Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Cannabis Regulation topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Cannabis ordinance review continued to July 7 after extensive questions about water, CEQA and permits
Summary
After hours of public comment and supervisor questions about water access, CEQA, background checks, abandoned hoop houses and farmland protections, the Board of Supervisors continued the county's proposed commercial cannabis ordinance (Article 27) to July 7 for further work and staff-supplied amendments.
The Board of Supervisors on June 23 continued consideration of extensive revisions to Lake County's commercial cannabis ordinance to July 7 at 1:30 p.m., after staff and supervisors identified numerous substantive issues that require more time to resolve.
Community Development Director Maria Turner reviewed the latest draft and described minor redline corrections and clarifications to the environmental analysis. Supervisors and many members of the public urged changes or clarification on items including: whether projects must show enrollment or a Notice of Applicability with the Regional Water Quality Control Board for water use; the definition and map status of Farmland Protection Zones (FPZ); how the ordinance treats LLC ownership and property-owner disclosure; whether full-time vs. all-employee background checks will be required and how "full-time" is defined; handling of abandoned or remediated grow sites and whether $5,000 bonds are adequate for abatement; the removal of a 10-year permit term limit and consequences for project vesting; and whether CEQA review is required for ordinance amendments or particular permit categories.
Public commenters, including farm and tenant advocates and lawyers, asked the board to clarify applicants'rights (including procedures if a live-scan background check disqualifies an applicant and how expungements or rehabilitation evidence would be weighed), to preserve water protections, and to ensure transparency about enforcement and appeals. Staff acknowledged several items will be placed on an Article 73 list for future work and proposed bringing back clarifying language, definitions and citations. County counsel advised the board that they may proceed with a first reading today but recommended that proposed amendments be placed on record in exact language if acted on.
After extended discussion, the board voted to continue the ordinance hearing to July 7 at 1:30 p.m. so staff can produce clearer draft language addressing the concerns raised, and to allow supervisors to review the specific amendments before any first or second reading vote.
