This past Tuesday, February 11, the Board of Supervisors once again took up the issue of a so-called “re-interpretation” by Cannabis Department staff of a provision in the Weed Ordinance that restricts cultivation areas to a maximum of 10,000 square-feet. According to the un-elected bureaucrats, none of whom by the way were involved with the drafting and final approval of the ordinance, the 10,000 square-foot cap can actually be doubled. The only problem with that development is there is no language in the ordinance to support it.
This issue has been hanging fire now for 10 months.
At Tuesday’s meeting, instead of Supervisors taking direct action re-affirming their vote on September 10, 2024, where they directed staff “to draft language to maintain the original intent of Mendocino County Code section 10.A.17.070(D) and limit it to one 10,000 square foot cultivation site per parcel for mature plants …”, they instead voted 3-2 (Ted Williams, Mo Mulheren, opposed) to refer the “Cannabis Cultivation Limits to the General Government Committee.”
Their refusal to make a final decision on this matter is disappointing, to say the least.
I can tell you as someone who held elective office for many years, the last eight as president of an international labor union representing airline employees in both the U.S. and Canada (try keeping that multiple mix of peoples and geographic regions and countries happy), I never once dodged a vote for any reason.
Once the deliberative process is completed, you owe it to your constituents to make a decision.
I’ve always believed the worst characteristic, aside from dishonesty and crookedness, in an elected official is indecisiveness.
As I’ve said many times, this County has spent more time (10 years and still counting) and money (untold millions of dollars) on this pot issue. Even the county agrees with that assessment. Problems just don’t happen, people make them happen. Yet here we are today dealing with another in a long line of cannabis problems caused by people (the Supervisors and their staff) whose job, Numero Uno, is to solve problems.
What follows is a letter I sent to the BOS for Tuesday’s meeting. It provides useful detail and background on this issue.
To: Mendocino County Board of Supervisors
Subject: 4b) Discussion and Possible Action Including Referral of Cannabis Cultivation Limits to the General Government Committee
Dear Chair Haschak,
As you are aware, at our Town Council (Laytonville Area Municipal Advisory Council) meeting on Jan. 22nd, we voted unanimously to support the following proposed action on our agenda:
“D.3. Discussion And Possible Action To Approve Request To The Mendocino County Board Of Supervisors To Place On The Agenda, As Soon As Possible, The Following Item: ‘Discussion And Possible Action To Approve That Pursuant To The County’s Cannabis Ordinance, The Maximum Area Of Cultivation Has Always Been And Remains To Be 10,000 Square Feet Per Legal Parcel, Without Any Exceptions.’
Our Council was asked to support efforts by folks who are concerned about Cannabis Department staffers action to “re-interpret” a provision in the Cannabis Ordinance.
The effect of this new “clarification” is that it would double the existing cultivation area, which has always been 10,000 square feet. There is absolutely no authority under existing law or the Mendocino County Cannabis Ordinance for anyone, including County staff, administrators, or the Supervisors to “reinterpret” where the result is to re-write or amend, in whole or in part, provisions of the Cannabis Ordinance. Such changes would have to be accomplished by the Supes taking formal action at a public meeting.
For purposes of providing relevant background on this issue, I have prepared the following timeline of events and actions.
Expansion Re-Interpretation Timeline
On June 27, Supervisor Dan Gjerde sent a memo to Steve Dunnicliff, Deputy Chief Executive Officer, who evidently now oversees the Cannabis Department. It’s Dunnicliff’s position that the so-called “re-interpretation” of the disputed ordinance provision is compliant with the existing ordinance. In a June 27 memo, Dunnicliff explains, “I am reaching out to provide clarity regarding cannabis density rules. The attached procedure was implemented on April 25, 2024. It is based on the express terms of the County’s Cannabis Cultivation Ordinance and does not involve any expansion of or require any amendment of the ordinance.”
Responding to Dunnicliff’s memo, Gjerde asks, “Can supervisors receive an opinion from the County Counsel's Office confirming County Counsel believes this new interpretation of County Code is consistent with State law and County Code? The memo is not signed by County Counsel.”
Gjerde also gets to the crux of the dispute when he says, “Mendocino Planning and Building Department has a long history of preparing memos on planning matters. My understanding is the purpose of such memos is to insure consistency in how department personnel apply County Code. The new interpretation of County Code, as outlined in this memo, appears to me to go beyond scope of PBS memos, at least as I understand their purpose and scope. For me, the memo does not appear to be consistent with County Code, or what I believe was the understanding of board members or the public at the time of code adoption. What is the process for this memo to be agendized for discussion at a board meeting in July? I would like to see this item on a board of supervisors agenda, where these issues can be addressed.”
This is another example of County officials creating a problem where none existed before.
What is left unanswered at this juncture is what or who prompted Mr. Dunnicliff and the Cannabis Department to take it upon themselves to rewrite and amend an ordinance under the clumsy guise of a “re-interpretation.”
This whole issue of expansion was resolved without question several years ago when the people of this county massively supported referendums to repeal a Board of Supervisors’ proposed ordinance to expand cultivation grow areas.
You should also know that at our June 26, 2024 meeting, our Council unanimously approved the following action:
“The Council Hereby Approves Support For The May 9, 2024 Letter From The Willits Environmental Center To The Board of Supervisors Re: “Re-Interpretation” By Staff of Section 10A.17.060 Of The Cannabis Ordinance, as well as the June 2024 Petition/Statement By The Concerned Redwood Valley Citizens (CRVC) Regarding The So-Called “Re-Interpretation.”
At our August 28, 2024 meeting, the Laytonville Area Municipal Advisory Council (LAMAC) unanimously approved and endorsed a letter from Ms. Traci Pellar regarding the so-called “Cannabis Reinterpretation” issue. We urge the Board to reject this “backdoor” attempt to circumvent an unambiguous provision in the Ordinance. There is absolutely no authority under existing law or the Mendocino County Cannabis Ordinance for anyone, including County staff, administrators, or the Supervisors to “reinterpret”, in whole or in part, provisions of the Cannabis Ordinance. It’s widely accepted by constituents that such action gives the appearance of Cannabis Ordinance administration being an insider’s game played by staff and a self-selected few in the local cannabis industry.
We agree with the Willis Environmental Center: “This “re-interpretation” turns seven years of understanding on its head and dramatically alters a fundamental tenant of the ordinance and the underlying justifications of its Mitigated Negative Declaration — and all without any public process. Less than two years ago, citizens of Mendocino County mounted a referendum against adopting a new cannabis ordinance that would have allowed just the kind of expansion that this re-interpretation would now make possible.”
On Oct. 22, 2024 at a another BOS meeting where the so-called “expansion re-interpretation” issue was discussed, Supervisors John Haschak and Dan Gjerde opposed it, saying the provision cited by the Cannabis Department has been in effect for years, and everyone understood that grows were limited to 10,000 sq. ft., and it did not become an issue until new Cannabis Department staff raised it in April 2024.
Haschak and Gjerde had it right a hundred percent.
So, again, the question is, why are some of the Supervisors and their un-elected staff, attempting to ignore overwhelming opposition of the people of this county to cultivation expansion?
Elected officials are supposed to carry out the wishes/demands of clear majorities of constituents.
It’s not the Supervisor’s job to substitute their judgment for that of their constituents when those constituents overwhelmingly demand a different course of action than that contemplated by staff of the Supervisors.
We urge the Board of Supervisors to reject in whole this proposed re-interpretation of Section 10A.17.060.
Thank you for taking this matter under consideration.
Respectfully,
Jim Shields
Chair
Laytonville Area Municipal Advisory Council
(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