Cannabis resorts loom over horizon
Well-regulated pot farms can reinvigorate ag tourism
LAKEPORT >> Trimming a leaf out of the long-established wine industry playbook and getting a grip on its once mighty green thumb, the cannabis industry emerged from a deep bullpen aimed to pitch its way back to the top of Lake County agriculture.
The Board of Supervisors heard encouraging advice from Mireya Turner, director of the Community Development Department for staff to make recommendations from a variety of seasoned experts for updating cannabis policy in chambers February 6. The presentation Tuesday was conceptual only and there was no draft ordinance. The county administration hoped to see them return in the future with a draft ordinance.
She went on regarding Type Nine, which is a retail delivery only that does not have a store front. The Task Force recommends this type business be available to permitted cultivators.
Chair Bruno Sabatier said he'd prefer not to see a building that no one can walk into if it's a C1 or a C2 because it's in a Commercial Growth Boundary. “I want to be able to walk into that building and have people access it,” he said. “Having a building filled up with merchandise, not available to the public, and say, “All I do is deliver out of this building.'” He went on, that there was no need for that type of building on Main Street. “It's just a closed door on our Main St., which is where the majority of C1 and C2 would be mostly within our Community Growth Boundaries,” he said. “I like the idea of retail delivery only, if it's attached to a retail dispensary I can walk into.”
Turner noted that the Type Ten retail storefront includes delivery automatically. Sabatier clarified it would allow for C1 and C2. “If growers are manufacturing outside the Community Growth Boundary, I want to be able to walk into a store when it's a C1 or C2 and not have to call to get a delivery, it doesn't make sense to me,” he said. And it was noted even now there are stores on Main Street where no one can get into, they are just online stores. After examining a list of Business Attachment types, that says, Major Use Business Permit C1 and Use C2, Sabatier questioned if that was supposed to be there. Turner acknowledged Sabatier's confusion. “I think C1 might be in error because it only allows a part of incidental use like, cannabis cultivation. So, I'm going to withdraw C1 from that.”
Turner soon after clarified that Type Ten is not new, what is new is it includes a retail store front with onsite consumption. “The State is largely silent on the local jurisdiction. The Task Force, recommends allowing onsite consumption in connection to a store front establishment with a minor use permit in a Planned Development Commercial Community.”
In additional clarification Turner explained why the above was included, it is because: that would be with a minor use permit, which goes through agency review, environmental review, a public hearing with the Zoning Administrator (Turner or designee). “Then M1, M2, MP, those are the county's Commercial and Industrial Manufacturing and Industrial Park as well as C3, our Service Commercial so, all the county's higher level Industrial or Manufacturing Zone Districts as an incidental use.
“An approved processing or manufacturing site, which is also with a minor use permit,” she said. “Then switching up to major use permit, would be in the C1, which is your Local Community, Highway Community, Resort Community or Suburban Reserve and, incidental improved cultivation sites.”
Sabatier then pointed out, because of the regulations of the State of California, if the county desired consumption on site cannabis, it would be necessary to establish a membership at a private club. “I don't know of a bar where you can do an onsite consumption of cigarettes,” he said. “That's how we worked it out in the city of Clearlake,” he said. “It was a private membership; it was an approval to being subjected to smoke indoors, and I don't know where that's going to go.” He went on to state that if the county cannabis businesses could mimic the way wineries have on site consumption and not within the Community Growth boundaries the possibility might be considered. “We need to be cautious in how we approach this and making assurances in the right areas,” he said. “It doesn't quite match for me to have a consumption place, unless it's … I don't know … like a winery, where you're processing wine. Some of it is uncomfortable, I want to be careful on this.”
District 4 Supervisor Michael Green noted it makes no sense to him to permit onsite consumption for cannabis if the county does not apply similar standards for bars and the county does not do that. “It's going to be a challenging subject, but cannabis is a state legal substance,” he said. “Today we are focused on the zoning aspect. I hear your concerns Chair Sabatier. That's very much a subject for another day. I don't see a good course we'd have if we strayed from the hard work of the Task Force on this, I think it's a good recommendation.”
“The State is largely silent on the local jurisdiction. The Task Force, recommends allowing onsite consumption in connection to a store front establishment with a minor use permit in a Planned Development Commercial Community.”
— Mireya Turner, director of the Community Development Department