6b 25-11879:20 A.M. - PUBLIC HEARING - Consideration of Ordinance to Amend Chapter 21, Article 27 of the Lake County Code regarding Commercial Cannabis Regulations
I know considerable time is being spent on preparing both the interim cannabis ordinance as well as the outline/structure of the entire permanent cannabis ordinance.
I wanted to ask you to consider a couple of things that may already be on your radar but I wanted to be certain that these points are at least considered as you come closer to finalizing the ordinance(s). The first issue (grandfathering “complete” applications) likely relates to the interim ordinance while the second issue (avoiding monocropping) is likely more relevant to the permanent ordinance.
First, although there was discussion about “grandfathering” in those applications that were deemed “complete”, I would encourage you to ensure this applies to the interim ordinance. Otherwise, the parties that have spent considerable resources, time, money and planning (including the purchasing of property, working with staff, taking on funding, hiring, etc.) will not potentially be left holding an empty bag after doing everything in their power to be compliant with the laws passed by the Board of Supervisors to date.
Second, I believe that there is an opportunity for the County to be on the forefront of encouraging healthy and regenerative outdoor cannabis farming. Under the current structure of the ordinance, there is a set area where cannabis can be grown, with a cap on 5% of the total acreage. While at first glance it makes sense, it has created and will create substantial problems going forward. Because of the limited area one can farm and the difficult economics of farming (especially cannabis), it is almost incumbent on a farm to try to cultivate the maximum area. However, this results in negative consequences to the soil because other crops cannot be rotated, and “monocropping” is almost necessary. The consequences are not minor, as monocropping has significant drawbacks such as soil and nutrient depletion, increased vulnerability to pests and diseases (which can create vectors and risks to other crops as well). Much of the industry is already experiencing this phenomenon. A possible work around that would not increase the total acreage of cannabis would be to allow the County to approve farms, allowing only 5% of the total land to be cultivated, but approve a larger area where that could occur. Instead of approving 5 acres of area where 5 acres can be grown, approve instead 15 acres where 5 acres can be grown. This would allow a different area to be cultivated each season, all while keeping the same total acreage actually being cultivated. This would have long term benefits for the agricultural community, including the soil, as well as encouraging cannabis farmers to add additional crops into their practice, potentially adding additional revenue and food to the County.
I am happy to discuss this with anyone interested. I/we appreciate the work and consideration that is being put into the ordinance.
Honorable Supervisors and Director Turner,
I know considerable time is being spent on preparing both the interim cannabis ordinance as well as the outline/structure of the entire permanent cannabis ordinance.
I wanted to ask you to consider a couple of things that may already be on your radar but I wanted to be certain that these points are at least considered as you come closer to finalizing the ordinance(s). The first issue (grandfathering “complete” applications) likely relates to the interim ordinance while the second issue (avoiding monocropping) is likely more relevant to the permanent ordinance.
First, although there was discussion about “grandfathering” in those applications that were deemed “complete”, I would encourage you to ensure this applies to the interim ordinance. Otherwise, the parties that have spent considerable resources, time, money and planning (including the purchasing of property, working with staff, taking on funding, hiring, etc.) will not potentially be left holding an empty bag after doing everything in their power to be compliant with the laws passed by the Board of Supervisors to date.
Second, I believe that there is an opportunity for the County to be on the forefront of encouraging healthy and regenerative outdoor cannabis farming. Under the current structure of the ordinance, there is a set area where cannabis can be grown, with a cap on 5% of the total acreage. While at first glance it makes sense, it has created and will create substantial problems going forward. Because of the limited area one can farm and the difficult economics of farming (especially cannabis), it is almost incumbent on a farm to try to cultivate the maximum area. However, this results in negative consequences to the soil because other crops cannot be rotated, and “monocropping” is almost necessary. The consequences are not minor, as monocropping has significant drawbacks such as soil and nutrient depletion, increased vulnerability to pests and diseases (which can create vectors and risks to other crops as well). Much of the industry is already experiencing this phenomenon. A possible work around that would not increase the total acreage of cannabis would be to allow the County to approve farms, allowing only 5% of the total land to be cultivated, but approve a larger area where that could occur. Instead of approving 5 acres of area where 5 acres can be grown, approve instead 15 acres where 5 acres can be grown. This would allow a different area to be cultivated each season, all while keeping the same total acreage actually being cultivated. This would have long term benefits for the agricultural community, including the soil, as well as encouraging cannabis farmers to add additional crops into their practice, potentially adding additional revenue and food to the County.
I am happy to discuss this with anyone interested. I/we appreciate the work and consideration that is being put into the ordinance.
Thank you,
Peter Simon (Pasta Farm)