4f) Discussion and Possible Action Including Direction to Staff to Prepare Environmental Document and Ordinance to Remove or Streamline the Requirement for Issuance of Local Permit for Cannabis Cultivation While Retaining All Substantive Legal Restrictions and Environmental Protection Measures for State Licensed Operators
(Sponsors: Supervisor Williams and Supervisor McGourty)
The county helped me to complete the appendix G in 2020 and we were successful in getting a state annual license. I am not sure that this proposal will be of benefit to farmers that are struggling to meet CEQA requirements and fill out the Appendix G. It will save the county money and pass on the total cost to applicants if I understand this correctly. Please consider all the consequences unintended or otherwise before passing. Thank you.
I am a second generation cultivator from Covelo. We have been part of both 9.31 programs and were also one of the first farms to join the program after CA voted to enact Prop 64. I have two permits, both of which I have spent everything to keep in good standing for the last 6 years. I am located on AG zoned property and currently faced with the very bad choice of having to discontinue a permit due to a lack of confidence in this County to get me to the finish line. I support any idea that would get more local cultivators into the State System as Annual License holders and legitimate, long term business people. I am, however, skeptical of this move. Does it have the State's backing? Will it give us the piece of mind that we deserve after struggling and fighting to stay afloat in a very challenging industry? I feel Mendocino County owes legacy cultivators and phase 1 applicants the opportunity to get the licenses they have worked so hard for.
Please support this important issue in the growing business of cannabis and help us be successful
Thank you to Supervisor Mulheren and Supervisor Haschak of the General Government Committee. Thank you so much for listening and acting upon this important tax matter.
The county helped me to complete the appendix G in 2020 and we were successful in getting a state annual license. I am not sure that this proposal will be of benefit to farmers that are struggling to meet CEQA requirements and fill out the Appendix G. It will save the county money and pass on the total cost to applicants if I understand this correctly. Please consider all the consequences unintended or otherwise before passing. Thank you.
I am a second generation cultivator from Covelo. We have been part of both 9.31 programs and were also one of the first farms to join the program after CA voted to enact Prop 64. I have two permits, both of which I have spent everything to keep in good standing for the last 6 years. I am located on AG zoned property and currently faced with the very bad choice of having to discontinue a permit due to a lack of confidence in this County to get me to the finish line. I support any idea that would get more local cultivators into the State System as Annual License holders and legitimate, long term business people. I am, however, skeptical of this move. Does it have the State's backing? Will it give us the piece of mind that we deserve after struggling and fighting to stay afloat in a very challenging industry? I feel Mendocino County owes legacy cultivators and phase 1 applicants the opportunity to get the licenses they have worked so hard for.
Please support this important issue in the growing business of cannabis and help us be successful
Thank you to Supervisor Mulheren and Supervisor Haschak of the General Government Committee. Thank you so much for listening and acting upon this important tax matter.