April 19, 2021

Chair Gjerde and Hon. Supervisors,

On my speaking tours throughout California, I have seen no oak habitats as beautiful and pristine as those found in our rangelands. As a biological hotspot, they constitute the most rich and diverse ecosystems in the state and they constitute a nature preserve of unparalleled importance in CA and the the west.

I want to talk with you about newts. These brown and orange salamanders are beloved of just about everyone who encounters them. They enrich our lives. Newts cannot reproduce when creeks and ponds are dry. It can take a newt four months to travel to and from her breeding waters each year, and her her life is endangered when she encounters any new obstacle on her traditional migration route. She is also endangered by cars likely to squash her when she unwittingly crosses a road. More Cannabis permits in rangelands mean more hoop houses, less water, more water trucks and other more traffic, and more dead newts.

Permits granted on a site-by-site basis, cannot possibly protect newts and countless other animals from the cumulative damage that will cause inevitable and possibly fatal population declines if this ordinance is passed.

Please take this opportunity today to go down in history as the supervisors who envisioned, in our county, the Oak Woodlands National Park. Don’t go down as the supervisors who voted for the devastation of our landscapes and communities. If jobs are the issue, provide them through landscape restoration work, not landscape desecration. I and most Mendocino Cnty citizens oppose this ordinance and oppose Cannabis expansion without an EIR. Please listen to us.

Respectfully,

Kate Marianchild
Author, Secrets of the Oak Woodlands

Dear Board of Supervisors,
As you are well aware, we are facing one of the worst droughts in a long time and our rangelands, wildlife, rivers, creeks and springs are already taxed to their max. We personally have had more than three times the amount of wildlife using our watershed as the surrounding areas are drying up. My husband and I have made the decision this year to cut our own vegetable garden by 3/4 due to the drought. It's only the middle of April and just yesterday a planned controlled burn got out of control threatening our ranch. We already see far too many water trucks, every single day, hauling water to areas where there isn’t enough naturally to support agriculture. Our rangelands specifically are already under heightened increases (or even denied coverage) due to the severe fire storms of recent years. Hundreds of additional humans, machines, tools, generators and decreased water will only increase the fire dangers.

The Voters in our county already made it clear on their wishes and voted against Measure AF in 2016. The following organizations and groups have also come out to strongly opposed: Mendocino County Farm Bureau, Sherriff Matt Kendall, retired Sheriff Tom Allman, Mendocino County Fish and Game Commission, Mendocino Cannabis Association, Covelo Municiple Advisory Committee, Laytonville Municipal Advisory Committee, Round Valley County Water District, Laytonville County Water District. There were over 350 letters already written to the BOS voicing their opposition. Why are you turning a deaf ear? We do not want to expand cannabis into our rangelands, yet tier 3 is set to do exactly that. The public, including myself, have lost trust in our county’s ability to manage the cannabis ordinance already passed. Adding a new much broader ordinance as in Tier 3, would be an absolute disaster. I strongly oppose opening Tier 3 at this time!
Thank you for your consideration,
Linn Crawford

Date: April 19, 2021
To: Board of Supervisors
From: Marie Jones, Chair of the Mendocino County Climate Action & Advisory Committee
Re: Cannabis Ordinance

Dear Board of Supervisors,
Indoor Cannabis cultivation uses a significant amount of electricity and is a significant source of GHG emissions and thereby a contributor to Climate Change. The current proposed zoning ordinance would allow indoor cultivation of 22,000 square feet (half an acre) with a use Permit in a wide variety of zoning districts. Please consider the following changes to the ordinance so that Mendocino can be a model of sustainable marijuana cultivation.
Policy Recommendations:
1. Require the use of renewable on or off-site power generation, by requiring that applicants use renewable energy sources for cannabis cultivation as part of the Use Permit approval process; and/or
2. Limit the size and locations of indoor cultivation. For example, prohibit applicants with indoor grows from also having green house or outdoor cultivation on the same parcel. This would disincentivize indoor cultivation, or you could require a larger minimum parcel size (20 acres) for indoor cultivation; and or
3. Limit the total number of new permits for in door cultivation of more than 10,000 SF to a specific number per year (maybe 3 to 5).
Quick facts in support of this policy direction:
• In 2012, California indoor cannabis production consumed 3% of California’s total electricity, and 1% of total US electricity.
• For the more than 1,300 indoor cannabis facilities in 2019 CalCannabis licensing information, energy intensity for a California indoor cannabis facility averaged 252 kWh per square foot of canopy per year (New Frontier Data 2018), or 0.71kWk/day/SF. By comparison, the average House in California averages 18 kWh/day. So, a 1,000 SF cannabis grow uses the same electricity (715 kWh) as 39 homes. Thus a 22,000 SF indoor Cannabis grow would use the same electricity as 875 homes!
• A 2015 study found that the average electricity consumption of a 5,000-square-foot indoor facility in Boulder County was 41,808 kilowatt-hours per month or as much power as 66 homes in Boulder.
Thanks for your consideration.
Marie Jones
Chair, Mendocino County Climate Action and Advisory Committee

II am opposed to this expansion in Phase 3

Concerned Resident

I am against these proposals for a variety of reasons:
we are in a drought and large farms use lots of water
the only way the county will succeed with canabis is to create a great product and that means small hands on farms large corporate farms cannot create great canabis the best example of this is our wine industry small vineyards make great wine large vineyards in the Central Valley create Gallo and Carlo Rossi swil.l Our county can't compete withthe Central Valley farms if we go for quantity.
Large farms need lots of capitol to operate and that requires investors who care only for profits and will move those profits out of county
Today (Sunday) there is an article in the New York Times about the canabis industry in Canada and how the promised profits just are not there and that these corporations are hemmorging cash on a massive scale and thusly are not filling the local governments coffers like was promised. I believe that you folks need to slow down..... breathe and then gather ideas from the public, eventually allowing a vote on what we as citizens would like for our county

April 17, 2021
Honored Supervisor,
My name is Tekla Broz. I am a retired elementary school teacher, who has taught and lived in Covelo for over 30 years. I currently have a State provisional license and County permit for cultivating Cottage Tier I (2,500 sq. ft.) outdoor, organic cannabis.
I am writing to you in support of the memo from Covelo Cannabis Advocacy Group on the topic of expansion of capped acreage open for permitting to cannabis cultivation. In addition to that, I would like to give you my reasoning for opposing this major expansion.
I would like to ask you to delay or deny or modify your approval for the massive expansion of acreage for cannabis cultivation, which would approve 10% of an owner’s land in certain zones of land. This expansion was evaluated by the Planning Commission, and it is my understanding that there is pressure on you to approve it as soon as possible as part of the Phase 3 opening of the County for non-legacy permits under our Cannabis Ordinance, to avoid having to do a County-wide EIR. It is my opinion that this expansion is such an unpopular idea and would have such far reaching effects on our communities and economy that it should be put before the voters as a Measure to vote on, rather than just the Board deciding it for us. Please open Phase 3 without this gross expansion, or at least reduce it to a maximum 1 acre.
As a cultivator, and as a community member I have many reasons for my opposition to this massive expansion. This explosive expansion is an environmentally, economically, equity and socially unsound idea.
It is environmentally unsound, as water is at a premium in our county because we are in the midst of climate change inflicted drought. Trash from larger grows is already a problem for the County, in collecting, hauling, disposing and because of abandoned and dumped trash. To expand cultivation without addressing the trash disposal problem would be unwise. To make this kind of gross expansion possible without evaluating the cumulative effects County wide is, I am sorry, absolutely foolhardy. If you must do this, institute a County-wide EIR evaluating it. I recommend asking the companies in favor of this expansion to pay for that EIR.
It is economically unsound, because a massive increase in the amount of cannabis produced in the County will only add to the current flood that is clogging our markets. We can only sell within the State at the moment. More cannabis is being produced (legally) than the market wants, there are not enough distribution points, cultivators cannot sell direct without paying for more licenses, and the prices are diving. When the state and international borders open up, as they inevitably will, we will all benefit, but by then it will be too late for most of the small legacy farmers, who will have been forced out of business, if you pass this unwise expansion.
On the subject of equity, small farmers by and large have been cultivating as medical producers for decades, and have taken the huge and risky step of stepping forward, attempting to satisfy the ever changing array of state and local requirements for a legal permit, and are offering to pay the amazingly high amount of fees and taxes to agencies in order to bring the legal market forward. I know that this was my reasoning in applying for a permit. We were capped at 10,000 sq ft per permit. Why is it that now the permitting process will be thrown open to larger and larger acreage? Will Phase One still be capped at 10K? This seems grossly unfair. Open Phase Three to a slight increase, 22,000 sq ft, if you must, and make that increase available to Phase One and Two without change to their local licenses.
The expansion would be socially unsound, because many of our rural, small communities and businesses depend on the presence of legal, local small growers in their schools, as invested community members working for the good of the community, and as workers paying into the local tax base. Larger grows, managed from a distance, would reduce the local populations of these small towns.
Such a large increase, (the current cap is at 10,000 sq. ft, which would change to an unknown upper figure, certainly in the tens of acres, and with no word on how many such permits will be allowed, or timeline to end this expansion) would be unsound in its effect on criminal justice. How would the County ensure the safety of these larger grows from marauding invasion burgleries, theft and vandalism when those are already happening at an unacceptable rate to the smaller growers? How will the County enforce the prohibition of illegal growing on this scale, which is already occurring and needs to be addressed? It seems that the ridiculously large illegal growing needs to be addressed before we try making legal grows to this scale. Are the County and State planning to elevate the numbers of law enforcement to our remote areas? Covelo already suffers in general from not enough sheriff and CHP presence.
As you can see, there are many reasons why this precipitous expansion is ill-advised. Many, many residents who are not growers are opposed to it. Round Valley Municipal Advisory Council, Laytonville Municipal Advisory Council, Willits Environmental Group, Covelo Cannabis Advocacy Group and multiple community members, including some from Round Valley Tribes, are opposed to this expansion. Why are you rushing this through?
Please put the expansion idea to the voters to express their opinions. You are receiving multiple petitions and surveys against it, but they cannot be verified in the same way that a County wide election would be.
Please pass the Phase 3 section of the ordinance without this ill-considered, hasty, exponential expansion of acreage allowed. If you must expand, cap it at 22,000 sq ft or 1 acre for now, and see how that goes. Err on the side of caution, rather than opening the floodgates and then regretting it. Remember the logging industry.
Thank you for your attention to this long letter. I would appreciate a response from each of you, either to acknowledge that you have read it, or to express your opinion about it. So often, I have spoken to you in person, only to be ignored. Please let me know you are not ignoring me, and the many people who feel as I do.
Sincerely, Tekla Broz, North Fork Garden Society, Covelo CA
trbroz@gmail.com (707)367-1990

I agree with the Laytonville Area Municipal Advisory Committee that the phase 3 10% of land holdings in Rangeland and Upland Residential being open to cannabis production is a shortsighted idea, and extremely untimely during our severe drought.I feel that a satellite service for finding illegal cannabis is a poor use of money, as we already know where many of these areas are. The money is better spent on actual physical enforcement. If the Board of Supervisors refuse to drop this ill advised course of action, I agree with Sheriff Kendall and the Laytonville Water District that this issue must be decided by the voters of Mendocino County.

BY ECOMMENT & EMAIL

April 16, 2021

County of Mendocino - Board of Supervisors
Glenn McGourty
Maureen Mulheren
Ted Williams
Dan Gjerde
John Haschak

RE: Water Law Perspective in Support of Phase 3 Cannabis Expansion

Dear Members of the Board,

My name is Tom Hicks and I am a water rights attorney submitting these comments in support of the proposed expansion of cannabis production under Phase 3, of up to ten percent (10%) of qualified zoning designations. I do not write them on behalf of any particular client and have not been paid to submit these comments.

Comments
I have read much of the correspondence already on file with the Board of Supervisors and hear the different concerns specific to potential impacts of the ordinance amendment to fish and game resulting from depletion of water resources from the creeks, springs, and tributaries of distinguished Mendocino County watersheds such as the Russian and Eel Rivers among others. Salmonids such as coho salmon and steelhead trout are sensitive to low-flows, especially in the late summer, when water temperatures might reach mortal thresholds, or outright dewatering might strand fish in isolated pools. Clearly, that is not the intent of the Phase 3 Ordinance.

While the long-term trendline of impacts to these species can be attributed to many causal factors, at this critical time it must be emphasized that state-licensed cannabis growers already receive some of the most intense environmental and regulatory scrutiny of any category of farmer in California, if not the country. Mendocino cannabis growers who seek compliance with county permits MUST comply with state water quality and water rights regulations, especially under the differing jurisdictions of the State Water Resources Control Board, Regional Water Quality Control Board, and Department of Fish and Wildlife.

Cannabis growers who are in compliance with state licensing requirements are salmon-friendly by definition. Farm expansion beyond 10,000 square feet is premised on an assumption that there is (at different times of the annual hydrograph) enough water available onsite to do so. Mendocino growers already work with specialized water resources consultants to quantify precipitation and streamflow to understand when landowner-cultivators can pump groundwater or divert surface flow without causing injury to other users of water or the environment. In other instances, growers might be capturing rainwater or storm water runoff.

State water policy is already drought tolerant and working within a climate change theme of resilience: resilient environments, resilient communities, resilient economies. These themes would seem to resonate with Mendocino County priorities and values.

California was only recently in a separate multi-year drought. The State Water Board, in particular, has comfort and familiarity issuing emergency drought regulations and orders that, if needed during dry or critically dry years, will curtail junior uses of water. Separately, such state-level rules and regulations have, at times, included pumping and diverting constraints on other water-using industries for “frost control” or to protect the “sustainable yield” of groundwater use. CDFW issues Lake and Streambed Alteration Agreement (Section 1602) permits with explicit bypass flow requirements to prevent dewatering of rivers and creeks.

Lastly, it is important to emphasize that the size of a farm’s acreage does not make a cannabis grower good or bad. It is the quality of management and the ethos of each grower.

Background
Tom Hicks is a California water law, real property, and conservation attorney who represents a variety of public interest organizations, landowners, and others on select public policy, transactional, administrative, regulatory, and litigation matters.

Before law school Tom was an energy and water policy analyst at the Natural Heritage Institute and the founder of the Headwaters Institute. He has interned at the San Francisco Office of the City Attorney, California State Water Resources Control Board, and American Rivers. Tom founded and chaired the inaugural California Water Law Symposium sponsored by leading northern California law schools and is a Board member. He is the author of the Water Education Foundation’s 2020 Layperson’s Guide to Water Rights Law, recognized as the most thorough explanation of California water rights law available to non-lawyers. Tom is a former whitewater raft guide, kayaker, and Colorado Outward Bound School instructor. He holds a JD from the University of San Francisco School of Law and a BA from the University of Vermont.

Conclusion
Your vote in favor of the proposed expansion of cannabis production under Phase 3 will not injure or harm fish if these farms are in compliance with State of California water laws and regulations. These farms will not be able to grow if there is no water. Mendocino County can provide appropriate protection for its farmers and fish at the same time. Please call me directly at 415.309.2098 if you have any questions or I can be of any further assistance.

Sincerely,

Tom Hicks

Jason Augustyniak
From The Ground Up
PO Box 1756
Laytonville CA 95454
augiefamily1@gmail.com
Phase III Considerations

To Mendocino Board of Supervisors, (and whom ever may listen)
I write this letter to you to as a resource of information that addresses our current water crisis before any progress with Phase III should be considered.
For those who don’t know me/us, My family and I have been a residents of Laytonville for 15 yrs and we have a five year old daughter. We started a small landscaping outfit called From the Ground Up to make ends meet in 2006 and currently maintain a profile of over 100 clients. As the landscaping took hold I began to shift focus to irrigation, pump systems, wells, interior plumbing, point of use treatment systems, pretty much anything to do with water. Late 2017 I was hired part time at the Laytonville County Water District and since have obtained both my T2 and D2 CA state licenses.
I do not want to come to the table with the same arguments, although I do share some of the same concerns regarding our heritage growers, county infrastructure, and land use. My argument is based on current residential well sounding and recharge rate data.
In Laytonville, historically we receive on average around 59 inches of rain in a six month period. To Date 28” of rain has fallen. This is even more concerning if the previous seasons numbers are factored in. Before this year, a low rain year would have usually recharged the ground water in our valley, especially at residential well depth (30-100ft). This is unfortunately no longer true. I have returned to write this after my third call this week for wells that can’t keep up with the normal household demand. 100-300 gallons a day is not a large ask typically for any well with a depth of 30 or more feet in and around the valley.
I was already concerned but after seeing the actual data, and being the specialist tracking it I am truly in disbelief. I need to mention, I would be looking at the same data, no matter what proposed increase in usage to our counties water supply. There are a number of clients I serve that would be greatly effected by the increase of water drafted from their depth or deeper. Most are older and have a fixed income, they will not be able to afford a new source and property value will fall.
In this valley and in most valleys we all share the “cone of influence.” At this moment, We need to shift how we think of water to one of a non-renewable resource until the time this precipitation trend reverses. Phase III will directly influence the health and well being of every individual in the County. I ask that we all look at Lake Mendocino, anywhere on the Eel River, or any of our seasonal streams that are dry and cracked in April. Please conserve and preserve the little water we have available in this county, we already promise too much away.

Sincerely yours,
Jason Augustyniak and family