CLEARLAKE, Calif. – Already facing threats of litigation and referendum, the Clearlake City Council on Thursday night approved the second and final reading of a new ordinance to ban marijuana cultivation in the city.
The vote was 3-1, with Councilman Bruno Sabatier voting no and Councilwoman Joyce Overton absent for the meeting. Councilman Russ Perdock attended by teleconference.
The meeting attendance peaked at roughly 100 audience members, less than half of what it was for the council's Feb. 12 meeting.
The council's vote came three hours and 45 minutes into the meeting, which ended a few minutes later. At that point, about 30 people remained in the audience, and many of them got up and left, some shouting “recall” and others “referendum.”
Throughout the night the council was on the receiving end of warnings about impending legal challenges, and threats for the launching of a recall effort aimed at specific council members and a referendum to overturn the council's action.
A table was set up at the entrance to the meeting, where several activists registered people to vote, gave out “Sick lives matter” signs and collect email addresses for updates.
During the meeting council members stated that Cal NORML sent city officials an email warning that the group intended to sue the city to stop the cultivation ban.
The ban was the main item on the agenda, and after some minor business regarding the consent agenda Mayor Denise Loustalot opened public comment, which lasted about an hour. Audience members were kept to a strict two-minute limit. However, in some cases, people donated their time to let others speak.
Approximately 35 people spoke to the council regarding the ordinance. Of those, 28 spoke against the ordinance, six spoke for it and and one person – city resident Jim Scholz – simply questioned why the city was allowing large grows to continue under its current ordinance.
In response to Scholz's question, following public comment Clearlake Police Chief Craig Clausen explained that the current ordinance is a civil ordinance for code enforcement, not police.
A number of those who spoke encouraged the city to work with its current ordinance and put teeth into it to make it more enforceable. Among them were people who sought compromise and the chance to work with the city to find solutions.
Others spoke of their need for the plant in order to address pain from physical ailments, and several citizens warned that the city was facing the potential for major legal action.
Among the latter group was Adelia Klein-Leonard, who uses the plant to medicate her young son's health issues and who was a proponent and campaigned for Measure O, the county initiative that would have set cultivation rules in opposition to the stricter Measure N, which ultimately prevailed.
She guaranteed that she would sue the city. “By the time I am done with this city you will regret this ordinance,” she said, adding that the council members who were parents should be ashamed of themselves.
“Just know I'm going to come for you,” she added.
Lower Lake attorney Ron Green, who works with groups like Cal NORML, warned that the council was making a huge mistake and was facing serious political and economic ramifications.
He said an attorney who has success suing the county over marijuana is prepared to sue the city, as he wants to take the matter up to the appellate level in order to challenge the city of Live Oak's total ban, which has survived legal challenges up to the California Supreme Court.
“It's going to bankrupt you,” Green warned of the legal actions ahead.
On the other side of the issue, community members who supported taking the action pointed to the impacts on their lives from large grows, which they felt would be addressed by the ban. They also questioned if they had any rights.
“We need to take back control of our city,” said Realtor Dave Hughes, adding that the situation was out of control last year.
As a Realtor, Hughes said he's constantly fighting the city's reputation. “The grows made it worse,” he said, adding that Santa Rosa residents won't look at homes here because of it.
“Lives matter, not just sick lives. Lives matter, all lives matter,” he said.
Susanne Scholz said whatever ordinance is passed, “it needs to be compassionate.”
She felt the proposed ordinance added a provision for appealing abatement for just cause, which she felt was a compassionate element.
“I really believe this ordinance is designed to break the unfortunate pattern that has started here,” she said.
After the close of public comment, council members debated the ordinance among themselves until the end of the meeting.
Council members discuss compromises, concerns
Councilman Bruno Sabatier – who said he felt the proposed ordinance has legal issues – warned his fellow council members that they were likely to be hit by a referendum, which would stop the ordinance and leave the current, ineffective ordinance in effect as the new growing season prepares to start in April.
Sabatier also claimed the new ordinance would damage the city's economy, and he believed it conflicted with the city's dispensary ordinance.
As he did at the Feb. 12 meeting, Sabatier offered his own compromise ordinance which allowed for three plants. Sabatier had made changes to his proposal – relating to additional compliance checks, canopy size and the height of accessory buildings – in response to fellow council members' comments at the previous meeting.
“A compromise can save us and fix our problems,” he said.
Perdock said of the matter, “This is a difficult issue. I think this is difficult for all of us.”
He said he wanted to do what was best for everyone in Clearlake while addressing the impacts on the city.
In doing so, Perdock acknowledged he didn't think the council could make everyone happy, “as much as I wish we could.”
Councilwoman Gina Fortino Dickson said the council needed to do something about the out-of-control marijuana growing in the city.
She said they needed to send a “clear and urgent message” to those outside the community that they don't want them to come here and use local resources to grow marijuana. She added that she felt this was the last chance to really get control of the problem.
Loustalot said she wanted to make the city safe for all of its citizens. She said the ordinance is very black and white. “And, unfortunately, we directed staff to draw it that way.”
She pointed out that Clearlake isn't the only city dealing with marijuana issues right now, quoting figures that 180 cities across the state have dealt with it in one way or the other, from curtailments to outright bans.
Loustalot said she felt the ordinance needed to go into effect for a few years until legalization occurs, at which time she expects new rules. She said it's needed to address the city's “rampant” marijuana growing.
Following a brief break, the council continued its discussion, with Sabatier asking fellow council members about their objections to his option to allow for up to three plants.
Loustalot said that being surrounded by three-plant grows could be a problem. Fortino Dickson was concerned that the issue has been an all-or-nothing proposition, and that even with three plants there would be a referendum or litigation.
Fortino Dickson repeatedly asked Sabatier if he would be willing to put the proposed ordinance into effect with the assurance that the city was going to get to work on another ordinance to implement within 60 days.
Sabatier wouldn't agree to it, suggesting they should hold as many special meetings as necessary to come up with something new before the looming growing season.
Some people in the audience said that, due to the warm weather, they're already growing.
“To me, being stuck with what we have is the worst-case scenario,” said Sabatier, of the current ordinance.
“Me, too,” replied Fortino Dickson.
She said she felt the only way to change that was for the proposed ordinance to go into effect and ask the constituents to hold off on taking any action while the council moves forward in good faith to come up with other options.
At that point, people began hissing from the audience. Fortino Dickson replied, “I'm offering a compromise. I thought that's what you guys were all about.”
As the discussion continued, Sabatier said he felt the council was “trapped,” telling the rest of the council, “you have the votes” and to do what they wanted.
City Manager Joan Phillipe offered the council another option – adjusting the eradication clause of the current ordinance. Council members, however, did not pursue it.
Loustalot returned to the proposed ordinance, explaining that she didn't feel the council had any choice. When she tried to make a motion to accept it, Sabatier interrupted and brought up other issues he had with wording.
Perdock, noting that they were splitting hairs, moved to adopt the ordinance, with Loustalot seconding and Fortino Dickson – who said she felt her back was up against the wall – also voting yes, to Sabatier's no vote.
The ordinance will go into effect 30 days from its adoption, unless challenged by legal action.
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.
021214 Clearlake City Council - Proposed ordinance to ban marijuana cultivation by LakeCoNews