Mendocino County
  • Sign In

Meeting: Board of Supervisors on 2020-08-04 9:00 AM - Regular Meeting

Meeting Time: August 04, 2020 at 9:00am PDT

Agenda Item

5b) Discussion and Possible Action Including Direction to Staff Regarding the Potential Re-direction of the Cannabis Cultivation Permitting Program to a Land Use Ordinance and Direction to Staff Regarding Prioritizing Phase 1 and 2 Existing Permit Holders who Require a CEQA Checklist with a Cost Recovery System Identified in Response to Board Direction Received on June 16, 2020 (Sponsor: Planning and Building Services)

Legislation Text 1.PBS Staff Memo Cannabis Update and Land Use ReDirection Recommendations for the 8.4.20 BOS Meeting.pdf Attachment A Draft Sensitve Species Review Pilot Policy with CDFW.pdf Attachment B DRAFT Mendocino County Cannabis 15168 Checklist.pdf Attachment C CEQA Practice Recommendations from CDFA for Cannabis Licensing - Project Description Content - Version a2.pdf Attachment D Cannabis Cultivation Ad Hoc Legacy and Non-Legacy Tables from 6.16.20 BOS Meeting.pdf 07-31-20 Re Correspondence 07-31-20 Mendocino County Tourism Commission Correspondence 07-31-20 Rainbow Ag Correspondence 07-31-20 Whipple Correspondence 07-31-20 Menasian Correspondence 07-31-20 Stephens Correspondence 08-02-20 Rohrbaugh Correspondence 08-02-20 Brodigan Correspondence 08-02-20 MCA Correspondence 08-02-20 Rodriques Correspondence 08-02-20 Talkovsky Correspondence 08-02-20 Lumpkin Correspondence 08-02-20 Strong Correspondence 08-01-20 Rodrigues Correspondence 08-02-20 Flow Kana Correspondence 08-03-20 Anderson Correspondecne 08-03-20 Card Correspondence 08-03-20 Charnes Correspondence 08-03-20 Glaser Correspondence 08-03-20 Harness Correspondence 08-03-20 Kramer Correspondence 08-03-20 Potter Correspondence 08-03-20 Rodrigues Correspondence 08-03-20 Sizemore Correspondence 08-03-20 Slota Correspondence 08-01-20 Clifton Correspondence 08-01-20 Klein Correspondence 08-01-20 Liberty Correspondence 08-03-20 Scherbatskoy Correspondence 08-03-20 Stephens Correspondence 08-03-20 Tergis Correspondence 08-03-20 Waters Correspondence 08-03-20 WEC Correspondence 08-03-20 Wheeler Correspondence 08-03-20 Womack Correspondence 08-03-20 Bowers Correspondence 08-03-20 Brady Correspondence 08-03-20 California Wildlife Foundation Correspondence 08-03-20 CCAG Correspondence 08-03-20 Clein Correspondence 08-03-20 Donham Correspondence 08-03-20 Drell Correspondence 08-03-20 Fugman Correspondence 08-03-20 Gardere Correspondence 08-03-20 Henrys Original Correspondence 08-03-20 Holbrook Correspondence 08-03-20 Ineich Correspondence 08-03-20 JC&A Correspondence 08-03-20 Jenkins Correspondence 08-03-20 Knight Correspondence 08-03-20 Liese Correspondence 08-03-20 Maierle Correspondence 08-03-20 Marianchild Correspondence 08-03-20 Ninaud Correspondence 08-03-20 Olcott Correspondence 08-03-20 Owen Correspondence 08-03-20 Pellar Correspondence 08-03-20 Powell Correspondence 08-03-20 Puetz Correspondence 08-03-20 Riedel Correspondence 08-03-20 Sargenti Correspondence 08-04-20 Blacketer-Dodt Correspondence 08-04-20 Magoffin Correspondence 08-04-20 Herbanology Correspondence 08-04-20 Jeavons Correspondence 08-04-20 Davis Correspondence 08-04-20 AuClair Correspondence 08-04-20 Steffen Correspondence
   Oppose     Neutral     Support    
50000 of 50000 characters remaining
14 Public Comments
  • Default_avatar
    Privacy Please over 4 years ago

    What is the difference between a Use Permit and a Land Permit? I think I understand one of the Planning personnel said that the only notification and public input on a land use permit would be just to publish a notice in the local newspaper and to mail one to surrounding neighbors within just 350 ft. from the applicant's property. Is this correct? If so, it is NOT adequate and the change to this kind of permit should be denied.

  • Default_avatar
    Paul Hansbury over 4 years ago

    One size does not fit all. This was stated repeatedly during the last agenda item.
    I would as that the same applies to the State's cannabis regulations.
    Local control is something that is lacking in these cannabis discussions.
    It seems to me that leaving the regulations to the State and just a zoning clearance by the planning dept is relinquishing the local control instead of insisting on it.

  • Default_avatar
    Ari Steffen over 4 years ago

    We need the supervisors to come to a consensus and give us a path to obtain CEQA so that we may obtain our full state permits (CEQA checklist/Appendix G).

    We also need a path forward for expansion, where appropriate, that is based on a site specific Use Permit, not based on outdated zoning maps.

    Please come to a consensus and give us a path to obtain CEQAs that align with the State (CEQA checklist/Appendix G), and to establish a Use Permit to allow for expansions where appropriate.

  • Default_avatar
    Blaire AuClair over 4 years ago

    I am 100% in support of the MCA and CCAG memo. Nothing else should be considered until the current permit holders AND APPLICANTS have Annual permits from the state.

  • Default_avatar
    Dionne Ayres over 4 years ago

    Please consider listening to FARMERS that have paid their TAXES. They literally pay the BOS salary. BOS work for the farmers or are supposed to. I have never ever witnessed such baligerant and utter disregard for solutions that have been eloquently planned out.
    If BOS can't figure out solutions within the last 4 years I have witnessed this mess, they simply do not CARE TO.
    I would've been fired if I had these results at work on projects.

  • Default_avatar
    Jed Davis over 4 years ago

    I support the concerns/recommendations in the MCA letter.

    I am concerned the proposed model does not allow for the thousands of marginalized families in our community to participate in the legal market, which comprise a large portion of our county's cumulative cannabis production and our economy. With no way to participate, they will fall further into poverty and the black market will continue to thrive.

    https://crc.berkeley.edu/current-projects/policy-and-land-use/strategies-for-compliance/

  • Default_avatar
    Judy Tergis over 4 years ago

    "As the former Sheriff Tom Allman stated at the December 2019 BOS meeting, the decision to expand Cannabis cultivation into Rangeland Zoning “should be voted on by the public”. I fully agree!" I agree with Dori Kramer. Our range land is being over-run by gigantic hoop-houses on our range land. Permits are being granted without licenses and once built they are not inspected! The public voted in our current ordinance and it shouldn't be changed by a decision of the Board of Supervisors.

  • 589959321694028
    Joshua Artman over 4 years ago

    We need an Ad Hoc committee for CEQA compliance asap, with MCA and CCAG.
    Mendocino MUST prioritize the 275 current permit holders to use Appendix G to obtain CEQA Compliance.
    We already fulfilled the SSHR requirement from the 10A.17 Ordinance for our permits.

    I grow on Ag Land, this bureaucracy doesn't apply to me. My LSA was NOT APPLICABLE.
    BTW China eats sensitive species and were LOSING America! My family is a sensitive species.
    We need to better support the life blood of our economy!

  • Default_avatar
    Lynn Zachreson over 4 years ago

    1) A new Ad Hoc to address CDFA and CDFW compliance for Phase 1 and Phase 2 current permittees. The Ad Hoc must be comprised of Supervisors whose tenure will extend beyond January 2021.
    2) Singular staff focus on and protection of current permittees over the development of any new local land use permit based cultivation regulations.
    3) Support and endorsement of the MCA memo.

  • 10223420134548193
    Patricia RisYarbrough over 4 years ago

    Oversight by our county (MCPB) and state (CDFW) of the cannabis cultivation program is not working. Streamlining the CCPP process will accomplish only that more cultivators will get permits faster, with 800 waiting to be processed. There are no provisions
    in this proposal that enhances protection for wildlife, natural habitat, residents, neighbors, and our watershed. The proposal is written to overcome a backlog from a commercial point of view only, which is a shame.

  • Default_avatar
    Micah An over 4 years ago

    We support the idea of changing the local ordinance to reflect a land use approach. We hope there is a way to do this which will allow for expansion in the areas where expansion should be, while grandfathering in the current licenses holders who might be on land that can not support expansion.

  • Default_avatar
    Kevin Wilson over 4 years ago

    I support this measure. It is a step in the right direction for the community and region.

  • Default_avatar
    Brian White over 4 years ago

    Dear MCBOS,

    I am in Support os this ordinance. Lets please keep it consistent with the state guidelines that are already in place. We mendocino county farmers need a legal way to be involved with this industry.

    Sincerely,
    Brian J White
    White Oak Ranch
    Wine grapes 35 years

  • Default_avatar
    Hannah Nelson over 4 years ago

    Please see attached Memo submitted by me on behalf of MCA.