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
40-year Mendocino County Resident
20-year 5th District Resident

I support CCAG memo. I'm against charging small farmers the minimum tax. All tax should based on actual sale excluding California cultivation tax. 2.5% exercise tax for cultivation size 10K and smaller and 5% exercise tax for cultivation larger than 10K.