4b) Discussion and Possible Action Including Referral of Cannabis Cultivation Limits to the General Government Committee
(Sponsors: Supervisor Haschak and Supervisor Cline)
Expansion should only be considered for existing permitted small farms by definition of the state department of cannabis control. The code should be modified to allow existing permits to to be eligible for expansion up to 10k regardless of parcel size. I have a permit on 7 acres and I'm only allowed 5k canopy. The existing code should be modified so I can obtain a 10K permit on my 7 acre parcel. Other permittee on smaller parcels should be allowed to expand to 10K.
No consideration should be given to new applicants seeking large scale cannabis production over 10k.
I implore the board of supervisors to examine the backlash from community neighbors in lake county in response to large scale cannabis grows
Subject: 4b) Discussion and Possible Action Including Referral of Cannabis Cultivation Limits to the General Government Committee
Dear Chair Haschak
As you are aware, at our Town Council (Laytonville Area Municipal Advisory Council) meeting on Jan. 22nd, we voted unanimously to support the following proposed action on our agenda:
“D.3. Discussion And Possible Action To Approve Request To The Mendocino County Board Of Supervisors To Place On The Agenda, As Soon As Possible, The Following Item: ‘Discussion And Possible Action To Approve That Pursuant To The County’s Cannabis Ordinance, The Maximum Area Of Cultivation Has Always Been And Remains To Be 10,000 Square Feet Per Legal Parcel, Without Any Exceptions.’
Our Council was asked to support efforts by folks who are concerned about Cannabis Department staffers action to “re-interpret” a provision in the Cannabis Ordinance.
The effect of this new “clarification” is that it would double the existing cultivation area, which has always been 10,000 square feet. There is absolutely no authority under existing law or the Mendocino County Cannabis Ordinance for anyone, including County staff, administrators, or the Supervisors to “reinterpret” where the result is to re-write or amend, in whole or in part, provisions of the Cannabis Ordinance. Such changes would have to be accomplished by the Supes taking formal action at a public meeting.
For purposes of providing relevant background on this issue, I have prepared the following timeline of events and actions.
Expansion Re-Interpretation Timeline
On June 27, Supervisor Dan Gjerde sent a memo to Steve Dunnicliff, Deputy Chief Executive Officer, who evidently now oversees the Cannabis Department. It’s Dunnicliff’s position that the so-called “re-interpretation” of the disputed ordinance provision is compliant with the existing ordinance. In a June 27 memo, Dunnicliff explains, “I am reaching out to provide clarity regarding cannabis density rules. The attached procedure was implemented on April 25, 2024. It is based on the express terms of the County’s Cannabis Cultivation Ordinance and does not involve any expansion of or require any amendment of the ordinance.”
Responding to Dunnicliff’s memo, Gjerde asks, “Can supervisors receive an opinion from the County Counsel's Office confirming County Counsel believes this new interpretation of County Code is consistent with State law and County Code? The memo is not signed by County Counsel.”
Gjerde also gets to the crux of the dispute when he says, “Mendocino Planning and Building Department has a long history of preparing memos on planning matters. My understanding is the purpose of such memos is to insure consistency in how department personnel apply County Code. The new interpretation of County Code, as outlined in this memo, appears to me to go beyond scope of PBS memos, at least as I understand their purpose and scope. For me, the memo does not appear to be consistent with County Code, or what I believe was the understanding of board members or the public at the time of code adoption. What is the process for this memo to be agendized for discussion at a board meeting in July? I would like to see this item on a board of supervisors agenda, where these issues can be addressed.”
This is another example of County officials creating a problem where none existed before.
What is left unanswered at this juncture is what or who prompted Mr. Dunnicliff and the Cannabis Department to take it upon themselves to rewrite and amend an ordinance under the clumsy guise of a “re-interpretation.”
This whole issue of expansion was resolved without question several years ago when the people of this county massively supported referendums to repeal a Board of Supervisors’ proposed ordinance to expand cultivation grow areas.
You should also know that at our June 26, 2024 meeting, our Council unanimously approved the following action:
“The Council Hereby Approves Support For The May 9, 2024 Letter From The Willits Environmental Center To The Board of Supervisors Re: “Re-Interpretation” By Staff of Section 10A.17.060 Of The Cannabis Ordinance, as well as the June 2024 Petition/Statement By The Concerned Redwood Valley Citizens (CRVC) Regarding The So-Called “Re-Interpretation.”
At our August 28, 2024 meeting, the Laytonville Area Municipal Advisory Council (LAMAC) unanimously approved and endorsed a letter from Ms. Traci Pellar regarding the so-called “Cannabis Reinterpretation” issue. We urge the Board to reject this “backdoor” attempt to circumvent an unambiguous provision in the Ordinance. There is absolutely no authority under existing law or the Mendocino County Cannabis Ordinance for anyone, including County staff, administrators, or the Supervisors to “reinterpret”, in whole or in part, provisions of the Cannabis Ordinance. It’s widely accepted by constituents that such action gives the appearance of Cannabis Ordinance administration being an insider’s game played by staff and a self-selected few in the local cannabis industry.
We agree with the Willis Environmental Center: “This “re-interpretation” turns seven years of understanding on its head and dramatically alters a fundamental tenant of the ordinance and the underlying justifications of its Mitigated Negative Declaration — and all without any public process. Less than two years ago, citizens of Mendocino County mounted a referendum against adopting a new cannabis ordinance that would have allowed just the kind of expansion that this re-interpretation would now make possible.”
On Oct. 22, 2024 at a another BOS meeting where the so-called “expansion re-interpretation” issue was discussed, Supervisors John Haschak and Dan Gjerde opposed it, saying the provision cited by the Cannabis Department has been in effect for years, and everyone understood that grows were limited to 10,000 sq. ft., and it did not become an issue until new Cannabis Department staff raised it in April 2024.
Haschak and Gjerde had it right a hundred percent.
So, again, the question is, why are some of the Supervisors and their un-elected staff, attempting to ignore overwhelming opposition of the people of this county to cultivation expansion?
Elected officials are supposed to carry out the wishes/demands of clear majorities of constituents.
It’s not the Supervisor’s job to substitute their judgment for that of their constituents when those constituents overwhelmingly demand a different course of action than that contemplated by staff of the Supervisors.
We urge the Board of Supervisors to reject in whole this proposed re-interpretation of Section 10A.17.060.
Thank you for taking this matter under consideration.
Respectfully,
Jim Shields
Chair
Laytonville Area Municipal Advisory Council
I oppose moving the discussion/decision of Cannabis Cultivation Limits from the BOS to the GGC because this issue has a lot of community impact and should be considered by ALL BOS members, not just a chosen few. How does doubling the size of cannabis cultivation increase the ability of growers to sell their crop? The market is already flooded and growers can't sell what they have now. A cannabis grower at the last BOS stated he can hardly get a dispensary to return his calls as it is. If the cannabis market was strong, dispensaries would be calling growers to buy their product...not the other way around. Doubling the size of cannabis cultivation does not guarantee an increase in cannabis sales, but it does increase the opportunity for more crime in our county. Cannabis supporters have compared the cannabis crop to the grape industry and vineyards. There is no comparison...When purchasing a home, would you rather have a view of vineyards or greenhouses? When selling your home would it be more marketable with a view of vineyards or greenhouses? Are vineyards required to have a fence around their property to protect their crop from theft? Has a vineyard owner ever had a home invasion because of their crop? It is understandable that homeowners living near a greenhouse operation would not want the cannabis cultivation limits to double in size for these reasons and more. Many of these same homeowners have lived in the community for decades, paid property taxes and invested a lot of time and money into their homes. They have a right to preserve their home equity, safety and peace of mind by not having a large unsightly cannabis grow next door inviting a criminal element to the neighborhood. Please include the entire BOS on this important decision to double the size of cannabis cultivation limits and carefully consider the impact this decision will have on homeowners in our county. Thank you. Cyndi Woskow, Redwood Valley
As a regenerative farm growing organic cannabis in Rangeland in the hills above Round Valley, we believe we represent a group of farmers who are also environmentalists in Mendocino County. We are state licensed, social equity approved, a Sun+Earth Certified farm and a National Wildlife Federation Habitat. We have participated in advocacy efforts alongside cannabis trade organizations like MCA at the local level since long before the latest iteration of the expansion can of worms was brought forward.
For the record, and for clarity for the new Supervisors, it’s true, the entire county, including the Board, staff, stakeholders and public, interpreted the ordinance as a maximum canopy of 10k since 20017. It’s too bad that so much consternation, with the recent uproar around the expansion reinterpretation, has pitted even cannabis farmers against each other, and caused further negative stigmas for the public.
If the BOS is going to send the expansion reinterpretation back to the GGC for more clarification, we hope you will also move to discuss other pressing cannabis industry matters, such as tax relief, microbusiness licenses, discretionary permits, market access, direct to consumer events and more, in the GGC asap. For example, we’re interested in expanding our allowable activities on our farm, which would increase our economic viability without expanding our ecological footprint. And, we believe it would be far more fruitful to get community input via workshops, roundtables, and other open forums where all interested parties can transparently hash out compromise ahead of future Board discussion.
Thank you for your consideration,
Laura & Marty Clein, Martyjuana™
I oppose the relegation of this contested subject matter to the GGC, especially because neither of the two GGC-appointed supervisors lives in the most troubled and vocal district OPPOSING cannabis expansion. If I understand this agenda item well, it implies that all cannabis matters will be considered by the supervisor from Ukiah, whom I've never seen at the Redwood Valley Municipal Advisory Council meetings (I've been an RVMAC member for the past five years) to get informed about the voices and opinions of the public there, and who has forcefully steered the BOS toward expansion in her role as BOS chair - and another who is new to the board. I'm sorry to have to say this, but this is not representation, this is manipulation.
I see in the latest news that the BOS now plans to refer the very controversial cannabis issue to the General Government Committee, which is comprised of only two Supervisors. One is Mo Mulheren, who has proven she is adamantly pro-expansion, despite the consistent protests from her county's constituents, and despite the fact that the cannabis industry, at least in the form that would benefit local farmers instead of large nonresident corporations, is suffering huge economic losses. The second Supervisor in this "committee" is Bernie Norvell, who is the new Coast Supervisor. Neither of them represents Redwood Valley, Potter Valley, Calpella, Talmage, Willits, Laytonville, Covelo or other large, unincorporated inland rural areas, where a lot of cannabis cultivation, both legal and illegal, is already taking place.
We county taxpayers are already on the hook to the tune of several hundred thousand dollars in the Cubbison case, and if Ms. Cubbison prevails, that expense will be much higher. Does the Board really want to be responsible for even more legal costs because of its continued efforts to sidestep the law in order to allow the highly unpopular expansion of big cannabis ag in the most environmentally sensitive areas of the county?
As a longtime Redwood Valley resident, I would like to make my voice heard regarding the consideration of increasing the legal limitation of cannabis grows in Mendocino County. This is a very contentious issue on multiple levels. It seems irresponsible to contemplate making significant changes to current regulations when the general public has made it clear that this is not widely supported. On the contrary, there are and have been significant issues with many of the existing cannabis grows and these concerns must be acknowledged. Increasing the size limits can only lead to further controversy and divisiveness as well as increased environmental impacts which affect everyone. I implore our representatives to take into account the best interests of ALL of your constituents.
Thank you.
I am here to oppose yet another delay in affirming the current, legal limitation of cannabis grows to 10,000 sq. feet per parcel. Assigning the cannabis issues to the General Government Committee simply gives further opportunity for County staff to expand the size of grows out of the view of the general public, as so often happens with decisions made in rather obscure committees. I also wish to support the Cease and Desist letter of the Willits Environmental Center (WEC) that calls for the Mendocino Cannabis Department (MCD) and County staff “…stop accepting and processing such applications and decline to issue any CCBL [Commercial Cannabis Business License] that would not be consistent with the Ordinance as interpreted by the Board of Supervisors… at all times since adoption of the ordinance. It is the WEC’s position that it would be unlawful to issue such permits as they would be inconsistent with the Ordinance, and issuance without further environmental analysis, including cumulative impact analysis, would violate CEQA.”
While the current County Counsel, some newly elected Board members, and other more recently hired staff involved in the current cannabis regulations may not be aware, the citizens of Mendocino County have long operated under the conviction that “…a maximum of 10,000 square feet of cultivation (less than a 1/4 acre) or maximum of 22,000 square feet in nursery (cannabis in vegetative [eg., seedling] state only) on any parcel will be eligible for a permit.” Those are the criteria for which CEQA was calculated. In 2021, thousands of County voters signed a referendum to reject a County proposal to expand cultivation size limits. The public has made its views clear. Yet, recent Board and MCD actions purport to throw away those long-approved and accepted criteria. Worse, the County actually wants us to believe that their new reading of long-standing law is NOT a change. The public isn’t stupid. Once again, we see the County responsive to special interests, namely, the wealthier cannabis interests, and ignoring both the interests of the general public as well as generally recognized law. This is unacceptable.
Sensible cannabis regulations are in the interests of all of us: the general public, County government, “legacy” cannabis growers, other reputable cannabis growers, and the environment. Such regulations must maintain the public welfare, safety, and the budget, as well as the livelihood and property rights of ALL members of the public.
We request that the Board take immediate action and vote TODAY to reaffirm a maximum 10,000 square feet per parcel, which simply recapitulates the current law as the citizens of this County have long understood it. We also request that the Board immediately demand that staff cease accepting applications to grow more than this limit. There can be no lasting solution if the Board fails to assert your authority on this vital issue.
Despite what some folks would have you believe, common ground exists among all the parties, and now it is critical to build on that common ground, and not give in to back-door deals that shift the playing field. That means that a meeting of ALL the stakeholders, perhaps facilitated by a professional with experience gathering diverse groups and fashioning reasonable solutions, should offer a better path forward. Continuing to operate without transparency, in a manner that clearly skirts the law and responds only to the loudest voices, will not enable us to find agreement. Let’s be productive, not combative, and address these issues democratically. Such an approach is the only antidote to the divisiveness that seems to be so common.
Expansion should only be considered for existing permitted small farms by definition of the state department of cannabis control. The code should be modified to allow existing permits to to be eligible for expansion up to 10k regardless of parcel size. I have a permit on 7 acres and I'm only allowed 5k canopy. The existing code should be modified so I can obtain a 10K permit on my 7 acre parcel. Other permittee on smaller parcels should be allowed to expand to 10K.
No consideration should be given to new applicants seeking large scale cannabis production over 10k.
I implore the board of supervisors to examine the backlash from community neighbors in lake county in response to large scale cannabis grows
February 10, 2025
To: Mendocino County Board of Supervisors
Subject: 4b) Discussion and Possible Action Including Referral of Cannabis Cultivation Limits to the General Government Committee
Dear Chair Haschak
As you are aware, at our Town Council (Laytonville Area Municipal Advisory Council) meeting on Jan. 22nd, we voted unanimously to support the following proposed action on our agenda:
“D.3. Discussion And Possible Action To Approve Request To The Mendocino County Board Of Supervisors To Place On The Agenda, As Soon As Possible, The Following Item: ‘Discussion And Possible Action To Approve That Pursuant To The County’s Cannabis Ordinance, The Maximum Area Of Cultivation Has Always Been And Remains To Be 10,000 Square Feet Per Legal Parcel, Without Any Exceptions.’
Our Council was asked to support efforts by folks who are concerned about Cannabis Department staffers action to “re-interpret” a provision in the Cannabis Ordinance.
The effect of this new “clarification” is that it would double the existing cultivation area, which has always been 10,000 square feet. There is absolutely no authority under existing law or the Mendocino County Cannabis Ordinance for anyone, including County staff, administrators, or the Supervisors to “reinterpret” where the result is to re-write or amend, in whole or in part, provisions of the Cannabis Ordinance. Such changes would have to be accomplished by the Supes taking formal action at a public meeting.
For purposes of providing relevant background on this issue, I have prepared the following timeline of events and actions.
Expansion Re-Interpretation Timeline
On June 27, Supervisor Dan Gjerde sent a memo to Steve Dunnicliff, Deputy Chief Executive Officer, who evidently now oversees the Cannabis Department. It’s Dunnicliff’s position that the so-called “re-interpretation” of the disputed ordinance provision is compliant with the existing ordinance. In a June 27 memo, Dunnicliff explains, “I am reaching out to provide clarity regarding cannabis density rules. The attached procedure was implemented on April 25, 2024. It is based on the express terms of the County’s Cannabis Cultivation Ordinance and does not involve any expansion of or require any amendment of the ordinance.”
Responding to Dunnicliff’s memo, Gjerde asks, “Can supervisors receive an opinion from the County Counsel's Office confirming County Counsel believes this new interpretation of County Code is consistent with State law and County Code? The memo is not signed by County Counsel.”
Gjerde also gets to the crux of the dispute when he says, “Mendocino Planning and Building Department has a long history of preparing memos on planning matters. My understanding is the purpose of such memos is to insure consistency in how department personnel apply County Code. The new interpretation of County Code, as outlined in this memo, appears to me to go beyond scope of PBS memos, at least as I understand their purpose and scope. For me, the memo does not appear to be consistent with County Code, or what I believe was the understanding of board members or the public at the time of code adoption. What is the process for this memo to be agendized for discussion at a board meeting in July? I would like to see this item on a board of supervisors agenda, where these issues can be addressed.”
This is another example of County officials creating a problem where none existed before.
What is left unanswered at this juncture is what or who prompted Mr. Dunnicliff and the Cannabis Department to take it upon themselves to rewrite and amend an ordinance under the clumsy guise of a “re-interpretation.”
This whole issue of expansion was resolved without question several years ago when the people of this county massively supported referendums to repeal a Board of Supervisors’ proposed ordinance to expand cultivation grow areas.
You should also know that at our June 26, 2024 meeting, our Council unanimously approved the following action:
“The Council Hereby Approves Support For The May 9, 2024 Letter From The Willits Environmental Center To The Board of Supervisors Re: “Re-Interpretation” By Staff of Section 10A.17.060 Of The Cannabis Ordinance, as well as the June 2024 Petition/Statement By The Concerned Redwood Valley Citizens (CRVC) Regarding The So-Called “Re-Interpretation.”
At our August 28, 2024 meeting, the Laytonville Area Municipal Advisory Council (LAMAC) unanimously approved and endorsed a letter from Ms. Traci Pellar regarding the so-called “Cannabis Reinterpretation” issue. We urge the Board to reject this “backdoor” attempt to circumvent an unambiguous provision in the Ordinance. There is absolutely no authority under existing law or the Mendocino County Cannabis Ordinance for anyone, including County staff, administrators, or the Supervisors to “reinterpret”, in whole or in part, provisions of the Cannabis Ordinance. It’s widely accepted by constituents that such action gives the appearance of Cannabis Ordinance administration being an insider’s game played by staff and a self-selected few in the local cannabis industry.
We agree with the Willis Environmental Center: “This “re-interpretation” turns seven years of understanding on its head and dramatically alters a fundamental tenant of the ordinance and the underlying justifications of its Mitigated Negative Declaration — and all without any public process. Less than two years ago, citizens of Mendocino County mounted a referendum against adopting a new cannabis ordinance that would have allowed just the kind of expansion that this re-interpretation would now make possible.”
On Oct. 22, 2024 at a another BOS meeting where the so-called “expansion re-interpretation” issue was discussed, Supervisors John Haschak and Dan Gjerde opposed it, saying the provision cited by the Cannabis Department has been in effect for years, and everyone understood that grows were limited to 10,000 sq. ft., and it did not become an issue until new Cannabis Department staff raised it in April 2024.
Haschak and Gjerde had it right a hundred percent.
So, again, the question is, why are some of the Supervisors and their un-elected staff, attempting to ignore overwhelming opposition of the people of this county to cultivation expansion?
Elected officials are supposed to carry out the wishes/demands of clear majorities of constituents.
It’s not the Supervisor’s job to substitute their judgment for that of their constituents when those constituents overwhelmingly demand a different course of action than that contemplated by staff of the Supervisors.
We urge the Board of Supervisors to reject in whole this proposed re-interpretation of Section 10A.17.060.
Thank you for taking this matter under consideration.
Respectfully,
Jim Shields
Chair
Laytonville Area Municipal Advisory Council
I oppose moving the discussion/decision of Cannabis Cultivation Limits from the BOS to the GGC because this issue has a lot of community impact and should be considered by ALL BOS members, not just a chosen few. How does doubling the size of cannabis cultivation increase the ability of growers to sell their crop? The market is already flooded and growers can't sell what they have now. A cannabis grower at the last BOS stated he can hardly get a dispensary to return his calls as it is. If the cannabis market was strong, dispensaries would be calling growers to buy their product...not the other way around. Doubling the size of cannabis cultivation does not guarantee an increase in cannabis sales, but it does increase the opportunity for more crime in our county. Cannabis supporters have compared the cannabis crop to the grape industry and vineyards. There is no comparison...When purchasing a home, would you rather have a view of vineyards or greenhouses? When selling your home would it be more marketable with a view of vineyards or greenhouses? Are vineyards required to have a fence around their property to protect their crop from theft? Has a vineyard owner ever had a home invasion because of their crop? It is understandable that homeowners living near a greenhouse operation would not want the cannabis cultivation limits to double in size for these reasons and more. Many of these same homeowners have lived in the community for decades, paid property taxes and invested a lot of time and money into their homes. They have a right to preserve their home equity, safety and peace of mind by not having a large unsightly cannabis grow next door inviting a criminal element to the neighborhood. Please include the entire BOS on this important decision to double the size of cannabis cultivation limits and carefully consider the impact this decision will have on homeowners in our county. Thank you. Cyndi Woskow, Redwood Valley
As a regenerative farm growing organic cannabis in Rangeland in the hills above Round Valley, we believe we represent a group of farmers who are also environmentalists in Mendocino County. We are state licensed, social equity approved, a Sun+Earth Certified farm and a National Wildlife Federation Habitat. We have participated in advocacy efforts alongside cannabis trade organizations like MCA at the local level since long before the latest iteration of the expansion can of worms was brought forward.
For the record, and for clarity for the new Supervisors, it’s true, the entire county, including the Board, staff, stakeholders and public, interpreted the ordinance as a maximum canopy of 10k since 20017. It’s too bad that so much consternation, with the recent uproar around the expansion reinterpretation, has pitted even cannabis farmers against each other, and caused further negative stigmas for the public.
If the BOS is going to send the expansion reinterpretation back to the GGC for more clarification, we hope you will also move to discuss other pressing cannabis industry matters, such as tax relief, microbusiness licenses, discretionary permits, market access, direct to consumer events and more, in the GGC asap. For example, we’re interested in expanding our allowable activities on our farm, which would increase our economic viability without expanding our ecological footprint. And, we believe it would be far more fruitful to get community input via workshops, roundtables, and other open forums where all interested parties can transparently hash out compromise ahead of future Board discussion.
Thank you for your consideration,
Laura & Marty Clein, Martyjuana™
I oppose the relegation of this contested subject matter to the GGC, especially because neither of the two GGC-appointed supervisors lives in the most troubled and vocal district OPPOSING cannabis expansion. If I understand this agenda item well, it implies that all cannabis matters will be considered by the supervisor from Ukiah, whom I've never seen at the Redwood Valley Municipal Advisory Council meetings (I've been an RVMAC member for the past five years) to get informed about the voices and opinions of the public there, and who has forcefully steered the BOS toward expansion in her role as BOS chair - and another who is new to the board. I'm sorry to have to say this, but this is not representation, this is manipulation.
I see in the latest news that the BOS now plans to refer the very controversial cannabis issue to the General Government Committee, which is comprised of only two Supervisors. One is Mo Mulheren, who has proven she is adamantly pro-expansion, despite the consistent protests from her county's constituents, and despite the fact that the cannabis industry, at least in the form that would benefit local farmers instead of large nonresident corporations, is suffering huge economic losses. The second Supervisor in this "committee" is Bernie Norvell, who is the new Coast Supervisor. Neither of them represents Redwood Valley, Potter Valley, Calpella, Talmage, Willits, Laytonville, Covelo or other large, unincorporated inland rural areas, where a lot of cannabis cultivation, both legal and illegal, is already taking place.
We county taxpayers are already on the hook to the tune of several hundred thousand dollars in the Cubbison case, and if Ms. Cubbison prevails, that expense will be much higher. Does the Board really want to be responsible for even more legal costs because of its continued efforts to sidestep the law in order to allow the highly unpopular expansion of big cannabis ag in the most environmentally sensitive areas of the county?
As a longtime Redwood Valley resident, I would like to make my voice heard regarding the consideration of increasing the legal limitation of cannabis grows in Mendocino County. This is a very contentious issue on multiple levels. It seems irresponsible to contemplate making significant changes to current regulations when the general public has made it clear that this is not widely supported. On the contrary, there are and have been significant issues with many of the existing cannabis grows and these concerns must be acknowledged. Increasing the size limits can only lead to further controversy and divisiveness as well as increased environmental impacts which affect everyone. I implore our representatives to take into account the best interests of ALL of your constituents.
Thank you.
I am here to oppose yet another delay in affirming the current, legal limitation of cannabis grows to 10,000 sq. feet per parcel. Assigning the cannabis issues to the General Government Committee simply gives further opportunity for County staff to expand the size of grows out of the view of the general public, as so often happens with decisions made in rather obscure committees. I also wish to support the Cease and Desist letter of the Willits Environmental Center (WEC) that calls for the Mendocino Cannabis Department (MCD) and County staff “…stop accepting and processing such applications and decline to issue any CCBL [Commercial Cannabis Business License] that would not be consistent with the Ordinance as interpreted by the Board of Supervisors… at all times since adoption of the ordinance. It is the WEC’s position that it would be unlawful to issue such permits as they would be inconsistent with the Ordinance, and issuance without further environmental analysis, including cumulative impact analysis, would violate CEQA.”
While the current County Counsel, some newly elected Board members, and other more recently hired staff involved in the current cannabis regulations may not be aware, the citizens of Mendocino County have long operated under the conviction that “…a maximum of 10,000 square feet of cultivation (less than a 1/4 acre) or maximum of 22,000 square feet in nursery (cannabis in vegetative [eg., seedling] state only) on any parcel will be eligible for a permit.” Those are the criteria for which CEQA was calculated. In 2021, thousands of County voters signed a referendum to reject a County proposal to expand cultivation size limits. The public has made its views clear. Yet, recent Board and MCD actions purport to throw away those long-approved and accepted criteria. Worse, the County actually wants us to believe that their new reading of long-standing law is NOT a change. The public isn’t stupid. Once again, we see the County responsive to special interests, namely, the wealthier cannabis interests, and ignoring both the interests of the general public as well as generally recognized law. This is unacceptable.
Sensible cannabis regulations are in the interests of all of us: the general public, County government, “legacy” cannabis growers, other reputable cannabis growers, and the environment. Such regulations must maintain the public welfare, safety, and the budget, as well as the livelihood and property rights of ALL members of the public.
We request that the Board take immediate action and vote TODAY to reaffirm a maximum 10,000 square feet per parcel, which simply recapitulates the current law as the citizens of this County have long understood it. We also request that the Board immediately demand that staff cease accepting applications to grow more than this limit. There can be no lasting solution if the Board fails to assert your authority on this vital issue.
Despite what some folks would have you believe, common ground exists among all the parties, and now it is critical to build on that common ground, and not give in to back-door deals that shift the playing field. That means that a meeting of ALL the stakeholders, perhaps facilitated by a professional with experience gathering diverse groups and fashioning reasonable solutions, should offer a better path forward. Continuing to operate without transparency, in a manner that clearly skirts the law and responds only to the loudest voices, will not enable us to find agreement. Let’s be productive, not combative, and address these issues democratically. Such an approach is the only antidote to the divisiveness that seems to be so common.