The Mendocino County Board of Supervisors denied a proposal to designate a Redwood Valley neighborhood a cannabis prohibition zone by a narrow margin on Tuesday.
But in light of residents’ complaints about how much their quality of life is degraded due to cannabis, supervisors also voted unanimously to direct Code Enforcement to assign all available resources to the neighborhood.
County code allows the creation of small-scale specialty zoning districts where cannabis cultivation is prohibited, even if the area’s original zoning allows it. At least 60% of the property owners in the proposed prohibition zone have to sign a petition supporting the effort. There are currently two prohibition zones in the county. But Kali Perkins, an attorney representing two growers who would have been shut down if the zone were approved, said times have changed. “When you look at the two prior CP (Cannabis Prohibition) zones that were passed, it’s a much different scenario,” she told the Board. There were no permitted grows in those neighborhoods at the time the prohibition was approved. She insisted that, “Here, it’s a much different situation, where permits exist and operate in compliance with all laws and regulations…This would amount to a taking without just compensation. Further, the creation of a CP zone here also runs contrary to other established farming rights on these ag zoned parcels, which was not a factor when the other zones were considered.”
In Redwood Valley, a grower named Ruben Ruiz and his wife are growing legally on two rented agricultural parcels. Over the course of six years, Ruiz has amassed enough documents pertaining to licensure that confusion arose as to whether he would have had to stop growing immediately or within three years if the prohibition zone had been approved. Anarbol Lopez, who is not currently growing, is scheduled to have his permit reviewed this week and could have it in hand within a month or so, according to the cannabis department. Theirs were the only sites that would have been affected by the new zone, which was surrounded by seven other permitted grows. Four of the grows on the other side of the proposed zone were right up against the boundary. According to an aerial map, hoop houses abound on all sides of the border.
The cannabis applicants and their supporters said the map was a clear example of racist gerrymandering and redlining. They also pointed to remarks in correspondence and the comment sections of news articles, characterizing them as cartel growers. This led supporters of the prohibition zone to boo loudly, claim they were offended, and declare they didn’t know the race of the growers who would have been put out of business when they signed the petition. Frances Owen, one of the neighbors who presented on behalf of prohibition, took exception to accusations of racism, saying her maiden name is Cisneros and she herself grew up being subjected to racial slurs.
Neighbors also objected to the presence of hoop houses, saying they spoil the view of the vineyards and that the smell of cannabis is obnoxious. Some worried that they could be the targets of home invasions, and blamed cannabis farms for the poor condition of the roads. They worried about heavy water use, citing Redwood Valley’s seasonal water restrictions.
Christine Boyd said she voted for cannabis legalization, but laid out her reasons for supporting the prohibition zone. “The fact that we don’t feel that we are having a say in our community, that is a taking, too,” she asserted. And she didn’t dispute the opposition’s declaration that fear was a factor in the desire to prohibit cultivation in the neighborhood, asking, “What is the fear about? It’s not only fear of losing our property values, but the noise, the odor, the speeding traffic, the dust, the rutted roads, presence of strangers, and it’s often said that legal grows are not responsible for this. It’s only the illegal grows. But the fact of the matter is that illegal grows and legal grows attract the same kind of criminal activity.”
Scott Ward, a cannabis consultant who lives in Redwood Valley near Lions Park, said property zoned for agriculture is the right place for cannabis. “The concerns I hear are anecdotal,” he said. “They can be addressed by the sheriff, Code Enforcement or the cannabis department, rather than prohibition.” As for hoop houses, he declared, “You can get white greenhouses or white hoop houses all you want for vegetables or strawberries. You can’t make regulation based on aesthetics unless you’re an HOA.”
But Supervisor Dan Gjerde was sympathetic to supporters of the prohibition zone, saying that a person’s home is usually their most valuable asset. “These are large ag parcels immediately adjacent — not two or three parcels over, but immediately adjacent to small residential parcels,” he noted. “It probably wasn’t surprising that it got a reaction.” As for the demographics of the two sides of the controversy, Gjerde observed that, “There were the two applicants who I assume live there, I don’t know for sure, but other than that, everybody who identified themselves from the proposed area were speaking in favor of this proposal. We heard an awful lot of people in the cannabis industry who this Board honestly hears from all the time on every cannabis issue, and who don’t live necessarily in this neighborhood.”
But Williams, who proposed the enhanced Code Enforcement presence in Redwood Valley, said he suspects that residents in Anderson Valley outnumber wine grape growers too, asking, “What if they get together and retroactively ask us to remove the right to grow grapes?” He added that he was unwilling to remove a property right.
Gjerde and Supervisor Glenn McGourty sided with the neighbors asking for the prohibition zone. Supervisor John Haschak said that in light of all the other grows surrounding the proposed zone, he didn’t think it would cut down on the source of neighbors’ complaints. “I’m going to vote no on this,” he said. “Because I think that if we’re going to have economic development in this county and we’re going to provide industry with clear, set goals, then we can’t be doing this to people who have gone through the process.”
Supervisor Maureen Mulheren thanked everyone for voicing their opinions before sharing her own perspective. “I don’t believe that cannabis prohibition zones are an appropriate way to regulate small businesses,” she declared; “especially because previous Boards of Supervisors have tried to regulate cannabis cultivation out of the hills and into ag land, and I think this sets a precedent that any operator in ag land, which is appropriate now, would be potentially held at the whim of neighbors that may or may not like them, for valid or invalid reasons. So I’m a no.” When it comes to business and mind-altering substances, she added, “I support all types of businesses, and that includes cannabis businesses and vineyards. And if you’re anti-drug culture, then that should include alcohol, because alcohol is a drug.”
The denial barely passed. But McGourty expressed the whole board’s feeling about cleaning up illegal grows in Redwood Valley. “There's people who feel like they’re being injured by the cannabis industry in Redwood Valley,” he concluded. “And we really need to find out who is causing the problem.”