported at least one incident when a cannon fired overnight and another on a Sunday holiday. He and council members discussed alternative bird-control options (including non-noise laser systems and raptors) and asked staff to communicate options to the operator.

Council members questioned the inconsistency between the ordinance—s fixed fee schedule and multiple project development agreements that set different fees, including how the city ended up with three dispensary licenses when the ordinance—s population formula would allow two. Valdez said staff will research whether agreements predated the ordinance and will return with options to resolve discrepancies (either changing the ordinance or amending development agreements). Councilmember Gornick asked staff to return with the underlying agreements and any steps needed to align municipal code, fee schedules and outstanding development agreements.

No city action (vote) was taken to change the ordinance or to rescind development agreements at the Aug. 5 meeting. City staff said they would research the fee asterisks, the microbusiness license references, and the duration and terms of the development agreements and report back to council.

Ending: Council directed staff to add the ordinance and noise issues to the work list for follow-up; Valdez acknowledged she had added the item to her list and said staff would return with recommended options.