Agenda Item
4e) Discussion and Possible Action Including (1) Introduction and Waive First Reading of an Ordinance Amending Chapter 10A.17 of the Mendocino County Code to Limit Two Non-Nursery CCBLs on One Parcel to 10,000 Square Feet of Total Plant Canopy, (2) Adoption of CEQA Resolution Regarding an Addendum to the Previously Adopted Mitigated Negative Declaration, and (3) Provide Direction to Staff on the Handling of CCBL Applications Submitted Before the Requested Ordinance Amendment (Sponsors: Cannabis and County Counsel)
I echo the words of Syracuse Goldenghost in his comment from Oct 21, 2024.
To allow 2 permits for 20,000 ft of cultivation on appropriate parcels would not jeopardize the Mendocino environment.
When my representative tells me that they are concerned about being sued if they allow this ordinance to carry on, even though they have been advised that the suit would have a flimsy basis, I feel disenfranchised. If we are legally in the right, why won’t our government stand with us? Are certain members of the community not worth supporting? Does logic, and the law no longer matter? If I threaten an ill conceived suit, would it stop a logging plan, or a vineyard development, or a brewery? The answer to that is obviously not, so I would ask that our government give this industry the same consideration as any other. When there is no valid argument opposed to our right to operate, other than a facetious one, we need to support the industry which our local economy, community, and property values depend upon.
I believe that our county will be making a genuine mistake if we amend the ordinance to eliminate the expanded interpretation. There has not been one legitimate argument opposing this interpretation.
Compliance with CEQA was well established by way of a certified environmental impact report, in which the understood potential canopy under cultivation was 22,000 feet per parcel. The EIR was created with this canopy volume in mind.
Contrary to misinformation touted in the September meeting, blooming plants require less water by area volume than vegetating plants. Every nursery owner is keenly familiar with the more intense water needs of a nursery. Additionally, new cultivation licenses have a built in safeguard against water shortages. We are required to run water availability analysis with certified hydrologists. If we are going to second guess the hydrology reports, then why on earth are we commissioning them in the first place? For those operators looking to convert, and thus not beholden to the hydrology study, I would like to point out that there are hundreds of farms originally accounted for when the ordinance was agreed upon, which no longer exist. Does this not mean that the water allocated to those sites is now banked in the aquifer?
The original intention when the ordinance was created may have been for a 10k limit on cultivation, but that number was predicated on an economic viability model that no longer stands. The increased environmental impact if we are allowed to run the majority of our canopy to maturity is negligible, if not nonexistent. We would still not be allowed to cut down trees, or divert water, or spray toxic pesticides, or use plastic netting, or run generators, or encroach on sensitive species habitat, or any of a litany of regulated facets that we are still being accused of, long after the rules have been firmly established. At this point, I believe I can safely say that the arguments against allowing us to operate more efficiently are rooted in plain old emotional prejudice.
When my representative tells me that they are concerned about being sued if they allow this ordinance to carry on, even though they have been advised that the suit would have a flimsy basis, I feel disenfranchised. If we are legally in the right, why won’t our government stand with us? Are certain members of the community not worth supporting? Does logic, and the law no longer matter? If I threaten an ill conceived suit, would it stop a logging plan, or a vineyard development, or a brewery? The answer to that is obviously not, so I would ask that our government give this industry the same consideration as any other. When there is no valid argument opposed to our right to operate, other than a facetious one, we need to support the industry which our local economy, community, and property values depend upon.
I believe that our county will be making a genuine mistake if we amend the ordinance to eliminate the expanded interpretation. There has not been one legitimate argument opposing this interpretation.
Compliance with CEQA was well established by way of a certified environmental impact report, in which the understood potential canopy under cultivation was 22,000 feet per parcel. The EIR was created with this canopy volume in mind.
Contrary to misinformation touted in the September meeting, blooming plants require less water by area volume than vegetating plants. Every nursery owner is keenly familiar with the more intense water needs of a nursery. Additionally, new cultivation licenses have a built in safeguard against water shortages. We are required to run water availability analysis with certified hydrologists. If we are going to second guess the hydrology reports, then why on earth are we commissioning them in the first place? For those operators looking to convert, and thus not beholden to the hydrology study, I would like to point out that there are hundreds of farms originally accounted for when the ordinance was agreed upon, which no longer exist. Does this not mean that the water allocated to those sites is now banked in the aquifer?
The original intention when the ordinance was created may have been for a 10k limit on cultivation, but that number was predicated on an economic viability model that no longer stands. The increased environmental impact if we are allowed to run the majority of our canopy to maturity is negligible, if not nonexistent. We would still not be allowed to cut down trees, or divert water, or spray toxic pesticides, or use plastic netting, or run generators, or encroach on sensitive species habitat, or any of a litany of regulated facets that we are still being accused of, long after the rules have been firmly established. At this point, I believe I can safely say that the arguments against allowing us to operate more efficiently are rooted in plain old emotional prejudice.
When my representative tells me that they are concerned about being sued if they allow this ordinance to carry on, even though they have been advised that the suit would have a flimsy basis, I feel disenfranchised. If we are legally in the right, why won’t our government stand with us? Are certain members of the community not worth supporting? Does logic, and the law no longer matter? If I threaten an ill conceived suit, would it stop a logging plan, or a vineyard development, or a brewery? The answer to that is obviously not, so I would ask that our government give this industry the same consideration as any other. When there is no valid argument opposed to our right to operate, other than a facetious one, we need to support the industry which our local economy, community, and property values depend upon.
I believe that our county will be making a genuine mistake if we amend the ordinance to eliminate the expanded interpretation. There has not been one legitimate argument opposing this interpretation.
Compliance with CEQA was well established by way of a certified environmental impact report, in which the understood potential canopy under cultivation was 22,000 feet per parcel. The EIR was created with this canopy volume in mind.
Contrary to misinformation touted in the September meeting, blooming plants require less water by area volume than vegetating plants. Every nursery owner is keenly familiar with the more intense water needs of a nursery. Additionally, new cultivation licenses have a built in safeguard against water shortages. We are required to run water availability analysis with certified hydrologists. If we are going to second guess the hydrology reports, then why on earth are we commissioning them in the first place? For those operators looking to convert, and thus not beholden to the hydrology study, I would like to point out that there are hundreds of farms originally accounted for when the ordinance was agreed upon, which no longer exist. Does this not mean that the water allocated to those sites is now banked in the aquifer?
The original intention when the ordinance was created may have been for a 10k limit on cultivation, but that number was predicated on an economic viability model that no longer stands. The increased environmental impact if we are allowed to run the majority of our canopy to maturity is negligible, if not nonexistent. We would still not be allowed to cut down trees, or divert water, or spray toxic pesticides, or use plastic netting, or run generators, or encroach on sensitive species habitat, or any of a litany of regulated facets that we are still being accused of, long after the rules have been firmly established. At this point, I believe I can safely say that the arguments against allowing us to operate more efficiently are rooted in plain old emotional prejudice.
When my representative tells me that they are concerned about being sued if they allow this ordinance to carry on, even though they have been advised that the suit would have a flimsy basis, I feel disenfranchised. If we are legally in the right, why won’t our government stand with us? Are certain members of the community not worth supporting? Does logic, and the law no longer matter? If I threaten an ill conceived suit, would it stop a logging plan, or a vineyard development, or a brewery? The answer to that is obviously not, so I would ask that our government give this industry the same consideration as any other. When there is no valid argument opposed to our right to operate, other than a facetious one, we need to support the industry which our local economy, community, and property values depend upon.