logo

Email Us

Public Input

Below you will find a timeline and discussion of our public input and activities regarding efforts to help clarify cannabis policy with respect to industry integration, economic development, state law, and land use law/policy.  Many counties hire a "Cannabis Czar" to manage the integration of these interrelated and complex issues.   We have done our best to bring these issues to the attention of the public, Lake County Officials, and the local business community.  We have found that while there are some obstructionist forces at work in Lake County, there is broad support for economic development which benefits all members of the community.

Bradley Johnson has helped with bringing clarification to the many complex legal issues.  Read more on the state-wide challenges implementing cannabis policy here:

pdfTheRecorder interview with Attorney At Law Brad Johnson of Sacramento's Harrison, Temblador, Hungerford & Johnson.

Letter to CDD 4/6/2018 - Ag Exemption for Greenhouses

Legal analysis of the agricultural greenhouse building permit exemption.  The letter was in response to planning staff informing us that the Benmore Valley Ranch did not qualify for the building permit exemption.

Legal Analysis: pdfAgricultural-Exemption-Analysis_4-3-18.pdf

Clearly the project qualifies for an agricultural exemption.  When the project submitted building permits for 88 20 x 96' cold frame greenhouses the Community Development Department generated an invoice for $425,000.

Note that the "valuation" on the invoice is $8,736,012.  We have requested a writtent explanation for the valuation with no response.  Note the hand-written "8," on the invoice, adding $8,000,000 to the valuation.  Could there be a political agenda behind claiming temporary structures are worth more than the entire ranch?

After some discussion with the Building Department, they reduced the plan check fee from $162,000 to $1,700 for the site. We are waiting on a written response from County Council on why an agricultural exempt building permit is not approved and for an explanation of the valuation and permit fee structure. 

 

Continue Reading

Letter to BOS 3/9/2018

Problems with the Urgency Ordinance, a proposal to fix it by implementiing the Board's stated intentions.  See 2:00:00 on the video to hear the Board state their intentions.  Interestingly, County Council changed her legal opinion on the applicability of an Urgency Ordinace -- it was legally permissable for the Urgency Ordinances passed on December and January, but when we really needed it to proceed, she advised the Board that it was not consistent with State law.

Legal Analysis: pdfLtr-to-LC-BOS_3-9-18.pdf

Video: Click to view video transcript.

Continue Reading

Letter to BOS 2/22/18

Discussion of CEQA requirements and an analysis of ways to streamline the draft ordinance by not repeating work locally already done at the state level.  The Board directed staff to streamline the process.  The result was that the 12 Managment Plans in the draft ordinance were consoliated into one "Property Managment Plan" with no material changes, giving the appearance of having been streamlined.

Letter: pdfBOS_letter_22-feb-2018.pdf

Legal Analysis: pdfLC-Ordinance-CEQA-Analysis_2-22-18.pdf

Video: Click to view video transcript.

Continue Reading