CLEARLAKE, Calif. – A proposed medical marijuana cultivation ordinance that received unanimous support from the Clearlake City Council last month failed to get council approval at a required second reading Thursday night, and now will go back to city staff for retooling.
The proposed ordinance, recommended for passage by the Clearlake Planning Commission, is based on a county ordinance passed last summer.
It limits plants according to parcel size, from six plants on parcels of half an acre or less up to 48 plants on 40 acres or more, and also prohibits growing in mobile home parks – unless garden areas are established and specified by management – and multifamily dwellings, limits processing to the number of plants that can be grown on on the site and establishes other basic rules such as screening.
During the council's May 23 discussion, the council had agreed to a change proposed by Mayor Jeri Spittler, who wanted daycare centers removed from the definition of schools.
The ordinance requires a distance of 600 feet between grows and school facilities, and Spittler suggested that “activists” could open daycares in order to try to prevent grows nearby.
At that time Spittler's council colleagues agreed to remove daycares from the definition, but asked for “licensed daycares” to be added back to the schools definition at Thursday night's meeting.
The proposed ordinance had garnered little public comment at the May 23 meeting.
But it was a different matter on Thursday evening, with several community members coming forward to raise concerns about the impact of marijuana cultivation on the community.
“I think we should not allow the growing within this community,” said Clearlake resident Dave Hughes.
Hughes questioned who would monitor compliance, and referencing the California Supreme Court's recent decision regarding a Riverside case that upheld the right of local governments to regulate medical marijuana through zoning, pointed out, “You don't have to allow it.”
Another city resident, Pete Gascoigne, told the council, “I'm against this ordinance, the whole thing.”
He was particularly upset about eliminating daycares from the school definition and the associated distance requirements.
“Marijuana does hurt the community,” he said.
Lower Lake attorney Ron Green, who initially had come to the council to ask for clearer language in the ordinance, reminded the council that, for some, marijuana offered important medical uses. “It's a miracle drug,” he said.
Following public comment, Council member Gina Fortino Dickson said she researched city daycares and found there were nine small daycare facilities and five family daycares, serving a total of 142 children.
Concerns for keeping children safe caused her and fellow council members to ask to have daycares restored to the school definition, despite Spittler's continued opposition.
With the council unwilling to move forward on the ordinance in its present form, it was handed back to City Manager Joan Phillipe for additional work.
Phillipe said Friday that she'll begin reworking the ordinance, following council direction to put “licensed daycare” back in the school definition.
A review period also will be added; Phillipe said it would call for revisiting the ordinance a year or some other period of time after it goes in effect to see if it is working and whether it needs changes.
She'll also consider adding clarifying language suggested by Green regarding plant numbers and parcel sizes.
Green had sent a memo to the council before the meeting, with Phillipe and the city attorney initially not recommending the changes to the council because they would deviate too much from the county ordinance, which the council had wanted to closely mirror in its own.
Regarding other potential changes, the ordinance in its current form calls for violations of its guidelines to be treated as misdemeanors, with fines of not more than $100 for the first offense, $300 for the second offense, and for the third a $500 fire or a six-month jail sentence, or both.
Phillipe said she will look at increasing those fine amounts to $100 per plant on the first offense, $300 per plant on the second and $500 per plant for the third, plus creating language that after a third fine an individual will be prohibited from growing at all.
In addition, she will consider creating language for the revised document that places a frequent offender “red flag” on properties were police respond multiple times, with possible cost recovery for nuisance situations.
“I will be reviewing the code enforcement ordinance to see if it can be used as a 'companion' ordinance and use the administrative and cost recovery components of it,” Phillipe told Lake County News.
Because of the proposed changes, Phillipe said the revised document will have to be reintroduced at a future council meeting.
She said she anticipates having it back on the council's June 27 agenda to discuss which of the proposed changes can and can't be included – in particular, she believes the allowable fines may be statutorily set, and she also needs to speak to the city attorney about whether they can legally “red flag” nuisance properties.
“Depending on where I end up after reviewing it all, the ordinance could conceivably also be on the next agenda but it may not be until July,” she said.
Phillipe added, “Inasmuch as the ordinance, when adopted, will not be effective until Jan. 1, 2014, there is a time constraint.”
Email Elizabeth Larson at This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. . Follow her on Twitter, @ERLarson, or Lake County News, @LakeCoNews.