One of the items we took up at this week’s Laytonville Area Municipal Advisory Council (LAMAC) meeting on June 26, dealt with more problems at the County’s Cannabis Department.
Our Council was asked to support efforts by folks who are concerned about Cannabis Department staffers action to “re-interpret” a provision in the failed Weed Ordinance.
Specifically the agenda put before the Council the following item: Discussion and Possible Action To Approve 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.”
Our council unanimously approved supporting both organizations’ positions.
I can tell you this, 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 goal is to re-write or amend, in whole or in part, provisions of the Cannabis Ordinance.
This has all the appearance and trappings of Cannabis Ordinance administration being an insider’s game played by staff and a self-selected few in the local cannabis industry.
What follows are excerpts from the statements from two organizations, who explain what the problem is why the Board of Supervisors need to take action to solve it.
According to the Willits Environmental Center, “At the April 24, 2024 General Government Committee meeting staff informed the Committee members that staff would be implementing a new interpretation of 10A.17 that would allow in some instances doubling the allowable size of cannabis cultivation areas. For example, instead of limiting a large outdoor grow to 10,000 sq ft per parcel, by applying this re-interpretation, a person could increase, even double, the size of the area of cultivation on a single parcel.
“Staff based this re-interpretation on what we believe to be a mis-reading of Section 10A.17.070(D), which is the section of the cannabis ordinance that addresses cannabis cultivation business license (CCBL) density, i.e. the number of licenses allowed per parcel - NOT cultivation area size, except to clarify that if license Type 4 (Nursery with a maximum size of 22,000 sq ft) is one of two license types being sought, the nursery footprint must be reduced such that the total square footage of both types does not exceed 22,000 sq ft, AND the cultivation area of the non-nursery license does not exceed the 10,000 sq ft maximum. (Limits to cultivation area size per license type and zoning district are clearly defined in Section 10A.17.060 and in Tables 1 and 2 of Section 20.242 of the County Code.)
“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.
“We respectfully request that the Board immediately reject this re-interpretation and inform the Mendocino Cannabis Department to immediately withdraw any public notice referring to the re-interpretation.”
In a similar vein, the Redwood Valley group stated, “We, Redwood Valley citizens, are alarmed and dismayed by concerns brought forward recently by members of the Willits Environmental Center regarding statements made during a recent General Government Committee meeting. It appears that the Mendocino County Cannabis Department staff may be allowing and implementing expansion of Cannabis grow areas in Mendocino County without due process, i.e., public input and ratification by you, the Board of Supervisors.
“In recent months, the County CEO’s office has been reporting that one of its goals is to provide greater transparency. Yet, here we go again. A statement made at the General Government Committee meeting made by staff was that they are reinterpreting the Cannabis Ordinance. The inference made by the Willits Environmental Center is that this will lead to expansion and could have significant impacts on neighbors and neighborhoods. Why did staff feel there was a need for a reinterpretation of the Cannabis Ordinance in the first place and on who’s authority was it approved, we ask? Supervisors Haschak and McGourty, who were present at the meeting, seemed to be out of the loop regarding this issue as well.
“Many of us among the public now feel we have to be constant watchdogs over County proceedings as we cannot trust that our government officials are following current laws on the books. We, Redwood Valley citizens, stand united with the Willits Environmental Center and believe this issue needs to be addressed with immediate attention. Then, followed up with transparency and proper public outreach and involvement.”
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 [by “re-interpretation”] 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.”
That’s one pig in a poke that won’t be bought anytime soon.
(Jim Shields is the Mendocino County Observer’s editor and publisher, observer@pacific.net, the long-time district manager of the Laytonville County Water District, and is also chairman of the Laytonville Area Municipal Advisory Council. Listen to his radio program “This and That” every Saturday at 12 noon on KPFN 105.1 FM, also streamed live: http://www.kpfn.org)
Be First to Comment