CLEARLAKE >> The Clearlake City Council supported the first reading of a new medical marijuana ordinance at its regular meeting on Thursday redraftinig only the ordinance’s punishments for properties that violate the law.
Councilman Bruno Sabatier called the proposed legislation “a great compromise,” but advocated to impose a five-year ban on lots that fail to comply with the new legislation instead of having the parcels themselves permanently banned.
The council agreed and amended it to read as such for its next and final reading on Jan. 28. Further consensus came in the form of compliments and praise, especially for the ad hoc committee which was formed in October.
“You guys did a wonderful job,” Councilwoman Joyce Overton said. “It’s probably the best — I personally say — out of the ordinances that I’ve seen. This really captures everything.”
Although there was a large audience, only three people spoke during public comment. They supported most of the ordinance but pointed out some issues with it.
One of those issues was presented by Earl Richardson, CFO of a Medical Marijuana company called Salutari Innovations. He asked the board to consider the issuance of conditional use permits for large lots that could be used for commercial grows.
“Zoning ordinances can’t take into consideration everything,” Richardson said. “But conditional use allows them to look at it and say, ‘we didn’t consider this.’ It will you allow to operate if you fall in a certain area that’s acceptable to [the city].”
The city council did not respond to his recommendation during the meeting but he did get support from Ad hoc committee member Vince Metzger immediately after his comments.
Other concerns regarding the $1,000 per plant fine and the 10 by 10 foot rules were presented but members of the council disagreed. Overton said the maximum area for the locked fences was big enough to grow six plants.
The council, particularly Mayor Russ Perdock, also disagreed with Sabatier’s recommendation to keep the grow area’s distance from the lot lines consistent with Chapter 18 Section 5 of the municipal code, which requires additional structures to be five feet away from side fences and 10 feet away from the back.
If passed, the grow sites must be five feet away from the residence and 10 feet from all sides of the property. According to the councilman, the new distances may be unnecessary because thieves would have to hop two fences to get the marijuana.
Perdock said the committee proposed the distance parameters for security reasons by making it harder for people to possibly reach into a lot and steal the plants.
“We’re trying to create a safer living environment for our residents. To me, that’s key,” Perdock said. The further distance makes a bigger barrier for a would-be thief or trespasser to come into the yard. We are trying to maximize security for folks who need to grow medical marijuana.”
Despite the council’s disagreement, Sabatier told the Record-Bee that he believes this ordinance is an improvement to last year’s zero-grow ordinance.
“As a whole it is a much better compromise than what was being offered last year,” he said.
