Commissioner Curry’s Swan Song

At last Tuesday’s meeting of the Supervisors, (former) Interim Ag Commissioner Diane Curry defended her department’s slo-mo handling of pot permits by essentially saying the process was and is just too complicated.

Curry made an uncharacteristically blunt and exasperated assessment of the convoluted pot permit process after which she found herself in an abbreviaated argument with Supervisor John McCowen, the Board’s Pot Permit Point Person. And, by late afternoon Diane Curry was no longer the Interim Ag Commissioner.

Curry: “I had an opportunity to go back and look at the recording of the last board meeting which I could not attend. Life happens. It was discouraging. I feel like I am always in front of you defending this program which I will remind you is the County's program. But here's a little reality check. State licensing is here. We have temporary licenses. If our cultivators cannot get a state license they don't have a local license. And in order to get a state license you need a Lake and Streambed Alteration permit from Fish and Wildlife or a statement that you don't need one. We have been instrumental in pushing our cultivators to get those documents because without them there is no state license. There is no state license without already going through the State Water Board to get the water right and your discharge permit. Again, we have been instrumental in pushing those cultivators to get those licenses. No state license, no local license. So I would say that myself and my staff have been on the ground vetting these properties. We have been working with the state resource agencies to come into a partnership so they are confident in our program. I have talked with Fish and Wildlife and they are happy with what we are doing. The vetting is going on. So I would ask the Board, what part of this process do you want for us to not do? Because this is really important. The state is giving temporary licenses. No fees, you just get one. You just apply. But when the rubber meets the road if they don't have all this documentation they are not getting a state license. And frankly you have a lot of people out there who are never going to make it. How are we going to vet them? So we get 100 people — we get their permit fees. What does that do for us if it's not sustainable? It's a false sense of, Oh, we got $600 from 800 or 900 cultivators. But if only 50% of those get through, if we are lucky… We have to do due diligence. The state agencies are looking at us. They want us to have a robust program, something with integrity. How do we not fulfill that by not fulfilling the ordinance? We prepared our ordnance based on state legislation. So what part of that can we just pick and choose to get these people permitted? I ask you?”

Supervisor McCowen: “I appreciate the newfound sense of urgency. But out of the 800-some applications submitted, how many have had their initial pre-site inspection?”

Curry: “Almost 500.”

McCowen: “And of the 500, how many have had their annual compliance checks?”

Curry: “They don't need their annual compliance check.”

McCowen: “That's part of the ordinance.”

Curry: “No, not until they have the permit.”

McCowen: “Exactly. So if you don't inspect them, they never get into the system, they never get permitted.”

Curry: “No…”

McCowen (interrupting): “I'm sorry. We are not going to agree. But you are saying, what part of the ordinance do we want you not to do? I would think you would prioritize your work so you could do the pre-site inspections. I believe that would be an important part of the process.”

Curry: “But again, we only have a total of maybe 150 approvals from Planning and Building. So still, those people are not going to get a permit yet. The annual inspection is tied to the issuance of a permit. We have a year. And the annual inspection also says that we will plan that inspection when we actually have plants in the ground, which we don't. We want to time those inspections so that we have mature plants so we can do the canopy survey. So we can actually get something that's accurate. … I don't have any control over Fish and Wildlife and when they are going to determine, when they submit, or when they are going to issue their Lake and Streambed alteration permit. According to my staff and Fish and Wildlife if a cultivator even submits that paperwork there is still a lot of back-and-forth with those agencies because they don't have enough information. So again, if we go back to our ordinance, it also said we wouldn't accept an application until cultivators had all of that. So basically if we would follow our ordnance we would have nobody in the program. Because there's about one person who has their final Lake and Streambed alteration permit. … I have been in touch with the state Ag Department and we have talked about those issues. Yes, I'm sure other counties are having that problem. When we are talking about Yolo, say, they only have 70 cultivators they are allowing. It's only a pilot program. But there, you are talking about an area that is not impacted by meeting Fish and Wildlife approval requirements in the statute. I have reached out to Senator McGuire telling him some of these issues. But in Mendocino County, because of the geography here, I would say that 90% or our applicants are going to need that.”

Supervisor Carre Brown: “1600 permits has always been a problem. Getting them in a timely manner is — It’s been a problem for the last 15 or 20 years. Certainly I was thinking of the other Ag commissioners.”

Curry: “I will tell you Supervisor Brown that most Ag commissioners do not want cannabis. So the majority of counties are not allowing cannabis. There’s only a handful of us. So when it comes to the Commissioners Association, we are kind of in the minority. It's not a priority for them for most of the commissioners because they don't want it.”

CEO Carmel Angelo, in her usual guarded fashion, clearly wanted to distance herself from the more blunt comments of Ms. Curry because they tended to imply that the County’s permit program was essentially unworkable.

Angelo: “I appreciate most of what the Ag Commissioner is saying to the board. But I think some of it is anecdotal. There is a lot of work and a lot of activity happening with cannabis. I am not an Ag commissioner. I hear what you're saying about statewide and the position of the Ag commissioners. I spoke to two Ag commissioners last week who support this cannabis. I only bring that up because I think that everything you are saying, we should form our own opinions. Our state representatives are interested and want to help our region get through this. We have had multiple meetings, we have had cannabis working groups, there is a lot happening. I think your update has probably gone far enough. I don't know that there is any more that needs to be added. Thank you.”

Angelo turned her mic off with a flourish and Ms. Curry was finished.

The discussion then devolved into a general discussion of state agencies and representatives and legislative options on a whole host of separate pot related problems that the County wants to ask the state to consider, one by one by one. Which actaully seemed to confirm the kinds of problems Ms. Curry was talking about.

Supervisor John McCowen later asked CEO Carmel Angelo for an update on the flagging cannabis program and the so-far slow progress of getting permits through the system:

McCOWEN: “At a previous meeting we had discussed and I believe we have given direction for the Executive Office to work with our Code Enforcement Manager, Trent Taylor, to see if we could come up with a work plan to expedite the approval process for the cannabis cultivation applications. I would like to ask if we have an update on that. Where are we?”

CEO ANGELO: “I have an update. Yes. Trent Taylor and I have met, right after the [last] board meeting. He has a strategy as you know. We have shared our information from LACO [an engineering consulting contractor with offices in Ukiah and other NorCal cities] which basically was a review of our process. Mr. Taylor has that. We will be meeting. Him and I will be meeting with the Ag Department soon. We do believe that based on this board's directions that Mr. Taylor will be putting together and implementing a strategy to assist us with getting the permits done quicker. I see that happening. Our first round of interviews for the cannabis manager will be Tuesday, February 13. I previously told this board we had 41 applicants for the position. We have screened it down to the top 10. We will be doing the first round of interviews on the 13th and we will be doing a second round once we get it down to three or four people. So with the Cannabis Manager position being filled and Mr. Taylor's efforts on streamlining and assisting with the permitting process this board should see some improvements.”

BOARD CHAIR Dan Hamburg: “Very good!”

(NOTHING FROM McCowen or anyone else…)

* * *

SO THERE YOU HAVE IT. The answer to what’s being done to expedite the pot permits is: We’re working on it. We shared, we met, we met some more, we believe, we’re interviewing, we will be putting together, we’re screening, and we should see some improvements! And it’s all “very good!”

AS LONG AS THAT kind of non-response not only passes without follow-up or comment or question, but is simply declared “very good,” there’s not going to be much improvement and it won’t be soon.

IN THE AFTERNOON, the board went into closed session and came out around 5pm with the announcement that they had hired Joe Moreo of Modoc County as the next Pot Fall Guy, er, Ag Commissioner.