Mendocino County
  • Sign In

Meeting: Board of Supervisors on 2020-10-20 9:00 AM - AMENDED Agenda

Meeting Time: October 20, 2020 at 9:00am PDT

Agenda Item

5c) Discussion and Possible Action Including Adoption of Ordinance Adding Chapter 10A.18 - Industrial Hemp Cultivation Pilot Program to the Mendocino County Code (Sponsors: Agriculture and County Counsel)

Legislation Text Staff Memorandum - Industrial Hemp Pilot Program Ordinance Summary - Industrial Hemp Pilot Program Draft Hemp Regulations and BMPs-6 Ordinance - Industrial Hemp Pilot Program - redline Ordinance - Industrial Hemp Pilot Program final 3-22-20 MCA Correspondence 3-23-20 Clein Correspondence 3-23-20 CCAG Correspondence-1 03-24-20 Jones Correspondence 10-05-20 CCAG Correspondence 10-06-20 King Correspondence 10-06-20 MCA Correspondence 10-19-20 MCA Correspondence 10-19-20 Artman Correspondence (2) 10-19-20 Artman Correspondence 10-19-20 Bewley Correspondence 10-19-20 Buchanan Correspondence 10-19-20 Claus Correspondence 10-19-20 Duggan Correspondence 10-19-20 Katz Correspondence 10-19-20 Lastreto Chaitanya Correspondence 10-19-20 Leppert Correspondence 10-19-20 Manners Correspondence 10-19-20 Martin Correspondence 10-19-20 Montgomery Correspondence 10-19-20 Moulton Correspondence 10-19-20 Planty Douglas Correspondence 10-19-20 Quinnelly Correspondence 10-19-20 Robbers Correspondence 10-19-20 Rodrigues Correspondence 10-19-20 Russell Correspondence 10-19-20 Ward Correspondence 10-19-20 Claus Correspondence 10-19-20 Evans Correspondence 10-19-20 Menna Correspondence 10-19-20 Planty Correspondence 10-19-20 Willits Environmental Center Correspondence 10-19-20 Zachreson Correspondence 10-19-20 Anderson Correspondence 10-19-20 Broz Correspondence 10-19-20 CCAC Correpsondence 10-20-20 Thies Correspondence 10-20-20 Silva Correspondence 10-20-20 Cummings 10-20-20 Penaloza Correspondence 10-20-20 Clayburg Correspondence 10-20-20 Stout Correspondence 10-19-20 Katz Correspondence 10-20-20 Birger Correspondence 10-20-20 Bush Correspondence 10-20-20 Caldwell-Barr Correspondence 10-20-20 Clein Correspondence 10-20-20 Ericson Correspondence 10-20-20 GAcha Correspondence 10-20-20 Gothelf Correspondence 10-20-20 Harness Correspondence 10-20-20 Henry's Original Correspondence 10-20-20 La Paz Correspondence 10-20-20 LEEF Correspondence 10-20-20 Lockart Correspondence 10-20-20 Miller Correspondence 10-20-20 Procacci Correspondence 10-20-20 Puetz Correspondence 10-20-20 Snavely Correspondence 10-20-20 DeWitt Correspondence 10-20-20 Ferriera Correspondence 10-20-20 First Cut Correspondence 10-20-20 Lai Correspondence 10-20-20 O'Brien Correspondence 10-20-20 AuClair Correspondence
   Oppose     Neutral     Support    
50000 of 50000 characters remaining
5 Public Comments
  • Default_avatar
    Monique Ramirez about 4 years ago

    There is no denying that the public is NOT in favor of a hemp pilot program in our county. Environmental groups, cultivators, and even manufacturers of hemp products all agree that hemp is not appropriate for our county. It would be irresponsible of this Board to not listen to the constituents of this county and still move forward with a program that is not favored by the community. What is the point of engaging in public comment if our voices will never be heard? What happened to a democratic process? It's ridiculous that the moratorium has been in place for nearly a year, and yet there are still so many unanswered questions about how the program will operate in a way that will actually protect our cannabis program and the $5.8million dollars in tax revenue it creates!!! VOTE NO ON HEMP!!! We love hemp, but not in this county and certainly not without regulations. I support the CCAG memos, MCA memos and all of the public comments that have been in opposition as well. Thank you to the Supervisors that recognize this is not appropriate for Mendocino County.

  • Default_avatar
    Blaire AuClair about 4 years ago

    Dear Honorable Supervisors: I oppose hemp being grown in Mendocino County. I am in support of both MCA and CCAG memo. I am concerned about large pesticide and fertilizer use and contamination. One of the best things that have come out of the cannabis regs is strict testing. No other ag industry has zero-tolerance for pesticides. By allowing hemp we are saying yes to chemical fertilizer, yes to pesticides, and yes to plastic culture. To go through with allowing hemp in this county would be a slap in the face to the environment and to legacy cultivators.
    Sincerely,
    Blaire and Daniel AuClair
    Small Family Regenerative Cannabis Farm in Covelo

  • 10225953017997206
    Laura Clein about 4 years ago

    Honorable Supervisors,

    We are writing in support of MCA's Memo. We support the CCAG most recent memo on this item as well. Please do not create a hemp pilot program in Mendocino County for all the reasons cited in the memos.There are many valuable questions & suggestions contained within them.

    We understand the hemp moratorium ends in February 2021 & cannot be extended. But that does not mean rush to put in loose regulations, no taxes, etc. that may in fact jeopardize the cannabis program. It seems reasonable to as to BAN HEMP in Mendocino County for the time being. There are too many unknowns, as we even heard noted by both the County Ag Dept & the Farm Bureau two weeks go in the meeting on this subject. Let other counties take on the question of whether hemp will contaminate cannabis... after all we know they are simply different varietals of the same stinky plant. We ask you to consider a hemp ban that can of course be reversed in the future if it makes sense. At this time there is much research out there from other states & countries showing there to be a vast number of potential problems.

    We wrote to you last March, our letter attached above, none of the concerns we had have been addressed during you discussions. What stands out to us after the arduous process we have been through with no attainable goal in sight, until this County informs Phase 1 operators how to handle CEQA, leaving the fate 1000+ small farms at stake:

    1. How does Mendocino have the land, water, staff, etc. for "acres & acres of hemp" as well as the "possibly 60 acres of cannabis on a 600 acre parcel" you are now considering for Phase 3?!

    2. If this county is moving forward with expanding in these directions, why can't we find a way to grandfather in the Phase 1 10,000 sqft & smaller farms???!!!

    We request at the very least, the Board NOT take action on the Hemp Pilot Program at this time.

    Thank you,

    Laura & Marty Clein

  • Default_avatar
    Alexander Cummings about 4 years ago

    Dear Board of Supervisors, I write this to again request that the implementation of a pilot hemp program please be halted. There is strong opposition to this program moving forward, and little interest in its passage. Thank you for considering the public input in this matter.

  • Default_avatar
    Tekla Broz about 4 years ago

    Honorable Supervisors, Thank you for this opportunity to present my opinion in this matter. I am a resident of Covelo Core. I have a provisional cottage tier 1 outdoor cultivation license. I am opposed to the County giving permits to grow hemp, and here are my reasons.
    1) Because any such activity near me has a good chance of ruining my crop each year, by pollinating my plants. There has been much discussion about this, but in your last meeting, I did not see you, or at least some of you to be concerned about this. The distance of the danger remains unclear, but I would think wind blown pollen could easily travel miles. I would hope that you would make a distance rule of at least 10-15 miles from a licensed outdoor cannabis grower.
    2) If hemp growers were to use feminized seed, this would be a GMO product which is prohibited in Mendocino County agriculture.
    3) I understand that the permitting of hemp, which is a federally recognized agricultural crop, would be simpler than the licensing of cannabis, which while completely legal in California and other states, remains a federally designated Schedule One drug. I fail to see, however, why the permitting of hemp should not follow the strict environmental regulations that all of the cannabis permit holders have to follow. The use of water, in particular, should come under scrutiny, as well as run off, pesticide and herbicides, fertilizers and additives use, and the effect of such grows on wildlife and the environment.
    4) On the topic of permits, I fail to understand how the County can feel entirely comfortable to open up this completely new set of permits, when you have failed to adequately address the needs of cannabis applicants and license holders in the permitting process. You constantly tell us that you do not have adequate staffing to get us to our annual state permits, and yet you feel fine about plunging forward with a whole new program.
    In case you feel free to ignore my and other growers’ opposition to this idea, here are some requirements I would like to see placed in the hemp ordinance.
    1) Give neighborhoods the ability to opt-out or in to having hemp in their areas.
    2) Place a distance requirement from licensed cannabis farms. 10-15 miles might be adequate.
    3) Require that hemp farms be surety bonded against damages to nearby cannabis farms. If they damage a crop, they buy it at market value.
    4) Create an enforcement mechanism to check on violations and complaints.
    5) Exclude Round Valley and its surrounding properties from this permit.
    Thank you for reading this. If you did. Sincerely, Tekla Broz, North Fork Garden Society, Covelo