Meeting Time: April 19, 2021 at 9:00am PDT

Agenda Item

3a) Noticed Public Hearing - Discussion and Possible Action Including Introduction and Waive First Reading of an Ordinance Amending Mendocino County Code Chapter 6.36 and Chapter 20.243 Regarding Cannabis Facilities (Sponsor: Planning & Building Services)

   Oppose     Neutral     Support    
50000 of 50000 characters remaining
  • Default_avatar
    ERIC PEDLEY over 3 years ago

    Regards the redlined provision related to churches and the distance from cannabis facilities. Specifically I am concerned about the town of Hopland. The neighborhood surrounding our church is compacted along Highway 101, particularly on the West side, where the church is located. I strongly object to allowing this otherwise sensible restriction be redlinedas it seems directly intended to open up the currently closed Hopland Superette to cannabis development.

    We already have 2 dispensaries in Hopland. How many is enough? There are certainly plenty of other locations within a short distance of the Highway 101 corridor, without extending the blight of a dispensary smack in the middle of 'downtown' Hopland. We love our town, though we may have the unfortunate distinction of being the first town visitors reach in Mendocino County when driving North on Highway 101.

    While this makes our town attractive to cannabis entrepreneurs, it also means that residents are forced to endure a sub-culture not in keeping with the rural family climate that has made Hopland so beloved by residents. Real community effort has been expended in establishing a charter K thru 8 school for residents and their children. The Hopland Volunteer Fire Department is a monument to community support, and offers services well above what a town of under 1000 should be expected to provide. Further efforts at coordinating with CalTrans for the beautification and improvements along Highway 101 have been very successful. These and many other initiatives are reflective of a town that cares about their community, and takes the action needed make progress.

    Enhancing Mendocino County tax revenues should not come at the expense of existing communities when abundant other alternatives exist. In the case of dispensaries, why not a cannabis village at the Sho Ka Wa casino site? In the case of cultivation, a further focus on the Humboldt proposal seems like a much larger opportunity for a County starved of revenue. The micro-business arguments that are put forward by dispensary entrepreneurs pale in comparison to the agricultural impacts of water usage and lost permit revenue. This 'industry' wants to have it both ways; let us sell wherever we want, but don't look to closely at taxing and regulating our manufacturing stream.

    Cannabis as a business/industry is in it's infancy. The land grab aspect of the current focus promises unforeseen dislocation and consequences that will only become apparent over time. The regret over today's actions will be felt long after the minor tax revenue from a dispensary has been spent...

  • Default_avatar
    Tekla Broz over 3 years ago

    Honored Supervisors. I would like to thank you for considering ways to make direct sales by cultivators an item of concern. As a very small cannabis farmer, I support making events and tourism standards that would support direct sales of cannabis by cannabis cultivators, rather than forcing us to work within a wholesale model that is currently strangling our ability to reach our customers with our product. Increasing events and canna tourism can only help Mendocino's economy. Thank you for your attention to this topic.