6b) Discussion and Possible Action Including Direction to Staff to Develop a Framework for Approving Third Party Planning Consultants to Avail Phase 1 Cannabis Cultivation Applicants with the Option to Directly Hire for Summarization of County Performed Review as Necessary to Meet Site Specific Environmental Review Under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) for Purposes of Seeking a State Annual License
(Sponsor: Cannabis Ad Hoc Committee of Supervisors Williams and Haschak)
Thank you for considering my comment. While I support the efforts by the county to assist those in Phase 1 in getting through to their annual permits. I am concerned that simply allowing applicants to hire consultants to preform site specific CEQA will not achieve the goal of obtaining annual permits before the provisional licensing program sunsets at the end of 2021. Even if outside consultants are used, the county is still the lead agency responsible for the feedback loop with all agencies of interest (Fish and Wildlife, Water Board, etc) for each cannabis application. If applicants are to truly believe that this path will end in an annual license, the county should provide a flow chart, from start to finish, illustrating how this will work for all types of applicants. Additionally, the county needs to advocate at the state level for changes to how CEQA interacts with cannabis businesses. As long as the state annual permits are discretionary and not ministerial, localities will not have the ability to deem an application CEQA exempt, whether through a local EIR or by being designated as principally permitted activity. To summarize, the county should create a "start to finish" flow chart for Phase 1 applicants that makes it easier to see the path to an annual permit and to ensure that this path is actually viable for them. Secondly, the county should advocate for changes to how CEQA interacts with cannabis at the state level, including changing the permit from discretionary to ministerial, in line with how other industries are treated. Thank you.
Hello Honorable Mendocino County Board of Supervisors,
I write in partial support of this move to identify consultants to help applicants through a site specific review of their gardens so they can, in combination with the county’s MND, achieve a state annual license. Farmers have been years in the waiting and even if it only passes a small number of farmers through, it is worth doing for them alone.
I am writing on behalf of the farmers for whom this cannot work for financial reasons, and for those who might require an MND of their own. To be frank, consultants cost money – a lot of money. I realize that it is the way of governmental bodies to hire consultants on the regular to perform studies of all sorts, but those studies cost significant money – a CEQA study runs $14,000 to $40,000. This is money most farmers do not immediately have to hand. Do YOU have $14,000 to $40,000 in your bank account right now to hand to a consultant so that you might keep your job as supervisor? Knowing that you cannot even recoup that loss on your taxes thanks to IRS 280e? Most farmers do not, either.
CEQA regulations, however, provide the county an alternative to costly consultants and the need for deep pockets, if the county will only take it. CEQA says project owners are perfectly acceptable and capable of writing their own documents for Lead Agency review even if it’s as comprehensive as an EIR (Environmental Impact Report)(section 15149). Without consultants. Section 21082.1 says an Agency has to prepare or contract someone to prepare an MND, but it also says a person can submit information which may be included in any report. It doesn’t limit the amount of information, in fact, for CEQA purposes, CDFA *relies* on information provided by the individual applicant.
CDFA, in a Memorandum dated May 29, 2019 titled ‘CEQA Practice Recommendations from CDFA for Cannabis Licensing – Project Description Content – Version 2’, says:
“CDFA can complete it’s review more quickly and efficiently when applicants provide as much of the information needed by CDFA to complete an independent evaluation of the proposed project as is available
– and then goes on to describe the information they need for CEQA Appendix H. Appendix H, with Appendix G comprises an ‘Initial Study’ which is an initial site specific review, the first step in the CEQA process. Note they specifically expect *the applicant* to provide the information, not necessarily consultants.
CEQA regulations confirm via Article 5 15063e
Submission of Data.
If the project is to be carried out by a private person or private organization, the Lead Agency [county] may require such person or organization to submit data and information which will enable the Lead Agency to prepare the Initial Study. Any person may submit any information in any form to assist a Lead Agency in preparing an Initial Study.
Initial Studies are Site Specific Reviews, a combination of Appendix G and Appendix H. (Appendix H is the contact information for the applicant, a site specific description of the project and an abbreviated environmental checklist.) This code says that not only can the Lead Agency accept information from private individuals, but that applicant-provided information can be used to prepare a site specific study.
I would like to remind the Board that at no point within CEQA does it state that a comprehensive biological protocol must be performed, to satisfy CEQA needs. Requiring a specific biological protocol to complete a site specific review, is considered an ‘underground regulation’ and is not supported by law. Is it less effort to, say, have a biologist visit the land and look for sensitive species? Sure. Just as it is easier to have someone come in to do maintenance on your house. Still, just as you can handy-man your own home, so can a person do the same database searches that biologist would do, look up the habitat of sensitive species in the area, and document that that habitat is or is not present within their project. Consultants would assure you otherwise, but it is not difficult to wield a native species guide. I hold a degree in the biological sciences and can assure you that most laypeople are completely capable of doing the basic work involved in answering Appendix G and H. Given access to the CDFW-approved biological scientist hire the board is thoughtfully providing, would increase those numbers even further.
CEQA regulations go on to confirm via Article 5 15063(a)(4) and Article 7 15084(d) that not only are private individuals/applicants capable of providing all the information required for a site specific initial study, but they are capable of providing all information right up to a full Environmental Impact Report (the most exhaustive CEQA report): Note: in this context a ‘draft’ is any document within the CEQA process that has not yet reached the end of the CEQA process.
Preparing an initial study (4) The lead agency may use any of the arrangements or combination of arrangements described in Section 15084(d)
The Lead Agency may choose one of the following arrangements or a combination of them for preparing a draft EIR.
(1) Preparing the draft EIR directly with its own staff.
(2) Contracting with another entity, public or private, to prepare the draft EIR.
(3) Accepting a draft prepared by the applicant, a consultant retained by the applicant, or any other person
(4) Executing a third party contract or memorandum of understanding with the applicant to govern the preparation of a draft EIR by an independent contractor.
(5) Using a previously prepared EIR
Perhaps you are wondering if a private applicant can produce the level of graph-worthy, extensive length of information achieved by many consultants? I would urge you to instead embrace CEQA regulations 15006 (n-q) which require:
Reducing Delay and Paperwork: Public agencies should reduce delay and paperwork by:
(n) Reducing the length of Environmental Impact Reports by means such as setting appropriate page limits (15141)
(o) Preparing analytic rather than encyclopedic Environmental Reports (15120)
(p) Mentioning only briefly issues other than significant ones in EIRs (15143)
(q) Writing Environmental Impact Reports in plain language (15140)
CEQA embraces ‘Keep it Simple’. CEQA does not embrace extensive costs be required of applicants, nor that they be required to hire an expensive consultant. CEQA does not require that applicants have $14,000 to $40,000 dollars available for the process. I’m sure some consultants might speak up to convince you they are essential to the success of a site specific review, but I, with my education in the biological sciences and as a landowner who does not hold a license, am here to say that consultants cannot and must not be the only pathway forward for applicants who do not have spare thousands of dollars available to fill out and check the checkboxes in Appendix G and Appendix H – the usual substance of a site specific review.
Should the county make a list of consultants capable of filling out Appendix G and Appendix H for applicants? Absolutely.
Should the county clearly state that applicants themselves, the farmers who know their own land best can provide that same information? Absolutely.
I implore you on behalf of your county farmers and the coffers of Mendocino County revenues, to embrace CEQA and include those farmers who do not have deep pockets when deciding who can provide you with a site specific report. Both CDFA and CEQA state that applicants can provide their own information – won’t you join them?
Support individual applicants submission of site specific reviews for review and inclusion with the county’s MND for CEQA purposes, as is supported in CEQA regulations.
Thank you,
Heidi Wordhouse
Jackrabbit Ranch
Laytonville, CA
I wholeheartedly support Corine Powell's negative assessment of this proposal. The MCCO is nothing but an untested draft that does not work for cannabis farmers, does not assist Mendocino PBS services with clear and timely implementation rules and schedules, and ultimately hurt the people of Mendocino. Proceeding with consultants as CEQA and CDFW liaisons will remove essential oversight that belongs to PBS. It is an error to try to solve the shortcomings of the MCCO by outsourcing essential oversight. This proposal puts our environment and the integrity of our county's services at risk.
Warm welcome to the new Board members! Our appreciation for all of our Board members, especially for stepping up to lead our local community at such unprecedented times for every community globally.
We are writing in support of MCA (Mendocino Cannabis Alliance) and CCAG (Covelo Cannabis Advocacy Group) as local associations who have the small farmer at the core of their mission. We have seen them time and again provide excellent experience with important research and insight, questions and recommendations, including on a number of today's agenda items (4O, 5J, 6A, 6B) We hope you will consider what these stakeholder initiated organizations have to say, they honestly speak on behalf of the cannabis community with the entire County's best interests in mind.
We have a 10,000 sq foot cannabis farm on Rangeland in Covelo. That's the largest size cannabis farm allowed in our County, yet considered a small farm by State cannabis regulations. We were issued a Mendocino County permit in 2017 also, a State Temporary license in 2018 and a State Provisional license in 2019. Our goal is a State Annual license before the time limit on Provisional licenses runs out in January 2022. Our farm is right now in the middle of our third renewal of the County permit and to be honest, you would think with THREE years of County permits under our belt it would be a simple process of payment. But, it's actually more complicated now, there is so much more the county is asking of us this time around than during previous renewals. There are an overwhelming number of outstanding issues, too many to recount here. We have consultants. We have had on-site county and state inspections as recently as 2020. That's the basics.
We would love to tell you more of our story... we are sure it is similar to many other cultivators who had faith that the County would live up to what it promised the ordinance would provide. In short, that once we had local approval we would literally take that to the state and it would be a cinch to secure an Annual license. Phase 1 cultivators were told over and over for years in the BOS meetings, not to worry, CEQA requirements would be worked out on our behalf. Yet, the ordinance is still a seemingly unworkable, maybe useless mess?! It now feels like a bait & switch in order to get the legacy cannabis cultivators to come forward. We have done all we were asked by both the County and the State, what's the holdup? CEQA! The County and State have been going in circles, for years, with no solution. But the point is, we need your help because no matter what hoops of fire we were able to jump through, as part of the Phase 1 cohort, here we sit, still not knowing if all the risk will ever see reward of an Annual license, alongside 1100+ other local Mendocino farms in limbo.
Mendocino County was once upon a time so cutting edge with cannabis policy that we were the only place in the entire USA that had one. Now cannabis is mainstream, reclassified internationally by the UN last month, moving closer to being rescheduled at the Federal level & 2020 even saw it become an essential business. There is so much good work to be done. Thank you again for your commitment & consideration on all matters affecting the good people of Mendocino.
Thank you for considering my comment. While I support the efforts by the county to assist those in Phase 1 in getting through to their annual permits. I am concerned that simply allowing applicants to hire consultants to preform site specific CEQA will not achieve the goal of obtaining annual permits before the provisional licensing program sunsets at the end of 2021. Even if outside consultants are used, the county is still the lead agency responsible for the feedback loop with all agencies of interest (Fish and Wildlife, Water Board, etc) for each cannabis application. If applicants are to truly believe that this path will end in an annual license, the county should provide a flow chart, from start to finish, illustrating how this will work for all types of applicants. Additionally, the county needs to advocate at the state level for changes to how CEQA interacts with cannabis businesses. As long as the state annual permits are discretionary and not ministerial, localities will not have the ability to deem an application CEQA exempt, whether through a local EIR or by being designated as principally permitted activity. To summarize, the county should create a "start to finish" flow chart for Phase 1 applicants that makes it easier to see the path to an annual permit and to ensure that this path is actually viable for them. Secondly, the county should advocate for changes to how CEQA interacts with cannabis at the state level, including changing the permit from discretionary to ministerial, in line with how other industries are treated. Thank you.
Hello Honorable Mendocino County Board of Supervisors,
I write in partial support of this move to identify consultants to help applicants through a site specific review of their gardens so they can, in combination with the county’s MND, achieve a state annual license. Farmers have been years in the waiting and even if it only passes a small number of farmers through, it is worth doing for them alone.
I am writing on behalf of the farmers for whom this cannot work for financial reasons, and for those who might require an MND of their own. To be frank, consultants cost money – a lot of money. I realize that it is the way of governmental bodies to hire consultants on the regular to perform studies of all sorts, but those studies cost significant money – a CEQA study runs $14,000 to $40,000. This is money most farmers do not immediately have to hand. Do YOU have $14,000 to $40,000 in your bank account right now to hand to a consultant so that you might keep your job as supervisor? Knowing that you cannot even recoup that loss on your taxes thanks to IRS 280e? Most farmers do not, either.
CEQA regulations, however, provide the county an alternative to costly consultants and the need for deep pockets, if the county will only take it. CEQA says project owners are perfectly acceptable and capable of writing their own documents for Lead Agency review even if it’s as comprehensive as an EIR (Environmental Impact Report)(section 15149). Without consultants. Section 21082.1 says an Agency has to prepare or contract someone to prepare an MND, but it also says a person can submit information which may be included in any report. It doesn’t limit the amount of information, in fact, for CEQA purposes, CDFA *relies* on information provided by the individual applicant.
CDFA, in a Memorandum dated May 29, 2019 titled ‘CEQA Practice Recommendations from CDFA for Cannabis Licensing – Project Description Content – Version 2’, says:
“CDFA can complete it’s review more quickly and efficiently when applicants provide as much of the information needed by CDFA to complete an independent evaluation of the proposed project as is available
– and then goes on to describe the information they need for CEQA Appendix H. Appendix H, with Appendix G comprises an ‘Initial Study’ which is an initial site specific review, the first step in the CEQA process. Note they specifically expect *the applicant* to provide the information, not necessarily consultants.
CEQA regulations confirm via Article 5 15063e
Submission of Data.
If the project is to be carried out by a private person or private organization, the Lead Agency [county] may require such person or organization to submit data and information which will enable the Lead Agency to prepare the Initial Study. Any person may submit any information in any form to assist a Lead Agency in preparing an Initial Study.
Initial Studies are Site Specific Reviews, a combination of Appendix G and Appendix H. (Appendix H is the contact information for the applicant, a site specific description of the project and an abbreviated environmental checklist.) This code says that not only can the Lead Agency accept information from private individuals, but that applicant-provided information can be used to prepare a site specific study.
I would like to remind the Board that at no point within CEQA does it state that a comprehensive biological protocol must be performed, to satisfy CEQA needs. Requiring a specific biological protocol to complete a site specific review, is considered an ‘underground regulation’ and is not supported by law. Is it less effort to, say, have a biologist visit the land and look for sensitive species? Sure. Just as it is easier to have someone come in to do maintenance on your house. Still, just as you can handy-man your own home, so can a person do the same database searches that biologist would do, look up the habitat of sensitive species in the area, and document that that habitat is or is not present within their project. Consultants would assure you otherwise, but it is not difficult to wield a native species guide. I hold a degree in the biological sciences and can assure you that most laypeople are completely capable of doing the basic work involved in answering Appendix G and H. Given access to the CDFW-approved biological scientist hire the board is thoughtfully providing, would increase those numbers even further.
CEQA regulations go on to confirm via Article 5 15063(a)(4) and Article 7 15084(d) that not only are private individuals/applicants capable of providing all the information required for a site specific initial study, but they are capable of providing all information right up to a full Environmental Impact Report (the most exhaustive CEQA report): Note: in this context a ‘draft’ is any document within the CEQA process that has not yet reached the end of the CEQA process.
Preparing an initial study (4) The lead agency may use any of the arrangements or combination of arrangements described in Section 15084(d)
The Lead Agency may choose one of the following arrangements or a combination of them for preparing a draft EIR.
(1) Preparing the draft EIR directly with its own staff.
(2) Contracting with another entity, public or private, to prepare the draft EIR.
(3) Accepting a draft prepared by the applicant, a consultant retained by the applicant, or any other person
(4) Executing a third party contract or memorandum of understanding with the applicant to govern the preparation of a draft EIR by an independent contractor.
(5) Using a previously prepared EIR
Perhaps you are wondering if a private applicant can produce the level of graph-worthy, extensive length of information achieved by many consultants? I would urge you to instead embrace CEQA regulations 15006 (n-q) which require:
Reducing Delay and Paperwork: Public agencies should reduce delay and paperwork by:
(n) Reducing the length of Environmental Impact Reports by means such as setting appropriate page limits (15141)
(o) Preparing analytic rather than encyclopedic Environmental Reports (15120)
(p) Mentioning only briefly issues other than significant ones in EIRs (15143)
(q) Writing Environmental Impact Reports in plain language (15140)
CEQA embraces ‘Keep it Simple’. CEQA does not embrace extensive costs be required of applicants, nor that they be required to hire an expensive consultant. CEQA does not require that applicants have $14,000 to $40,000 dollars available for the process. I’m sure some consultants might speak up to convince you they are essential to the success of a site specific review, but I, with my education in the biological sciences and as a landowner who does not hold a license, am here to say that consultants cannot and must not be the only pathway forward for applicants who do not have spare thousands of dollars available to fill out and check the checkboxes in Appendix G and Appendix H – the usual substance of a site specific review.
Should the county make a list of consultants capable of filling out Appendix G and Appendix H for applicants? Absolutely.
Should the county clearly state that applicants themselves, the farmers who know their own land best can provide that same information? Absolutely.
I implore you on behalf of your county farmers and the coffers of Mendocino County revenues, to embrace CEQA and include those farmers who do not have deep pockets when deciding who can provide you with a site specific report. Both CDFA and CEQA state that applicants can provide their own information – won’t you join them?
Support individual applicants submission of site specific reviews for review and inclusion with the county’s MND for CEQA purposes, as is supported in CEQA regulations.
Thank you,
Heidi Wordhouse
Jackrabbit Ranch
Laytonville, CA
I wholeheartedly support Corine Powell's negative assessment of this proposal. The MCCO is nothing but an untested draft that does not work for cannabis farmers, does not assist Mendocino PBS services with clear and timely implementation rules and schedules, and ultimately hurt the people of Mendocino. Proceeding with consultants as CEQA and CDFW liaisons will remove essential oversight that belongs to PBS. It is an error to try to solve the shortcomings of the MCCO by outsourcing essential oversight. This proposal puts our environment and the integrity of our county's services at risk.
1/5/21
Honorable Mendocino County Board of Supervisors,
Warm welcome to the new Board members! Our appreciation for all of our Board members, especially for stepping up to lead our local community at such unprecedented times for every community globally.
We are writing in support of MCA (Mendocino Cannabis Alliance) and CCAG (Covelo Cannabis Advocacy Group) as local associations who have the small farmer at the core of their mission. We have seen them time and again provide excellent experience with important research and insight, questions and recommendations, including on a number of today's agenda items (4O, 5J, 6A, 6B) We hope you will consider what these stakeholder initiated organizations have to say, they honestly speak on behalf of the cannabis community with the entire County's best interests in mind.
We have a 10,000 sq foot cannabis farm on Rangeland in Covelo. That's the largest size cannabis farm allowed in our County, yet considered a small farm by State cannabis regulations. We were issued a Mendocino County permit in 2017 also, a State Temporary license in 2018 and a State Provisional license in 2019. Our goal is a State Annual license before the time limit on Provisional licenses runs out in January 2022. Our farm is right now in the middle of our third renewal of the County permit and to be honest, you would think with THREE years of County permits under our belt it would be a simple process of payment. But, it's actually more complicated now, there is so much more the county is asking of us this time around than during previous renewals. There are an overwhelming number of outstanding issues, too many to recount here. We have consultants. We have had on-site county and state inspections as recently as 2020. That's the basics.
We would love to tell you more of our story... we are sure it is similar to many other cultivators who had faith that the County would live up to what it promised the ordinance would provide. In short, that once we had local approval we would literally take that to the state and it would be a cinch to secure an Annual license. Phase 1 cultivators were told over and over for years in the BOS meetings, not to worry, CEQA requirements would be worked out on our behalf. Yet, the ordinance is still a seemingly unworkable, maybe useless mess?! It now feels like a bait & switch in order to get the legacy cannabis cultivators to come forward. We have done all we were asked by both the County and the State, what's the holdup? CEQA! The County and State have been going in circles, for years, with no solution. But the point is, we need your help because no matter what hoops of fire we were able to jump through, as part of the Phase 1 cohort, here we sit, still not knowing if all the risk will ever see reward of an Annual license, alongside 1100+ other local Mendocino farms in limbo.
Mendocino County was once upon a time so cutting edge with cannabis policy that we were the only place in the entire USA that had one. Now cannabis is mainstream, reclassified internationally by the UN last month, moving closer to being rescheduled at the Federal level & 2020 even saw it become an essential business. There is so much good work to be done. Thank you again for your commitment & consideration on all matters affecting the good people of Mendocino.
Sincerely, Laura & Marty Clein