4b) Discussion and Possible Action Including Direction to Staff to Create an Appeal Process for Cannabis Application Denials and Return to the Board of Supervisors before May 1, 2022
(Sponsors: Supervisor Haschak and Supervisor McGourty)
As a practicing attorney in Mendocino County I fully support an appeal process, but only where cultivation is allowed to continue. I have witnessed far too many instances where denials or deficiencies have been issued erroneously and without specification by the cannabis program. This is completely unfair to applicants who have been working for years (oftentimes) and at a great expense to get permitted.
Honorable Supervisors,
I support the creation of an appeals process for application denials that is respectful, fair, and provides a timely and reasonable process for corrective steps with clear guidance on the reason for denial and corrective pathways.
I support the Ad Hoc committee recommendation for the ability to appeal. We also support the CCAG & MCA memos & an appeals process that is fair & just, allowing applicants to mitigate potential problems.
An development of the appeals process is the only common sense approach that seems necessary to a group of people waiting some up to five years " like myself ". If I were to have an issue at this point in the journey I think it's only fair to give a chance at remedy. I'm order to give even representation in the appeals process cannabis farmers need to be apart of the due process.
I myself have had a failed consulting agency take money for work not done or never completed, yet having all records and documents needed to comply with mcp. The constant hurry up and wait over 5 years is at the cost of the farmers like me who were lured out of the hills and promised a clear path to legality that I too voted for in 2017. I also voted to be taxed by Mendocino county for cannabis cultivation thinking it was a good idea. Little did we know what our future markets might bring . To realize we would be taxed without representation. The same basis our country was founded on. As a fourth generation Mendocino county resident I am asking for a fair shake and the development here in Mendocino county of a appeals process would help against possible unjust denials.
I want to thank the board for your time and consideration of the matter at hand .
We support the Ad Hoc committee recommendation for the ability to appeal. We also support the CCAG & MCA memos & an appeals process that is fair & just, allowing applicants to mitigate potential problems. Thank you for your consideration, Laura & Marty Clein, Martyjuana™
I support an appeal process for applicants, especially for those that may be denied in error during the portal submission process. If an applicant wins their appeal, fees should not be assessed on the applicant. I also support the allowance of cultivation to continue during an appeal. If an applicant is not allowed to operate during an appeal and then ultimately be reinstated because they win their case, this could be problematic with the State Provisional licensing status. It makes sense to let these operators continue until the final determination is made that they are in fact eligible or ineligible for a county cannabis permit.
The portal does not leave a margin for error and we need to be sure that applicants are rightfully afforded an opportunity to appeal. I appreciate the Ad Hoc for bringing this important item forward and urge all Supervisors to support a fair appeals process.
I fully support the memos from Mendocino Cannabis Alliance and Covelo Cannabis Advocacy Group.
I support the Ad Hoc’s recommendation to develop an appeals process for cannabis application denials. I didn’t have to go through the portal process and after months of reading complaints about the portal I urge you to give applicants a chance to appeal. The portal clearly has flaws and it’s frustrating to hear the MCP director deflecting concerns and not acknowledging some serious problems. Kristen Nevedal is not perfect. None of us are. Please allow applicants an appeals process.
I support you directing staff to create an Appeal process for Cannabis permit denials. I do not support a fee for such a review. Cannabis businesses contributed over 5 million dollars to the county's tax base.That is more than enough to cover the costs of managing the cannabis program. Applicants that would be denied have paid into this tax and should have the right to an appeal.
1) I support an application fee for an appeal that covers costs to review the appeal and would be refunded if the appeal is granted. If the appeal is not granted, a full cost recovery of the cost of the appeal would be charged. Grant monies should be allowed to be utilized for appeals since the State purposes of the grant money includes "to remove all obstacles to licensure". (2) I support cultivation being permitted to continue while the appeal is being processed until a final determination is issued at which time cultivation should cease within 30 days. This would allow completion of a season/cycle if any errors had been made, preparation by the applicant/licensee if the appeal is denied to cease cultivation within 30 days, and promote much needed good will to the long standing applicants who have had no movement forward for years until now.
Regarding Appeals Process:
(1) I support an application fee for an appeal that covers costs to review the appeal and would be refunded if the appeal is granted. If the appeal is not granted, a full cost recovery of the cost of the appeal would be charged. Grant monies should be allowed to be utilized for appeals since the State purposes of the grant money includes "to remove all obstacles to licensure". (2) I support cultivation being permitted to continue while the appeal is being processed until a final determination is issued at which time cultivation should cease within 45 days. This would allow completion of a season/cycle if any errors had been made, preparation by the applicant/licensee if the appeal is denied to cease cultivation within 45 days, and promote much needed good will to the long standing applicants who have had no movement forward for years until now. In addition we need to streamline with the State of California and look to their program as an example for Mendocino County.
As a practicing attorney in Mendocino County I fully support an appeal process, but only where cultivation is allowed to continue. I have witnessed far too many instances where denials or deficiencies have been issued erroneously and without specification by the cannabis program. This is completely unfair to applicants who have been working for years (oftentimes) and at a great expense to get permitted.
Honorable Supervisors,
I support the creation of an appeals process for application denials that is respectful, fair, and provides a timely and reasonable process for corrective steps with clear guidance on the reason for denial and corrective pathways.
Dear Honorable Supervisors:
Attached please find a memo with my comments for cannabis-related items not specifically on today's agenda.
- Lauren Mendelsohn, Esq.
I support the Ad Hoc committee recommendation for the ability to appeal. We also support the CCAG & MCA memos & an appeals process that is fair & just, allowing applicants to mitigate potential problems.
Brandon Parker
Dist 3
Re: appeals procedure item 4b
An development of the appeals process is the only common sense approach that seems necessary to a group of people waiting some up to five years " like myself ". If I were to have an issue at this point in the journey I think it's only fair to give a chance at remedy. I'm order to give even representation in the appeals process cannabis farmers need to be apart of the due process.
I myself have had a failed consulting agency take money for work not done or never completed, yet having all records and documents needed to comply with mcp. The constant hurry up and wait over 5 years is at the cost of the farmers like me who were lured out of the hills and promised a clear path to legality that I too voted for in 2017. I also voted to be taxed by Mendocino county for cannabis cultivation thinking it was a good idea. Little did we know what our future markets might bring . To realize we would be taxed without representation. The same basis our country was founded on. As a fourth generation Mendocino county resident I am asking for a fair shake and the development here in Mendocino county of a appeals process would help against possible unjust denials.
I want to thank the board for your time and consideration of the matter at hand .
Brandon Parker
Dist 3
Bell springs road
I support MCA's Memo on the Appeals process.
I strongly support adding an appeals process and have outlined considerations in the attached memo.
We support the Ad Hoc committee recommendation for the ability to appeal. We also support the CCAG & MCA memos & an appeals process that is fair & just, allowing applicants to mitigate potential problems. Thank you for your consideration, Laura & Marty Clein, Martyjuana™
I support an appeal process for applicants, especially for those that may be denied in error during the portal submission process. If an applicant wins their appeal, fees should not be assessed on the applicant. I also support the allowance of cultivation to continue during an appeal. If an applicant is not allowed to operate during an appeal and then ultimately be reinstated because they win their case, this could be problematic with the State Provisional licensing status. It makes sense to let these operators continue until the final determination is made that they are in fact eligible or ineligible for a county cannabis permit.
The portal does not leave a margin for error and we need to be sure that applicants are rightfully afforded an opportunity to appeal. I appreciate the Ad Hoc for bringing this important item forward and urge all Supervisors to support a fair appeals process.
I fully support the memos from Mendocino Cannabis Alliance and Covelo Cannabis Advocacy Group.
Honorable Supervisors,
I support the Ad Hoc’s recommendation to develop an appeals process for cannabis application denials. I didn’t have to go through the portal process and after months of reading complaints about the portal I urge you to give applicants a chance to appeal. The portal clearly has flaws and it’s frustrating to hear the MCP director deflecting concerns and not acknowledging some serious problems. Kristen Nevedal is not perfect. None of us are. Please allow applicants an appeals process.
Thank you for your time.
Please find the attached CCAG memo regarding this agenda item.
Honorable Supervisors,
MCA Fully supports the Ad Hoc's recommendation to develop an appeals process for Applicants who may be denied their Permit by MCP.
Please see our attached memo with specific recommendations on this item.
Sincerely,
Mendocino Cannabis Alliance
e: info@mendocannabis.com
I support you directing staff to create an Appeal process for Cannabis permit denials. I do not support a fee for such a review. Cannabis businesses contributed over 5 million dollars to the county's tax base.That is more than enough to cover the costs of managing the cannabis program. Applicants that would be denied have paid into this tax and should have the right to an appeal.
1) I support an application fee for an appeal that covers costs to review the appeal and would be refunded if the appeal is granted. If the appeal is not granted, a full cost recovery of the cost of the appeal would be charged. Grant monies should be allowed to be utilized for appeals since the State purposes of the grant money includes "to remove all obstacles to licensure". (2) I support cultivation being permitted to continue while the appeal is being processed until a final determination is issued at which time cultivation should cease within 30 days. This would allow completion of a season/cycle if any errors had been made, preparation by the applicant/licensee if the appeal is denied to cease cultivation within 30 days, and promote much needed good will to the long standing applicants who have had no movement forward for years until now.
I support you directing staff to create an Appeal process for Cannabis permit denials, it just seems right.
Regarding Appeals Process:
(1) I support an application fee for an appeal that covers costs to review the appeal and would be refunded if the appeal is granted. If the appeal is not granted, a full cost recovery of the cost of the appeal would be charged. Grant monies should be allowed to be utilized for appeals since the State purposes of the grant money includes "to remove all obstacles to licensure". (2) I support cultivation being permitted to continue while the appeal is being processed until a final determination is issued at which time cultivation should cease within 45 days. This would allow completion of a season/cycle if any errors had been made, preparation by the applicant/licensee if the appeal is denied to cease cultivation within 45 days, and promote much needed good will to the long standing applicants who have had no movement forward for years until now. In addition we need to streamline with the State of California and look to their program as an example for Mendocino County.