My name is Gerasimos and I am a resident of district 3.
My message to you today is in opposition to the Vegetation Modification process. It is particularly onerous and punitive. Our parcel was investigated by code enforcement for the possibility of tree removal. In 2016 and prior to the BOS regulation on tree removal, we removed poison oak, brush and dead standing trees. But after investigation by code enforcement brought on by the mendo cannabis program under chevon, there was no wrong doing found. Since then, and for the last 5 years, we have had countless inspections by the counties cannabis program, cdfa, as well as other county and state agencies and no wrong doing was ever found. For the county to all of a sudden bring this back to the table, once again shows the incompetence of the program. The cannabis program once again dropped the ball on their work load and are once again handing the workload over to the permittee. This is a shame. And it’s the incompetence of the program that has created this mess.
I am not in favor of the 15 day timeline for response from receipt of the letter. We already know that all licensed professionals have agreed that this is not enough time to file this information. We can’t even make an appointment with the proper organizations needed to conduct the work due to the fact that the program has just sent everyone into a frenzy, and all at the same time, making this a difficult task for the limited amount of professionals in the area.
This is unreasonable evidence being requested and is not specifically called out in the ordinance (documentation from specifically licensed professionals,
and the fact that by including information about Program Withdrawal to recipients of the letter, but not including alternatives to avoid a denial such as the Notice of Application Stay for applicants and the Notice of Non-Operation for Permit holders, it appears that the focus of MCP is to remove applicants from the process rather than try to help them maintain compliance.
We have seen time and time again the incompetence of county staff and those running the cannabis program. It is a shame to see exactly how horribly wrong this system has been for those of us sticking this out for the last 5 years. We are not the criminals. We have been giving you everything you have asked for, yet time and time again, you find a way to stifle the process. Enough is enough already.
Subject: Improper tactics by Mendocino Cannabis Program in Vegetation Modification letter
Attached you will find a response that I filed with the Mendocino Cannabis Program, County Counsel, and the Board of Supervisor's Ad Hoc committee on cannabis portal issues after my client received a 15-day Vegetation Modification Letter threatening denial of their pending cultivation permit application. I have also attached copy of the letter. I have redacted my client's name and application number as well as the portion of the leeter's images that could more easily show where the parcel is located. The letter demanded a level of proof that is not specified in the ordinance, was never required by the County in the past, and was not noticed to the applicants and public. It gave the recipient only 15 days to respond or they would be denied. In this and other instances, the letter came after nearly 5 years of being in the program and without any specific allegation of non-compliance. In this instance, the applicant had been inspected by both the program and Code Enforcement, neither of which found any violation or concern about vegetation modification and the aerial imaging used by MCP appears to have been cherry-picked since other imaging easily available clearly showed existing dead trees in place, whereas the imaging used by MCP did not (NAIP system does not allow clarity when zooming in on that level).
The egregious way MCP is handling this issue raises serious questions as to whether the county is more interested in winnowing its workload by dumping applicants than it is in retaining applicants who have been compliant and are, by all accounts, excellent stewards of the environment. I was not inclined to buy into that theory in the past, and instead viewed MCP's efforts as an attempt to ensure the County was in fact requiring compliance with the cultivation ordinance before issuing a permit after years of program mismanagement by previous administrators. However, at this point, I question the motives as well as the propriety of the specific methods employed.
It should be noted that any law making decisions have to be adhered by the state of California Major Regulations - Standardized Regulatory Impact Assessment (SRIA)
Senate Bill 617 (Chapter 496, Statutes of 2011) established additional regulatory impact assessment standards for major regulations. State agencies must conduct a Standardized Regulatory Impact Assessment (SRIA) when it estimates that a proposed regulation has an economic impact exceeding $50 million. The Department of Finance has adopted regulations for state agencies to follow when conducting a SRIA for major regulations. Finance is required to review the completed SRIA submitted by agencies and provide comment(s) to the agency on the extent to which the assessment adheres to the regulations adopted by Finance. Any questions regarding these regulations or completing a SRIA should be directed to the Economic Research Unit. You can contact this unit by phone at (916) 322-2263 or by email at MajorRegulations@dof.ca.gov.
The Permits Office of provides comments to Finance on all Major Regulation SRIA documents and analyses.
My name is Gerasimos and I am a resident of district 3.
My message to you today is in opposition to the Vegetation Modification process. It is particularly onerous and punitive. Our parcel was investigated by code enforcement for the possibility of tree removal. In 2016 and prior to the BOS regulation on tree removal, we removed poison oak, brush and dead standing trees. But after investigation by code enforcement brought on by the mendo cannabis program under chevon, there was no wrong doing found. Since then, and for the last 5 years, we have had countless inspections by the counties cannabis program, cdfa, as well as other county and state agencies and no wrong doing was ever found. For the county to all of a sudden bring this back to the table, once again shows the incompetence of the program. The cannabis program once again dropped the ball on their work load and are once again handing the workload over to the permittee. This is a shame. And it’s the incompetence of the program that has created this mess.
I am not in favor of the 15 day timeline for response from receipt of the letter. We already know that all licensed professionals have agreed that this is not enough time to file this information. We can’t even make an appointment with the proper organizations needed to conduct the work due to the fact that the program has just sent everyone into a frenzy, and all at the same time, making this a difficult task for the limited amount of professionals in the area.
This is unreasonable evidence being requested and is not specifically called out in the ordinance (documentation from specifically licensed professionals,
and the fact that by including information about Program Withdrawal to recipients of the letter, but not including alternatives to avoid a denial such as the Notice of Application Stay for applicants and the Notice of Non-Operation for Permit holders, it appears that the focus of MCP is to remove applicants from the process rather than try to help them maintain compliance.
We have seen time and time again the incompetence of county staff and those running the cannabis program. It is a shame to see exactly how horribly wrong this system has been for those of us sticking this out for the last 5 years. We are not the criminals. We have been giving you everything you have asked for, yet time and time again, you find a way to stifle the process. Enough is enough already.
Subject: Improper tactics by Mendocino Cannabis Program in Vegetation Modification letter
Attached you will find a response that I filed with the Mendocino Cannabis Program, County Counsel, and the Board of Supervisor's Ad Hoc committee on cannabis portal issues after my client received a 15-day Vegetation Modification Letter threatening denial of their pending cultivation permit application. I have also attached copy of the letter. I have redacted my client's name and application number as well as the portion of the leeter's images that could more easily show where the parcel is located. The letter demanded a level of proof that is not specified in the ordinance, was never required by the County in the past, and was not noticed to the applicants and public. It gave the recipient only 15 days to respond or they would be denied. In this and other instances, the letter came after nearly 5 years of being in the program and without any specific allegation of non-compliance. In this instance, the applicant had been inspected by both the program and Code Enforcement, neither of which found any violation or concern about vegetation modification and the aerial imaging used by MCP appears to have been cherry-picked since other imaging easily available clearly showed existing dead trees in place, whereas the imaging used by MCP did not (NAIP system does not allow clarity when zooming in on that level).
The egregious way MCP is handling this issue raises serious questions as to whether the county is more interested in winnowing its workload by dumping applicants than it is in retaining applicants who have been compliant and are, by all accounts, excellent stewards of the environment. I was not inclined to buy into that theory in the past, and instead viewed MCP's efforts as an attempt to ensure the County was in fact requiring compliance with the cultivation ordinance before issuing a permit after years of program mismanagement by previous administrators. However, at this point, I question the motives as well as the propriety of the specific methods employed.
It should be noted that any law making decisions have to be adhered by the state of California Major Regulations - Standardized Regulatory Impact Assessment (SRIA)
Senate Bill 617 (Chapter 496, Statutes of 2011) established additional regulatory impact assessment standards for major regulations. State agencies must conduct a Standardized Regulatory Impact Assessment (SRIA) when it estimates that a proposed regulation has an economic impact exceeding $50 million. The Department of Finance has adopted regulations for state agencies to follow when conducting a SRIA for major regulations. Finance is required to review the completed SRIA submitted by agencies and provide comment(s) to the agency on the extent to which the assessment adheres to the regulations adopted by Finance. Any questions regarding these regulations or completing a SRIA should be directed to the Economic Research Unit. You can contact this unit by phone at (916) 322-2263 or by email at MajorRegulations@dof.ca.gov.
The Permits Office of provides comments to Finance on all Major Regulation SRIA documents and analyses.