A proposal to permit retail sales of cannabis sparked robust discussion during a Sept. 17 workshop held by the Plumas County Planning Commission. Commissioners began honing a draft ordinance—designated as Article 46—that will eventually go before the Plumas County Board of Supervisors for final consideration.
The two-hour session was prompted by an application submitted in March 2025 by local business owner Mat Fogarty. Fogarty is seeking a county code amendment to permit retail storefront dispensaries throughout unincorporated Plumas County, excluding the city of Portola.
Publicly Initiated Code Amendment Sparks Required Action
Unlike most California jurisdictions, Plumas County allows members of the public to initiate county code amendments.
“Once a proponent brings this forward, then we do have the obligation to have the public hearing and have a recommendation to the board,” said Deputy County Counsel Sara James.
Planning Director Tracey Ferguson confirmed that because a citizen initiated the request, the commission must take action. However, commissioners hold broad latitude in shaping the final draft. Following a required 20-day public hearing notice, the commission will vote on a recommendation by resolution to forward to the Board of Supervisors.
Ferguson emphasized that the workshop’s purpose was to collect public input on the draft ordinance text, rather than debate the broader moral or medical merits of cannabis consumption. The final determination on whether to adopt the ordinance rests with the Board of Supervisors, while any associated retail tax would require approval from county voters.
The Board of Supervisors will hold its own public hearing upon receiving the proposal and can approve, reject, or modify the commission’s recommendation.
Draft Ordinance Details and Restrictions
The proposed Article 46 focuses strictly on establishing a permitting process and setting regulatory limits for storefront dispensaries selling directly to consumers within unincorporated parts of the county.
Key details of the draft ordinance include:
-
Dispensary Limit: Cap of up to five retail commercial cannabis dispensaries countywide.
-
Zoning: Restricts location to C-2 (heavy commercial) zones.
-
Permitting Requirements: Requires operators to secure a special use permit from the county zoning administrator, a process involving dedicated public hearings to evaluate specific locations, operating hours, and security plans.
-
Operational Rules: Prohibits on-site consumption, bans the sale of alcohol or co-location with alcohol retailers, and mandates child-proof packaging along with strict compliance with state and local inspections.
-
Location Controls: Establishes setbacks from schools and childcare facilities, alongside regulations on business signage.
To draft the text, Senior Planner Tim Evans consulted several local entities, including the auditor, tax collector, elections office, code enforcement, and the Plumas County Sheriff’s Office. Evans also reached out to neighboring Lassen County to examine how its two operating dispensaries are regulated.
Tax Revenue and Voting Requirements
While Fogarty suggested a 5% retail sales tax—estimating it could generate roughly $215,000 annually based on Lassen County revenue numbers— official draft language remains silent on taxation.
“There is no language about taxes in this ordinance,” Evans noted.
Deputy County Counsel James clarified that tax measures must follow a separate legal pathway. “All general or special taxes sales taxes have to go to the voters,” James explained. She outlined potential options for the supervisors, including placing a tax measure on the ballot before the ordinance, holding the ordinance vote first, or placing both before voters concurrently.
Planning Commission Chair Harvey West concurred that the public will ultimately decide the financial aspect: “The way I see it, it’s going to the voters no matter what. The voters have to vote on the tax part.”
Proponent Refines Proposal and Makes His Case
Over the 18 months since filing his initial draft, Fogarty made several concessions. He eliminated provisions for manufacturing or commercial cultivation within the county and removed plans for indoor consumption lounges.
“None of the dispensary products will be grown or manufactured in Plumas County,” Fogarty told the commission, displaying sample dispensary products in child-resistant packaging to highlight regulatory oversight compared to illegal markets.
Fogarty advocated for the economic benefits, estimating five dispensaries would generate approximately 35 local jobs. He expressed intent to open one location in Crescent Mills, utilizing a vacant retail space between his Crescent Store and Crescent Hotel that has sat empty for two years.
Beyond economic impacts, Fogarty framed the initiative as a matter of access for residents using cannabis for pain management, calling it “justice for people who use cannabis in Plumas County.”
Commissioner Dayne Lewis acknowledged the applicant’s adjustments, noting, “The applicant has given up actually a lot to try to make this work.”
Next Steps and Public Input
As the workshop concluded, commissioners signaled potential adjustments to the draft text. Commissioner Chris Spencer questioned whether capping dispensaries at five was too high, suggesting a lower limit of two or three. Commissioner Lewis voiced support for relying on special use permits to evaluate site-specific impacts.
Rather than making immediate line-by-line revisions, the commission scheduled a dedicated third workshop focusing exclusively on the retail cannabis proposal for Nov. 19 at 10 a.m.
Public input remains open, and written comments regarding Article 46 can be emailed to [email protected].
