LAKEPORT— Kneading updated cannabis legislation to make it the most palatable to growers, consumers and neighboring businesses, the Board of Supervisors punted the precise wording of an amendment aimed to move forward a permit for county cultivation toward a long shelf life at the Lake County BOS chambers September 19.
Consideration of a Draft Ordinance amending Chapter 5 of the Lake County Code relating to permitting agricultural exempt, as well as temporary cannabis processing structures, got a tentative go-head pending minor adjustments to an ordinance crafted weeks ago. Also, the work-in-progress ordinance amends Article 68 of the zoning ordinance regarding definitions of temporary building types.
Testifying to the BOS chamber audience, Andrew Amelung, Lake Co. cannabis program manager discussed guidelines agreed to so far. “The ordinance would allow a path for cultivation to build temporary process structures,” he told board members. “Regulations cover application, setback, allowable footprint, slope, electrical limitations and inspection requirements. And it guides use of generators, limitations on duration of use.”
Back between Oct. 2022 and Jan. 2023, the Cannabis Task Force, concluded a review, Amelung reminded the chamber audience. Along with those recommendations taken to an Ag advisor committee in February 2023 and then passed on to the Planning Commission on April 18. Afterward, the Task Force discussed the ordinance at the BOS later in April and May.
Inquiries were held on where and how equipment will be used, and allowance made for categorical exemption under the California Environmental Quality Act. The project went from temporary structures to consider a permanent process facility. But market conditions throughout 2021 increasingly made costs prohibitive.
“We’re looking for 141 approved permanent use permits,” said Amelung. “Of those 107 for outdoor cultivation, 25, mixed light/indoor and the rest for manufacturing and processing.” He also explained the general zoning ordinance reviewed and it was found consistent with zoning requirements, and an environmental analysis in compliance. Ordinance language called for temporary structures in formulation to allow opening a processing facility for harvesting for, up to three years. But it also allows use of onsite containers for processing and general use. And the ordinance calls for a 100-foot setback from property line for cultivation. Equipment needed includes that for cultivation, trimming, drying, grading and packaging.
Supervisor Bruno Sabatier noted the ordinance targets farms between five to 10 acres yet smaller growers might be unable to access containers. “We’d like to motivate people to get into our Ag industry but many will start off with five or 10 acres rather 20 or even 100 acres,” he said. “Permitting Ag exempt (growers), is this something in the future, if we change the definition of Ag exempt, must we bring it back (to BOS)?” But the question was tabled until next week. Sabatier also wondered about the question of generators yet pointed out nothing in the ordinance prohibits their use or alternative energy sources.
Mireya Turner, Lake Co. Community Development Director noted the difference between cannabis and traditional farming and cannabis is using power generation in a different context and it will not require a fire season permit.
Sabatier then asked Amelung about a processing shed as opposed to drying and if that mattered. “Yes, we made that change to the ordinance,” he said. And he confirmed the ordinance approves farms of five to 10 acres. He also confirmed that the Ag Exempt status remains whether a grower is farming 20 acres or more or less than five acres (in order to preserve equity for small growers to sustain independent operations). And since a negative declaration was declared the amendment will include language, under CEQA guidelines and is specific to findings under the prior financial study.
Sabatier also noted the cannabis season is entering where growers will be drying product and recruiting laborers.
“I know the ordinance will come back for another reading because of the number of adjustments we’re making,” he said. “That’s consistent with how we monitor compliance under the ordinance.”
In view that the ordinance will be up to three years for the temporary structures, Supervisor Michael Green requested temporary structures are bound to be kept within designated setbacks from the property line, so asked for a surety bond.
“I’d prefer not to have redundancy in the amendment as to what is in our general commercial cultivation document,” Amelung said.
Sabatier supported that view, noting the county requires cannabis cultivators to get permission to initiate operations. “But we don’t need to duplicate language already in the (prior draft) ordinance he said. “That was a large part of the Negative Declaration … and we’ll require some type of noise insulation around generators (along with additional amendment safeguards).” The ordinance next reading will occur on Tuesday, Sept. 26.
