6.4 21-108 10:00 A.M. - Consideration of Early Activation Changes (a) Amendment to Cannabis Cultivation ordinance (b) Resolution for those were Early Activated in 2020 (c) Efficiency processes, direction to staff
The proposed amendments needs to be heard by the planning commission! Do you proposed amendment will totally destroy lake county is Cannabis program more public comment is needed section E of the proposed amendments Is right for blackmail and needs to be changed before it can be passed ... please send this back to the planning commission for Further public comment
The EA resolution and amendments proposed will completely change the Cannabis program in Lake County and result in the elimination of many current projects in the pipeline as well as deter future potential licensees from considering Lake County. The ability to start and execute a cultivation operation requires a period such as Early Activation in its present form to allow applicants to be able to successfully navigate the time and funds required to obtain final licensing. This has been successful in almost every other major cultivation county in California and is a proven recipe for a program's success. Requiring a CEQA IS study as part of EA will eliminate the core goal of EA and the ability for Lake County to attract and retain a large percentage of current and potential participants.
The Early Activation (EA) process has been applied successfully since 1996. It’s an effective economic development tool. A key provision is that it is temporary for 6 months and then it expires. Submission of a Use Permit is a prerequisite to obtaining EA, and is where the County places its emphasis on carrying out CEQA and giving public notice, not on temporary permit that will expire. The cannabis cultivation Use Permit process is onerous and requires a substantial amount of technical information. Lake County requires CEQA compliance and public notice for all Use Permits. Please don’t adopt and impose these additional requirements on the EA procedures. If the Board is inclined to move forward with additional requirements, consider an approach whereby a draft CEQA IS is submitted, and public notice is physically posted on the subject site prior to the issuance thereof.
My name is Cody Price. I represent the compliance arm of the Diamond J, BAR X, and Adobe creek projects. Each are at various stages of the early activation process.
The new rules that are being voted on today regarding the early activation licenses, will 100% destroy our projects.
Our projects are 100% investor funded. These investors will pull out if the new rules take effect as proposed. 800 new h=jobs wil also disappear. The new rules need more thought and time to be well integrated.
For the sake of clarity and consistency, the language in Resolution (21-108 B) and the language under subsection (h) located in the Amendment (21-108A) should mirror one another since both are explaining the requirements for obtaining an ADDITIONAL EA Permit. I also feel that operators running under EA’s in 2020 should be able to request a new EA for 2021 with additional acreage as long as the footprint is within the proposed cultivation area identified in their UP application. The entire area is the subject within the Initial Study paperwork, so the whole area should be available to be Early Activated if the IS comes back with a mitigated negative declaration as long all other requirements for EA are satisfied. This will maintain the environmental protections that are desired while allowing for additional county tax revenue from cultivators who are expanding following a challenging year where many operators such as myself had to scale down due to supply chain issues caused by Covid.
These proposed changes will drastically effect the way in which Lake County Cannabis community operates. This County has earned a reputation over the last few years as a place that supports legal, regulated cannabis production. This County has seen an influx of land sales, and cultivation application that have overwhelmed the CDD. Yet, instead of looking at what this County should do to keep pace with the industry we are placing arbitrary barriers to curtail this growth. I strongly oppose many of the amendments proposed here. In the attached letter, it details the issues, and an approach to solutions acceptable to the whole county. I am sure that many of the area residents are tired of hearing about Cannabis Cultivation, I know the cannabis community is tired of playing chase. Each day for the last 4 years, cultivators across the State have woken up to new regulations at every point.
Do not vote to approve these amendments without a standing cannabis ad hoc committee
The EA process as designed is an effective way to obtain state licensure for partial project elements and make ends meet while going through the process. These amendments should not be retroactively applied to existing permit apps. Especially for apps where the EA footprint is on areas of historically similar uses such as ag use areas proposed for an outdoor cannabis cultivation. Full permit apps with EA requests already include preliminary CEQA information to allow staff to make the determination that the EA areas will not result in any adverse impacts. By significantly delaying the EA process, and requiring a full CEQA study, the majority of EA apps in process will be eliminated, removing the ability for significant tax revenue for the County in 2021. This is also unfair discrimination specifically against one industry unless these restrictions are applied to all types of use permit apps. Please consider these points when looking at the validity of this proposed amendment.
I am against this EA resolution for a few reasons. Adding neighbor review as a criteria would unfairly limit many projects. Secondly, the CEQA component will take a lot of time, and effort by the County, as they are already severely backed up. The State is looking for
potential applicants to have their LSA waiver, so this would be a valid new requirement for early activation.
Golden State Herb, a Lake-County tax-paying cultivator and state licensee, supports continuing the EA program with suggested changes (in the attached letter) to the proposed Ordinance that are in accordance with CEQA. First and foremost the changes must be FAIR to Use Permit Applicants who have been in the administrative process with the Lake County Community Development Department for a long period of time: our Project was deemed complete in OCTOBER 2019 and our Planning Commission hearing was January 14, 2021 (the hearing was continued, with no date certain, due to the new Farmland Protection Ordinance that was enacted ONE MONTH prior to our hearing after waiting 15+ months for said hearing). Last year we grew a 10,000 sf test plot via EA in anticipation of a fully-entitled 2-acre Use Permit approval for the 2021 growing season. Now with the regulations as proposed, we will be limited to 10,000 sf again instead of being able to EA the full acreage that has been CEQA approved. Fair?
The Lake County Cannabis Alliance supports the efforts of the County and Staff for this effort to extend the Early Activation program. Please see the attached letter on behalf of our members.
We submitted all applications on 6-19-20 and paid all fees on 5-26-20. We have been working diligently with the county to resolve all issues. We assumed that the IS for our project have been started in 2020, however, we still don't know if the county has started this process. The communication has been extremely slow with the county. If we are now expected to have the CEQA completed prior to receiving the EA then we can contract with a 3rd party consultant to complete this, however, we don't know how long this will take to complete for our site and projects like ours should be placed on an accelerated and priority review and approval process and be considered qualified for the EA program.
We qualified for Early Activation (EA) on July 13, 2020. Unfortunately, it was not aligned with the State process for us and we have now received our State Provisional license, but never utilized the EA. We asked for it to be extended, but were told that the policy was still up in the air. We never had the opportunity to plant despite holding a State provisional license. Hopefully, we will receive our approval from the county soon, so that the issue is moot. However, it does raise the issue for others (and possibly us) about how the County will deal with situations like ours. Will EA be extended upon request, assuming all requirements are met, and will permit fees be refunded if it didn't happen within 6 months? Also, shouldn't those of us who had EA, but never could utilize it, be moved to the front of the approval process for our County permit?
Early Activation has allowed the industry to thrive here while waiting for staff to process permits. Many applicants have been very patient with the process since delays were not keeping them from farming. This will drastically change that. Applicants will have no idea when or if they will ever get beyond the Initial Study phase. This is going to shake their confidence in County Government. The memo has 4 suggestions to streamline the process. #3, using college students, should be deleted. We need a mix of the other options. Let applicants know from the start that their permits will be accelerated if they use consultants to complete CEQA. This will speed up future permits. Also solicit a consulting firm to complete the existing CEQA reviews. This will speed up existing permits and Measure C taxes collected will more than pay for the consultant fees. A County wide EIR is needed, but that will take years, distract staff even more, and undoubtedly face legal scrutiny from someone.
1. Why is the County opening the Early Activation process, which is a temporary status, to allow the neighbors to control it? What is the role of the County Government in terms of this existing proposition? Why is the County expanding their administrative process when the system is already overloaded and in need of repair?
We currently have 2 active projects, both been approved for Early Activation. In one of the properties, we lost our status because the cannabis taxes were not paid as no growing had taken place. We were specifically asked, on both properties, to hire an outside consultant to perform the initial CEQA study, which we did promptly, at a substantial cost. Both studies have been “in the system” for over 2 months, with no confirmation of receipt, status, or any kind of response and/or timeline whatsoever. How can we understand where are MUP permits stand, and get a specific update as to the status of our permit application?
The proposed amendments needs to be heard by the planning commission! Do you proposed amendment will totally destroy lake county is Cannabis program more public comment is needed section E of the proposed amendments Is right for blackmail and needs to be changed before it can be passed ... please send this back to the planning commission for Further public comment
The EA resolution and amendments proposed will completely change the Cannabis program in Lake County and result in the elimination of many current projects in the pipeline as well as deter future potential licensees from considering Lake County. The ability to start and execute a cultivation operation requires a period such as Early Activation in its present form to allow applicants to be able to successfully navigate the time and funds required to obtain final licensing. This has been successful in almost every other major cultivation county in California and is a proven recipe for a program's success. Requiring a CEQA IS study as part of EA will eliminate the core goal of EA and the ability for Lake County to attract and retain a large percentage of current and potential participants.
The Early Activation (EA) process has been applied successfully since 1996. It’s an effective economic development tool. A key provision is that it is temporary for 6 months and then it expires. Submission of a Use Permit is a prerequisite to obtaining EA, and is where the County places its emphasis on carrying out CEQA and giving public notice, not on temporary permit that will expire. The cannabis cultivation Use Permit process is onerous and requires a substantial amount of technical information. Lake County requires CEQA compliance and public notice for all Use Permits. Please don’t adopt and impose these additional requirements on the EA procedures. If the Board is inclined to move forward with additional requirements, consider an approach whereby a draft CEQA IS is submitted, and public notice is physically posted on the subject site prior to the issuance thereof.
My name is Cody Price. I represent the compliance arm of the Diamond J, BAR X, and Adobe creek projects. Each are at various stages of the early activation process.
The new rules that are being voted on today regarding the early activation licenses, will 100% destroy our projects.
Our projects are 100% investor funded. These investors will pull out if the new rules take effect as proposed. 800 new h=jobs wil also disappear. The new rules need more thought and time to be well integrated.
For the sake of clarity and consistency, the language in Resolution (21-108 B) and the language under subsection (h) located in the Amendment (21-108A) should mirror one another since both are explaining the requirements for obtaining an ADDITIONAL EA Permit. I also feel that operators running under EA’s in 2020 should be able to request a new EA for 2021 with additional acreage as long as the footprint is within the proposed cultivation area identified in their UP application. The entire area is the subject within the Initial Study paperwork, so the whole area should be available to be Early Activated if the IS comes back with a mitigated negative declaration as long all other requirements for EA are satisfied. This will maintain the environmental protections that are desired while allowing for additional county tax revenue from cultivators who are expanding following a challenging year where many operators such as myself had to scale down due to supply chain issues caused by Covid.
These proposed changes will drastically effect the way in which Lake County Cannabis community operates. This County has earned a reputation over the last few years as a place that supports legal, regulated cannabis production. This County has seen an influx of land sales, and cultivation application that have overwhelmed the CDD. Yet, instead of looking at what this County should do to keep pace with the industry we are placing arbitrary barriers to curtail this growth. I strongly oppose many of the amendments proposed here. In the attached letter, it details the issues, and an approach to solutions acceptable to the whole county. I am sure that many of the area residents are tired of hearing about Cannabis Cultivation, I know the cannabis community is tired of playing chase. Each day for the last 4 years, cultivators across the State have woken up to new regulations at every point.
Do not vote to approve these amendments without a standing cannabis ad hoc committee
The EA process as designed is an effective way to obtain state licensure for partial project elements and make ends meet while going through the process. These amendments should not be retroactively applied to existing permit apps. Especially for apps where the EA footprint is on areas of historically similar uses such as ag use areas proposed for an outdoor cannabis cultivation. Full permit apps with EA requests already include preliminary CEQA information to allow staff to make the determination that the EA areas will not result in any adverse impacts. By significantly delaying the EA process, and requiring a full CEQA study, the majority of EA apps in process will be eliminated, removing the ability for significant tax revenue for the County in 2021. This is also unfair discrimination specifically against one industry unless these restrictions are applied to all types of use permit apps. Please consider these points when looking at the validity of this proposed amendment.
I am against this EA resolution for a few reasons. Adding neighbor review as a criteria would unfairly limit many projects. Secondly, the CEQA component will take a lot of time, and effort by the County, as they are already severely backed up. The State is looking for
potential applicants to have their LSA waiver, so this would be a valid new requirement for early activation.
Golden State Herb, a Lake-County tax-paying cultivator and state licensee, supports continuing the EA program with suggested changes (in the attached letter) to the proposed Ordinance that are in accordance with CEQA. First and foremost the changes must be FAIR to Use Permit Applicants who have been in the administrative process with the Lake County Community Development Department for a long period of time: our Project was deemed complete in OCTOBER 2019 and our Planning Commission hearing was January 14, 2021 (the hearing was continued, with no date certain, due to the new Farmland Protection Ordinance that was enacted ONE MONTH prior to our hearing after waiting 15+ months for said hearing). Last year we grew a 10,000 sf test plot via EA in anticipation of a fully-entitled 2-acre Use Permit approval for the 2021 growing season. Now with the regulations as proposed, we will be limited to 10,000 sf again instead of being able to EA the full acreage that has been CEQA approved. Fair?
The Lake County Cannabis Alliance supports the efforts of the County and Staff for this effort to extend the Early Activation program. Please see the attached letter on behalf of our members.
We submitted all applications on 6-19-20 and paid all fees on 5-26-20. We have been working diligently with the county to resolve all issues. We assumed that the IS for our project have been started in 2020, however, we still don't know if the county has started this process. The communication has been extremely slow with the county. If we are now expected to have the CEQA completed prior to receiving the EA then we can contract with a 3rd party consultant to complete this, however, we don't know how long this will take to complete for our site and projects like ours should be placed on an accelerated and priority review and approval process and be considered qualified for the EA program.
We qualified for Early Activation (EA) on July 13, 2020. Unfortunately, it was not aligned with the State process for us and we have now received our State Provisional license, but never utilized the EA. We asked for it to be extended, but were told that the policy was still up in the air. We never had the opportunity to plant despite holding a State provisional license. Hopefully, we will receive our approval from the county soon, so that the issue is moot. However, it does raise the issue for others (and possibly us) about how the County will deal with situations like ours. Will EA be extended upon request, assuming all requirements are met, and will permit fees be refunded if it didn't happen within 6 months? Also, shouldn't those of us who had EA, but never could utilize it, be moved to the front of the approval process for our County permit?
Early Activation has allowed the industry to thrive here while waiting for staff to process permits. Many applicants have been very patient with the process since delays were not keeping them from farming. This will drastically change that. Applicants will have no idea when or if they will ever get beyond the Initial Study phase. This is going to shake their confidence in County Government. The memo has 4 suggestions to streamline the process. #3, using college students, should be deleted. We need a mix of the other options. Let applicants know from the start that their permits will be accelerated if they use consultants to complete CEQA. This will speed up future permits. Also solicit a consulting firm to complete the existing CEQA reviews. This will speed up existing permits and Measure C taxes collected will more than pay for the consultant fees. A County wide EIR is needed, but that will take years, distract staff even more, and undoubtedly face legal scrutiny from someone.
1. Why is the County opening the Early Activation process, which is a temporary status, to allow the neighbors to control it? What is the role of the County Government in terms of this existing proposition? Why is the County expanding their administrative process when the system is already overloaded and in need of repair?
We currently have 2 active projects, both been approved for Early Activation. In one of the properties, we lost our status because the cannabis taxes were not paid as no growing had taken place. We were specifically asked, on both properties, to hire an outside consultant to perform the initial CEQA study, which we did promptly, at a substantial cost. Both studies have been “in the system” for over 2 months, with no confirmation of receipt, status, or any kind of response and/or timeline whatsoever. How can we understand where are MUP permits stand, and get a specific update as to the status of our permit application?