6.6 25-7351:00 P.M. - Consideration of an Interim Urgency Ordinance placing a Moratorium on the Issuance of Use Permits for Commercial Cultivation of Cannabis within the Unincorporated area of the County of Lake
I support the adoption of a moratorium on new and pending cannabis permits, but I strongly urge the Board to define the scope carefully to ensure it leads to real policy and permitting reform. Specifically, I believe the moratorium should apply to all cannabis applications that were not deemed complete as of July 8, 2025.
Importantly, the moratorium should be limited strictly to cannabis-related permits. Agricultural permitting, which is administered through the Agricultural Department, has not been a source of controversy and is not the focus of the current policy concerns or ordinance changes. The need for review and reform lies squarely within the cannabis permitting process overseen by the Community Development Department (CDD), and the moratorium should be crafted accordingly to avoid unnecessary disruption to legitimate farming operations.
Allowing incomplete cannabis applications to continue under current, outdated standards undermines the very purpose of a moratorium—especially if the goal is to reform County cannabis policy, improve enforcement, address cumulative impacts, and align with community expectations.
There is no legal requirement under the Permit Streamlining Act (Government Code § 65920 et seq.) to process incomplete applications. In fact, the Act supports a cutoff based on completeness: only applications that have received a written determination of completeness from the Community Development Department (CDD) are entitled to vesting rights under the current rules. Pending or incomplete applications have no such claim.
I encourage the Board to adopt the following criteria to define what qualifies as not complete:
An application is deemed not complete if, as of July 8, 2025:
It has not received a written determination of completeness from CDD pursuant to Government Code § 65943;
It is pending agency referral and lacks final comments from required reviewing agencies;
It is missing or undergoing revision of required technical studies, including but not limited to hydrology, biological, cultural, or fire safety reports;
CEQA review has not been initiated through the filing of a NOP, NOI, ND, or EIR; or
A “Determination of Incompleteness” or “Request for Additional Information” has been issued by CDD.
Establishing a clear cutoff ensures fairness and transparency while giving the County a meaningful pause to implement reform. Let’s not allow the exception to swallow the rule.
The so-called urgency ordinance proposes a ham-handed solution to a non-existent problem. As recently as July 8, your board heard that CDD had ample capacity to process approximately 30 cultivation permit applications received and deemed complete. Your board also deferred action on how and whether to accept new permit applications under the pending ordinance revisions. For the time being, any property owner who lacks a years-old cannabis water discharge permit issued by the State Water Boards is barred from applying under the de facto moratorium now in place. https://youtu.be/sECg-gY4ftI?si=P1Al9eCqSB1-jZ9c&t=7120
The circular logic of the draft ordinance misstates the history of cannabis regulation in Lake County. Starting with the self-certification process created for legacy collective growers under Article 72, this board has found repeatedly that a) it is illicit, unregulated cultivation that creates a potential or actual threat to public health, safety and welfare, and that b) it is therefore necessary to create and enforce reasonable regulations for commercial cannabis activities to reduce or eliminate such threats. The county's discretionary permit process has done exactly what it was designed for, analyze and monitor cannabis projects in compliance with local codes and state laws, yet this ordinance wrongly purports that new projects approved under the process now in place pose a threat. Not so.
The proposed findings do not provide any substantial evidence of any "immediate" threat to public health and safety as required by Gov. Code 65858 and the draft ordinance is invalid on its face on that basis. Further, the proposed exemption for permits in the pipeline as of July 8 renders the ordinance largely moot, there being no identifiable or quantifiable class of permit applicants to which it would apply.
This proposed action requires a 4/5 vote, and on that basis alone a continuance would be justified to allow full BOS consideration. The more expeditious route would be to dispatch with further consideration of this misguided moratorium by calling for a vote of those board members present July 15. Either way, don't trash years of hard work on our cannabis ordinances and future refinements based on false statements that permitted, state-licensed cannabis farms pose a threat to Lake County. They don't.
I am writing to express my strong support for the interim moratorium on the issuance of use permits for commercial cannabis cultivation in the unincorporated areas of Lake County.
First and foremost, I commend the Board for recognizing the importance of protecting public health, safety, and natural resources, especially in light of the ongoing drought conditions. Allowing commercial cannabis cultivation to proceed without clear and effective local regulations could have significant adverse impacts on water supplies, the environment, and surrounding communities.
I also fully support the Board’s decision to temporarily halt new permits to ensure cannabis operations align with the forthcoming revisions to Article 73 of the County Zoning Ordinance. This pause will allow the County to establish updated land-use standards and zoning regulations that ensure cannabis businesses do not conflict with neighboring properties and help preserve the rural character of Lake County.
This responsible action will give both staff and the public the necessary time to develop a balanced ordinance that addresses community interests and environmental concerns. It is crucial that the public’s voice is heard and considered throughout this process, as the impacts of cannabis cultivation affect the entire community.
In closing, I encourage the Board to continue engaging the public in the development of Article 73, particularly on key issues such as quality of life, safety, water usage, odor control, and buffer zones.
Redbud Audubon supports the moratorium until the cannabis ordinance is in place. Current hydrology reports and spring and fall bio studies along with the parcels surveyed by a qualified CA recognized surveyor professional (not using GIS data) should be mandatory.
We commend the Board of Supervisors for considering a pause and re-evaluation of commercial cannabis cultivation in Lake County. This is a necessary and responsible step toward ensuring that policy serves the entire community, not just one industry.
While it may be true that regulations evolve without halting activity in some sectors. This is not just about technical updates — it is about addressing real-world impacts: economic imbalance, environmental degradation, ignoring safety standards, advancing wildfire concerns, and the erosion of trust in local governance.
Despite claims of a strong cannabis program, the promised local revenue has not materialized. Profits largely leave the county, while residents are left to deal with the consequences — increased water use, noise, dust, road damage, enforcement costs, and ultimately diminishing rural quality of life. Local taxpayers are effectively subsidizing the negative impacts of an industry that isn’t meaningfully contributing to the public good.
Unlike a general building boom, where jobs and housing benefit local families, cannabis grows are often isolated operations, run outside of Federal oversight with minimal local hiring and little long-term economic benefit. Meanwhile, they can drive up enforcement costs, erode rural trust in governance, and strain natural resources — all of which the rest of the county has to subsidize. A temporary moratorium is not an overreaction — it’s a necessary tool for rebalancing priorities and ensuring public policy works for everyone, not just a few well-connected growers.
Lake County has an opportunity to lead with fairness, foresight, and integrity. Pausing to recalibrate is the right thing to do — and we thank the Board for having the courage to consider it.
I support a pause on new cannabis applications and existing applications that are not complete. Pushing through an ordinance that does not serve the best needs of all Lake County can have long lasting impacts. Cannabis tax revenue numbers for 2024 have been thrown around. Per the Lake County financial report as of June 30, 2024 the cannabis tax revenue was $2.5 million, just .011% of total revenue. Whereas property taxes were $33million, 14.9% of total revenue and constitutes the largest source of discretionary funds. Lake County approved a temporary reduction in cultivation tax by 50% and reduced the tax to canopy only. What is the amount of unpaid, deferred and past due cannabis tax? Lake County residents have quality of life and property values, a lifeblood to Lake County , at stake. Residents should have a voice in the development of ordinances.
This is completely unnecessary. The County upgrades regulations all the time, but you don't shut down an industry while the changes crawl through the system. If we are going to update building codes, do you pass a moratorium refusing to issue any more building permits before the revisions are approved? Lake County has one of the best cannabis programs in the State, but there are always room for improvement. Implementing a moratorium while you do that is a gross overreaction.
Twenty years ago we experienced a building boom here in Lake County. Real estate values skyrocketed, our economy flourished, yet one of our Supervisors seem to feel it was too much of a good thing and proposed a Use Permit moratorium exactly like this. It failed without any support from the rest of the Board, this moratorium needs to meet the same fate.
Dear Board Members,
I support the adoption of a moratorium on new and pending cannabis permits, but I strongly urge the Board to define the scope carefully to ensure it leads to real policy and permitting reform. Specifically, I believe the moratorium should apply to all cannabis applications that were not deemed complete as of July 8, 2025.
Importantly, the moratorium should be limited strictly to cannabis-related permits. Agricultural permitting, which is administered through the Agricultural Department, has not been a source of controversy and is not the focus of the current policy concerns or ordinance changes. The need for review and reform lies squarely within the cannabis permitting process overseen by the Community Development Department (CDD), and the moratorium should be crafted accordingly to avoid unnecessary disruption to legitimate farming operations.
Allowing incomplete cannabis applications to continue under current, outdated standards undermines the very purpose of a moratorium—especially if the goal is to reform County cannabis policy, improve enforcement, address cumulative impacts, and align with community expectations.
There is no legal requirement under the Permit Streamlining Act (Government Code § 65920 et seq.) to process incomplete applications. In fact, the Act supports a cutoff based on completeness: only applications that have received a written determination of completeness from the Community Development Department (CDD) are entitled to vesting rights under the current rules. Pending or incomplete applications have no such claim.
I encourage the Board to adopt the following criteria to define what qualifies as not complete:
An application is deemed not complete if, as of July 8, 2025:
It has not received a written determination of completeness from CDD pursuant to Government Code § 65943;
It is pending agency referral and lacks final comments from required reviewing agencies;
It is missing or undergoing revision of required technical studies, including but not limited to hydrology, biological, cultural, or fire safety reports;
CEQA review has not been initiated through the filing of a NOP, NOI, ND, or EIR; or
A “Determination of Incompleteness” or “Request for Additional Information” has been issued by CDD.
Establishing a clear cutoff ensures fairness and transparency while giving the County a meaningful pause to implement reform. Let’s not allow the exception to swallow the rule.
Sincerely,
Thomas Lajcik
Please find attached a letter of support from the Lake County Community Action Project for this item.
Thank you.
The so-called urgency ordinance proposes a ham-handed solution to a non-existent problem. As recently as July 8, your board heard that CDD had ample capacity to process approximately 30 cultivation permit applications received and deemed complete. Your board also deferred action on how and whether to accept new permit applications under the pending ordinance revisions. For the time being, any property owner who lacks a years-old cannabis water discharge permit issued by the State Water Boards is barred from applying under the de facto moratorium now in place. https://youtu.be/sECg-gY4ftI?si=P1Al9eCqSB1-jZ9c&t=7120
The circular logic of the draft ordinance misstates the history of cannabis regulation in Lake County. Starting with the self-certification process created for legacy collective growers under Article 72, this board has found repeatedly that a) it is illicit, unregulated cultivation that creates a potential or actual threat to public health, safety and welfare, and that b) it is therefore necessary to create and enforce reasonable regulations for commercial cannabis activities to reduce or eliminate such threats. The county's discretionary permit process has done exactly what it was designed for, analyze and monitor cannabis projects in compliance with local codes and state laws, yet this ordinance wrongly purports that new projects approved under the process now in place pose a threat. Not so.
The proposed findings do not provide any substantial evidence of any "immediate" threat to public health and safety as required by Gov. Code 65858 and the draft ordinance is invalid on its face on that basis. Further, the proposed exemption for permits in the pipeline as of July 8 renders the ordinance largely moot, there being no identifiable or quantifiable class of permit applicants to which it would apply.
This proposed action requires a 4/5 vote, and on that basis alone a continuance would be justified to allow full BOS consideration. The more expeditious route would be to dispatch with further consideration of this misguided moratorium by calling for a vote of those board members present July 15. Either way, don't trash years of hard work on our cannabis ordinances and future refinements based on false statements that permitted, state-licensed cannabis farms pose a threat to Lake County. They don't.
I am writing to express my strong support for the interim moratorium on the issuance of use permits for commercial cannabis cultivation in the unincorporated areas of Lake County.
First and foremost, I commend the Board for recognizing the importance of protecting public health, safety, and natural resources, especially in light of the ongoing drought conditions. Allowing commercial cannabis cultivation to proceed without clear and effective local regulations could have significant adverse impacts on water supplies, the environment, and surrounding communities.
I also fully support the Board’s decision to temporarily halt new permits to ensure cannabis operations align with the forthcoming revisions to Article 73 of the County Zoning Ordinance. This pause will allow the County to establish updated land-use standards and zoning regulations that ensure cannabis businesses do not conflict with neighboring properties and help preserve the rural character of Lake County.
This responsible action will give both staff and the public the necessary time to develop a balanced ordinance that addresses community interests and environmental concerns. It is crucial that the public’s voice is heard and considered throughout this process, as the impacts of cannabis cultivation affect the entire community.
In closing, I encourage the Board to continue engaging the public in the development of Article 73, particularly on key issues such as quality of life, safety, water usage, odor control, and buffer zones.
Redbud Audubon supports the moratorium until the cannabis ordinance is in place. Current hydrology reports and spring and fall bio studies along with the parcels surveyed by a qualified CA recognized surveyor professional (not using GIS data) should be mandatory.
We commend the Board of Supervisors for considering a pause and re-evaluation of commercial cannabis cultivation in Lake County. This is a necessary and responsible step toward ensuring that policy serves the entire community, not just one industry.
While it may be true that regulations evolve without halting activity in some sectors. This is not just about technical updates — it is about addressing real-world impacts: economic imbalance, environmental degradation, ignoring safety standards, advancing wildfire concerns, and the erosion of trust in local governance.
Despite claims of a strong cannabis program, the promised local revenue has not materialized. Profits largely leave the county, while residents are left to deal with the consequences — increased water use, noise, dust, road damage, enforcement costs, and ultimately diminishing rural quality of life. Local taxpayers are effectively subsidizing the negative impacts of an industry that isn’t meaningfully contributing to the public good.
Unlike a general building boom, where jobs and housing benefit local families, cannabis grows are often isolated operations, run outside of Federal oversight with minimal local hiring and little long-term economic benefit. Meanwhile, they can drive up enforcement costs, erode rural trust in governance, and strain natural resources — all of which the rest of the county has to subsidize. A temporary moratorium is not an overreaction — it’s a necessary tool for rebalancing priorities and ensuring public policy works for everyone, not just a few well-connected growers.
Lake County has an opportunity to lead with fairness, foresight, and integrity. Pausing to recalibrate is the right thing to do — and we thank the Board for having the courage to consider it.
I support a pause on new cannabis applications and existing applications that are not complete. Pushing through an ordinance that does not serve the best needs of all Lake County can have long lasting impacts. Cannabis tax revenue numbers for 2024 have been thrown around. Per the Lake County financial report as of June 30, 2024 the cannabis tax revenue was $2.5 million, just .011% of total revenue. Whereas property taxes were $33million, 14.9% of total revenue and constitutes the largest source of discretionary funds. Lake County approved a temporary reduction in cultivation tax by 50% and reduced the tax to canopy only. What is the amount of unpaid, deferred and past due cannabis tax? Lake County residents have quality of life and property values, a lifeblood to Lake County , at stake. Residents should have a voice in the development of ordinances.
This is completely unnecessary. The County upgrades regulations all the time, but you don't shut down an industry while the changes crawl through the system. If we are going to update building codes, do you pass a moratorium refusing to issue any more building permits before the revisions are approved? Lake County has one of the best cannabis programs in the State, but there are always room for improvement. Implementing a moratorium while you do that is a gross overreaction.
Twenty years ago we experienced a building boom here in Lake County. Real estate values skyrocketed, our economy flourished, yet one of our Supervisors seem to feel it was too much of a good thing and proposed a Use Permit moratorium exactly like this. It failed without any support from the rest of the Board, this moratorium needs to meet the same fate.