THIS IS AN ARCHIVE OF LAKE TAHOE NEWS, WHICH WAS OPERATIONAL FROM 2009-2018. IT IS FREELY AVAILABLE FOR RESEARCH. THE WEBSITE IS NO LONGER UPDATED WITH NEW ARTICLES.

South Tahoe pot cultivation ordinance ready for council


image_pdfimage_print

By Kathryn Reed

On the same day the South Lake Tahoe City Council is expected to vote on a medical marijuana cultivation ordinance, residents will elect three new council members and all of California will decide if pot should be legalized via Proposition 19.

Before Nov. 2, the City Council will have a public hearing on Oct. 19 regarding the local ordinance.

Also at the Oct. 19 meeting the agenda is likely to contain an extension on the moratorium to limit the number of pot clubs to the three existing ones. The original one-year moratorium was passed in November 2009. It will require a super majority or four-fifths vote to keep it going. Two years is the maximum for a moratorium like this.

Officials on Sept. 29 work on South Tahoe's draft pot cultivation ordinance. Photo/Kathryn Reed

Officials on Sept. 29 work on South Tahoe's draft pot cultivation ordinance. Photo/Kathryn Reed

It’s not entirely clear what would happen to the collectives if the moratorium were not extended because all three have city business licenses, which was not the case a year ago. It could also mean more collectives would seek to be part of the community.

The 12-person committee recently convened to come up with a cultivation ordinance specifically for the collectives – since growing in other manner would be illegal – met Sept. 29 to finalize the plan that will be presented to the council in October.

The members include two city councilmen, a rep from each collective, a property manager, city manager, assistant city manager, city attorney, building inspector, police chief, and fire marshal.

Not much was changed in the draft pot ordinance even though the meeting went on for nearly two hours.

One of the most talked about issues was Lukins Brothers Water Company’s inability to put out a house fire.

Ray Zachau, fire marshal, said the issue to fight a fire if one of the 900 residences off Highway 89 is in flames is a concern that goes beyond the cause. The lack of water pressure in this area was exacerbated and brought to public’s conscience during the 2007 Angora Fire. Former City Manager Dave Jinkens spent years trying to rectify the issue to no avail.

Current City Manager Tony O’Rourke on Wednesday said it would be discriminatory to not allow grow operations in houses supplied by Lukins Brothers water.

“The No. 1 cause of residential fires everywhere is kitchen fires. Are we going to prevent kitchens in Lukins?” O’Rourke said.

He said the capability to put out a fire is not a reason to ban a grow-house when there are plenty of day-to-day causes that ignite fires.

On the flip-side, O’Rourke used the example of Monday’s fire on Wildwood Avenue as a reason to make sure the cultivation ordinance works. That house had a grow operation. (Renter Kevin Christensen was at the meeting to dispute his two plants under a 600-watt bulb were the cause of the fire that is likely to render the house a total loss. He said an outside uncovered electrical outlet was the cause, which contradicts the fire marshal.)

Part of the application for a grow permit will require the homeowner’s consent – and that person’s validated signature. Background checks will be done on want-to-be growers.

“If I can see something from the street that indicates it’s a grow operation, then it’s a violation,” O’Rourke said.

The goal is to write a document that will stand up in court if it were challenged. O’Rourke believes this has been done by using existing standards like electrical, building, and health and safety regulations and not writing something from scratch.

Minor tweaks will be made to the draft ordinance from this latest meeting. Some of which include adding attics are not permissible grow areas and reworking the violation language. The revisions are expected to be completed by Oct. 4 and then available at city offices at Lake Tahoe Airport.

Councilman Bruce Grego unsuccessfully sought stricter penalties for people who violate the ordinance.

“I want to bury them,” he said.

City Attorney Patrick Enright explained to the councilman, who is also an attorney, city ordinances per state law are misdemeanors and the maximum fine is $1,000. Grego had thrown out the number $10,000.

Councilman Bill Crawford weighed-in that being able to revoke a business license for people operating in the industrial area should solve the problem.

Several people at the table noted that if city officials find substantial violations at a residence to make the structure a public safety hazard, the electric company could pull the meter.

image_pdfimage_print

About author

This article was written by admin

Comments

Comments (13)
  1. fpogen says - Posted: September 30, 2010

    “Renter Kevin Christensen was at the meeting to dispute his two plants under a 600-watt bulb were the cause of the fire”

    A 600 watt light, should not cause a fire. That is a 5 amp draw on an outlet that should have a minimum 15A breaker and appropriate gauge wire (16?).
    If the only load on the circuit was the 600W lamp…. the cause of the fire is faulty wiring.
    An electric space heater easily can pull 1500W.
    A Playstation 3 consumes 380W. Why did this house not handle 600W???

  2. Careaboutthecommunity says - Posted: September 30, 2010

    It is scary for anyone to be on the Lukins water system. What can be done about this?

  3. Local says - Posted: September 30, 2010

    Grego wants to “Bury them.” JA.

  4. Tahoe Freedom Fighter says - Posted: September 30, 2010

    Crawford is naive if he thinks that revoking an individuals business license will remove the problem. I would imagine that 25% or more of the businesses operating in the City do not have licenses.

  5. Care4community says - Posted: September 30, 2010

    I do not recall Grego ever saying he wanted to bury them. The $10,000 penalty was for industrial areas not residential. The photos of Kevin’s grow showed 7 plants and a bag of harvested plants drying out.
    Who pays for that fire to be put out? Our tax dollars. The fire marshal did not know if grow fires are covered by insurance companies since growing is still against federal law and insurance companies usually have an exclusion for breaking any laws.

    Tony O’Rourk may be shooting himself in the foot if fire breaks out in Lukins area and destroys this community and/or loss of any life. All residences REQUIRE having a kitchen. His argument is INCREASING THE RISK of fire by allowing growing in such an unsafe area.I thought he was supposed to protect our health, safety and welfare?

  6. Meeting attendee says - Posted: September 30, 2010

    Residences require kitchens?
    Hot and cold running water, heat, yes.
    Kitchens are not required by law.

  7. Eric Taxer says - Posted: September 30, 2010

    Ummm…. that issue about inadequate water pressure within the Lukins Water system and the inability to adequately fight a fire…This should be getting a lot more attention, shouldn’t it?

  8. h says - Posted: October 1, 2010

    These comments made by the council are made by very incompetent people who know all, but don’t know a damn thing!

    A lawyer council person with law business as a bread winner can’t even read the contracts in this town to know if they are legal or illegal…….what’s that tell you?
    Two huge holes for more Tahoe poltics with no one to point the finger at.For all the decived voters, you need your votes back.

    Nothing farther from the truth than self agenda’s.
    What a embarrassment to have such an azz serve the people in such a HypocriTICAL, Phony, Self Centered BS is preposterous!

    Sir, you need to be Recalled!

  9. Care4community says - Posted: October 1, 2010

    “Meeting attendees” were given a copy of The draft ordinance which requires all residences to have a kitchen, one bathroom, and one bedroom not to be used for growing. Maybe they should remove kitchens from the ordinance because it adds such a “fire hazard” according to our new city manager.

  10. Robert Miles says - Posted: October 1, 2010

    I am starting to believe the city is on a witch hunt for Lukins Water. I am a customer of Lukins and i do pay anymore for insurance than my friends do that do not live in this area. I also like the fact that Lukins does not put any chemicals in my water. Yes the system needs upgrade but from the info i have read from Lukins they are moving forward on system rehab. I am amazed that they are now the topic for pot grows. I think our Fire Marshal does not like Mr Lukins and is doing all he can to push him out and have the city take them over. I bet it would be much better if the city did that as they have been so successful in all thier other dealings. Why doesnt the city let the customers of Lukins and Lukins Water move forward.

  11. pine tree says - Posted: October 2, 2010

    I am a Long long term Lukins water customer also. Love the water!I brought the Lukins water issue to the table at the committee meeting. If you had All State insurance – you were dropped after the Angora fire in many households around Tahoe. Finding new insurance in the Lukins #9 ISO rating is very hard and expensive. I for one am very disappointed with the new city manager’s disregard for protection i.e. insurance as well as safety to ALL in this community…not just the growers. My advice to you is don’t file an insurance claim and stick with your currant insurance company and pray a grow won’t start a fire in your neighborhood.

  12. Robert Miles says - Posted: October 4, 2010

    I am wondering if any of lukins customers have seen the ISO report for the area. The Lukins area is not a 9. Ask the Fire marshal to produce a copy. I have seen the report the water system is only 3 points in the report the rest of the number is based on performance of yoru fire deprtment. If you are being told you are a 9 then ask for the report it is public information. You can then give that to your insurance person.

  13. Satori says - Posted: October 5, 2010

    Please allow the possibility of the entire marijuana ordnance issue being a ‘red herring’, in that the issue of electrical or structural safety is somewhat hypocritical in its’ own right.

    My son, daughter-in-law and three young children were dispossessed in an electrical fire a few years ago, when it was discovered that the house they rented had such “Mickey-moused” hidden wiring that, had they been there but a few more minutes, the house would have burned to the ground inside another half-an-hour.

    A catastrophe avoided in the promptness of the neighborhood fire department, not in whether there was pot growing or not.

    Safety first, or just when it involves growing pot legally (?) – this may be a blessing in disguise.

    South Lake Tahoe has literally hundreds of houses that were constructed this way, and yet are ‘grandfathered’ in, and are never looked at . . . until someone thinks of growing legal pot (?)

    I don’t disagree with the idea that additional electrical loads be looked at (with respect to growing), but not at the expense of ignoring decades of neglect that could be equally as disastrous at any time.

    Of equal concern in the ‘red herring’ senes is in the timing: as Proposition 19 is to be decided on the very same day, and allows cities to have some control over the collectives that end up in a town anyway, why is so much energy expended in such a simultaneous way (?).

    This, for me, is a serious judgment error, as we will no doubt see adjustments to this issue depending on the statewide outcome anyway, which may render all ‘billable’ time expended on this now another waste of time and money, along with the possibility of wasting even more after the fact.

    What happened to ‘wait & see'(?)- in a prudent way, not as an overreaction (?)