3a) Discussion and Possible Action Including Direction to Staff Regarding Amendments to the Sensitive Species Habitat Review Performance Standards and the Contiguous Expansion Affidavit Policy
(Sponsor: Cannabis)
I am concerned that the specific details about what was being proposed was not made available to the public prior to the meeting. Also, the limited ability to comment live during a meeting hinders communication between citizens and their government.
The Board should be concerned about lawsuits from applicants who've been told one conflicting thing after another from the County and spent significant amounts of money hiring CEQA professionals (which the County told them to do).
Please please please listen to the reasonable and logical memo that Hannah Nelson has prepared and please consider the best interest of the applicants and the county to ensure reasonable compliance.
MCA supports the comprehensive memo submitted by Hannah Nelson on this item, and urges you to consider her recommendations and avoid adding yet another new and complicated hurdle for the licensed cannabis operators in Mendocino County.
Redoing the SSHR requirement again to create a more narrow a pathway at this time is not right. In our case, we thought our SSHR was done years ago, since we had a County Permit since 2017, we never had an embossed receipt. Yet, last year it took us 5 or 6 months to renew our County Permit due to the SSHR. Ours was sent to CDFW & they approved it. And now it's changing again? And now we may have to do SSHR again? And not have a smooth renewal again??? This is not right, and it sure seems that the MCP is moving the goalposts again. We support Julia Carrera's comments re: setbacks. We support the CCAG & MCA memos. Thank you for your consideration, Laura & Marty Clein, Martyjuana™
Public Expression regarding 3a: This is yet another shift of the goal post. Some farmers have hired biologists to conduct bioassessments for their project sites and submitted supporting documentation to give assurances to Staff that additional CDFW review was not needed in some cases. Not all projects need to be referred to CDFW even if the farms did a contiguous expansion within 200 ft of the boundary limitations. It just adds another unnecessary layer to the process.
I have questions regarding the timeline and staffing for CDFW to review ALL applications. I understand that the contract between the County and CDFW was for the hiring of one CDFW staff member to review Mendocino County SSHR applications. I have concerns that this staff member will not be able to take on an additional workload and also be effective in getting determinations out in a timely manner.
Many permit holders were issued permits incorrectly in the past due to MCP not processing SSHR applications properly. The Board instituted new guidelines, which Staff has followed and has resulted in properly approved SSHRs for many previously issued permit holders. Now they may find themselves back to the drawing board once again, with their future uncertain. It’s very exhausting to have to go through so many changes constantly, for cultivators to feel that they have been approved, only to find out it was done in error. Then to go through a new review process, be approved to now find out that it must be reviewed again. This is not ok.
If any changes to the policy are going to take place, we request that it not apply to recently issued SSHR clearances for applicants that have been re-approved and especially for those that have already had Appendix G materials approved and submitted to the State under the current policies that exist.
The public deserves clarity on what project areas will be included in the review process if any policy changes are made.
I fully support the CCAG memo that Monique Ramirez has submitted.
regarding 3a This is yet another bait and switch Some farmers have hired biologists to conduct bio-assessments for their project sites and submitted supporting documentation to give assurances to Staff that additional CDFW review was not needed in some cases. Not all projects need to be referred to CDFW even if the farms did a contiguous expansion within 200 ft of the boundary limitations.
I have concerns regarding the timeline and staffing for CDFW to review ALL applications. I understand that the contract between the County and CDFW was for the hiring of one CDFW staff member to review Mendocino County SSHR applications. With the constant excuse that the Cannabis Program is under staffed. I have concerns that this staff member will not be able to handle this work load or have the ability to take on an additional workl and be effective in getting determinations out in a timely manner.
Many permit holders were issued permits incorrectly in the past due to MCP not processing SSHR applications properly. The Board instituted new guidelines, which Staff has followed and has resulted in properly approved SSHR’s for many previously issued permit holders. Now they may find themselves back to the drawing board once again, with their future uncertain. It’s very exhausting to have to go through so many changes constantly, for cultivators to feel that they have been approved, only to find out it was done in error. Then to go through a new review process, be approved to now find out that it must be reviewed again. This further shows the incompetence of county staff.
If any changes to the policy are going to take place, we request that it not apply to recently issued SSHR clearances for applicants that have been re-approved and especially for those that have already had Appendix G materials approved and submitted to the State under the current policies that exist.
Clarity for the public on what project areas will be included in the review process is requested during Board and Staff discussion on this agenda item if any policy changes are made.
The California Constitution authorizes a county to make and enforce local ordinances that do not conflict with general laws. A county also has the power to sue and be sued, purchase and hold land, manage or dispose of its properties, and levy and collect taxes authorized by law. Many additional powers have been granted to counties by the Legislature. The powers of a county can only be exercised by the Board of Supervisors or through officers acting under the authority of the Board or authority conferred by law. In addition, the Board must follow the procedural requirements in the statutes or its actions will not be valid. For example, if the Legislature has provided a method by which a county may abandon a road, that method must be followed. Also, where state law requires land use zoning by an ordinance, this statutorily prescribed method is binding on the county. On the other hand, where the law does not specifically prescribe a method for accomplishing a task, the county may adopt any reasonably suitable means.
https://www.counties.org/general-information/county-structure-0
Amendments to the Sensitive Species Habitat Review Performance Standards and the Contiguous Expansion Affidavit Policy"
My position would change to SUPPORT upon a small change in language in item 5 of the form:
5. Project meets the following stream and wetland setbacks (for cultivation sites
and associated infrastructure): "a minimum of 150 feet from perennial
streams/wetlands.." The original NCRWQCB Permit (Order No. R1-2018-0019) required 100 ft. NOT 150 ft. from class 1 streams and issued discharger Notices of Applicability (permits) with 100ft. sebacks. A change from 100ft. to 150ft came when the RWQCB adopted the General Order. All original dischargers were "grandfathered" in at the 100ft. setback from class 1 streams. All Order No. R1-2019-0019 permit holders have cultivation in the 100ft-150ft zone. The current language would put them out of business. Suggested Language: ADD - with the exception of Order No. R1-2018-0019 permitted discharges shall have a minimum of 100ft from perennial streams/wetlands meeting Order No. R1-2018-0019 setback requirements. Thank you for your consideration, this change in language is imperative.
I am concerned that the specific details about what was being proposed was not made available to the public prior to the meeting. Also, the limited ability to comment live during a meeting hinders communication between citizens and their government.
The Board should be concerned about lawsuits from applicants who've been told one conflicting thing after another from the County and spent significant amounts of money hiring CEQA professionals (which the County told them to do).
Dear Honorable Supervisors,
Please please please listen to the reasonable and logical memo that Hannah Nelson has prepared and please consider the best interest of the applicants and the county to ensure reasonable compliance.
Thank you,
Blaire AuClair
Honorable Supervisors,
MCA supports the comprehensive memo submitted by Hannah Nelson on this item, and urges you to consider her recommendations and avoid adding yet another new and complicated hurdle for the licensed cannabis operators in Mendocino County.
Sincerely,
Mendocino Cannabis Alliance
e: info@mendocannabis.com
Please see the attached memo
Redoing the SSHR requirement again to create a more narrow a pathway at this time is not right. In our case, we thought our SSHR was done years ago, since we had a County Permit since 2017, we never had an embossed receipt. Yet, last year it took us 5 or 6 months to renew our County Permit due to the SSHR. Ours was sent to CDFW & they approved it. And now it's changing again? And now we may have to do SSHR again? And not have a smooth renewal again??? This is not right, and it sure seems that the MCP is moving the goalposts again. We support Julia Carrera's comments re: setbacks. We support the CCAG & MCA memos. Thank you for your consideration, Laura & Marty Clein, Martyjuana™
Public Expression regarding 3a: This is yet another shift of the goal post. Some farmers have hired biologists to conduct bioassessments for their project sites and submitted supporting documentation to give assurances to Staff that additional CDFW review was not needed in some cases. Not all projects need to be referred to CDFW even if the farms did a contiguous expansion within 200 ft of the boundary limitations. It just adds another unnecessary layer to the process.
I have questions regarding the timeline and staffing for CDFW to review ALL applications. I understand that the contract between the County and CDFW was for the hiring of one CDFW staff member to review Mendocino County SSHR applications. I have concerns that this staff member will not be able to take on an additional workload and also be effective in getting determinations out in a timely manner.
Many permit holders were issued permits incorrectly in the past due to MCP not processing SSHR applications properly. The Board instituted new guidelines, which Staff has followed and has resulted in properly approved SSHRs for many previously issued permit holders. Now they may find themselves back to the drawing board once again, with their future uncertain. It’s very exhausting to have to go through so many changes constantly, for cultivators to feel that they have been approved, only to find out it was done in error. Then to go through a new review process, be approved to now find out that it must be reviewed again. This is not ok.
If any changes to the policy are going to take place, we request that it not apply to recently issued SSHR clearances for applicants that have been re-approved and especially for those that have already had Appendix G materials approved and submitted to the State under the current policies that exist.
The public deserves clarity on what project areas will be included in the review process if any policy changes are made.
I fully support the CCAG memo that Monique Ramirez has submitted.
regarding 3a This is yet another bait and switch Some farmers have hired biologists to conduct bio-assessments for their project sites and submitted supporting documentation to give assurances to Staff that additional CDFW review was not needed in some cases. Not all projects need to be referred to CDFW even if the farms did a contiguous expansion within 200 ft of the boundary limitations.
I have concerns regarding the timeline and staffing for CDFW to review ALL applications. I understand that the contract between the County and CDFW was for the hiring of one CDFW staff member to review Mendocino County SSHR applications. With the constant excuse that the Cannabis Program is under staffed. I have concerns that this staff member will not be able to handle this work load or have the ability to take on an additional workl and be effective in getting determinations out in a timely manner.
Many permit holders were issued permits incorrectly in the past due to MCP not processing SSHR applications properly. The Board instituted new guidelines, which Staff has followed and has resulted in properly approved SSHR’s for many previously issued permit holders. Now they may find themselves back to the drawing board once again, with their future uncertain. It’s very exhausting to have to go through so many changes constantly, for cultivators to feel that they have been approved, only to find out it was done in error. Then to go through a new review process, be approved to now find out that it must be reviewed again. This further shows the incompetence of county staff.
If any changes to the policy are going to take place, we request that it not apply to recently issued SSHR clearances for applicants that have been re-approved and especially for those that have already had Appendix G materials approved and submitted to the State under the current policies that exist.
Clarity for the public on what project areas will be included in the review process is requested during Board and Staff discussion on this agenda item if any policy changes are made.
Please find the attached CCAG memo on this agenda item below.
The California Constitution authorizes a county to make and enforce local ordinances that do not conflict with general laws. A county also has the power to sue and be sued, purchase and hold land, manage or dispose of its properties, and levy and collect taxes authorized by law. Many additional powers have been granted to counties by the Legislature. The powers of a county can only be exercised by the Board of Supervisors or through officers acting under the authority of the Board or authority conferred by law. In addition, the Board must follow the procedural requirements in the statutes or its actions will not be valid. For example, if the Legislature has provided a method by which a county may abandon a road, that method must be followed. Also, where state law requires land use zoning by an ordinance, this statutorily prescribed method is binding on the county. On the other hand, where the law does not specifically prescribe a method for accomplishing a task, the county may adopt any reasonably suitable means.
https://www.counties.org/general-information/county-structure-0
Amendments to the Sensitive Species Habitat Review Performance Standards and the Contiguous Expansion Affidavit Policy"
My position would change to SUPPORT upon a small change in language in item 5 of the form:
5. Project meets the following stream and wetland setbacks (for cultivation sites
and associated infrastructure): "a minimum of 150 feet from perennial
streams/wetlands.." The original NCRWQCB Permit (Order No. R1-2018-0019) required 100 ft. NOT 150 ft. from class 1 streams and issued discharger Notices of Applicability (permits) with 100ft. sebacks. A change from 100ft. to 150ft came when the RWQCB adopted the General Order. All original dischargers were "grandfathered" in at the 100ft. setback from class 1 streams. All Order No. R1-2019-0019 permit holders have cultivation in the 100ft-150ft zone. The current language would put them out of business. Suggested Language: ADD - with the exception of Order No. R1-2018-0019 permitted discharges shall have a minimum of 100ft from perennial streams/wetlands meeting Order No. R1-2018-0019 setback requirements. Thank you for your consideration, this change in language is imperative.