4 21-86 9:20 A.M. - PUBLIC HEARING to Discuss and Consider Zoning Text Amendment (AM 21-01) to Article 27 of the Lake County Zoning Ordinance pertaining to the Cultivation of Commercial Cannabis. The applicant is the COUNTY OF LAKE.
I support many of these amendments and feel moving closer to State alignment is the safeties practice. I have noticed the requirement for section 3. Site Plans will no be required to be submitted by a design professional. This requirement would effectively limit all development submissions to the Community Development Department, as Architects and Engineers are limited in availability locally, and many do not do Site Plans as there is no financial benefit. I think the requirement for a DESIGN PROFESSIONAL should be removed from the language, and require all site plans to be drafted to scale. Scale and North arrows should be annotated on the plan set and verified for compliance. Also, in aligning with the State, the State requires a 600' setback from sensitive sites. Such a requirement will cost local community members a cost that currently could be unbearable for many community members.
It is the understanding that a full CAT EX blanket policy across the board is being considered in this Zoning Change. To not allow an ethical and professional archeologist to do the basic study and procedures that Native American Sacred Sites would be highly impacted as they have in the wine industry during the ripping of vines that need replacement. There are 2,600 known pre-historic sites in Lake County and new ones being discovered often, recorded and submitted to the Northwest Information Center. I request a full discussion roundtable with the tribes, professional archeologists and other interested parties be held before a consideration or change is made. I plan to attend this meeting on 2/25 but have a previous engagement that I could not change but will hopefully in in attendance before this agenda item is called. if not could i request it be recalled when I arrive. thank you, Dino Beltran-Vice Chairman/Koi Nation of Northern California
The proposal to create draconian per-plant fines for unlicensed cultivation is not new -- see Fresno and Kern counties, among other early adopters -- but any claim of deterrence is unproven. Quite the contrary, in fact. Lake can impose millions of dollars in fines, as other counties have for years now, but it will be very hard-pressed to collect them. In most cases, tenant growers will scurry off scot-free while non-resident property owners get slapped with massive liens -- whether or not they were aware any illicit cultivation was occurring. This proposed "administrative" fine is far steeper than a grower would face if charged criminally with a misdemeanor or felony, with a far lesser standard of proof. If this does pass, enjoy the landowner appeals and lawsuits sure to come. https://www.capradio.org/articles/2019/12/18/sacramento-serves-as-guide-cautionary-tale-as-more-california-governments-use-steep-fines-against-illegal-pot-grows/
The recommended revisions to the ordinance here look good to me. I would suggest changing the language of 1(d) though. As written, it allows up to 8 acres of cultivation if a parcel is 20 acres or larger. If 8 acres is acceptable for 20 acres, surely more could be acceptable if the premises is 50 acres. Why not use a size % instead? Revise the sentence to read "For Commercial Cannabis Uses, up to 40% of the premises may be used for License Type 1A/1B, 2A/2B, 3A/3B and/or 4 if the subject premises is 20 acres or larger."
Can you do the percentages now? This seems unfair to outdoor cultivations (for example, a 20 acre outdoor grow).
I support many of these amendments and feel moving closer to State alignment is the safeties practice. I have noticed the requirement for section 3. Site Plans will no be required to be submitted by a design professional. This requirement would effectively limit all development submissions to the Community Development Department, as Architects and Engineers are limited in availability locally, and many do not do Site Plans as there is no financial benefit. I think the requirement for a DESIGN PROFESSIONAL should be removed from the language, and require all site plans to be drafted to scale. Scale and North arrows should be annotated on the plan set and verified for compliance. Also, in aligning with the State, the State requires a 600' setback from sensitive sites. Such a requirement will cost local community members a cost that currently could be unbearable for many community members.
It is the understanding that a full CAT EX blanket policy across the board is being considered in this Zoning Change. To not allow an ethical and professional archeologist to do the basic study and procedures that Native American Sacred Sites would be highly impacted as they have in the wine industry during the ripping of vines that need replacement. There are 2,600 known pre-historic sites in Lake County and new ones being discovered often, recorded and submitted to the Northwest Information Center. I request a full discussion roundtable with the tribes, professional archeologists and other interested parties be held before a consideration or change is made. I plan to attend this meeting on 2/25 but have a previous engagement that I could not change but will hopefully in in attendance before this agenda item is called. if not could i request it be recalled when I arrive. thank you, Dino Beltran-Vice Chairman/Koi Nation of Northern California
The proposal to create draconian per-plant fines for unlicensed cultivation is not new -- see Fresno and Kern counties, among other early adopters -- but any claim of deterrence is unproven. Quite the contrary, in fact. Lake can impose millions of dollars in fines, as other counties have for years now, but it will be very hard-pressed to collect them. In most cases, tenant growers will scurry off scot-free while non-resident property owners get slapped with massive liens -- whether or not they were aware any illicit cultivation was occurring. This proposed "administrative" fine is far steeper than a grower would face if charged criminally with a misdemeanor or felony, with a far lesser standard of proof. If this does pass, enjoy the landowner appeals and lawsuits sure to come. https://www.capradio.org/articles/2019/12/18/sacramento-serves-as-guide-cautionary-tale-as-more-california-governments-use-steep-fines-against-illegal-pot-grows/
The recommended revisions to the ordinance here look good to me. I would suggest changing the language of 1(d) though. As written, it allows up to 8 acres of cultivation if a parcel is 20 acres or larger. If 8 acres is acceptable for 20 acres, surely more could be acceptable if the premises is 50 acres. Why not use a size % instead? Revise the sentence to read "For Commercial Cannabis Uses, up to 40% of the premises may be used for License Type 1A/1B, 2A/2B, 3A/3B and/or 4 if the subject premises is 20 acres or larger."