It seems more and more clear that it will be up to applicants to report their own anticipated water use and to self-monitor it after they get a permit. They can even define what an emergency is to be able to get water hauled. The Env. Health rep said there is no current, accurate method to monitor water use in unincorporated areas--no meters, no studies done on current water use or sources or the cumulative effect of new extraction, and no way at present to enforce current illegal extraction. She even said that there are no regulations or any mechanism for knowing why parcels next to newly drilled wells are going dry. Also, the idea that drilling wells is somehow better for the environment and natural watersheds than storing rainwater or surface water such as springs, ponds, creeks, etc., is wrong. The water that feeds wells is the same water that flows in the underground aquifers, which is recharged by rainfall. There isn't enough water now for anyone, whether they have a legal grow, an illegal grow, or just a simple vegetable garden. California is in a constant state of drought. The hope that by next fall we'll suddenly have enough water for all the proposed new cannabis projects is ludicrous. Also, the problems that Mr. Williams says he is getting phone calls and other complaints about do not pertain to just District 3. I have the same complaints, and I live in his district. There is illegal extraction of water, building of huge hoop houses, illegal housing and road construction, multiple well-drilling, and a lot of earth-moving going on all around me. I live on land that was once pasture and now has huge erosion, tree die-off, and water depletion problems because of it. Pasture land should not be allowed as a "previous crop." It has actually done just as much long-term damage as some of the cannabis plantations in this area. The BOS is not ready to pass this ordinance, even if, as Mr. Williams says, "It is already in the books." You can extend the moratorium, start enforcing the most obvious offenders and announcing it loudly to the public, including realtors, and form a task force consisting of the experts you have invited to report in your meetings as well as others, such as CDFW, CDFA, cannabis consultants from successful counties, expert hydrologists and water engineers, Environmental and Public Health, ESA and environmental and wildlife scientists and legal experts. It seems that we are back to "neighbors" having to report or complain about cannabis-related activities or negative impacts again. This is unrealistic in rural areas. There are few people who would be affected by one parcel's activities, and everyone knows everyone in their so-called neighborhood. It would be really easy to know who submitted a complaint against them, and there would be some kind of repercussion, whether violent actions, or destruction to property. Please get away from putting the reporting and enforcing responsibilities on the neighbors of rural cannabis cultivators. Wait to pass this ordinance until you have enough law and code enforcement staff to fulfill this important part of the cannabis ordinance.

Staff’s comment about view shed is ridiculous. If neighbors are notified and respond with concerns about their view shed it would be addressed and neighbor would welcome someone coming and looking at their view shed which could also be done from outside their windows.

Allow phase 1 operators to still be allowed to scale up to a 10K with an AP like has been currently allowed under the 10A.17 ordinance if they switch over. Oppose 10% expansion. I support CCAG recommendations on expansion allowances, in what zoning, what sizes and what acreage requirements.

My understanding is section 20.242.070 is not for existing sites. There has never been any direction from Mendocino County to not allow existing cultivators on slopes exceeding 15%

No to 10%! No to thousands of acres of rangeland that may have been tilled or disturbed in the past. Take these off the table or face a referendum. The people of Mendocino County do not support these aspects of the proposed ordinance.

I strongly oppose the 10% expansion of cultivation areas as proposed by phase 3. The four Supervisors pushing this unwanted agenda know why people are opposed. Drought, added fire danger, open spaces, not a good fit with Mendocino County. Unwanted by a vast majority of the residents. It will force a ballot referendum. Obviously not embraced and welcomed by the residents of this county. It is supported by folks who live and work outside of Mendocino County, why are those folks even given valuable time to speak during meetings. This is a matter for people who live here. The whole process really reeks of severe shenanigans. It is time for the board to follow the mandate of the folks who elected them into their current jobs, as any good employees would. Thank you, and good day. Sincerely, Rosie Brown.

Regarding the Phase 3 agenda item.
I am writing to express my opposition to two of the most prominent (to me) elements of the Phase 3 proposal.

First, the red-lining of the 600' setback from churches for cannabis dispensaries is a clear attempt to place one of these businesses on the main thoroughfare in Hopland. No other town in Mendocino County has both a church within 600' and an unused retail location (the Hopland Superette site). This feels very much like we are being targeted with a lobbying effort. The town already has 2 other dispensaries in operation currently. How many of these blight inducing businesses must we be saddled with?

Second is the proposal to expand the acreage available for cannabis cultivation. Water in the Sanel Valley is already at a premium, with drought a real and present part of the landscape. Efforts are being made all over the County to conserve, with water hookup moratoriums not uncommon. What we do not need is more unregulated, and often illegal, water diversions.

Lastly, the promise of tax revenue offered by cannabis industry lobbyists pales in comparison with the large number of off the books grow operations. For real money, for expanded tax revenue that dwarfs a small dispensary operation, embrace the Humboldt model of aerial survey paired with property maps. Have the growers pay their fair share while getting a handle on the already huge water diversions. Mendocino County is starved for tax revenue, while growers operating without permits escape business taxes.

Water is already being rationed so any new permits is not a good idea now. We should stand firm with Supervisor Haschak and wait on Phase 3. We are in a severe drought and there is so much water being used by illegal pot grows and in uninspected permitted grows that we need to focus our attention on cleaning up phases 1 and 2 now. Money needs to be diverted to surveillance, and increasing staff in code enforcement and law enforcement. Humboldt County has shown that fines collected pay for enforcement. Last meeting of the Board 90% or more of respondents were against the Phase 3 ordinance. Please allow the public to vote or better yet just listen to public sentiment and say no to phase 3. We are limited in our water usage and you are thinking of allowing permitting pot grows that use tremendous amount of water? How does that serve the people who elected you?

After listening to the last BOS meeting on this subject and hearing the concerns of our Mendocino County residents, I would encourage the Board to consider removing commercial cannabis from all residential areas. It seems that will eliminate the vast majority of the problems people face. Commercial activity of any kind in a residential area requires a use permit for good reason. But commercial growing of cannabis does not go through that process and residents are forced to endure the smell, safety issues, unsightly fencing, temporary housing, and greatly increased traffic in their neighborhoods. I think the BOS could avoid a lot of angst if cannabis is removed from residential neighborhoods. It's just not the place for it.