BROADCASTS.com

b'April 21, 2021 \\u2014 At an inconclusive eleven and a half hour meeting this week, the Board of Supervisors agreed 4-1 to allow cannabis expansion on parcels meeting a narrowly defined set of requirements. And, with the drought expected to be in full swing by the time the season begins, growers under the new ordinance will not be getting plants in the ground this year.\\nThe ordinance was not fully hammered out on Monday night. Supervisors heard more than six hours of public comment and ended the meeting after dinner by going over a ten-point memo submitted by Supervisor Glenn McGourty. Most of the recommendations by the Planning Commission were left for another meeting next week, when the board will also hold a hearing on cannabis facilities.\\nOn Monday, supervisors tackled the issue that\\u2019s come to define the phase III debate in the final hour of the meeting. Prior to the meeting, local environmentalists and Supervisor John Haschak sponsored a poster that flew around the internet, urging residents to \\u201csay no to big grow\\u201d and stating that the proposed land use ordinance \\u201cputs profits over people, wildlife, public safety and the environment.\\u201d Last week, scientists from the California Department of Fish and Wildlife said that site-specific review does not begin to address the cumulative impacts of cannabis grows. But photos accompanying the scientific presentation showed egregious violations of any ordinance. Supervisors resolved to address growing frustration with the lack of enforcement by directing staff to write a new enforcement procedure in line with that of Humboldt County, which relies on real-time aerial surveillance, hefty fines, and property liens.\\nStill, a lack of confidence in the county\\u2019s ability to carry out a detailed policy characterized much of this week\\u2019s debate. Callers invoked the failure of Measure AF, the so-called heritage initiative of 2016, and some floated the possibility of another initiative to overturn the supervisors\\u2019 decision if it was unpopular. And employees of at least one legal cannabis company called in during working hours to urge the board to allow the 10% expansion, praising their employer for treating them fairly and paying them well.'