During the Planning Commission meeting, I recommended that the “discussion” considering FPZ zones particularly in District 1 be open for discussion. I believe my statement was that the door on this topic should not be 'closed shut’ as we evaluate the Cannabis Ordinance especially in regard to District 1. Currently there are no FPZ exclusion areas noted in District 1 from previous implementation of the Cannabis Ordinance under previous leadership.
The LCCA has jumped to the conclusion that there is a recommendation for expanding and that there are potential negative implications. While there is no specific recommendation for expanding, I believe we should consider expanding for the purpose of streamlining the cannabis application process.
We do not have ‘deep soils’ in District 1. But we do have important ag lands that provide economic vitality, livestock ranches, and fire protection, and scenic corridors. We also have AG lands that have no real water availability. For example, the properties south of Middletown at the southern entry to the County.
Whether or not these parcels should actual be zoned ag since they have no water is a different discussion, but currently several properties are zoned Agriculture and have been for decades with little to no ag production. Why? Because they are not conducive to the production of water using crops like cannabis, or even grapes, unless surface water (pond) is available, or one chooses to ‘dry farm.’
Most south county ag properties have ponds because the groundwater (wells) is unreliable for sustainable crop production. Extracting water from low performing wells will likely put undue stress on the aquifer and will negatively impact surrounding parcels. During summer months, groundwater is simply not an option. Many wells go dry and residents in the area truck in water during the summer months whether they reside on ag land or rural zoned parcels.
Bottomline, several South Lake County Ag parcels are not conducive to growing any water using crops.
The Nina Star Cannabis project (denied) is an example of a cannabis project which sought a permit for a cannabis operation on ag land south of Middletown. The project was denied by PC, appealed to BOS, and again denied.
However, by all reasonable rights, since it is zoned agriculture, a cannabis or a vineyard operation should be allowed at that site. I am sure the applicant spent a lot of time and money to apply for a project that was ultimately denied primarily because there is NO water.
Should we continue to allow applicants and county staff to needlessly spend time and money to plan for a project on ag parcels that are ultimately denied because there is no water? Or should we exclude said ag parcel(s) via an FPZ exclusion and save all of us time and effort?
I encourage an ‘open discussion’ on the FPZ topic rather than closing the door on this discussion completely. In this case, expanding an AG exclusion zone could actually help to expedite permit applications instead of wasting 4-5 years seeking a cannabis permit on an ag parcel that is not viable.
Developers need to know where they can develop successfully rather than wasting time seeking permits on parcels that are not feasible for their project, regardless of how the parcel is zoned.
Additionally there may be other considerations such as preserving and protecting organic operations and/or ag parcels that provide fire breaks for our local communities.
I am writing to support revising the County Ordinances in Article 27 and/or Article 68 of the Lake County Code to remove language that explicitly excludes homeschools from the same cannabis setback protections afforded to other K–12 private and public schools. As noted in the legislative text for this item (p. 3), this issue warrants Board attention and correction.
Under California law, homeschools operating under private school affidavits are recognized as a lawful “species of private school.” This principle has been clearly established since Jonathan L. v. Superior Court (2008) 165 Cal.App.4th 1074. Homeschools are consistently granted equal protections under the Health and Safety Code and the Business and Professions Code when it comes to proximity to liquor stores, bars, adult entertainment, parolee housing, and other land uses. However, cannabis-related protections are a notable—and unjustified—exception.
Importantly, Lake County has the legal authority to adopt local standards that exceed minimum state requirements. There is no barrier preventing the County from extending setback protections to homeschools, even if the California HSC or BPC codes currently fall short in that regard.
Former Supervisor Mike Green, who was closely involved in crafting the County’s original cannabis ordinance, recently clarified during a Planning Commission hearing that it was not the intention of the County to deny homeschools equal protection-- quite the opposite. Rather, the issue stemmed from practical concerns at the time—specifically the lack of reliable location data for homeschools due to privacy protections and the self-reporting nature of their registration process.
As a potential solution, Mr. Green -- who has long supported the cannabis industry -- suggested a setback of 1,000 feet from all residences. This proposal offers a balanced, enforceable framework that would provide functional parity for homeschools without requiring a separate identification mechanism. I believe this is a reasonable and fair compromise.
Finally, I want to address an argument raised in opposition to homeschool protections: that allowing setbacks for homeschools would encourage abuse of the affidavit system to block cannabis permits. This concern appears speculative and unsupported by real-world examples. Homeschools already enjoy protective setbacks in other land use contexts, and there is no evidence of such provisions being misused to manipulate zoning outcomes.
I respectfully urge the Board to take this opportunity to bring Lake County’s ordinances into alignment with both state legal precedent and basic principles of equity and child safety. Homeschool students deserve the same protections as their peers in traditional educational settings.
To Supervisors: Crandell, Rasmussen, Sabatier, Owen and Pyska
Re: Agenda Item 6.9: 11:00 A.M. ‐ Consideration of Summary of Cannabis Policy Recommendations and Request for Board Direction
I am submitting comment to the Lake County Board of Supervisors respectfully requesting that active dialogue occur regarding the insufficient cannabis policy in Lake County.
I and my neighbors spoke against a proposed cannabis operation in our neighborhood at more than 5 Community Development Meetings. I came away from these experiences with serious concerns about the lack of regard for the public's safety, health and wellbeing. I have serious concerns over the CDD’s lack of transparency and the disregard of repeated requests to address the community’s concerns and grievances.
I have serious concerns over how our most vulnerable community members are being disregarded and de-valued in this process.
Please consider the following:
Because of on-going serious health concerns, I homeschool both of my children. My son is 12-years old and is a cancer survivor having undergone 4-years of intensive chemotherapy. He was diagnosed and began treatment, the beginning of his kindergarten year. He has on-going health issues that a grow operation less than 400-feet from our backyard, would impact significantly.
We ask consideration of the following with respect to homeschools:
• Please recognize within the county’s policies and ordinances that homeschools are acknowledge by the State of California as a ’species of private school’.
• Recognizing homeschools within the county's policies and ordinances as a school would afford homeschooled children the same protections children that are able to attend in-person schools, public schools, day cares, etc, receive.
• Please consider inclusion of 1000-foot setbacks from homeschools with a current Private School Affidavit on file with the State of California.
Please also consider:
• Cannabis Permittees are NOT following the current ordinances or CEQA requirements.
o Are not these environmental quality standards put in place to protect the environment? To protect the health and well-being of our community? Our children?
• CDD is not performing its duties specified in the ordinance.
• Conditions of approval for compliance and ensuring code violations are addressed is not occurring.
o An ordinance is of little value if adherence is not enforced.
• Please address cannabis odor mitigation. How can my children focus and succeed academically with a nauseating, intrusive odor distracting them for extended periods? On a continual basis? What happens when my son becomes neurologically overstimulated and begins to shut down? What happens to all the successes and progress we’ve made?
• The quality of life of neighboring properties to proposed grows should not be negatively impacted.
• Recently, the grow operation in our neighborhood placed a thick, steel cable across the roadway where it veers off from our shared driveway near my house. This is where the shared road passes over a different neighbor’s property. Multiple signs have been posted along the road warning trespassers of surveillance systems. All of this before the roadway even enters the grow site’s property? Would you feel comfortable having this a few hundred feet from your children’s play yard? School? Outdoor classroom? Why is this ‘security’ needed? What dangers are being brought near my home?
Please add protections for homeschools to the County’s policies and ordinances. Please enforce those policies. Many children are succeeding in the calm environment a homeschool provides. Many of these children have already suffered greatly until finally landing in the right environment for them to succeed. Please don’t take that away from them.
Thank you for your review and consideration,
Joanie Henderson
17750 Little High valley Road
Lower Lake, Ca
Hearing from everyone – public with all opinions included is important. I respectfully request that public comments on all the topics—particularly concerning wetland delineations, water quality, cumulative impacts of increased projects and other issues be given the same weight and deliberation as the recommendations from COTF and CDD. We also specifically ask the current Board of Supervisors to revisit and weigh in on the Zoning/Permit Table, which was last reviewed by the prior Board. This is offered not simply as a public request, but as a respectful appeal for thoughtful and responsible land use planning—planning that recognizes ecological constraints, values community input, and incorporates the expertise of relevant agencies.
I am one of the many Lake County residents that has expressed serious concerns about the cannabis ordinance and feel these have not been incorporated. The proposed cannabis ordinance is insufficient and needs reform to address resident concerns and the negative impacts to Lake County quality of life, property values, the economy as well as tourism. I fully support the Community Action Project (CAP) letter dated 7/7/2025 and Chuck Lamb/Holly Harris letter dated 7/8/2025. I urge you to not approve the Cannabis Ordinance as proposed.
During the Planning Commission meeting, I recommended that the “discussion” considering FPZ zones particularly in District 1 be open for discussion. I believe my statement was that the door on this topic should not be 'closed shut’ as we evaluate the Cannabis Ordinance especially in regard to District 1. Currently there are no FPZ exclusion areas noted in District 1 from previous implementation of the Cannabis Ordinance under previous leadership.
The LCCA has jumped to the conclusion that there is a recommendation for expanding and that there are potential negative implications. While there is no specific recommendation for expanding, I believe we should consider expanding for the purpose of streamlining the cannabis application process.
We do not have ‘deep soils’ in District 1. But we do have important ag lands that provide economic vitality, livestock ranches, and fire protection, and scenic corridors. We also have AG lands that have no real water availability. For example, the properties south of Middletown at the southern entry to the County.
Whether or not these parcels should actual be zoned ag since they have no water is a different discussion, but currently several properties are zoned Agriculture and have been for decades with little to no ag production. Why? Because they are not conducive to the production of water using crops like cannabis, or even grapes, unless surface water (pond) is available, or one chooses to ‘dry farm.’
Most south county ag properties have ponds because the groundwater (wells) is unreliable for sustainable crop production. Extracting water from low performing wells will likely put undue stress on the aquifer and will negatively impact surrounding parcels. During summer months, groundwater is simply not an option. Many wells go dry and residents in the area truck in water during the summer months whether they reside on ag land or rural zoned parcels.
Bottomline, several South Lake County Ag parcels are not conducive to growing any water using crops.
The Nina Star Cannabis project (denied) is an example of a cannabis project which sought a permit for a cannabis operation on ag land south of Middletown. The project was denied by PC, appealed to BOS, and again denied.
However, by all reasonable rights, since it is zoned agriculture, a cannabis or a vineyard operation should be allowed at that site. I am sure the applicant spent a lot of time and money to apply for a project that was ultimately denied primarily because there is NO water.
Should we continue to allow applicants and county staff to needlessly spend time and money to plan for a project on ag parcels that are ultimately denied because there is no water? Or should we exclude said ag parcel(s) via an FPZ exclusion and save all of us time and effort?
I encourage an ‘open discussion’ on the FPZ topic rather than closing the door on this discussion completely. In this case, expanding an AG exclusion zone could actually help to expedite permit applications instead of wasting 4-5 years seeking a cannabis permit on an ag parcel that is not viable.
Developers need to know where they can develop successfully rather than wasting time seeking permits on parcels that are not feasible for their project, regardless of how the parcel is zoned.
Additionally there may be other considerations such as preserving and protecting organic operations and/or ag parcels that provide fire breaks for our local communities.
Thank you,
Monica Rosenthal
Dear Members of the Board,
I am writing to support revising the County Ordinances in Article 27 and/or Article 68 of the Lake County Code to remove language that explicitly excludes homeschools from the same cannabis setback protections afforded to other K–12 private and public schools. As noted in the legislative text for this item (p. 3), this issue warrants Board attention and correction.
Under California law, homeschools operating under private school affidavits are recognized as a lawful “species of private school.” This principle has been clearly established since Jonathan L. v. Superior Court (2008) 165 Cal.App.4th 1074. Homeschools are consistently granted equal protections under the Health and Safety Code and the Business and Professions Code when it comes to proximity to liquor stores, bars, adult entertainment, parolee housing, and other land uses. However, cannabis-related protections are a notable—and unjustified—exception.
Importantly, Lake County has the legal authority to adopt local standards that exceed minimum state requirements. There is no barrier preventing the County from extending setback protections to homeschools, even if the California HSC or BPC codes currently fall short in that regard.
Former Supervisor Mike Green, who was closely involved in crafting the County’s original cannabis ordinance, recently clarified during a Planning Commission hearing that it was not the intention of the County to deny homeschools equal protection-- quite the opposite. Rather, the issue stemmed from practical concerns at the time—specifically the lack of reliable location data for homeschools due to privacy protections and the self-reporting nature of their registration process.
As a potential solution, Mr. Green -- who has long supported the cannabis industry -- suggested a setback of 1,000 feet from all residences. This proposal offers a balanced, enforceable framework that would provide functional parity for homeschools without requiring a separate identification mechanism. I believe this is a reasonable and fair compromise.
Finally, I want to address an argument raised in opposition to homeschool protections: that allowing setbacks for homeschools would encourage abuse of the affidavit system to block cannabis permits. This concern appears speculative and unsupported by real-world examples. Homeschools already enjoy protective setbacks in other land use contexts, and there is no evidence of such provisions being misused to manipulate zoning outcomes.
I respectfully urge the Board to take this opportunity to bring Lake County’s ordinances into alignment with both state legal precedent and basic principles of equity and child safety. Homeschool students deserve the same protections as their peers in traditional educational settings.
Thank you for your consideration.
Sincerely,
Thomas Lajcik
To Supervisors: Crandell, Rasmussen, Sabatier, Owen and Pyska
Re: Agenda Item 6.9: 11:00 A.M. ‐ Consideration of Summary of Cannabis Policy Recommendations and Request for Board Direction
I am submitting comment to the Lake County Board of Supervisors respectfully requesting that active dialogue occur regarding the insufficient cannabis policy in Lake County.
I and my neighbors spoke against a proposed cannabis operation in our neighborhood at more than 5 Community Development Meetings. I came away from these experiences with serious concerns about the lack of regard for the public's safety, health and wellbeing. I have serious concerns over the CDD’s lack of transparency and the disregard of repeated requests to address the community’s concerns and grievances.
I have serious concerns over how our most vulnerable community members are being disregarded and de-valued in this process.
Please consider the following:
Because of on-going serious health concerns, I homeschool both of my children. My son is 12-years old and is a cancer survivor having undergone 4-years of intensive chemotherapy. He was diagnosed and began treatment, the beginning of his kindergarten year. He has on-going health issues that a grow operation less than 400-feet from our backyard, would impact significantly.
We ask consideration of the following with respect to homeschools:
• Please recognize within the county’s policies and ordinances that homeschools are acknowledge by the State of California as a ’species of private school’.
• Recognizing homeschools within the county's policies and ordinances as a school would afford homeschooled children the same protections children that are able to attend in-person schools, public schools, day cares, etc, receive.
• Please consider inclusion of 1000-foot setbacks from homeschools with a current Private School Affidavit on file with the State of California.
Please also consider:
• Cannabis Permittees are NOT following the current ordinances or CEQA requirements.
o Are not these environmental quality standards put in place to protect the environment? To protect the health and well-being of our community? Our children?
• CDD is not performing its duties specified in the ordinance.
• Conditions of approval for compliance and ensuring code violations are addressed is not occurring.
o An ordinance is of little value if adherence is not enforced.
• Please address cannabis odor mitigation. How can my children focus and succeed academically with a nauseating, intrusive odor distracting them for extended periods? On a continual basis? What happens when my son becomes neurologically overstimulated and begins to shut down? What happens to all the successes and progress we’ve made?
• The quality of life of neighboring properties to proposed grows should not be negatively impacted.
• Recently, the grow operation in our neighborhood placed a thick, steel cable across the roadway where it veers off from our shared driveway near my house. This is where the shared road passes over a different neighbor’s property. Multiple signs have been posted along the road warning trespassers of surveillance systems. All of this before the roadway even enters the grow site’s property? Would you feel comfortable having this a few hundred feet from your children’s play yard? School? Outdoor classroom? Why is this ‘security’ needed? What dangers are being brought near my home?
Please add protections for homeschools to the County’s policies and ordinances. Please enforce those policies. Many children are succeeding in the calm environment a homeschool provides. Many of these children have already suffered greatly until finally landing in the right environment for them to succeed. Please don’t take that away from them.
Thank you for your review and consideration,
Joanie Henderson
17750 Little High valley Road
Lower Lake, Ca
Hearing from everyone – public with all opinions included is important. I respectfully request that public comments on all the topics—particularly concerning wetland delineations, water quality, cumulative impacts of increased projects and other issues be given the same weight and deliberation as the recommendations from COTF and CDD. We also specifically ask the current Board of Supervisors to revisit and weigh in on the Zoning/Permit Table, which was last reviewed by the prior Board. This is offered not simply as a public request, but as a respectful appeal for thoughtful and responsible land use planning—planning that recognizes ecological constraints, values community input, and incorporates the expertise of relevant agencies.
I am one of the many Lake County residents that has expressed serious concerns about the cannabis ordinance and feel these have not been incorporated. The proposed cannabis ordinance is insufficient and needs reform to address resident concerns and the negative impacts to Lake County quality of life, property values, the economy as well as tourism. I fully support the Community Action Project (CAP) letter dated 7/7/2025 and Chuck Lamb/Holly Harris letter dated 7/8/2025. I urge you to not approve the Cannabis Ordinance as proposed.