5g) Discussion and Possible Action Including Direction to Staff to Draft an Ordinance Making Amendments to Chapter 22.18 of the Mendocino County Code, Including, But Not Limited To, Imposing a Phased Cap on the Size of Cannabis Cultivation Sites Initially of One or Two Acres Per Parcel
(Sponsor: County Counsel)
There are so many things that are wrong with the Cannabis Ordinance you just voted to pass, including the sneaky way you approved it as a Consent Calendar item lumped with many others, it's mindboggling. Please reconsider your vote and the long-lasting effects it will have on the environment, wildlife and communities of this county. Extend the moratorium of Phase 3, stop making concessions for cannabis in every aspect of your policy design and approval process, and start taking seriously the majority of your constituents who love the natural beauty and rural nature of this county and do not want any further development or human encroachment on its wild, open lands. When your County Cannabis Manager claims that the proposed state grant, worth more than $18 million for this county alone, would not be useful to our own cannabis program because its "scope is unknown," that it is "too hard for our system that is discretional," that it doesn't "assist with provisional licenses," and that it would take too long to receive the money, here is what I found when I read a copy of the state proposal that was sent in answer to a query about her claims that I made to Senator Mike McGuire's office: "If the budget bill is approved by the legislature, funds will be available starting in Fiscal Year 2021-2022. (July)". Also, when I asked if the grant money could help with conducting a comprehensive EIR: "4. An eligible local jurisdiction that receives a grant pursuant to Provision 3 shall use the grant funds for one or more of the following uses: (a) Local government review, technical support, and certification for application requirements. (b) Local government or other professional PREPARATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENTS IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT for permits, licenses, or other authorizations to engage in commercial cannabis activity. (c) Mitigation measures related to environmental compliance, including water conservation and protection measures. (d) Other uses that further the intent of the program as determined by the Department of Cannabis Control. Why, then, does this Board continue to rush through an ordinance that disregards the majority of its constituents, accomplishes the opposite of the advice of all the environmental and climate experts it invites to provide professional expertise, and deliberately bypasses regulations and state-wide policies designed to protect the environment, the sustainability of our natural resources, including water, and the long-term health of its citizens and native wildlife? By passing this ordinance today, you have sealed your fate as our elected officials. The next step is to investigate what kind of backroom financial deals and conflicts of interest have led to this preposterous outcome.
There are so many things that are wrong with the Cannabis Ordinance you just voted to pass, including the sneaky way you approved it as a Consent Calendar item lumped with many others, it's mindboggling. Please reconsider your vote and the long-lasting effects it will have on the environment, wildlife and communities of this county. Extend the moratorium of Phase 3, stop making concessions for cannabis in every aspect of your policy design and approval process, and start taking seriously the majority of your constituents who love the natural beauty and rural nature of this county and do not want any further development or human encroachment on its wild, open lands. When your County Cannabis Manager claims that the proposed state grant, worth more than $18 million for this county alone, would not be useful to our own cannabis program because its "scope is unknown," that it is "too hard for our system that is discretional," that it doesn't "assist with provisional licenses," and that it would take too long to receive the money, here is what I found when I read a copy of the state proposal that was sent in answer to a query about her claims that I made to Senator Mike McGuire's office: "If the budget bill is approved by the legislature, funds will be available starting in Fiscal Year 2021-2022. (July)". Also, when I asked if the grant money could help with conducting a comprehensive EIR: "4. An eligible local jurisdiction that receives a grant pursuant to Provision 3 shall use the grant funds for one or more of the following uses: (a) Local government review, technical support, and certification for application requirements. (b) Local government or other professional PREPARATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENTS IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT for permits, licenses, or other authorizations to engage in commercial cannabis activity. (c) Mitigation measures related to environmental compliance, including water conservation and protection measures. (d) Other uses that further the intent of the program as determined by the Department of Cannabis Control. Why, then, does this Board continue to rush through an ordinance that disregards the majority of its constituents, accomplishes the opposite of the advice of all the environmental and climate experts it invites to provide professional expertise, and deliberately bypasses regulations and state-wide policies designed to protect the environment, the sustainability of our natural resources, including water, and the long-term health of its citizens and native wildlife? By passing this ordinance today, you have sealed your fate as our elected officials. The next step is to investigate what kind of backroom financial deals and conflicts of interest have led to this preposterous outcome.
Please consider a 22k Cap expansion and 1-acre Cap on Ag land larger than 20 acres for phase 3.