Mendocino County
  • Sign In

Meeting: Board of Supervisors on 2021-09-14 9:00 AM - Regular Meeting

Meeting Time: September 14, 2021 at 9:00am PDT

Agenda Item

5g) Discussion and Possible Action Including Certification of the Mendocino County Referendum Petition Protesting the Ordinance Adopting Chapter 22.19 - Commercial Cannabis Activity Land Use Development Ordinance and Amending Chapter 10A.17 - Mendocino Cannabis Cultivation Ordinance and Chapter 20.242 - Cannabis Cultivation Sites (Sponsor: Assessor/Clerk-Recorder)

Legislation Text Clerk's Certificate to Referendum Petition.pdf 09-05-21 Borst Correspondence 09-05-21 Boynton Correspondence 09-05-21 Callaghan Correspondence 09-05-21 Davenport Correspondence 09-05-21 Faber Correspondence 09-05-21 Gester Correspondence 09-05-21 Gordon Correspondence 09-05-21 Kushner Correspondence 09-05-21 Mullen Correspondence 09-05-21 Nayes Correspondence 09-05-21 Nordeman Correspondence 09-05-21 Paterson Correspondence 09-05-21 Short Correspondence 09-05-21 Simpson Correspondence 09-05-21 Taylor Correspondence 09-05-21 Walter Correspondence 09-05-21 White Correspondence 09-06-21 Breckenridge Correspondence 09-06-21 Clifton Correspondence 09-06-21 Doering Correspondence 09-06-21 Matthias Correspondence 09-06-21 Shelly Correspondence 09-07-21 Andich Correspondence 09-07-21 Brodigan Correspondence 09-07-21 Dewey-White Correspondence 09-07-21 Smith Correspondence 09-08-21 Lumpkin and Talkovsy Correspondence 09-08-21 Shipley Correspondence 09-09-21 Black Correspondence 09-09-21 Card Correspondence 09-09-21 Goldner Correspondence 09-09-21 Gulyash Correspondence 09-09-21 Mawlaoui and Kolb Correspondence 09-09-21 Pletcher Correspondence 09-04-21 Mailliard Correspondence 09-05-21 Bailey Correspondence 09-05-21 Belt Correspondence 09-04-21 Sizemore Correspondence 09-10-21 Wood Correspondence 09-03-21 Madison Correspondence 09-03-21 Rawlins Correspondence 09-03-21 Rifkin Correspondence 09-03-21 Wood Correspondence 09-04-21 Apfel Correspondence 09-04-21 Fogg Correspondence 09-04-21 Hyde Correspondence 09-04-21 Lieberknecht Correspondence 09-04-21 Seltzer Correspondence 09-10-21 Faulkner Correspondence 09-10-21 Hibshman Correspondence 09-10-21 Flashman Correspondence 09-13-21 Magoffin Correspondence 09-10-21 Marianchild Correspondence 09-11-21 Lefebvre Correspondence 09-12-21 Fugman Correspondence 09-12-21 Grusky Correspondence 09-12-21 Komer Correspondence 09-12-21 Riley Correspondence 09-12-21 Strong Correspondence 09-12-21 Thune Correspondence 09-13-21 Lebert Correspondence 09-13-21 Jenkins Correspondence 09-13-21 Stark Correspondence 09-14-2021 Mendocino Cannabis Alliance Correspondence 09-13-21 Amato Correspondence 09-13-21 Developing Virtue Secondary Girls School Correspondence 09-09-21 Harness Correspondence 09-09-21 Phillips Correspondence 09-09-21 Thies Correspondence 09-13-21 Pellar Correspondence 09-13-21 Poplawski Correspondence 09-13-21 Rodriques Correspondence 09-13-21 Steering Committee of TPR Correspondence 09-13-21 Wallace Nelson Correspondence 09-13-21 Waters Correspondence 09-13-21 Bush Correspondence 09-13-21 Clark Correspondence 09-13-21 Covelo Cannabis Advocacy Group Correspondence 09-13-21 Fitzgerald Azarnoff Correspondence 09-14-21 Perrin Correspondence 09-14-21 Thilman Correspondence 09-14-21 Birger Correspondence
   Oppose     Neutral     Support    
50000 of 50000 characters remaining
3 Public Comments
  • Default_avatar
    Privacy Please about 3 years ago

    In answer to several board members’ expressed concern that if we rescind Chapter 22.18, we have to start all over on a new ordinance, and that it would allow for even more water hauling, hoop houses, and even more illegal grows, you are right, but only in the fact that as it currently stands, 10A.17 does allow unregulated water hauling, hoop houses, and other unfortunate negative impacts. Those impacts have been inherent since the original ordinance was first approved. However, not only is it possible to make changes to the 10A.17 ordinance, it is absolutely necessary in order to fix the mess this cannabis program has created since its inception, changes that the small, legacy growers, who have been waiting for years to legalize, understand and want.

    You “can’t amend 10A.17,” you say? Please read the “Recommended Action” printed in your own agenda for today’s meeting, which says you have two possible choices: “Either (1) repeal the ordinance adopting Chapter 22.19 . . . and amending Chapter 10a.17 . . . or (2) submit the ordinance to the voters at the next regular election.” It doesn’t take a high-priced attorney to understand what that means.

    Please, please do your job, do your homework, do what Sonoma County and others are doing to get the cannabis industry right: Rescind 22.18/19, make the necessary changes to 10A.17, and begin searching for qualified environmental scientists and other experts to create an Environmental Impact Report that serves the specific needs of this county. You have the money, which is obvious in the many ways you have found to spend it, and which are revealed in several separate items in today’s meeting. Now please rescind 22.18/19 and get to work on amending the original ordinance. Thank you.

  • 10225953017997206
    Laura Clein about 3 years ago

    https://www.instagram.com/p/CTztAn5rySG/

  • 8592702194106334
    Sheila Jenkins about 3 years ago

    Good Afternoon Supervisors,
    Sheila Jenkins, Steering Committee member for the referendum

    According to our referendum attorney, the board has only two options: to rescind 22.18 or put the ordinance to a vote. The board does not have the choice to make changes to 22.18.

    We are in agreement with the board and with the Mendocino Cannabis Alliance that the processing of the Phase One, legacy growers should be a priority, and we are open to amending 10A.17 to allow for discretionary land use processes which would further that aim.

    We also agree that 10A.17 could be further improved by the addition of protections to prevent trucked water for Cannabis grows and the rocking of soils for hoop houses.

    Water is, I think, our number one concern and more needs to be done to protect our existing wells and watersheds.
    The county seems to be at cross purposes with this - it has been urging the conservation of water, while at the same time, it has been handing out hoop house permits by the thousands. These permits usually require large inputs of water and the excavation of large areas.

    Since our rivers and lakes are running low and choked with both silt and toxic algae, I think that more needs to be done to minimize excavation. And the automatic issuance of well permits without knowing the availability of water within each water basin needs to come to an end, too.

    Groundwater data for each water basin must be available and hydrological studies must be required before the issuance of well permits. We don’t have this data because we don’t have an EIR, and we agree with CDFW that we need an EIR!
    Humboldt county has identified every watershed and set a limit on the number of Cannabis sites and wells for each watershed. We could do this as well.

    So, 10A.17 could be amended or a new ordinance adopted to address these, and other concerns, and we should do so as soon as possible.
    I urge you to rescind and not waste time and a lot of our money on a ballot.

    This community does not want a corporate cannabis model or an expansion. And they do not want to be asked to sacrifice their views, their safety, or their way of life for this industry. So, we need to design a more respectful process that includes the community, and a more protective and sensitive cannabis ordinance that the community can support.