As I understand it, the ordinance in its present form says only cannabis businesses that intend to use a well for their water source AND that project using 1,500 gallons or more per day are required to provide a hydrological study. If that is true, the BOS is mistaken in its claim during the meeting that ALL applicants have to provide the study to prove they have an adequate water supply. Also, the only impact of concern, according to the ordinance and the Planning Commission's report, is that on only the water supply of nearby neighbors within a very limited number of feet. It astounds me that no one is considering the well-known fact that water sources are complex and interconnected for miles, both above and underground. This County has NO IDEA and NO WAY TO KNOW what its current or even normal water resources are. And this Board and Planning Commission, though they attest that their cannabis policy adheres to the County's General Plan, do NOT take into consideration the drastic impacts of well-drilling and other water methods of water extraction on surrounding life forms, both plant and animal, of every kind. The impacts are particularly damaging to mature, deep-rooted trees, which as anyone can see, are dying at an alarming rate all around us. Their roots are drying up due to the lack of a sufficient aquifer. Please re-read and adjust your plan so that it actually does adhere to the General Plan, which says, among other important things: ALL land use activities have the potential to impact water quality and other downstream resources," and also that one of its major goals is to "prevent fragmentation and loss of the county's natural ecosystems" and to preserve "their ecological values and benefits." There is so much more at stake with this cannabis expansion than just human "neighborhoods" affected by some vague, undefined "nuisance." There is much more life on this planet and in this county's sensitive and spectacular ecosystem than just us humans. Forgetting that fact will have disastrous consequences for us all.

This message was inserted in the wrong agenda item, so I am resubmitting it again in the appropriate item:

In addition to the allowance of hoop houses that “somehow found its way back into the ordinance,” the absurd requirement for 6’ tall fencing on outdoor cultivation sites also somehow mysteriously re-appeared in the Planning Department’s recommendations in the final version, despite the Board’s own explicit direction to include language to discourage fencing. What is the purpose of a 6’ tall fence, unless you are trying to obliterate what’s left of Mendocino County’s forests? Everyone knows what’s behind these fences, especially since a typical marijuana canopy is much taller than that. Was the fencing requirement put back in because of the obvious fact that there is no commitment to properly fund or support law enforcement in order to adequately protect the thousands of new plantations expected to spring up in the most remote parts of the county, far from the view of witnesses and the capability of law enforcement to catch the perpetrators? Do the authors of this ordinance really think a fence will make up for that huge deficiency? I know there is a newly proposed enforcement plan specifically designed to address this glaring need in the face of the new expansion, but, come on—it is entirely insufficient, especially now that our most remote areas of rangeland are now open to almost every type of cannabis operation. How many more of our precious, wild trees will this county lose because of this useless requirement, beyond the already massive losses due to drought, disease, overlogging, housing development, current clearing for illegal cannabis grows, forest fires, and last winter’s freak blizzard?

Another alarming and sneaky addition inserted into the ordinance appears in the Mendocino County Code Title 10A document dated May 5, 202l, which oddly is not included in this meeting’s attachments. Why not? It says that a subdivision for legal parcels does not have to be officially approved as it normally would be under the Subdivision Map Act, but can just have an application on file with the Planning Department prior to January 1, 2016. Really?! There are so many reasons why an application, if it were seriously reviewed and the potential parcel inspected, would be rejected. One big reason is the illegal extraction or diversion of natural water sources. Such illegal water diversion is happening all around me, and I personally know of property that has a large “prior crop history” that is dependent on an egregious diversion of water and an artificial dam that would normally allow year-long flow into a nearby river. The erosion caused by that diversion has worsened dramatically over the years. But a “hydrological study” is only required, apparently, for projects relying on a well and which, even more absurdly, it is up to the applicant to declare that they anticipate more than 1,500 gallons a day of water usage. That’s ridiculous.

In fact, the whole water issue is unresolved. There is still no mechanism in place to determine the amount of water in our natural water sources or the amount of use by anyone or anything, or the long-term and extended impacts on neighbors living more than 300 feet away from a well, let alone the countless species of wild plant and animal wildlife that are affected.

Please, Board of Supervisors, do what you know is right. Stop this insane, immensely unpopular push towards this county’s ruination.

D. Roble

Please do not allow 10% expansion. I support CCAG memo of 22k sq ft expansion and 1-acre on ag land

Please, for the love of Mendocino county, no expansion of cannabis production square footage, no mixed light, indoors, hoop houses. No hauled water. Please, keep cannabis simple, small, sun grown, sustainable. Thank you. Rosie Brown

June 1, 2021

To: The Mendocino County Board of Supervisors

Subject: Order An Election On The Proposed Phase 3 Ordinance’s 10% Expansion Rule

Dear Chair Gjerde and Members of the Board,
Regarding the proposed Phase 3 Cannabis Ordinance, by now we have heard all the arguments and are familiar with positions taken by all the parties with interests in the outcome of the Ordinance.
There comes a time in all debates relative to far-reaching public policy embodied in proposed legislation as is the case with this Ordinance, where decisions must be made both by elected officials and the electorate.
We find ourselves in that exact situation with the proposed Phase 3 Cannabis Ordinance.
The County is now in its fifth year of attempting to resuscitate a failed and chaotic Cannabis Program. Even the Supervisors themselves have gone on record and called it a “failure” and “unworkable.”
This County has spent more and time and probably money on this issue than any other in County history. The Board has also said that on the record.
The primary issue of the proposed Phase 3 Ordinance that has generated by far the most concern and driven by far the greatest public discussion is the so-called “10% Rule.”
The vast majority of citizens recognize that the 10% Rule, if adopted, will lead to unprecedented expansion of cannabis cultivation on a scale never imagined by anyone familiar with the history of marijuana in this area and era.
Unfortunately, an overwhelming number of County residents and their elected Board of Supervisors now find themselves at impasse over a proposed Ordinance that features this cultivation expansion provision.
Conservatively speaking, 70 percent of County residents oppose the 10% Rule and its direct causal adverse impact on our most valuable natural resource, water. They are aware that the North Coast Regional Water Quality Control Board (Regional Water Board), the State Water Board’s main enforcement arm on the North Coast, recently issued an Investigative Order that found, “The North Coast Region is inundated with cannabis cultivation in headwaters and main river systems, with active, developed sites in steep and rugged terrain. Cultivation and related activities throughout the North Coast Region have resulted in significant waste discharges and losses of instream flows associated with improper development of rural landscapes on privately-owned parcels, and the diversion of springs and streams, to the cumulative detriment of the Regional Water Board’s designated beneficial uses of water.”
They are also very much aware that this state and the County we all love and live in, is in the second consecutive year of severe drought conditions. To them it’s counter-intuitive for their elected representatives to propose unchecked cannabis expansion whether it’s occurring during a drought or non-drought period because water resources will be impacted during either event, it’s only a question of degree.
The folks who are opposed to the 10% Rule include growers, non-growers, ranchers, farmers, small business owners, workers from all sectors of our economy, a mix of community organizations and municipal advisory councils, and a former Sheriff as well as the current Sheriff.
I include myself in the County-wide group just mentioned. I am the long-time District Manager of the Laytonville County Water District, Chair of the Laytonville Area Municipal Advisory Council, Member of the Harwood Park Memorial Association Board, and the Editor and Publisher of a family-owned newspaper, the Mendocino County Observer.
Elected officials are duty-bound to carry out the wishes/demands of clear majorities of constituents unless what they’re asking is unlawful or totally unfeasible, neither of which are applicable with the “10 Percent Rule.” It’s not the Supervisor’s job to substitute their judgment for that of their constituents when they overwhelmingly demand a different course of action than that proposed by the Supervisor.
Essentially what’s occurring here is a clash of values and economic models between most County voters and the Board of Supervisors.
There are four Supervisors advocating for the super-sized cultivation model as they believe, and have said, that County revenues will be enhanced with expansion. They argue that it’s not their responsibility to protect small growers through the mechanism of a Cannabis Ordinance. Yet they see nothing wrong with constructing a regulatory framework that favors industrial and corporate cultivators.
The primary goal of public policy is to accomplish the most good for the most people. The Board’s proposed Cannabis public policy is the very antithesis of that objective. County-wide, there is a super-majority of residents who overwhelmingly are opposed to the proposed 10 Percent Rule.
I am making an appeal to your sense of fairness by requesting that on its own motion, the Board of Supervisors order an election or referendum election solely on the proposed 10% Rule in the proposed Phase 3 Cannabis Ordinance. The outcome of that election will have no effect at all on the entire remainder of the proposed Ordinance.
The people of this County deserve to be heard fully and fairly on this most important issue.
Thank you for your consideration of this matter.
Sincerely,
Jim Shields
Laytonville