General Government Committee - Regular Meeting

Parents, can be very isolating and it can be very lonely and having the home visitor changes that and it feels very good. For me having a home visitor is like having a second mom there.

A lot has changed. I'm definitely more knowledgeable taking care of her. And I know that anytime I need advice or help from somebody I'm just calling her.

It's just that little positive nudge to, hey, I'm noticing something, you know, let's find a way how to change it. And she's like, you know what Amanda, let's pick you up, dust you off, and let's go over to, you know, see about either getting your driver's license or or seeing about you know going to college see if we can start something for you.

It's totally worth it.

Like even

if you're on the fence at first you don't feel like having a stranger coming in your house and teaching you about your little one, do it anyway. You know, you get the help that you need. You get professional advice on things you may not know about your child. The fact that the program has no fees or anything, it's all totally free is fantastic.

Twenty five General Government Committee meeting to order, and invite the clerk to conduct roll call.

Member Mulhern? Here. Member Norville?

Here.

At this time, we'll rise for the Pledge of Allegiance. Thank you. Our first item today is Item 2A, a drought Task Force Discussion and Possible Action, Including Acceptance of Presentation from EKI Environment and Water, Inc. On the Mendocino County Drought Resilience Plan Development and Drought Task Force Participation Project and provide recommendations to staff as appropriate. And I'm going to welcome Amber from the Department of Transportation to start us off.

Good morning. Thank you. Amber Fassett, Department of Transportation and Water Agency. As you know, we've been working over the past year on a drought resilience plan for the county that applies to domestic wells and state small water systems. And based on the information that was presented at past meetings as well as the public meetings we have conducted, we have just finished wrapping up the draft drought resilience plan.

And it will go to oh, it's open for public comment as of today for a month period. And we have our consultant who's been working with us, EKI, that is here to do a presentation on the finalization of the plan.

Thank you, Deputy Director, Facade. Amir Mani, EKI Environment and Water. Hi, everyone. I'm sharing my screen. So as mentioned, we have a relatively short presentation to update the task force and the committee and the public on the efforts since our last meeting in February.

We have a final draft again as mentioned on the drought portal or drought resiliency plan website open for comment. So in today's presentation, I will go over the outreach efforts that we have done throughout the development of the drought resilience plan in the past year or less than a year or so. Review the public review period and the commenting process on the plan. Quickly review the adoption process and our next steps that would basically happen in a May meeting. So as the summary of outage effort does a very quick refresher on the Senate Bill five fifty two which drives the development of drought resilience plan and are conducting drought task force meetings.

So SB five fifty have two major requirements for counties. The first one is to establish and maintain a county drought task force, which in Mendocino County is held under this committee. The second is develop a plan, a drought resilience plan that we call abbreviated DRP to address drought impacts on state small water systems and domestic wells. So that basically for that it has a narrow focus this plan that we are speaking about and the beneficial users that are addressed under this plan are small water systems details and requirements under the California Water Code for the public engagement, the commenting process and development of the plan. The Department of Water Resources published a guidebook that was closely followed by the county development of the plan.

And outreach has been a major part of our efforts and moving forward will be a major part of county's efforts in terms of implementing the plan. How we have conducted is that there is a DRP web page, drought resilience Plan web page that I will present more details on. That's get regularly updated. It has a lot of information, provides educational materials and outreach. For review, we have conducted several community meetings and provide updates to the public in terms of development of the plan.

Task for meetings are regularly scheduled as you know there is a charter and a frequency for meeting based on the drought stage that happens in the county and we are now in the public commenting period on the DRP that again I'm going to review a bit in more detail in later slides. So the webpage that I mentioned, the DRP webpage on the county's website, the website is under there. If you Google Mendocino County Drug Solutions Plan, the first search should basically point you to this webpage that we have a snapshot on. There is a lot of information in here, general information about SB five fifty two, the requirements under this Senate bill and also DRP development process, the meetings that we had. Also we have a lot of additional materials just for education outreach so there is a public engagement form that you can submit if you're encountering problems with your water just to share information with the county and start the facilitation process with them if there is any help that the county can provide in terms of pointing to the right resources and right people to help you out.

There is an email update sign up that basically if you sign up through that you will get notified about the County Draft Task for meetings and any other workshops that the County would help would hold under SB five fifty two. Right now commenting forms on the website for the draft ERP as I mentioned and the document for the draft DRP is also uploaded there. We have DRP fact sheets basically a one pager to two pagers of brief info, summarizing for about the DRP and SV five fifty in both English and Spanish published on the website that would be really helpful just to be introduced to the process. All the slides and presentations that we had for community workshops and the past two draft task force meetings that were used to update the public on the DRP are also provided on the website and also there is a coordination with the grants unit in the county and the Department of Transportation in terms of updating the list of the state and federal funding resources on the webpage to hopefully point the domestic well users and state smalls to the right resource if there's a funding opportunity to use.

A bit more detail on the educational materials again during the development for the draft task force meetings and the community workshops that we had, The county deputy director is here and I think they have Doctor. Garza in attendance too. They can provide more details if there's any questions but working with the UC Cooperative Extension and Department of Transportation There was major outreach done for holding those workshops and the task force meetings. The Cooperative Extension and the county had presentations at the Redwood Empire Fair at the Round Valley Blackberry Festival. We had presentations to the Hopland Municipal Advisory Council and the Grassroots Institute Vision Workgroup.

There were media engagement that they have listed here. The county used its social media outlets to promote our community and DRP development. Again, fact sheets and educational materials on the website and funding materials on the website. We held two major community and task force meetings, workshop meetings working with the UC Cooperative Extension. One of them was held in September 2024 and one of them was held in February.

We had a broad representations of group within the county that was very encouraging. As the county moves forward in implementing the DRP and complying with SB five fifty two, we hope we get more engagement and even a broader representations of the user groups within the county. We also held two task force meetings as you're aware in February and September. This is our third one. And we had additional targeted outreach meetings, one with the Rural Community Assistance Coverage, RCIC, which we are coordinating in terms of providing resources to domestic value users and state smalls.

The county presented its DRP at California County Cafe series that's held by the Department of Water Resources for the counties to comply with SB five fifty two. And we also had a government to government meeting with the Sherwood Valley Band of Pomo Indians which was a really helpful meeting in terms of us getting some feedback and input to include in the DRP. What we are trying to achieve in terms of outreach and engagement on this plan and for SB five fifty two is to just have open discussions because that's where this DRP is leading the county and everyone to go and basically that's the major driver of added resiliency in terms of water supply in the county considering the flood water system and the water supply conditions that we have here. Just a quick review of the commenting process and where we are. So as I mentioned the draft DRP is ready and published on the website.

If you have any questions please reach out to us but based on the guidebook, the drought resilience plan and this is a slide that has been repeated in our previous presentation as well. There are four parts to the plan. The first two parts are tied together basically data collection and the risk assessment or vulnerability assessment. Then there are management actions that need to respond to those vulnerability assessments in terms of short term actions and long term actions. And then it's the implementation of the plan and how those actions are going to be taken when we move through different stages of drought.

The first two part basically was done and presented in the workshop and the task force meeting in September 2024. The second part basically the management actions short terms and long term and implementation were presented in the February workshop and the February task force meeting. Those task force presentations are available in County YouTube channel if anyone wants to view them. They are fairly the concept is fairly captured in the GRP plan and the draft that's uploaded and we're here to answer any questions if we can be of any help. Again, this slide also is the schedule that just minorly changed because we moved the January the proposed January to February but otherwise everything has stayed the same.

Right now we are in the public review period in March. Our next meeting would be to hopefully have a finer DRP that address the comments that we received during this commenting period in a May meeting at the Board of Supervisors to recommend adoption of the plan. In terms of the public review period, there is no requirement under the California Water Court for this planning and SB five fifty two to have a commenting period. But as I mentioned, the county sees public engagement and outreach and public input as the key component of DRP development, DRP implementation and overall water resiliency in the county. Therefore we see this commenting period as an opportunity not only to get feedback and input on the DRP itself but also to hear about the facts and perspectives of the domestic value users instead small systems on their problems and what needs to be included in updates to the plan.

And also just to encourage collaboration and ensure we maintain transparency as it has been a priority for us during the development of the plan. Again, we have the website of the County DRP web page. Right now, when you go to that DRP web page, on the top, you would see two links. One goes to the draft DRP that you can download and review, and one goes to the commenting web page that you can provide a comment. There's also basically a sub tab that goes to the same web page.

We are providing a one month commenting period starting today until next month April 25. After that we'll gather the comments, try to address as many as we can and we will process them into an appendix to the plan so it shows how those comments were addressed in the plan. A brief overview of the DRP, again as I mentioned, we have gone through each different section during our previous two presentations that are available for view on YouTube for the Mendocino County. But just the structure of the DRP. So there's an executive summary, sorry the executive summary the tech cannot because it's not required but the section one is introduction which goes through the basics of SB five fifty two and we have the California Water Code sections that all these sections respond to.

Then we have a brief section two that goes through the drought task force and it's forming its development, its members on how it's supposed to comply with SB five fifty two and help county respond to requirements of drought resiliency under that regulation. Section three provides a comprehensive assessment of risks and vulnerability of the county with regards to water shortage during drought periods. Section four provides basically short term actions and strategies. Sorry, I'm sorry, the section four provides the existing drought response actions. As you know, the Mendocino County has gone through two recent severe droughts during 2013 to 2015 and 2021, 2022 period.

And a lot of actions were taken that were helpful in terms of responding to those droughts. So Section four provides a brief summary of those. Section five builds on those actions and provides short term actions to be taken during next periods of drought. Section six, long term actions which coordinate with short term actions that we have as we read through the plan. As I explained in February, some of the short term actions just happened on a recurring basis throughout the process of implementation.

Section seven provides how the plan is supposed to be implemented in coordination with other plans that the county has and other public water suppliers and water agencies in the county. And Section eight basically provides all the references that we cite throughout the document. The public commenting process is primarily happening through the website. It would simplify the process for us in terms of summarizing the comments and responding to them. We So have a snapshot of the webpage.

When you go on the link, basically there's a simple form that asks for some information on your general comment. If you want to provide a general comment on a specific section, that form should be sufficient for your commenting. Providing information, basically name, emails and other specifics are encouraged but are not required. If you wanna leave them blank, you can. And then if you have detailed comments that you wanna make for the plan for each specific sections or edits to paragraphs or text, there is a Word file on the same form that you can download.

It has instructions on the first page and a second page that's a table. Basically, you just tell us which section you're referring to and what the comment is. And then based on that table, we can specifically address those comments. So, there are two ways of commenting. One is very detailed commenting using the board file that we provided that you submit with your general form.

Or there is just a general commenting that you can type in in the form that's on the website. Again, there is no requirement on providing personal information but if you want us to be able to follow-up with you and discuss with you as needed, those would be encouraged. If you prefer to comment in person or mail a hard copy of your comments, the address is also provided on the same webpage. Feel free to mail a hard copy or drop your copy of comments in that address. Again, we encourage online submission of your comments by April 25.

On our next step, the only remaining meeting that we have under the general scope of this plan development is our Board of Supervisor meeting on 05/20/2025. In two months, what we will do is after April, the commenting period closes. We gather the comments. We try to address the comments as as best as we can and summarize those comments in appendix and provide us materials for the board of supervisors meeting. And then there would be a resolution that accompanies the final plan for adoption at that meeting.

As I mentioned, the finalization is basically addressing comments and summarizing them as an appendix. There would be no other significant changes to the draft ERP unless required by the comments that we receive. And then there would be a presentation at the Board of Supervisors meeting because that's our first meeting since the start up development of the DRP. But it would be a brief overview of the plan and then we will address any questions or comments at the meeting about the final DRP. The resolution would be available and that would be a recommended action to adopt the plan at the meeting.

And that was all I had. I don't know, Director Fricette, if I missed anything, but please, I'll be available for any questions.

I think that it looks like you've covered it all. Thank you very much for the presentation and the update. Supervisor Norvell, do you have any questions?

I don't. Thank you.

Okay. At this time, I'd like to open this item up to public comment. If there are any members of the public in the room that are here to comment on this item, please come forward. If you are on Zoom, you can use the raise hand feature or press 9 on your telephone.

Good morning. Good morning, Chair Mulheron, Mr. Norvell, everybody else. I just wanted to comment that you have said that you did a major part of outreach to the community, and I want to comment that one of the most active MACs in Mendocino County is the Redwood Valley MAC. And you have not reached out to us. We know nothing about what you're doing. I know about this since two weeks. And we would like you to heed the Redwood Valley MAC in your next rounds of public comment. That's all I have to say. Thank you.

Through the Chair, if I may.

Yes, please. Oh, if the speaker could please state their name for the record.

I'm sorry, I always forget to introduce myself. My name is Patricia Riz, and I am a Redwood Valley MAC member.

Thank you. Thank you. And I see that Amber and Emera are both taking notes. Thank you.

Good morning. My name is Frances Owen. I'm from Redwood Valley also. And to follow-up with what Peen just said, there are also MACs in KualaLA, I believe, and Laytonville. And I'm not sure where else. So you may want to coordinate with the Board of Supervisors and see who they would recommend you do outreach to. And I think it's great that you're doing all this outreach. I want to just comment on your form that was online, the public commenting process. I did read it. The problem I had with it was the print was so small on the right hand side that and I still had to get out my magnifying glass.

And then I was looking for this review and commenting form and I couldn't find it anywhere. And I don't think it's something that we are to fill out. I think it's just a review comment form. So that was all pretty confusing as far as trying to do public commenting. So you may want to address that.

And then if I could just take a minute and say, I did watch the county proceedings yesterday, the Board of Supervisors meeting, and someone from the coast, I believe, called in and was complaining that they tried to do some public comment and they were having problems with it. And I have been experiencing the same thing myself. Last month I tried to add public comment and I knew I had an account and it wouldn't accept it. Finally, I tried the Facebook method and it did post my comment, which I was happy that I had an alternate way of posting my comment. But I went back two days later to see if there were any new comments on there, and I believe it was having to do with the water issue last month, and my posting was gone.

So I don't know where it disappeared to or why it disappeared. I have a problem with that. So you may want to look into that, the county, as to why things are falling off. And if they're intentionally taken off, they should notify the poster somehow maybe. You could ask for contact information because it doesn't feel good to post something, take the time to post something, and then all of a sudden it disappears. So that was my

experience. For clarification, did you say Facebook posts so just so everybody in the public's aware, Facebook posts are not part of the public record, and so the Board may or may not see those.

Well, it says right on there, you can log into an account or you can post through Facebook. And since my account that I had used other times to post was not accepting it, I said, well, I'll try this Facebook method. And I logged into Facebook and it posted it on the county website with my Facebook picture and everything. I've seen other people that post through Facebook.

Okay. I will follow-up with the clerk of the

board about that. Thanks for letting us know. Sure.

Are there any additional comments? I am not seeing any in the room, and I do not have any hands raised online. Amber, could you just comment about the ways that people can continue to participate? I'm not sure that we would have time to get to all the MACs. I know there's been outreach done to remote areas, posting flyers, sharing information. But we will need people, I think, to use the web portal to comment. And just for reference, the item that was included today was for the slide show presentation. And so the website portal, you can expand or use it bigger. Can you comment a little bit about how we can continue to receive feedback?

Yes, I can. Amber Fissette, Department of Transportation Water Agency. The snapshot that was in the presentation is not the actual form. So the form just went live. So this presentation was actually published prior to the form being live.

So you can actually click on the form now on our website, and it will be a full size form that you can use to comment. And as Amir said, we do have an online form where you can just fill in the fields and then submit online, or we also have a form for more detailed comments or if somebody just prefers that method can be printed and either mailed or dropped off at our office. So it should be much larger than what's in the presentation.

Okay, great. Thank you. And, you know, hopefully all the members of the Board of Supervisors, maybe we can have the Executive Office send out another press release about how people can respond online to just get it out more into the public awareness, I think that would be great. And just to note for the record, that Planning and Building included a memo about the water tanks, which was a question at the last GDC meeting, and so they have answered that question that if you are specifically in an area where the Coastal Commission requires their own permit, then you would have to go through a different process, whether we are in a drought or not. So I appreciate the engagement on this topic, though.

We were discussing a little bit that people are very interested in droughts when we are in a drought. And because we are not currently in a drought, we've not had a lot of feedback. So if everybody could just go back into their memory of three to four years ago and then provide their feedback, that would be great. So our only role today was to receive this presentation and provide feedback. Supervisor Nervell, did you have anything you wanted to add?

I don't. Thank you.

Okay. Thank you very much for your presentation. Thank you, Amir.

Thank you for your time. Appreciate it.

Okay. With that, we can move on to Item 2B, the discussion and possible action including a recommendation to the Board of Supervisors regarding cannabis cultivation limits. And I just wanted to briefly discuss our role here today. This item has been before the Board of Supervisors a couple of times. It's been before GGC multiple times.

At the Board of Supervisors meeting where this was referred to GGC, the request was to receive community feedback. And so I think that's what we're here to do today. I would also like to if there are any specific things that you would like the full Board to consider, then I think it would be great if you could let the two of us know so we can work with staff to make sure that an agenda item that would go to the full Board is complete. And currently there is a placeholder, I believe, for April 8 so that the conversation can continue. That, I would Steve, did you want to make any comments or do you want me to launch in?

Yes, please do.

All right. Members So of the GGC, just reading through the agenda summary of request and tagging on to some of the intro comments that were made. There's been recent confusion about cannabis cultivation limits that are allowable under Mendocino County Code. The code had consistently been interpreted and read to allow for two separate CCBLs on a parcel. In most districts, CCBLs have historically been allowed up to 22,000 square foot of cultivation area on a parcel, with one CCBL allowing up to 10,000 square foot of limit on mature canopy, and a second nursery CCBL allowing up to 12,000 square foot of additional immature canopy.

On 04/24/2024, the GGC learned that a plain reading of the county's code did not limit the second license type to that of a nursery, with the practical implication being that additional mature canopy may be permissible in areas not so in rural residential five or resource lands. And this was certainly consistent with the county's existing CEQA review. So again, with the Board's referral of this item, this has been in front of the Board a couple of times. The board had given direction to explicitly limit the cultivation area to 10,000 square foot of county, and the board elected not to take that. So unless there's any affirmative action by the board, at this point the code does allow $20,000 Thank

you for that. Okay, we'll work on that. Thank you. And I think it's really just important to talk about procedure and how we work in the boardroom. So shouting out is really not appropriate. We do have rules that we follow, even though it's GGC. So let's just be very clear about what the rules are. If you could please come to the mic, if you could state your name for the record, and if you could follow the three minute time limit rule, I think that that would be really helpful. At GGC meetings, we have a little bit more flexibility than in a Board meeting where we might be able to hear from people twice, but I really do want to make sure that we hear from everybody. And to be clear, this meeting is livestreamed.

It's on YouTube. Every Board of Supervisor, every Planning Commissioner, every member of the public can watch this meeting and hear your comments. So let's go ahead and keep it professional and appropriate as we have this discussion today. If you're able to come to the mic, state your name for the record, that's great. I already see one hand on Zoom. If you're on Zoom and want to comment, you can use the star nine on your phone or use the raise hand feature. Public comment is now open.

Good morning, everybody. I'm Kris Boyd. I'm from Redwood Valley. I've come before the full board several times regarding cannabis, and I'm still very interested in it. I have four main points I want to put across today.

First of all, in Redwood Valley this is what most of us would like would be to keep all commercial cannabis activities away from residential areas. This includes homes, apartments, schools, places of worship, parks for pets and residents, bike paths such as they are, and walkways in these areas and similar areas. The reasons should be obvious by now, but among them are Mendocino's serious drug problem, especially among young people. And the presence of crime, including illegal sales from existing growth sites, which we as longtime residents do witness and don't necessarily report. These are not specious claims.

They are, in fact, things that the Sheriff's Office would confirm. We don't need to debate these things here, but how the Board accomplishes this, that's your job, and how other jurisdictions have managed it is probably pretty available if you do some research. Secondly, do not attempt, please, to amend the ordinance through legal tricks and nonsense, such as the Council's and the Board's recent reinterpretation that 10,000 feet is actually 20,000 square feet. Please don't treat us like we don't see what's going on here. That is a change that happened behind closed doors.

This is why people all over America are really angry at the government right now that things aren't transparent. And if you want to make a change like that, there are processes and they are legal and they are public and they are transparent. Number three, hoop house complexes, plastic, pesticides, herbicides and other chemicals are unhealthy for our environment, as we all know. Our watersheds are critical, as you know. So sun grown and regenerative practices, as many of our local longtime growers practice, should be encouraged and supported in every way possible.

Enforce the rules against night lights, chemicals, permits and removal of unused plastic. Abandoned sites should be mitigated by the growers, however you want to make that happen. And finally, I support legal cannabis. I voted for it. I also signed a petition against expansion, as thousands of people in Mendocino County did a few years ago. The views of the majority of your constituents are pretty clear. You should change the ordinance through legal, public and transparent methods involving all your stakeholders. We interested parties and many other stakeholders will help you with feedback, but we ask that stakeholders of all constituencies be included. Thank you for your continuing work on this issue. Thank you.

Good morning. Cody Akin. So I'm just here once again to beg you guys please to look at the cannabis regulations once again look at what's going on in the state and look at what's going on around us in the surrounding counties. Humboldt County is one of the biggest square foot canopy holders in the state as well as Lake County. But then we're just sitting here with our little 10,000 square foot gardens that really don't make a profit.

We have to pinch pennies and when we are pinching them, we're rubbing them together because we're just so happy to have them. So we're just asking to be able to expand our businesses, to be able to self distribute would be huge, save us a ton of money. We could hire more employees, we could create more jobs, and we could benefit the community again that was once beautiful and now it's just boarded up walls and windows in Ukiah. So if we eased up on the cannabis industry and did what the state regulations say, at least let us cultivate 22,000 square foot. I mean, that's a half acre.

That's minuscule compared to some of these 20 acre grows in Lake County and stuff. But you know, it really would benefit us and prices are so low that you have to mass produce or it's not worth it. So just up here again begging you to somehow help us create a business out of cannabis and a lucrative business or a profitable one because it's not going anywhere but downhill. So yeah, let's figure it all out, we'll see you guys tomorrow.

Hello, board. I'm Kyle Green Alch. I'm a farmer and a dispensary owner here in Ukiah. I prepared today a little bit of a packet for you guys to be able to be maybe prepared for tomorrow, a little bit more of a discussion that will correlate with our economy here. Well, these key points here are about

the amount

of acreage that we have here in Mendocino County. In Mendocino County, we have 2,200,000 acres here. And then at the Department of Conservatory, we have 1,900,000 acres of agricultural land here in this county. That means that approximately 87% of this county's total land area is designated for agricultural use. Focusing on more productive farmland, the county has less than 50,000 acres such as land and 1.2% of prime ag land here in Mendocino County.

These figures underscore the significance of agriculture in Mendocino County with the majority of land dedicated to agricultural purposes. Some key points to expansion here, current zoning disparity in Mendocino County. Mendocino County allows commercial cannabis cultivation on Ag land, range land, upland residential and FL zones, but are stricter limitations on RL compared to Ag land. These limitations unfairly restrict landowners on RL zone properties despite RL being historically used for agricultural purposes. Lake County is a model for fair zoning.

Lake County allows cannabis cultivation on range land, agricultural, APZ, TPZ and the square footage allows RL just about the same as AG. Mendocino should follow this model and allow equal cultivation square footage on RL and AG to promote fairness and economic opportunity. Mendocino County has approximately 87% of land designated for agricultural, primary for grazing and similar to Lake County. RL landowners are already contribute to the county's agricultural economy but are excluded from full participation in the cannabis industry. Expanding our cannabis allowances would boost local tax revenue, increase jobs and support rural farmers.

Sustainable cannabis practices such as water conservation and erosion control are all protected in our plan. I put a few more key points in here. I broke down some costs of goods, what it costs us to run a 10,000 square foot canopy. This is all in the back page here. It equals out to be about a $73,000 loss.

That's what permitting and this is very, very, very low numbers. With being able to expand, with opening up our range land within our community which is already excluded 85% of our county, what are we doing here? We're cutting off 85% of our whole entire value and right now we are dealing with a major biomass shortage, you're losing revenue from March until June or July again. We really need to come together, create a new ordinance, get rid of this phase three debacle that's just been horrible, and actually boost our economy. Please look at this, and let's discuss this more tomorrow.

Thank you. No, the clerk will bring it and include it in the public record.

Thank you very much.

Thank you.

Hello. My name is Drew Nicol. I wanted to comment on just a couple of things briefly. I don't want to take too much of your time because we've talked about this a lot. But I do have a farm that has a cultivation license and a nursery license, and I think the concern is that somehow a nursery license is less, what's the word I'm looking for here, impactful than cultivation license.

For lack of a better term, it's kind of absurd. Nurseries take more water, more power, more plastic, more pesticides in order to keep plants than cultivation does. So if you're really looking at wanting to reduce aforementioned things, then cultivation is a no brainer because of the way that it's grown. Secondly, I wanted to just discuss, you know, when we refer to crime and what's going on, I'm also a real estate agent in town, I drive around from property to property, and the amount of cannabis that you see in backyards and neighborhoods is almost completely gone. The issues that we had before legalization due to where we're at now, legalization has greatly positively, in my opinion, impacted the way that I see real estate properties and neighborhoods because I'm in them all day, every day.

Secondly, or fourthly, wanted to say, if any of you guys do pay attention to the real estate market, look at how many farms just got listed have been listed for sale, and how many of them are actually selling. And why are these farms that are built out beautiful, perfect farms that we would want to see all over our county, why are they not succeeding? Why are they failing? Why are they going up for pennies on the dollar and not selling? Because they don't make money.

And so that's something for us to think about. And I think the last thing I just want to leave is this isn't about expansion. It's about just us continuing to survive here in Mendocino County with cannabis being one of our options for economic growth and development. So thank you for your time.

Thank you. Are there any additional speakers?

My name is Hilde Gerhardt, and I'm speaking as a representative of one of our local cannabis businesses, Henry's Original. We would like to actually briefly comment on a couple different things but since this is about the ordinance in specific I'll start there and then hopefully it's okay to add a couple other cannabis specific topics. Henry's original would also like to voice its support for the current local cultivation ordinance as it stands. The market struggle was real. I think that everyone in the community knows that and clearly the community has really different feelings on how best to approach and respond to the market pressures and to support the local community.

We appreciate this forum. Hopefully there will be some other forums.

Sorry, but could you please just speak into the microphone so that we can hear you on

Hopefully the there will be other forums and ways that the entire community can have these conversations. We do, Henry's Original does believe that a county that is under producing will hurt Mendocino's foothold in the current California market rather than help. I'm also planning to attend the economic development meeting tomorrow in Willits on the cannabis sector to continue the conversations. And then the one piece that's an aside is Hannah Nelson has brought this up in one of the former Board of Supervisors meetings regarding the local cultivation tax, and so we just wanted to kind of say that it's been really helpful to have this reduced rate of 1.25% for the past couple of years, and if that's possible to continue this into 2025, that would be awesome. If it's not possible because the County does also need to raise income for itself to move forward, another thought is if it was possible that if the taxes are raised, that perhaps the true up could stay at a reduced rate just to try to help us continue to function in the current market.

Thank you for your time.

Frances Owen from Redwood Valley. In light of the recent outcome of the Cubison case, we strongly believe that you should do the following regarding a recommendation to the full Board. First, follow your own County Council's recommendation dated 10/22/2024 to, and I quote, deny the applications because they will not satisfy MCC Chapter 10A17 requirements after MCC 10A17D is amended per Board direction and refund the application fee to the applicants. Counsel further stated this option is the more practical option to implement. Secondly, before there are any further amendments to the cannabis ordinance, we again request that you form and facilitate working groups that will not include only the commercial growers, but the legacy growers, grape growers and the general public, which to this point have largely been without a seat at the table.

The county cannabis staff seems to be replacing the word expansion with cannabis density limits. I'd like to read a bit from the department's frequently asked questions information sheet they attached to today's agenda. This is in regards to resource lands. It says if an applicant has an already existing nursery site and would like to modify their site to a cultivation site, they may do so but must remain within the already existing footprint. But on the second page they seem to contradict that.

Again they're talking about the resource lands. And they say modifications in these zoning districts may not expand more than 200 feet from the existing footprint. And they must submit the contiguous expansion of preexisting cultivation site affidavit. If the cannabis department is going to deny that expansion is an end goal, perhaps they should not use verbiage such as expand and contiguous expansion. It brings up the old adage in part that says, If it quacks like a duck, it's a duck.

I would also say converting nursery plants to mature plants is upward expansion, which in my opinion would use more water and creates much more stench. And to address Dhruv's comment just quickly, if I understood him correctly, they have one cultivation site, which I would assume is for mature plants, and then a second one for nursery plants. They cannot convert the nursery plants to mature plants because the frequently asked question says that they have to be different types so they can't have that. If I'm misunderstanding, please let me know. I'll just finish by saying this issue, as you are well aware, began in April 2024.

It's now been a year and it's gone from the BOS to County Council back to the BOS, now before you, the GGC. And now it will go back to the BOS with hopefully a recommendation from you, the GGC, on how to proceed. Then where does it go? Back to County Council and then most likely back to the BOS. Not an effective use of anyone's time. Please put this issue to rest. Thank you. Okay.

If there are no more public comments thank you. If you are able to form a line so I can see how many more comments we have in the room, that's helpful. I also have some comments online.

Good morning. Steven Amato from President of the MCA. First off, I'd like to thank you for once again allowing public comment on this topic. Obviously folks are still passionate about it. This has been a polarizing topic within our organization, amongst our community, as you're going to see.

Just getting folks from both camps coming up here. And I did a little bit of a deeper dive with the cannabis department a couple weeks back to try to get some actual data. Now that it's been accepting applications, this process started last April, so we're eleven months in, almost out of year. I wanted to see what happened actually with phase one growers that were on the resource lands and how many of them really tried to convert a nursery license into a cultivation license. And the number I received as of two weeks ago was zero.

Zero folks applied for that change. The only applications that they have received were in the phase three style, which means they're on non resource lands, and that number isn't extraordinarily high either. But then I asked how many folks in the phase one on the resource lands have the potential of converting a nursery license into this? They said a total of 22, meaning if you take those 22 licenses at an additional 10,000 square feet, you're talking about a five acre impact throughout the whole entire county. Now, as the previous speaker has said, this has gone back and forth and back and forth over and over.

I'd like to also see this kind of controversy. I would really recommend that you recommend to the Board of Supervisors to make a final decision on this. I personally just don't see that this squeeze is worth the juice any longer. We need to really start focusing on more important things in this county with all the challenges we're facing economically beyond just the cannabis realm and at the county at large. We have businesses closing at alarming rates.

We have some really massive drop off in property values that are coming around the corner. I mean, I'm a vineyard owner also. We've had at least a 30% drop in our value in our vines. There's been five sales of vineyards over the last sixteen months, I believe. I mean, I think this is great that we've had this forum. It's awesome to have the freedom of speech and allow people to express their ideas and concerns, but this has been really beat to death, now we have a year of seeing it open, and I just like folks to be open minded and see, is this really worth continuously fighting back and forth over.

Thank you. Have a great day.

Thank you.

Hi, my name is Liana Costa, and I'm a property owner here in Mendocino County who plays property taxes and we recently got back hit with a four year assessment of raising the value of our land for when we bought it when we had an idea that we could actually get a cannabis license and that was going to pay for the land. But here we are years later, no cannabis license and four years of property taxes of a reassessment rate. It's exorbitantly high, so great, no license. But last time I was here, was talking about square footage, and 22,000 square feet is essentially 23% of one acre, and so less than that 10,000 square feet is essentially like 11.5. And so we were talking about Glasshouse, which is just one cannabis producer that we're competing against, and they have 125 acres under one they're competing.

And that's the economy of scale that we have to compete against if we want to be successful here on the California market. And so this idea that we can only cultivate 10,000 square feet is just a deal breaker. It's just not possible for businesses to succeed in the market that we have to have to sell our cannabis against these people who have a much greater economy of scale. And all we are asking for is an additional 10,000 square feet. And what I would like you to tell the Board is that the definition is that we definitely get to have 22,000 square feet and that we can have two licenses of the same type to achieve that 22,000 square feet.

I don't know where this idea that you have to have a different license came from. But I was also talking about my friend that told the previous owner of the Glasshouse property about cannabis and got him involved in it. And I didn't get a chance to finish reading what he said. He said Glasshouse is 125 acres in that location. They have more acreage in Santa Barbara. 10,000 square feet is nothing in today's market with rock bottom prices and sky high taxes. A small grower couldn't make a living. And with the proposed tax increase, I believe most medium and small growers did not renew their licenses and return to the black market. The glasshouses of the world will continue to produce mid grade, high priced, booth weed. They are chopping off their noses here in Mendocino County.

And it's just crazy that we have to have this conversation, so please urge the Board that we can grow 22,000 square feet and change the language that we can have the same type. So if we have a 10,000 outdoor square feet, we can have another 10,000 outdoor square foot license. And do what you can in your power to get those 168 people that are in the Phase III application process their licenses, because they have been paying years of property taxes, years of more taxes, and they're not getting licenses to be able to bring in the revenue for their businesses. And now the assessor's office is going back and reassessing them for years of value of their property taxes and expecting them to pay that without a revenue source coming in. And you guys say, oh, it's at the State level now, you are waiting for them to go through the State level.

Well, the head of the scientific department told us in January that we were four to six weeks from the State looking at our application. And here we are much further than four to six weeks from that date in January, and we don't have anyone looking at our license. And if I look at the numbers of how many people went from annual in October of the cannabis report. There was a very few number, and less than half of the provisionals in that number have made it now into the annual license. And so we're still over 200 people or entities in the provisional license before you get to the 160

I do see that I have two hands raised online. I'm going continue taking comment from in the room, and then I'll go online. So if you're in the room and wish to add public comment, please come forward.

My name is Barry Nadler. I'm the CEO of the Okayo Ranch and Mendocino Grasslands. We've been spending our group has been spending time talking to various people who have various opinions about this particular issue. And what we're really kind of concerned about is trying to get from where we're at to an acre of grow. We have talked to the small farmers and gotten their perspective.

We've reached out to the environmentalists and have tried to get their perspective. We reached out to people that don't want it in their backyard to get their perspective. And we've talked to the economic people and business people in the community and have tried to get their perspective. The sense that we're getting is that there are folks in the community that don't want any expansion of any cannabis under any circumstances. Where we've come down on it is that the small farmers that want unique cannabis to mean something want to maintain a statute at that 10,000 square feet because they are economically able to do it and want to keep it in place.

People like us that need to have somewhat more expansion feel that we have to go beyond the 10,000 square feet, but we're willing to accept a one acre. But in the current statute, the 10,000 square feet is allowed in more places and more locations and in more different ways to grow with hoops and various other intensive abilities to increase your yield. What we're willing to do is if we can go to an acre, we don't want any more hoops. We'll do it into the ground. It will be like regular farming.

And that's what we'd like the capability to do. So you're kind of exchanging the greater space that you have with a less intense and maybe restricted in what areas, maybe only agricultural land, which is meant to grow crops. And this needs to be treated more like a crop than it does some kind of evil or specialty item. And therefore, what we'd like is for the small farmers that are happy with their situation and want to continue under the statute as it currently exists, that's fine. Then let's maybe make a B statute that is more restrictive of where it can go to keep it out of the places.

People talk about houses and other things, but allow it to be in a larger area, but do it in a way that is less and more like agriculture. In other words, put the plants in the ground or on the ground if they want to be in pots. I don't think that matters. We think that's a reasonable compromise. Thank you.

Thank you.

Hello. I'm Devin Daniel, a lifetime resident of Ukiah in Mendocino County, born and raised in Ukiah. Thank you for the opportunity to come and speak with you guys and share my opinion. I probably don't have much to share that hasn't been shared already, but I just want to reiterate as a citizen of the community that honestly, don't feel like this county is in a great financial position to be hamstringing an ag product as much as they are. I feel like if property is zoned ag, you should be able to grow an agricultural product on that property.

We've allowed thousands of acres of vineyards to be grown, theirs. And yet cannabis for some reason has this stigma about it that it's not being allowed the same rights. I personally own 25 acres of vineyard of which I will not harvest this year because the market is dead. It's upside down. We're limiting farmers to this minimal square footage. Personally, I don't think even an acre is enough. If you own 25 acres, why should you only be allowed 10,000, 20,000 or one acre? It's ag land. It's an ag product. Why can you not cultivate your product on your land?

I don't understand it. And this county is just passing up on millions of dollars in tax revenue by hamstringing farmers. It makes zero sense to me. I mean, there's a whole bunch of money that this county has that I haven't read about, why are we doing this? And if the concerns are regarding, you know, it's, you know, aroma or safety issues, why has this county like tapped on Lake County's shoulders and said, hey, how are you guys dealing with these concerns in your community?

Because this is what we're hearing in our community and how are they addressing them and it seems to be working in Lake County fine. They're doing great as far as I know. But minimizing the amount of square footage that a farmer is allowed to cultivate on in this county is it does not allow a farmer to run a farm in a traditional manner, which is capitalize on economy of scale. It's like telling a grape grower, you can only grow one acre of grapes on your 25 acre property. By the time you buy your tractors and buy everything it takes to grow one acre, you're upside down.

You have to grow 25 acres of grapes or 50 acres or hundreds of acres to be able to afford and justify being a grape grower for a living. You can't make money on one acre of grapes. You can't make money on 10,000 or 20,000 square feet of cannabis. It just doesn't work. We're seeing it. I mean the farmers are falling off left and right and there goes all our tax revenue. What are we doing? I'm baffled but I would ask that the board please look at this closely and look at the tax revenue that we're passing up. And I think we can overcome the issues that others are raising that are opposing this type of expansion. Thank you for your time.

Thank you.

Morning. Thank you for this forum. It's good. Yesterday we listened to precedent setting examples and how we don't want to do that. And here again I'm going to refer to our process.

And the process that I refer to is our cannabis department putting out an internal procedure and this is Steve's words, an internal procedure that did not come before the board, was not authorized, but yet was followed by the cannabis department. This is not accepted. I'm asking you to put it back before the board. It's already been fought once in September At a five-zero vote, staff was directed to clarify. If that had been followed through, we wouldn't be here today.

We've heard this morning about size. Raising it to 20,000 square feet is not going to solve our friend's problem, not at all. However, Mendocino County is not Santa Barbara, and it is not Lake County. We are fragile in our environmental concerns and our environment, water, watersheds. We're different.

In looking at how you handled this procedure, I think we need to talk to county counsel about making defensible decisions, defensible in court decisions. There are some things that I think Steve is very much aware with the Department of Fish and Wildlife, a letter that came down from them about how they will treat the inspections. Is that true, Steve?

Well, if you could just go ahead with your comments and direct them

to Okay. The Anyway, there are several things other than just the size that the cannabis department needs to be very much aware of that puts them in jeopardy. Again, I will go back to saying, please put this back before the board. Size will not make a difference. We're not going to solve the problem. Ask Oregon with their expansion what their price per pound is. They expanded. It's been fought. We fought it with referendum. So here again, this is, since Mendocino County, do not want to expand. Thank you.

Can we get your name for the record, please?

I'm Martha Barra.

Thank you. Thank you.

Good morning. My name is Ellen Drell. And this issue is complex and convoluted. But my understanding is that today I want to somewhat echo what the previous speaker said. The issue is process.

I don't have time in these three minutes to go into all the details of how staff has subtly and not so subtly rewritten the intent and the history of Mendocino County's cannabis ordinance. It's reprehensible and it's headed for trouble. Martha Barrow was correct. Laws cannot be amended and changed in significant ways in secret in a backroom. They have to be done through a public process.

And that's the essence of my comment. The details of the change, I hear what a lot of people are saying. What does it make if it's 10,000 square feet or 20,000 square foot? Well, it makes a difference if it's right next door to you. So there is a difference and there are environmental consequences.

So I'm not saying that the difference between 10,000 and doubling it to 20,000 is insignificant. It does have significance and environmental consequences. And that's part of the reason why the change can't be made in secret in the backroom without public participation and without due process and without environmental review. I don't really understand, I can speculate, why the cannabis department, the staff is so invested in this reinterpretation that it invented and then dropped like a bombshell on a previous General Government Committee meeting. And now they're claiming that somehow it's unchallenging.

It's the law and the county must proceed with it. It's absurd. And that claim wouldn't stand up in a court of law. I want to suggest, though, specifically I can't believe I'm already down to fifty seconds but my understanding was that the General Government Committee is being asked to recommend to the full Board an action. And my recommendation is what I recommended yesterday, that this committee recommend to the full Board that they simply, without involving staff, the full Board clarify the section of the ordinance in question with the wording that it used in its five-zero vote in September to clarify the ordinance to maintain the original intent, was to allow cultivation of mature cannabis plants for sale to 10,000 square feet per parcel, whether you had one or two permits, and codify that in the law.

It could be done easily. It would avoid future expense. It would avoid legal wrangling. And it wouldn't foreclose amendments to the cannabis ordinance in the future done in the proper procedure with public process and with environmental review. It's a simple solution and then we can move on from there to solve some of the bigger problems. Don't let this ship get hung up on the shoal of some manipulation by staff when it can, with a simple clarification, as I suggested, can get the ship moving again in a more productive direction. Thank you. Thank you.

My name is Ian Powell. I am owner and operator of Mendocino Grasslands here in Ukiah, California. And I agree with Martha. I agree with Ellen. It's exhausting. We are exhausted. The back and forth is tiring. It's a lot for your time and our time. If you want to leave the ordinance how it is, wonderful, I'm great with that. But we need to create a new one that would allow us to get to an acre because there are some of us that are on ag land.

As Deb and Daniel stated, it's an agricultural entity and I understand its history has been muddled and it's been tough for this county in the past. But let's speak real truths is that cannabis grown legally is one of the safest and least pesticide ridden crops that we have in Mendocino County. I have 100 and somewhat 60 plus acres at my ranch. My neighbor has probably somewhere close to the same. All of it's covered in grapes, all the way up five feet from the river, right there.

And I watch him spray, round up, on a regular basis. I don't see the Drells going after any of them, but they're going after cannabis. It's about cannabis. You don't like cannabis and that's okay not to like something, but at the same time, it's here. It's been here. It's here to stay. How do we live with it? How do we work with it? How do we have businesses that can expand and can move to the next place? As Devin said, we've topped out. I need more square footage in order for my business to grow. I also believe, with Martha said, Mendocino County is precious. It's a very special place. And that's why I'm here. And that's why my family has been here for generations.

And I want to stay here and I want to raise my kids in this. If I put in a five acre vegetable garden on my farm and used all the water I wanted and sprayed with it, nobody would care. Nobody would even know. No one would even I wouldn't have to report it to anyone. But if I've got cannabis, that's a different story. Again, we're so regulated. We invite fish and wildlife to our land. Come on out. I would love to have you here on my land. I'm not afraid of them. Our practices are organic. We abide by all of the regulations. We're oversight by the feds, by the state, and by the county. And I invite anybody to come to our ranch and see what we're doing. There's no crime there.

And plastic, we have the allotted amount of plastic. I don't want to be in plastic. If I had an acre, I wouldn't have to be in plastic. I would be in native soil. It would look just like a vineyard. It would look like a cut flower farm. It would look like anything else. And it would be grown sustainably with less water and agriculture that I would feel proud of that, something that I love. Thank you for your time.

My name is Corinne Powell and unlike my non cousin Ian, I wish I was in his Powell family because he has a beautiful ranch. The first thing I want to mention was what one of the other speakers was talking about in the sense of comments not being received and or recorded properly. I think that you two supervisors may remember the workshops in Calpelo, whatever the township is, on January. I spoke to you on the fifteenth, and I cited some of Nicole Elliott, the DCC's Director, regarding Mendocino County and how special our small farm culture is here. Unfortunately, my comments were not recorded, and then in the body of the minutes when there is a question saying was there public comment, there was a no.

So there is another example of problems that we are having with public information being conveyed and recorded properly. Clearly, this expansion has been a difficult process for everyone, and I want to remind the community and the supervisors who weren't on the diocese back when 10A17 was originally created, which is that we are in resource lands because we were not able to have farms that were visible from any public road or publicly traveled private road. We could not be down in the valleys. We could not be seen. We were such a scourge.

So we were required to be invisible and that means you are not out in the flat lands, right? You are up in the hills someplace. So please keep that in mind when you are considering how to move forward with this dichotomy of where we think farms should go now, cannabis farms, and where we were required to go when people were investing in their properties. I know that we are having a meeting tomorrow. What I don't know is how our County process will evolve at this point.

This body is supposed to be reviewing all kinds of cannabis and staff interaction and activities. Now we have an econ development group coming in. Can you two describe how you see the conclusion of cannabis disputes in the county moving forward? Thank you.

Corrine, I wouldn't begin to describe how I

see that moving forward. Can

try to hopefully have Anna Mackin, who is on the call, explain before we end this item what the expectations are for the Cannabis Economic Development meeting tomorrow.

Good morning.

I am

going to keep this very brief, and I will dovetail on a few of the things that were just mentioned about process, but in items that are not on the agenda. Just two brief clarifications. The nursery permits that were always allowed under 10A17 also allowed for mature canopy for R and D and seed production. So there is this myth that somehow this is expansion, but it's not. It's really just a matter of whether or not nursery CCBLs could be converted into or should the second CCBL be restricted to nursery type only.

And it's significant that, you know, a lot of money was spent on a countywide EIR, money that was provided by the LJJAP program from the state. And it very definitely treated nursery and other types of cultivation exactly the same environmentally, because it, for CEQA purposes and environmental regulations, it is the same. But more specifically, in our county, under our ordinance, mature plants have always been allowed on that second license, which even when it was limited to a nursery. Thank you. Thank you.

I'm not seeing anyone else come forward in the room, so I'd like to go to Zoom at this time, and we'll start with David A and then go to Joseph.

Hello. So let's see. A lot of this talk has ranged around, you know, the idea of this being agriculture versus not agriculture. And I need to remind everybody that the state does not consider cannabis to be an agricultural product. It does not come with the land use rights that any agricultural product would naturally come with.

So, you know, for example, we have over a million acres of forest land being, you know, timber harvested by these lumber companies And they are absolutely free to mono crop that million acres, destroy the trees they don't want with herbicides, and cultivate one or two trees that they do want, and nobody can do anything about that. But cannabis doesn't come with those land use rights that agriculture does come with. And that means that it's treated like a project and a project comes with rigorous environmental review by multiple agencies. Nobody should be under any illusions that water consumption, water drainage, free removal, all of that is monitored and excluded or included by the agencies that come with oversight. So, this isn't just a willy nilly run for it.

It is rigorously regulated. Now, I spoke before the board, I think it was in at the workshop. Was it January or February, right before the closed session where you were going to discuss, the pending potential pending lawsuit by this, so called environmental center, the nonexistent so called environmental center that is, really a five zero one(four) lobbying organization run by dark money. And this threatened lawsuit may actually be an impossible thing to run under this so called environmental center because they may actually be operating outside the scope of their IRS taxes up status. It's really frustrating to me that the prohibitionist lobbying groups are making a run at what is a plain reading of an ordinance that the board made years ago.

A plain reading is the actual wording of the law. It's not a reinterpretation. It is a plain reading, which means what's on the paper is what it means. All this other garbage about it being reinterpreted is it's a it's a rerun of people who don't like what it actually says, and we're either too lazy or, not paying attention in the beginning to read it and get an actual lawyer on it and see what it really said. So there's no need for changing this now because people don't like what it says.

The leader of the MCA said it clearly. There's no big run at the cannabis department to get in under these rules because there's no financial incentive with the minuscule amount of square footage that people in Mendocino are allowed.

You do

not need to change it.

Thank you, David. Before you leave, would you mind stating your name for the record?

My name is David A.

Thank you. Alright.

Thank you.

We'll go to, Joseph. And, Joseph, if you could please start by stating your name to the record, we would appreciate it.

Hi. My name is Joseph Nickel. I'm a cultivator here in Mendocino County for around a decade, and I've seen the industry change from, you know, the old renegade cowboy days to what it is today. Can you guys hear me?

We can hear you. Yes. Can please Yeah.

So, you know, I can understand how some people are not really wanting to see an expansion. Well, in fact, it is not an expansion. Cannabis has changed a whole lot. I've worked in it ten years and really wish to have a legacy to hand down to my family. But, the reality is is it's not an expansion, it's conversion.

As of right now, I'm allowed to cultivate my nursery for seed production, which can be very profitable. Doing a pheno hunt's very, very difficult and labor intensive. And, I mean, when it comes down to it, we've been in cannabis for so long, that's really what we're kinda hanging on to. Your genetics are kind of like a brewer Brewmaster's recipe. And what we really need to be thinking about is, you know, do we wanna move forward into, you know, a global market?

I think that, you know, these people don't wanna see more cannabis. Well, it's changed so much. I could only beg that they would, you know, open their minds and not be blinded by hate because of what has happened in the past. But, you know, the Valley Floor is a great spot to cultivate, but if they don't want it in their backyards, the mountain is an even better spot to cultivate. You know?

And it really comes down to what's gonna generate more revenue for our community. I think that we're all really kind of in business together, like, what happens when property values tank because nobody can sell their land because it's not worth anything? What happens when cannabis becomes legal nationwide and we're suddenly able to ship to other states genetics that nobody else has in a climate that's able to produce the top quality product above what Santa Barbara has, what Lake County has? We're really sitting on a gold mine here and we really just need to come together. I'm not trying to sling mud at the other side.

I just want them to see it our way. If they don't want plastic strung out across the land, I can understand that. Let's grow a native soil that adds a unique aspect to our crop. Or better yet, let's build engineered greenhouses, which raises the humidity and drops the amount of water the plants need and creates infrastructure that can be used to produce food for our community in in a crisis or even increase land values because you know we're gonna get reassessed for that. Man, I don't even really know what more to say.

I feel like I've spoken many times, and I just really hope the community can come together and keep an open mind and be pro cannabis and try and become the next Champagne region of France. And, I think that's about all I got to say.

Okay. Thank you. I do not have any additional hands raised online. If you're a caller on Zoom, you can use the star nine on your phone or the Zoom raise hand feature on the Zoom platform. And I do see that Anna from the economic development team has come in, and I would like her to just sort of explain the process. Cannabis is not the only economic development meeting that the county is hosting. So if you wouldn't mind, thank you for coming over.

Good morning. Anna Macken, Economic Development Division. We're hosting a series of economic development meetings by sector this year. Cannabis is the second in that series. There's about five that we'll be holding this year.

That's not to say these are the only five that we'll do. It's just the first ones that we have defined. And so for this meeting, it's getting a community understanding from the cannabis sector and specifically geared towards individuals working in or owning businesses in the cannabis sector of the current needs, challenges and opportunities at a local level. And we also look at this in terms of economic forces that are beyond the local level, too, but how that can inform actionable projects. And we are aware that policy and regulation plays a big part in this industry, but our division doesn't take that on as something that we will be spearheading.

We will take note of all of that and include it in our report, but this is looking at areas where we can collaborate and help. You know without we have feedback in the surveys, we have a pre meeting survey that went out so without kind of speaking to what I see as the community needs yet, how the department can align and help push forward initiatives coming from the community that they would like to see whether that's increased collaboration or marketing or support in Appalachians. So that's the intent for the meeting. It's tomorrow at the Willits City Hall Community Center. It begins at ten and we'll wrap up about 12:30.

So everyone's welcome.

That's it. And you. And all of the economic development sector meetings are really focused on the businesses, service providers, those types that are working in that particular economic development sector. However, they are you can view it. Anybody can answer the survey if they have concerns about a specific topic.

Absolutely. It's open to the public, but it's really geared towards the sector. And so for some of the sectors like with behavioral health, or we have one that's geared towards construction, home hardening, fire safe construction practices. And so that will also incorporate, you know, there's educational pipelines or workforce development you know agencies that are participating as well. We do have other you know agencies outside of cannabis that are interested in the sector meeting as well and have expressed their interest in being there and understanding too.

So yes, it is open to the public and anyone is open to take the survey, it is around creating collaboration within the sector itself.

Thank you for that. Thank you. And thank you very much for coming over and explaining that. And also just for the public to be clear, any member of the Board of Supervisors can add an agenda item at any time. So if there are specific items that you want the Board to take up, you can work with your Board member to talk about adding those items to the agenda. Are there any other members of the public that wish to come forward to comment on this topic? If you please could not shout out from the audience, but if you would like to come to the microphone or the podium, we're happy to hear your questions.

I'm Martha Barra again. And I do have a comment. I do want to laud Ian Powell and his staff for being organic. This is an area where I really think that we could stand out in Mendocino County. There's a huge growth in that segment, and we could become known for that.

As for marketing, it would be a wonderful attribute to add to the list of why we are special in Mendocino County. I have taken time to read the ordinance. It's convoluted. There are so many regulations there that there is no amount of money in planning and building that could possibly enforce the regulations as they now stand. I could definitely see work that needs to be done by staff in conjunction with the community as well as cannabis growers to make this more palatable, easier to enforce, bring in more revenue, it's not going to work as it is.

That's your challenge. Thank you. Thank you.

Chris Boyd again. My question relates to functioning as a committee. I guess you two are the actual members of the committee, but it seems to me like if we really wanted to work as a group with all the stakeholders and make progress, maybe we could sit around a big table and talk with less formality. I don't know if that's allowed under county rules, but I think that would be very productive. Thank you. Thank you.

Go ahead and come forward.

I'll make it quick again. I'm Kyle Greenhouse again. Just because I was cut off short, I wanted to bring my point that this is a we conversation, not a me conversation. And the reason why I bring up this 85% in the size of what I brought to scope here is that this isn't just about my acre, this is about our acre. This is about changing our ordinance and making a real change on how we can clearly move forward.

We need to be included as a whole county as we're seeing realtors stated before, we're seeing farms that shouldn't even be sold that are so well built that everybody is leaving to. These are other places to cultivate where they could actually get to where they're making money. So I implore you not only to just kind of look at the expansion but to actually create a new ordinance that allows us grow a canopy of at least an acre. And this is just on not just on ag, but this is on roll land too. Just like the speaker before, we were pushed back in the hills.

We were pushed back where it couldn't be seen. We were pushed back in these places. And historically, over the years through everybody, Rangeland, which is 85% of our community here, we need to get that out of our phase three process. I have been cultivating cannabis for twenty eight years. Twenty eight years of doing this. I've gone to dispensary for the last five years. I've failed so many freaking times at this. I've lost my ass. I've lost everything. I've failed completely. What Mendocino needs to realize is that they have failed too. They need to go back to the starting line, reorganize, and create a structure that's actually gonna make them money. Because I've had to do the same thing.

We have to pivot.

We have to do all do that same thing too. Mendocino, let's get it together, get new ordinance. Let's go. Thank you.

PIMENTEL Hello. I'm Pina Risiarbro.

I just wanted to dovetail a comment on what Martha Barr just mentioned. I asked for a map of all cannabis farms in my community, which is Redwood Valley, and I received a map that was showing me about 100 or more licensed cannabis farms in Redwood Valley. And out of those 100 plus cannabis farms in Redwood Valley, only two are CCOF certified. I know that some I just talked to Ian Powell are trying to get there, and I applaud him for it. And I think that is the way through this dilemma for Mendocino County and especially for Redwood Valley. Thank you for your time.

Thank you.

Thank you, Chair, for allowing us to dip a second time. Clearly, everybody wants to move forward. But I just want to say, in the meantime, do not let staff revise even a portion of our ordinance. It's a significant portion. But in the end, it may not mean too much.

Do not let staff take away authority of the Board and the public to amend an ordinance. Staff alone cannot do it, and that's what's happening right now. The public isn't fooled. After April, when this reinterpretation, which is what the staff called it initially, was presented to the General Government Committee, the public rose up and said, absolutely not. 10,000 square feet is what the ordinance says.

Whether we like it or not, that's what it says. And that came from editorials and newspapers, from the municipal advisory committees, from growers and non growers alike. It was clear that 10,000 square feet was the cap. So just on a technical process basis, I urge you to recommend to the Board that the Board make sure that that particular reinterpretation language invented by staff in secret does not now become inserted in the ordinance in an illegal fashion. Thank you. Thank you.

I just wanted to put a little context to everyone being on the same page as we move forward. The cannabis department used to present regularly at these meetings and that became unnecessary probably. However, in the most recent recap of their monthly reports dated 03/10/2025, the current number of both State annual and local licensees in the cannabis sector is two seventy one. That is not a huge number compared to where we started. In fact, it is minuscule compared to the thousands of cultivators who were in operation when Prop.

64 was passed. Indeed, the crisis of converting provisional licenses to State annual licenses has come and gone in terms of when the State will be stopping provisional licenses, which they did at the end of last year. As permittees come up for renewal in 2025, that is the time at the State level when a cannabis cultivator needs to convert from a provisional to an annual status. There may be another couple 100 who may convert during this year, but we have lost so many cultivators. I think that the county needs to take a very close look at their commitment to the sector that was significant here in the sense of not only the county's economy, but in the county's fame for the best cannabis on the planet.

There are reasons why I have suggested time year after year that we have a two parallel path permitting system, one for larger farms, one for the heritage level small 10,000 square foot farm. I really want to impress upon you that that is a potential solution for the county and that you consider it. It has been very difficult working with some staff because they want to wait until they are directed by the full Board. This was an answer to me regarding the issues of protecting the small cannabis original farmers that the Director of Planning and Building did not want to get into a facility's license change potential until she was so directed by the Board. We are in an endless loop.

So please, let's get together and figure out a way to move forward in a united front and not just go back and forth, as other speakers have also commented. Thank you.

Thank you. I do see one hand raised on Zoom. And if there is just maybe a couple of additional comments in the room. So just for reference, the Board of Supervisors meetings are not run quite like this. GGC is an opportunity for us to have a little bit more time. That's why this conversation was referred here. That's why I'm allowing a second comment, just to be clear, not likely going to happen at the Board of Supervisors meeting.

Liana Costa. Basically, the situation is that the growers are just drowning in debt and taxes here and we are not allowed to cultivate as much cannabis as we need to play on the regulated market and succeed. Right now you're killing our economy. The local economy is really bad, and we need to get past the fear mongering, and we need to figure out how to build successful cannabis businesses here in the County Of Mendocino.

Thank you. I will go online to Zoom and David A.

Thank you. Thanks for doubling up. Look, my final comment would be that this is, I am sure, going to go to the Board with your recommendation and it needs to be really clear that chair needs to recuse himself from this issue. He has too much of a personal relationship with the people that are, funding this threatened lawsuit over this issue, this nonexistent so called environmental center, that's threatening a lawsuit. These are personal friends of Cherry Hashtrax.

They've contributed to his campaigns in the past and possibly even helped run his campaigns. This cannot happen. This is a drastic conflict of interest on his part, and it needs to be really, clearly noted that he needs to recuse himself. And I'll definitely bring this to the full board also because it's really, really important that people stop, you know, this kind of nonsense, with with, you know, whatever it is, do a favor for a friend or, feel hopelessly trapped and compromised by the threat of a lawsuit against your county unless you, vote a certain way for your friends, it's an outrageous situation. I feel for chair Hashtag over it because he is in a hopelessly compromised situation, but he needs to recuse himself.

And I think this is really important for everybody to take note of. This is a really serious issue. And my final note would be, again, you know, there's no land use rights with these cannabis cultivation permits. They are rigorously examined by multiple agencies. Cannabis department does not have, you know, some giant leeway to let people have things a certain way.

These people have to get in line to, you know, to be rigorously stomped on by multiple agencies. It's like building a winery, not like planting a vineyard. So, you know, people talk about environmental concerns. Those concerns are addressed by the agencies that have regulatory power. And there are many, many of them. It is expensive. It is rigorous. And if people are going to jump through the hoops, that means they want to commit to a rigorous environmental standard. So let's not be fooled by the people who talk about, you know, the environment being, somehow at risk with this. There's a there's a minimal footprint, minimal impact.

And that's about all I'm going to say. Thank you very much.

Thank you. Okay. It looks like we have one additional comment, then I'd like to bring it back to the Board.

Okay. And thank you for allowing us extra time. It really means a lot. I just want to follow-up on a comment that

Corrine Use the microphone so we can hear you on

that Corrine Powell made about there being only a miniscule amount of legal farms. And I would applaud all those farms that have entered the legal process. I think what we're forgetting is that there's quadruple, even more illegal farms out there that really maybe need to be addressed more that are causing a lot of the problems that the legal farms are having. And I tried to take a look at the current budget that's been online for 'twenty four, 'twenty five, the proposed budgets. And I don't know if I'm reading it correctly, but there were a few things that I questioned.

There was $484,000 that said it was undesignated cannabis enforcement money, I believe. And I don't know why it's undesignated. And when I read further down in the sheets, I found line items for cannabis enforcement. And when I read over to the current years, last year and this year, I think, there's no amount at all. And that's very disconcerting, for residential areas like Redwood Valley. So I don't know if they just haven't come up with their budget completely yet or what, but that's something that concerns me and that you may want to look into. So that's my comment.

Thank you. There are a couple of different ways that cannabis enforcement happens. One of them is through the Sheriff's Office. One of them is through County Planning and Building Code enforcement, which would probably explain why there's a difference. But I'll look into it and get back to you. Okay. At this time, I would like to bring it back to the Board. Supervisor Norvell, do you

have any comments?

Yeah. Just a few. I have been following this process for a few years, and I think, especially after hearing from everybody today that a couple of things are for certain, that this has been a very long process. And I think most everybody's kind of burnt out on it. I think there's going to be a good opportunity on the eighth to make some decisions and hopefully put a lot of this to rest.

I do look forward to that meeting. I have taken to heart everything that everybody said here today. And I will go back and watch all of the meetings again that have led us to here. And thank you to everybody that showed up here today. I know it can be stressful when you're speaking publicly in opposition to your neighbors or even your friends. So I commend all of you for coming here today and speaking your peace.

Thank you. I appreciate that everybody came today, and I appreciate the thoughtful discussion on this issue because I think we were able to hear from both sides and sometimes folks that are in the middle. And at this point, I do think it is important that the full Board of Supervisors moves forward with a resolution and meaningful action on this issue, and I would encourage that the Board come to a decision on the April 8 meeting so that we can move forward. And with that, I think our clerk is going to make sure that the documents are received by the full Board. As I mentioned at the beginning of the meeting, every Board member has access to watch this meeting, and I would encourage them to do so before our April 8 meeting.

So with that, we'll move this item to the next full board meeting, April 8, for discussion and action. Do you need a motion, County Counsel?

I think just providing some clarity on what it is you're recommending to the Board or if it is that there isn't a recommendation, I think just being clear about what you're sending to the board would be helpful for the full board.

Okay. The recommended action remains the same: provide recommendations to the Board of Supervisors whether the limits of cannabis cultivation should be changed from what is currently permissible. So that is my recommendation and motion that we send this item back to the full Board to decide of whether or not the current limits are permissible. Supervisor Norveld?

I'm waiting for county council to ring in here.

I'll defer to the committee. It is your committee's recommendation.

Supervisor Nirbelle?

Yeah, I'm good with that. I'll second that.

Okay. The motion that will be moving forward to

the Board

is to take action on whether or not the limits of cannabis cultivation should be changed from what is currently permissible. So that is what will go to the full Board. Okay. DUMOULIN

So with that, we can move on to Item three. Thank you, everybody, for coming. We can move on to Item three.

SMITH.] JULIEN Chair [MEMBER Mulhern? Yes. Member Norvell? Yes. The motion carries unanimously. Thank you so much.

Okay, item 3A, approval of the minutes from the February. Supervisor Norvell?

I'm comfortable with the minutes. I move approval.

I'll second. And do we need a roll call then as well?

Yes. Member Norvell?

Yes.

Chair Mulhern? Yes. The motion carries unanimously.

Thank you. For GGC meetings, the public expression item is located at the end of the agenda. So at this time, I would invite public expression for any items that were not on the agenda.

Good morning, Hannah Nelson. Couple of things. First off, I'd like to make the committee aware of AB five sixty four, which was introduced by Assemblyman Haney. It is seeking to freeze the state cannabis excise taxes at its current level of 15% rather than have it go up, as is written into the law a few years ago, up to 19%. In Assemblyman Haney's comments and publications on his website, he specifically really called out the failure of the overburdened tax system, both at the state and local levels, to allow for an effective regulated market and allow those businesses to thrive, and therefore funneling more consumers to the illicit market because the prices have to be lower.

The Revenue and Taxation Committee and the Business and Professions Committee will be hearing the bill in April. Would request Origin's counsel is a cosponsor, along with Cal Normal and a bunch of other groups, on this bill. And I would request that this committee bring forth to the full Board a recommendation or at least discuss and possibly recommend support of that bill so that we have effective praising of the state taxes so we're not hindering the nascent industry further. Interestingly enough, in his kind of discussion of it, he said instead we should be looking at how we can support this industry, which has been barely given a chance to survive after legalization. And he also mentions you know, how the industry brings in scores of visitors and what an important economic driver that is.

And so that dovetails nicely into my looking forward to tomorrow's economic development meeting on the cannabis sector and thanking the Board for making this happen. You spoke earlier, Chair Mulhoren, about the mechanisms to bring additional items forward, including taxation items, because that is certainly something that I think should be looked at with the temporary reduction locally set to expire. And I think that it will be important to understand, and I will certainly ask this question tomorrow, but to keep the report from the economic development meeting on a timely fashion to come back. And I'm not sure if the idea was for that report to come back dovetailing with April 8 board meeting or if it's at some later juncture. But I encourage the pushing out of that information as soon as possible.

There was only a couple of weeks' notice for this economic development meeting, the details in terms of the time and the survey. And I just really encourage, if there is thoughtful and meaningful participation, that is encouraged that it be done as quickly as possible. Thank you.

Thank you. Are there any other members of the public that wish to comment on an item that was not on the agenda? Okay. Seeing none, are there any on Zoom? I also do not have any hands raised on Zoom. Okay. We will move on to announcements. Supervisor Norvell, do you have anything to announce? No. Okay. Neither do I. So with that, we will adjourn this meeting. Thank you.