Meeting Time: September 10, 2024 at 9:00am PDT

Agenda Item

4f) Discussion and Possible Action Including Direction to Staff Regarding Cannabis Density Allowed in Mendocino County Code Section 10A.17.070(D) (Sponsor: Supervisor Haschak)

   Oppose     Neutral     Support    
50000 of 50000 characters remaining
  • Default_avatar
    Ian Powell 27 days ago

    Dear Members of the Board,

    Expanding the allowable cultivation area from 10,000 square feet to one acre (approximately 43,560 square feet) for Mendocino County farms could provide several economic and operational benefits:

    1. Economies of Scale

    Allowing cultivation on one acre instead of being restricted to 10,000 square feet would enable farmers to achieve economies of scale. With more space, farms can increase their production capacity, which can help lower the cost per unit of cannabis produced. This would allow local farms to become more competitive, both in terms of pricing and operational efficiency, especially as the cannabis market becomes increasingly saturated with larger-scale operations from other regions.

    2. Increased Revenue Potential

    A larger cultivation area would allow farms to grow more cannabis per season, directly increasing their potential revenue. For smaller farmers, this opportunity to scale up could be vital in maintaining profitability in a market where prices can fluctuate, particularly as competition grows. More plants per acre mean higher yields, providing an opportunity for increased income without needing to expand labor costs significantly.

    3. Improved Crop Rotation and Soil Health

    One acre of cultivation space provides flexibility in crop rotation, allowing for more effective soil management. Farmers can allocate different sections of the acre for different growth cycles, resting some areas while using others, which leads to better long-term soil health. This sustainable farming practice would be more challenging on smaller plots like 10,000 square feet, where space is limited, making it harder to rotate crops without affecting overall production.

    4. Diversification of Cannabis Products

    With more cultivation space, farmers could diversify their crop varieties, growing multiple strains of cannabis that cater to different market demands, such as CBD-rich strains, higher-THC varieties, or specialized boutique cannabis. This ability to diversify provides farms with more flexibility to respond to consumer trends, stabilizing income streams in fluctuating markets and appealing to a broader range of buyers.

    5. Environmental Benefits

    Expanding the cultivation area per farm may reduce environmental strain by spreading out the plants more naturally, allowing better water infiltration, healthier root systems, and more efficient use of resources like sunlight. A larger area enables more sustainable farming practices, such as permaculture or integrated pest management, which would be harder to implement in a smaller space. Additionally, the extra space allows for more efficient irrigation and water management techniques that can reduce overall water usage.

    6. Retention of Local Jobs

    With an increase in cultivation area, farms may require more labor for planting, maintaining, and harvesting crops, which could help create and sustain local jobs. Additionally, as farms expand their operations, there may be more opportunities for specialized labor, such as roles in cultivation management, marketing, and distribution, further boosting the local economy.

    7. Reducing Regulatory Pressure

    For many smaller farmers, the administrative and regulatory costs of maintaining a legal cannabis operation are significant. Being limited to 10,000 square feet often places farms in a precarious position where they may not be able to generate enough revenue to cover the high costs associated with compliance, including testing, security, and tax obligations. Expanding to one acre would allow farms to generate more revenue, making it easier to comply with regulations and avoid being squeezed out by larger operations.

    8. Competitiveness in the Broader Market

    As larger states like California move toward industrial-scale cannabis farming, Mendocino County’s traditional smaller farms need space to compete. By allowing them to cultivate on one acre, these local farms can produce at a scale that lets them enter the broader market while still maintaining the high-quality, craft cannabis reputation that Mendocino is known for. This balance between quality and quantity can help the region maintain a strong foothold in an increasingly competitive market.

    In summary, expanding cultivation space from 10,000 square feet to one acre can provide Mendocino County farmers with the ability to increase production, diversify their offerings, manage resources more sustainably, and maintain economic viability. These benefits will support not just the farms themselves, but also the local economy, as increased production leads to more jobs, higher revenues, and greater resilience in the face of market pressures.

    Thank you,

    Ian Powell
    Mendocino Grasslands, Ukiah

  • Default_avatar
    Stuart Marcus 28 days ago

    It is difficult to comprehend opposition to this simple concept. Most other crops do not have these over reactive regulations.
    This is not a proposal for expansion, it is a proposal for increased flexibility and reduction of overly redundant regulations.
    Mendocino County already has one of the smallest cultivation sizes for this crop which has made sustainability nearly impossible.
    This is regarding legal and regulated cultivation and these type of counter productive regulations stifle the wrong actors.

  • Default_avatar
    Timothy Frost 28 days ago

    Dear Members of the board,
    In the current market there is almost no way to survive without being able to expand and grow more product. The current market price is less then the cost of production. The only way many of us will be able to stay in operation is to be able to grow more canopy. I'm am fully in support of allowing another 10000 sqft. Of canopy. This is the only way we can stay in operation as small farmers. I currently employ 8 pepole and if we can't expand I'm going to have to let over half of them go just to keep the lights on. That's 4 family's that will suffer. With a expansion I would be able to keep my employees on and bring in more work and employees from the local area providing much needed jobs in the community.
    Thank you for your time and consideration,
    Tim Frost

  • 8592702194106334
    Sheila Jenkins 29 days ago

    Dear Members of the Board

    I have to question why a staff reinterpretation of our cannabis ordinance would be allowed where that interpretation expands potential impacts significantly beyond what was considered at the time of the adoption of the Ordinance. It would potentially double the negative environmental impacts which is cause for much concern amongst many of your constituents.

    I also want to point out that this new interpretation of the ordinance clashes with the existing understanding of our ordinance, not just with the public’s knowledge (hence the outcry), but with county staff, as well. Historically, the permissible size descriptions have been: 2500, 5000, and 10,000 s.f. in our ordinance and staff documents.

    And while a person could obtain 2 permits on a parcel the total square foot was not to exceed the maximum allowed for their zoning district. An example given was as follows:

    “Pursuant to Board direction, this paragraph now also allows 2 permits to be on the same parcel so long as the total square footage of the 2 permits does not exceed the largest maximum square footage permitted on a parcel in that zoning district. For example, a person could obtain two 5,000 square foot permits in a zoning district that allowed a person to obtain a single 10,000 permit.”

    I believe that if all interested parties wished to allow two permits for mature canopy totaling 20,000 s.f. there would be language to support this allowance. I cannot find such language in our ordinance.

    And given that cannabis farming has historically been controversial and a source of many complaints involving negative impacts on neighborhoods which included criminal activity and the threat of violence, it would seem prudent to take a more conservative approach at this time.

    Also, it should be considered that the communities who have sought to prohibit this activity by establishing exclusionary zones have been denied approval even though grouping high-impact activities to reduce conflicts is an important planning concept.

    The optics of denying our community's desires to protect our properties while at the same time expanding this often obnoxious activity is controversial. And as you know, we are still in need of more law enforcement and transparency in our governance. So, I urge you to support the majority of your constituency and deny the adoption of this “re-interpretation” of our cannabis ordinance.
    Sincerely,
    Sheila Jenkins
    Willits

  • Default_avatar
    Tekla Broz 29 days ago

    I am writing to support the letter written by Traci Pellar and Mendocino Producers Guild in opposition to this proposed direction to staff. I would like to remind you of the fact that allowing two parcels to have two 10000 is DIFFERENT and LESS than two 10000 on one parcel. The environmental groups who fought this in 2019 are still out there and I am pretty sure they can do the math too. You may recall the BALLOT measure that slapped back expansion. The People and farmers of Mendocino County have already spoken clearly on this matter. This opens the door for anyone with the money to rake open TWICE as much acreage as the current Ordinance allows. In addition, the confusion caused by this reinterpretation could slow the EIR decision from the State, with fatal results for many farms.

    I am surprised and shocked that you would bring this back AGAIN, when the opposition to it has been so clear. Obviously money is speaking louder than history here.

    But ok, if this is the Mad Max path to the future, then we, the small farmers, want direct sales and shipping. You, (our advocates) MUST help us advocate to be let out of the financially draining massive structure between us and our customers. We do not grow Midlands weed. We grow the best of the best of the best, have done so for generations and deserve consideration. It’s a separate but entirely relevant issue.

    At some point , California and the cannabis industry will need to come to grips with the fact you all are killing the golden goose that gave birth to you all. The legacy farmers will be gone and corporate weed will be all that's left. Signed, Tekla Broz, North Fork Garden Society, Covelo

  • 10233373276542378
    Kelly Hubbard 29 days ago

    Dear Mendocino County Supervisors.

    With common prices below $400 per LB for full size hi grade flower, the only way our small farms can possibly survive the market, we must be allowed to produce more.
    The math is clear. With two harvest per year, 10,000 sf canopy will produce up to an annual total of 1000 lbs of flower. 1000 lbs has a top line revenue of $400,000. With only 2 to 4 farm employees , metric managment, legal fees, outside temp labor to handle harvest and processing, vehicles , fuel , equipment depreciation, distribution costs, and let’s not forget occasional crop failures or unforeseen difficulties, our cost to operate comes in over $500,000 per year.
    This indicates that we need more canopy to keep up with the costs of operating. We either grant more space or we all go out of business and say goodbye to this industry. Goodbye to any tax revenue. Goodbye to all the hard work the farmers and the county have invested over the past 7 years.
    Our competitors in lake county are working with 20 acre plus canopy. The sky is not falling in lake county.
    We need as much canopy as possible in order to have any shot at survival. Please allow for more canopy. An additional 10,000 sf canopy will give us the possibility to make it through this bare market.
    Please allow us to work with more canopy. This is the do or die moment we have all become too familiar with.

    Kelly Mayhugh
    Mendocino Mountain Farms

  • Default_avatar
    Josh Artman 29 days ago

    Dear BOS, I approve of this message.
      I strongly support the (re-interpretation) of the current ordinance.  We moved here 10+ years ago because Mendocino was the leader in cannabis regulation with 25 plants and sadly now we have codified so many restrictions and fees it has become increasingly more difficult to operate.  I understand the severe mis-step of being the "first" to do anything during the infancy of a new industry, and my businesses and Mendocino County have suffered severely because of that.  Our ordinance now allows us to cultivate less than a quarter of what the state law allows at 1 acre, while other counties use the loophole of license stacking such as Lake, Salinas, Yolo, and Santa Barbara counties that have 20,30, and 50+ acre farms.  Mendocino County and some of my friends are wasting good energy on further handicapping our ability to compete on scale.  The market is crashing.  We had to let go all of our employees and we just can't do it all ourselves.  As the price of cannabis approaches the cost of production we have razor thin margins and can't make a profit being hand-cuffed to less than 25% of the what the state allows at 1 acre.  The extinction is event is NOW. I am an environmental scientist, I worked as a hydrologist for the USGS, my 1/4 acre cultivation site that we're hoping by some re-interpretation of the current county code that we can grow half of what the state allows. This should be an old conversation we're having but unfortunately, it's 2024.  We're well behind the curve.  The idea that craft cannabis and farmers markets is 10,000 sq ft (for all of us) and will save us have been unfortunately proven wrong.  It's akin to allowing Mendocino County businesses to only be  open for 2 hrs (<25%) out of every 8 hr business day and we're only asking to be allowed 4 hrs without a code change.  The Salinas and Santa Barberas are open 24 hours of business.  I'm not advocating for us to be like those counties because I do appreciate and believe in small farms and craft cannabis but my understanding of what that is ""has changed"".  When the cost per lb is just above the cost of our production the only thing we can survive on is scale.  10,000 feet doesn't cut it.  I love the idea of small farms, artisanal hand crafted cannabis, that is what I am and we collectively have so many understandings of that.  The definition of a small farm has changed over the last 5 years from what we thought that was a 1/4 acre to more than 1 acre.  The unpopular truth is if you have to to use a bulldozer to make a flat spot for where a plant can grow and cut ponderosa and doug firs you probably shouldn't be able to grow a few acres, ZONING DOES MATTER, if you're on AG land where industry grows plants commercially that should be fast tracked. My LSA was EXEMPT.  I didn't have to pay 50k for it, which is a joke and tragically what my friends had to do, ...what are we doing??  I grow cannabis where cannabis should be grown, on a highway, in a large field with unlimited water with no slope and no waterways.  If someone chooses to stay small, more power to them that is their choice they don't have to make my choice for me.  I knew where this industry was going.  Its not a closed loop.  We compete with the other counties and the distros I talk to think Mendocino is a joke because we're arguing whether a 1/2 acre should be allowed.  My carbon footprint is negligible.  9/10 Farms in Mendocino county are ILLEGAL and UNLICENSED so let's not spend any time on making it any more challenging for the few of us with licenses when A FAR LARGER POSITIVE consequence for our "war on drugs" mentality could be ... sending letters out to everyone growing without a license.  Cease and desist or pay a fine.  PLEASE GIVE ME A TROPHY, atleast a high 5 every time I pay my true-up, on product I didn't sell and taxes on taxes.  I'm a farmer, I'm a scientist, I have a family,...I'm data driven, I would love to hear a good argument based on facts why we haven't expanded our cultivation.  We're self-sabotaging and putting ourselves out of business- infighting - when our energy should be on unlicensed grows and not handi-capping the few of us with licenses.  We can all have a place at the table, I just know from basic economics that none of us will last if we can't expand to atleast what's fair which is what the state allows, but here we're only asking for half that.  It's a tragic fight we're having at my families and the counties expense but hopefully enough voices of reasons can persuade the BOS to approve this measure as a small step towards redemption.  Have you looked at all the commercial space available and houses for sale lately, oh my goodess.  We need help.  Basic math won't allow us to stay in business at a 1/4 acre, a half acre is a small step in the right direction.  It is unfair this will only be afforded to those with a nursery permit and the rest of us have to re-apply with yet another license and not until the state passes our county wide EIR which if they don't this ENTIRE CONVERSATION will be moot because everything that we have been building for 15 years will be wasted because of our ability to do bare minimum regulatory compliance for the state. Also the fact I can only add a 1/4 acre of a different license is DUMB.  I'm not building a 1/4 acre of greenhouses for my outdoor it has to be vice versa and I shouldn't have to choose.  We're asking for you to allow for a less than ideal or fair re-interpretation of the law as a band-aid to keep us in business a little while longer so we can fight for a little more acreage in the future and what the REVISED DEFINITION of a SMALL FARM really is.  The fact we have to do an EIR, something reserved for malls, gas stations and power plants for each of the 1/4 acre postage stamps is another conversation for another day and just another non-sensical hurdle for a day in the life of a cannabis grower in the most regulated state in the most regulated county in the country.  I keep my family here because I BELIEVE IN US and that WE ALL HAVE A PLACE and we can use our energy on 90% of the problem, the unlicensed grows of Mendocino, which would have a far greater impact on achieving ALL OF OUR GOALS of having a good and fair regulated industry including cottage farms and saving the environment.  If anyone wants to talk about this including the BOS I would love to donate my time to finding real workable answers and not shooting ourselves in the feet. Please approve of this re-interpretation and I thank you for your time reading my heartfelt commentary.j GOD SPEED

  • Default_avatar
    Kate Marianchild 29 days ago

    September 9, 2024
    To: Mendocino County Board of Supervisors
    Low Gap Rd
    Ukiah, CA 95482

    Re: 10A.17: limit on cannabis grow sizes

    Dear Board Members:

    As one of the organizers of the successful referendum on the cannabis expansion ordinance adopted by county supervisors in June of 2021, I am shocked and dismayed by county’ staff’s attempt to increase cannabis grow size limits without any notice to the public and apparently without doing their due diligence.

    If staff members had carefully examined county records regarding the provisions of County Ordinance 10A.17, they would have realized that the stated intent of the ordinance was to restrict grow sites 10,000 square feet per permitted parcel. They would also have found proof that 10,000 square feet was universally understood by cannabis cultivators and the public alike to be the upper size limit for grow sites.

    Please do your own due diligence in analyzing and questioning proposals made by county staff, including this one, and please make transparency with the public a high priority in every decision you make.

    Sincerely,

    Kate Marianchild

  • Default_avatar
    Joshua Keats 29 days ago

    September 9, 2024

    Honorable Board of Supervisors,

    I am writing in regard to agenda item 4f in favor of the reinterpretation of the ordinance to allow for 20,000 square feet of flowering canopy per legal parcel.

    Please allow me to concisely provide my arguments:

    1. As a nursery operator myself who produces over 75,000 plant starts annually at my Mendocino County nursery, I can attest that without a doubt nursery operations are significantly more intensive to the land and community than standard row crop flower farming practices.
    a. My 12,000 square foot nursery consumes over twice as much water as my flower farming operations per day per square foot of licensed canopy
    b. It requires a team of 5-8 people daily to operate, as compared to one person per day at a 10,000 square foot flower farm. This is to say there is less than 20% of the traffic associated with row crop flower farming operations than nursery operations.
    c. It requires a constant supply of potting soil and compost, delivered by semi-truck throughout the year, as compared to row crop flower farm plantings in the native soil already there at the farm that only need bi-annual compost deliveries, once in the spring and once in the fall
    d. Nursery operations require continual electrical power usage, as clone cuttings and seedlings are far less hardy than mature cannabis plants and require continual environmental control, including lighting, heat and airflow. Standard row crop cannabis operations do not require any of these save for a small amount of power for an irrigation pump.

    2. Mendocino County has lost over half of its licensed cultivations. Per the DCC Unified License Search (https://search.cannabis.ca.gov/) data for today, 9/9/2024, of 1090 cultivations licenses ever issued (excluding Processor licenses), only 543 are currently “Active.”
    a. This is due in no small part to the economic reality that a 10,000 square foot license does not produce enough revenue to allow the business’s gross margin to overcome the excessively high costs of compliance at today’s (and ostensibly tomorrow’s) market prices. As a point of reference, Outdoor cannabis flower pricing has declined significantly from the “good old days,” with the average California Outdoor Flower spot market transaction last week at $281 per pound (https://www.cannabisbenchmarks.com/)
    b. Many other municipalities throughout California allow for very large canopies, with some licensed California cannabis farms cultivating over 100 acres on a single parcel. These farms are able to produce quality cannabis at a fraction of a single 10,000 square foot farm’s operating cost per pound due to economies of scale.
    c. Allowing increased flower cultivation is incredibly meaningful for those licensed operators attempting to maintain business solvency in this County. Adding 10,000 square foot to an existing operation does not cost twice what the first 10,000 square feet cost – there is a very significant cost savings. This will help buoy existing operators and provide much needed margin in what is an incredibly competitive market.

    3. Mendocino County is in need of a stronger economy.
    a. Increasing flowering canopy limits will provide more revenue and profit to struggling businesses in the County that support the cannabis cultivation industry here. It will create more jobs on the farm and in post harvest processing. It will increase land values and liquidity of real estate. It will increase sales taxes and property taxes.
    b. Grape prices are in a depression currently, and allowing traditional-crop farmers to diversify operations on their currently farmed land with cannabis can assist in the overall success of Mendocino County agriculture.
    c. Per dollar of economic value, cannabis requires a minute fraction of the water that wine grapes require. It can take upwards of 100 gallons of water to produce a single bottle of wine, with a retail value of $20-30. It takes less than 1 gallon of water to produce a 1/8th ounce serving of cannabis, with a similar retail value of $20-30 (https://www.sonomacountygazette.com/sonoma-county-news/the-water-footprint-in-sonoma-county-wine/#:~:text=An%20average%20wine%20barrel%20is,of%20174%20gallons%20of%20water)
    d. Successful cannabis operations that can afford to properly maintain their land can provide another route to increased economic benefit via tourism, Mendocino County’s other economic boon.

    In closing, Mendocino County Cannabis is struggling to meet the realities of the modern cannabis era, where hundred-acre farms in other municipalities operate with significantly reduced cost of goods through economies of scale. Agenda item 4f, with what amounts to a small increase in allowance of flower canopy, will not reasonably cause added environmental impact, nor disturb the community, and will allow this County’s cannabis operators a much needed reduction in costs per unit as they compete in the State-wide marketplace.

    Sincerely,

    Joshua Keats

  • Default_avatar
    Cory Drake 29 days ago

    Dear BOS,

    Our family is strongly in favor of this.
    While other counties continue to expand and bring in more tax revenue to support the community, Mendocino falls behind.
    Everyday small family farms are going out of business and cannot sustain in this market. This not only impacts cannabis cultivators but the community as a whole. When these farms shut down that money leaves, it's no longer being spent at the local markets, store, or entertainment. Their taxes no longer go towards roads, better schools or social help, it will be gone. Reading comments about the environmental impact is frustrating, I feel these comments are from people not aware of the steps permitted farmers are required and eager to take in order to reduce any impact on the environment. This bill is also not expanding out foot print any larger than what we're already able to have. From my understanding, it would just allow flowering where nurseries previously were and the 20ksqft would be the same.

  • Default_avatar
    Meghann Sommer 29 days ago

    Mendocino Board of Supervisors-

    I am writing in support of allowing a second non-nursery permit type to replace the existing nursery permits currently allowed under the existing interpretation of the cannabis ordinance.

    The argument that this will have any sort of greater environmental impact seems moot, as this would not exceed the amount of square footage that would have already been designated to raising cannabis plants in the first place. Nurseries in general require more nutrients, energy, space, electricity and infrastructure than a typical outdoor cultivation- and often need to operate year round with heat and light to keep mother plants alive and healthy. This doesn’t even take into account the continual and often overbearingly thorough reviews that our licenses are subjected to under the state water board and CDFW.

    The cannabis market has drastically changed in the past 7 years and at some point the county will have to grow and evolve it's approach toward cannabis or risk losing the local industry entirely. I believe that this is a non-invasive way to honor the intentions of the county in limiting cultivation size without exceeding beyond the boundaries of what has already been agreed upon as reasonable cannabis-designated square footage within a single parcel, while still giving local small cultivators a leg up within the State-wide cannabis market. At an addition of up to 10k sqft of canopy that is taken to flower instead of clone, a farmer would still be cultivating at a smaller footprint than what is currently allowed in Humboldt, Lake, and Sonoma Counties.

    I agree with MCAs earlier comment: “The support for this reinterpretation strongly feels this provides a better opportunity for cultivation to survive in this county for those who can pursue this option. Increasing the flower production on certain sites will provide a better economy of scale which is necessary to compete in the highly competitive market, promote job growth, and increase tax revenue. This can lead to more opportunities toward tourism and marketing budgets since there will be more available funds. Lastly the support expressed that there already exist operations that have two licenses on separate parcels and are producing at these levels currently and this should be allowed on parcels where it is appropriate. The same zoning restrictions would continue land use protections and the environmental requirements of licensing at both the local and state level would continue to apply to each license.”

  • 10225953017997206
    Laura Clein 29 days ago

    Dear Supervisors, 9/9/2024

    When this item came to the General Government Committee last spring, it seemed to take everyone in the room; Supervisors, staff and cannabis advocates, including MCA, by surprise. The party who initiated the request for review by County Counsel was shrouded in mystery and most, if not all, of the comments that day ranged from perplexed to opposed. We have been not-so-affectionately referring to this info as, “expansion, not expansion” in the vein of the saying, “sorry, not sorry” ever since.

    The letters posted here in opposition to this shift in density allowances bring up many good points. The reinterpretation is contrary to the ordinance parameters, even with the most recent amendments. It seems this a potential legal loophole to exploit that will benefit only a few, likely the same few that were pro-expansion all along. We must depart from the MCA memo here, but we’re reminded that MCA was neutral on the prior BOS expansion move as well, a sign this is a contentious issue even within the stakeholder association.

    Maybe Supervisor Gjerde can refresh the rest of the current BOS on why the BOS did what they did in 2017, so much work went into a delicate balance of rules to satisfy both pro-cannabis and anti-cannabis contingents in our County. Maybe we should have Matthew Kiedrowski, the Assistant County Counsel who helped write the original ordinance, explain the intent of the license types and sizes. Maybe we should contemplate how this shift in policy without due process leaves the County open to litigation. Maybe we should revisit the expansion fiasco this BOS created that led to the referendum signed by thousands of County citizens, including some cannabis farmers, forcing you to rescind the ordinance you passed. Maybe we should consider the fact that the State has not even released their conclusion yet of the recent county-wide cannabis program Environmental Impact Report – EIR. Especially since some of the FAQs attached to this item seem to be saying the MND satisfies the County CEQA requirements for both the old & new density interpretations of the ordinance. But how is that true, if the State does not accept the MND as enough is the reason, we’re in the middle of the EIR.

    Please give staff direction to not use this new, legally questionable, interpretation. It will lead to further delays and legal wrangling at a critical time, adding more burdens as the cannabis industry goes through yet another extinction event in the form of consolidation and over-regulation. To us, as a small farm still awaiting our State Annual License, even though we have had full County approvals since 2017, it seems insane to be considering such an inequitable option when this County should be focusing all efforts on getting the Phase One applicants through the County CCBL & State Annual License process, a timeline that is quickly becoming a time-bomb.

    Thank you for your consideration, Laura & Marty Clein, Martyjuana™

  • Default_avatar
    Michele Schott 29 days ago

    I strongly support the clarified reading of 10A.17.097 (D) regarding the number of licenses allowed per parcel in Mendocino County.
    Due to the extremely restrictive cultivation sizes of 10A.17.097, many farmers in Mendocino County are finding themselves unable to compete in legal cannabis cultivation in California compared to other less restrictive counties with much larger farm sizes. The clarification of the number of cultivation licenses allowed per parcel is a step toward assisting a few farms to survive the volatility of the market.
    In the world of farming, 10,000 sq feet is very small and even in a niche market, it is difficult to impossible to survive. Mendocino County is economically enriched by agriculture, including cannabis. This small boost will keep a few more farm workers employed and contributing to the economy and tax base.
    The lucky break of having obtained a Nursery License is not unfair to those that did not acquire one. It is a boon to those who did. We do not hold a Nursery license, but do not begrudge those that do. We wish for the success of all farmers. Perhaps there is another way to address that issue in the future.

  • Default_avatar
    Jim Shields Shields 29 days ago

    LAYTONVILLE AREA MUNICIPAL ADVISORY COUNCIL
    44400 Willis Avenue, Laytonville, CA 95454 • 707-984-6444

    September 9, 2024

    To: Mendocino County Board of Supervisors

    Subject: September 10, 2024 BOS Agenda Item 4f). Discussion and Possible Action Including Direction to Staff Regarding Cannabis Density Allowed in Mendocino County Code Section 10A.17.070(D)


    Dear Chair Mulheren and Board of Supervisors,
    Please be advised that at its August 28, 2024 meeting, the Laytonville Area Municipal Advisory Council (LAMAC) unanimously approved and endorsed the following 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.
    Also be advised that at its 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.”
    Both documents follow below.
    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,
    LAMAC Chair

    Pellar Letter
    Dear BOS and Community,
    I am writing this letter in response to the reinterpretation of our Cannabis Ordinance Sec.10A17.
    Firstly let me state, what so many of us are thinking “What the bloody heck?” To go ahead and actually put it into the phase 3 language as to read that a nursery permit could be turned into canopy is not only disrespectful to the intent of our ordinance, but it is inequitable and honestly quite corrupt in nature.
    It has occurred to me that maybe you, BOS, and you, expansion pushers, don’t understand what we, the small farmers are doing with our insistence on a limit of 10K canopy size limit. It’s quite simple. This size represents equity for all, including the wildlife, watersheds, and our
    Mendo Communities. We the people have spoken on behalf of this issue many, many times. It’s not just an idea or a political move, it’s a real tangible request to keep it small to benefit the good of all in our county. Increasing canopy size benefits the few and is simply not in alignment with the dream we all shared of being a unique boutique craft county. By consistency in our land use policy we have taken care of those who don’t want cannabis in this county at all, those who want to brand our county as craft/medicine, and those who want to grow just to get pounds to market. It is the will of the people that we remain at a 10K footprint. My understanding is that it is you, the BOS, that sits there specifically to represent the will of the people. I think that the referendum was enough to show you all how important our size limit on cannabis is to all of us.
    Why are you not standing up and speaking against this reinterpretation? The only thing or reason I can come up with is money. You think this move will bring you greater revenue. Well, you continue to sabotage our plans of making this a contiguous well branded county that exalts best management practices and can share that ethos with the world. We need to unite and in that action of unification we can then market not only cannabis, but as a whole we brand all our small producers. Think big, think global, think the richest, most elite cannabis, only here in
    Mendocino where the finest wool, wine, honey, meat… you name it, our art, we’ve got it!!
    We are working on our branding all the time. The ONLY way we can have market share is to carve out a piece and to do that we are sticking to our passions and dreams of a cannabis garden that is workable by a mom and pop shop. That’s who made this culture for us, those are the practices and people we honor by our garden size. We fight expansion at every turn and still, you see fit to just arbitrarily and dishonestly go along with this, when you all know, we do not approve. We are the people. Are you really going to receive so much more revenue? Are they? Will we ever be able to all just calm the heck down and get on the same page so we can market ourselves as a county?
    I think you don’t understand the importance of our branding of small farms or we would not still be fighting with this issue to this day. From this branding, we can launch ourselves. We can show the whole world what it means to actually care about the cannabis we grow. To give thought and consideration to our neighbors. To show equity for our wildlife and watersheds. We create a platform for ourselves. The bulk market is not our place to shine. We get the lowest prices there. None of us, and I mean none of the small farms are making a lot of money. We love to grow our beautiful plants, we love to stay at home and tend our gardens. We help with fire mitigation, we help with forest health, we are community builders, and we are holding it down for the culture that is quickly becoming extinct.
    I would like you all to imagine when the dust settles and who is left standing. We will be. We stand alone now. There is nobody and I mean nobody standing with the 10K farmers except the 10K farmers. We are proud farmers because we believe in the medicinal qualities and genetics we cultivate through our Best Practices and the goodness of our land and water.
    We are kindly asking that you tell the county council that this reinterpretation is missing the intent of our cannabis ordinance and the will of the people and may not be the new canopy footprint for those few people who happen to have those 2 permits and choose to turn their nursery permit into a cultivation permit. I would also bet that whomever it was that tapped the county council on the shoulder and asked for this dive into interpretation does not actually live in our county, but has a garden with some permits. Take care of us, get on our team, we have a lot of work to do, but see the vision with us please.
    Traci Pellar
    Laytonville

    Willits Environmental Center
    Re: Recent Staff Re-interpretation of 10A.17 Pertaining to Cultivation Size Limits
    Dear Chair Mulheren and Members of the Board;
    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. In thirty days (in the midst of COVID) one hundred citizens volunteers gathered over 6,000 signatures from County voters who said loud and clear that they didn’t want expanded grow sites. The Board responded appropriately, respecting the wishes of the public.
    Please see the attached legal analysis that details why we believe that staff’s re-interpretation is not supported by the language of the ordinance itself or its intent as laid out in the legislative history, and why such a fundamental change in the interpretation of the ordinance requires environmental analysis and public participation.
    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. Furthermore, if any person(s) has applied for multiple CCBL’s under this re-interpretation, the Board should direct staff to notify the person(s) that the application will not be processed, and any fees paid to the Department will be returned.
    Thank you for acting swiftly so as to avoid renewed confusion and delays, especially when the Mendocino Cannabis Department is making progress on issuing County permits, and the State has just issued its DEIR in preparation to issue annual licenses to hundreds of Mendocino County provisional license holders.
    Sincerely,
    Kirk Lumpkin, Secretary,
    Willits Environmental Center Board of Directors

    Concerned Redwood Valley Citizens Petition
    To: Mendocino County Board of Supervisors: Supervisor Chair Mulheren, Supervisor Gjerde, Supervisor Haschak, Supervisor McGourty, Supervisor Williams, and various local news outlets:
    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.
    Concerned Redwood Valley Citizens (CRVC),
    Frances Owen, Cindi Barra Woskow, Mike Woskow, Star Gilley, Cynthia Grant, Rick Sagan and more…

  • Default_avatar
    Shane Osburn 29 days ago

    Dear BOS, I strongly support the increase in canopy density for the county Mendocino. As a licensed Cannabis farmer in Mendocino I recognize our goal in being the world’s best quality cannabis and have spent the last 2 decades dedicated to this task. I also understand economic principles that can’t be altered do to unfounded believes that the cannabis we produce will merit a premium price on the open market. Quality Blue Dream cannabis grown in Mendocino is purchased for the same price as quality Blue Dream grown in Santa Barbara or anywhere else in the State. At the end of the day dispensary owners and consumers care about the price point, not where it is grown. In order to survive in the Cannabis space, I strongly feel and economic law would indicate that we need to be able to work with the Economic principle of economies of scale. With all agriculture, being able to use economies of scale is vital to the success of an agricultural venture. Being held at 10k feet of canopy will destroy the chances of survival in the cannabis space for Mendocino. We the surviving farmers, strongly believe that in order to survive in the Cannabis space we need the ability to grow more square footage of cannabis. Its not a matter of people wanting to gain large amounts of personal capital, it’s a matter of being able to use simple economic principles to survive in a very saturated competitive industry. Originally when 10k feet of cannabis was decided as the allowable square in Mendocino finished pounds were selling at $1000 plus dollars. This years prediction for finished pounds is $250-$350. In order to receive the same working capital this year as the year the program started we would need 3x the production of finished pounds. This situation is dire. We the surviving farmers strongly support the increase in square footage. I agree with MCA’s statement listed in an earlier comment
    “The support for this reinterpretation strongly feels this provides a better opportunity for cultivation to survive in this county for those who can pursue this option. Increasing the flower production on certain sites will provide a better economy of scale which is necessary to compete in the highly competitive market, promote job growth, and increase tax revenue. This can lead to more opportunities toward tourism and marketing budgets since there will be more available funds. Lastly the support expressed that there already exist operations that have two licenses on separate parcels and are producing at these levels currently and this should be allowed on parcels where it is appropriate. The same zoning restrictions would continue land use protections and the environmental requirements of licensing at both the local and state level would continue to apply to each license.”

  • Default_avatar
    Steven Amato 29 days ago

    Honorable Supervisors,

    This topic generates mixed emotions from the membership and cannabis community. Most cannabis cultivators are so busy struggling for survival and trying to make it through harvest, so it is difficult to determine an accurate consensus on this topic and the MCA will have to take a neutral stance.

    The key opposition to this reinterpretation is that it does not capture the true intentions of the Ordinance when it was originally drafted and was understood that there should only be 10k sqft of flower production per parcel. The other main issue brought to our attention is that it feels unfair to Phase 1 operators who did not apply for a Nursery License because they had no desire to be in the nursery business but would have if they knew it would have allowed them to increase their flower production by converting that license in the future.

    The support for this reinterpretation strongly feels this provides a better opportunity for cultivation to survive in this county for those who can pursue this option. Increasing the flower production on certain sites will provide a better economy of scale which is necessary to compete in the highly competitive market, promote job growth, and increase tax revenue. This can lead to more opportunities toward tourism and marketing budgets since there will be more available funds. Lastly the support expressed that there already exist operations that have two licenses on separate parcels and are producing at these levels currently and this should be allowed on parcels where it is appropriate. The same zoning restrictions would continue land use protections and the environmental requirements of licensing at both the local and state level would continue to apply to each license.

    We are available to discuss further at your convenience.

    Thank you for your consideration.
    Sincerely,

    Mendocino Cannabis Alliance
    e: info@mendocannabis.com

  • Default_avatar
    Traci Pellar about 1 month ago

    Dear BOS and Community,

    I am writing this letter in response to the reinterpretation of our cannabis ordinance, 10A17.
    First let me state what so many of us are thinking, “What the bloody heck?” To go ahead and
    interpret the phase 3 language to read that a nursery permit could be turned into
    canopy is not only disrespectful to the intent of our ordinance, but it is inequitable and honestly
    quite corrupt in nature.

    It has occurred to me that maybe the BOS and the "expansion pushers" don’t understand
    what we, the small farmers, are doing with our insistence on a limit of 10K canopy size limit. It’s
    quite simple. This size represents equity for all, including the wildlife, watersheds, and our
    Mendo Communities. We the people have spoken on behalf of this issue many many times. It’s
    not just an idea or a political move, it’s a real tangible request to keep it small to benefit the good
    of all in our County.

    Increasing canopy size benefits the few and is simply not in alignment with the dream we all shared of being a unique boutique craft County. By being consistent as far as our land use policy is concerned, we have taken care of those who don’t want cannabis in this County at all, those who
    want to brand our County as craft/medicine, and those who want to grow just to get pounds to
    market. It is the will of the people that we remain at a 10K footprint. My understanding is that it is you, the BOS, who has the specific duty to represent the will of the people. I think that the referendum was enough to show you all how important our size limit on cannabis is to all of us.

    Why are you not standing up and speaking against this reinterpretation? The only thing or
    reason I can come up with is money. Do you think this move will bring you greater revenue? It appears that you are attempting to sabotage our plans of making Mendocino a well branded county that exalts best management practices. We need to unite, and in that action of unification we can then market not only cannabis, but our other small craft producers as well. Think big, think global, think the richest, most elite cannabis, only here in Mendocino where the finest wool, wine, honey, meat… you name it, we’ve got it!!

    We are working on our branding all the time. The ONLY way we can have market share is to
    carve out a unique piece and to do that we are sticking to our passions and dreams of small craft cannabis gardens, Mendo style. We do not want to be Santa Barbara or Salinas with giant commercial grows. Craft gardens have the ability to grow the best cannabis in the world on a small scale. That will never happen in Santa Barbara. We fight expansion at every turn and
    still, you see fit to just arbitrarily and dishonestly go along with this, when you all know that we do
    not approve. Remember, WE are the people. Will we ever be able to all just calm the heck down and get on the same page so we can market ourselves as a County?

    Perhaps you don’t understand the importance of our branding of small farms, or we would not still be fighting this issue today. With proper branding, we can launch ourselves. We can
    show the whole world what it means to actually care about the cannabis we grow. To give
    thought and consideration to our neighbors. To show equity for our wildlife and watersheds. We
    create a platform for ourselves. The bulk market is not our place to shine. We get the lowest
    prices there. None of us, and I mean none of the small farms, are making a lot of money. But we have passion and love farming. We help with fire mitigation, we help with forest health, we are community builders, and we are holding it down for the culture that is quickly becoming extinct.

    We are kindly asking that you tell the County council that this reinterpretation is missing the
    intent of our cannabis ordinance and the will of the people. There are very few farmers who have those 2 permits and choose to turn their nursery permit into a cultivation permit. I would also bet that whoever it was that tapped the County council on the shoulder and asked for reinterpretation does not actually live in Mendocino, but has a garden with some permits. Please listen to us, get on our team. We have a lot of work to do, but we have vision. Please, share that vision with us, your constituents.

  • Default_avatar
    Lieshi Galandil about 1 month ago

    Dear Members of the Board;

    Please respect the express will of Mendocino County voters and the standard of law as outlined in Mendocino County’s official, original cannabis ordinance, by withdrawing your latest plan to allow expansion of cannabis cultivation based on your Cannabis Department’s flawed “re-interpretation” of the the County Code, Section 10A.17.070.

    In the FAQ section of its “Information on Cannabis Density Limits” document, your Cannabis Department flatly denies that this re-interpretation is allowing expansion. It goes on to say that the County’s Mitigated Negative Declaration “contemplated” that all permitted cannabis parcels would have up to 22,000 square feet total of cultivation canopy. Contemplated? How does a legal document “contemplate” anything? The 22,000 sq. ft. allowance is strictly limited to Type 4 licenses, i.e., nurseries, because the mature canopy would not exceed the 10,000 sq. ft. limit of other types. The mature flowers must be destroyed and cannot be used for commercial purposes, which is a distinction limited to that type.

    If the square footage of cultivation sites is doubled, the value of the crop would also be doubled. This should be a red flag as a law enforcement issue, especially in rural areas, which are difficult enough to protect against home invasions and other cannabis-related crimes.

    Doubling cultivation also doubles the environmental impacts. This should be obvious: the increased amount of water usage, earth-moving activities by heavy equipment, light pollution, noise pollution, and further encroachment on wildlife habitat, not to mention wear-and-tear on county roads, offensive odors to neighbors, unsightly expanses of hoop houses and related industrial development, increased fire risk, and the additional demand for law enforcement to address illegal cannabis activities, which are still prevalent. These are all reasons why 6,000 county residents voted less than two years ago for a referendum to halt expansion of cannabis cultivation. Expanding this controversial industry into our county’s rural neighborhoods and sensitive environmental areas cannot have anything but major negative impacts.

    You know the cannabis market is saturated in California and in many other states and countries. Legal cultivators are now having a hard enough time competing in this environment. So where will the commercial cannabis that will be generated from this new expansion end up? Does this board really want to support the criminal trafficking of this recreational drug where it is still illegal and dangerous? If not, do you have an effective tracking system in place to identify the end buyers?

    Please reject the new interpretation of the Cannabis Ordinance and inform all applicants who may have been misled by your staff of your decision as soon as possible.

  • Default_avatar
    Ellen Drell about 1 month ago

    The attachment included here constitutes the comments of the Willits Environmental Center on agenda item 4f. The attachment includes a legal analysis opposing the re-interpretation of 10A.17.070(D), and three exhibits.

    Attachments: Merged_WEC_Memo.pdf