2b) Discussion and Possible Action Including a Recommendation to the Board of Supervisors Regarding Cannabis Cultivation Limits
(Sponsor: Executive Office)
I support the plain reading of the already existing Mendocino County Code Section 10A.17.070(D). I thought the Board of Supervisors had already approved this plain reading so I am unsure why this is still being discussed. Cultivators have already paid for and received permits in line with this plain reading. Please advise the Board of Supervisors to again approve this plain reading. Thank you.
The initial interpretation of 10.17.A. was 1 permit per parcelrl no larger than 10k.
Now something magically happens and it's up for discussion for 2 permits per parcel?
This benefits a select few and not the whole of licensed farms.
Its nonsensical to even have this discussion after the opposition from country residents from the past proposed 10% expansion.
Existing permits can't even remove trees and create fire defend able space or allow more sunlight for existing permitted cultivation sites.
Arbitrary parcel size limits have prevented current permit holders from even obtaining a 10k permit.
If a new ordnance is drafted changing the current ordnance it may get county support. But these "new interpretations" of the current ordnance smell of a red hearing.
I oppose this "new" interpretation of the current ordnance. No to two permits on 1 parcel.
The State of California defines small cannabis farms at 10k or less. Small farms cultivating quality craft cannabis is what Mendocino County is known for globally. Mendocino is the only County that still holds the size limits at 10k, which honors the heritage & upholds our back-to-the-land homesteading small farm culture roots.
The crux of today’s discussion about whether or not a 22k re-interpretation is within the scope of the MND & EIR, thus no need to amend the ordinance. It still seems that anything above 22k would require further programmatic environmental review & revision of 10a.17.
What we’ve seen since last Spring is renewed efforts over what led to the 2021 debacle of the BOS passing 10% expansion against the will of the voters, then being forced to rescind it. It was a setback for our local industry because it angered the public, but another element of that ordinance was a much needed discretionary permit fix.
The cannabis density shift seems to be fueled now by a small group of licensed farms located on AG land vs a small group of their neighbors. Most cannabis farms are stuck in the middle on this issue, mostly quiet these days in public meetings because, due to zoning, they are not allowed to expand, so it does not benefit or really even affect them. But continuing this dispute is creating a nonexistent nuisance issue & furthering cannabis stigmas.
We see both sides!! The implementation of the law since 2017 has been 10k per parcel. The previous 10% expansion seemed excessive in a county of small farms. Our Covelo Cannabis Advocacy Group (CCAG), supported 22k even back then. To expand from 10k to 22k sounds more reasonable.
The 2017 MND notes 10,000 farms pre Prop 64 & the 2024 EIR says that 1000s more illegal than legal farms remain. If 22k becomes the new interpretation, it seems plausible to expand the allowable zones to include all 250+ approved State licenses. As long as they meet environmental requirements, phase 1 farms could be grandfathered in. Most small farms in our County are also environmentalists, whether they wish to expand or not.
Martyjauna is a 10k farm that has been engaged with this process all along. We have been fully approved by the County since 2017 & just last week finally got word we were transitioned from State provisional to annual license. We have no plans to expand, but we are not against 22k, although we do wish it would be a more equitable & available option to anyone who wants it & can show it works on their property.
One of the biggest recent shifts to this issue is the County only had 6 State annuals approved for a number of years, but since the EIR was completed last October, hundreds more State licensed farms are now fully approved in Mendocino. The County focus now should be on how to help these small farms succeed. We are glad there is an economic development meeting scheduled for tomorrow, we have many ideas.
Our guess is that Mendocino Cannabis Alliance (MCA), like the majority of small farms, is stuck in the middle, since MCA was always neutral on the expansion issue that has been so contentious even between their own members.
We know Mendocino Producers Guild (MPG) would like to see a set of countywide Best Management Practices regulating all farms, regardless of footprint. In fact, being synonymous with organic standards is what was promised to all our farms initially by the County (we still have that original application packet if you would like to see it). Now would be a good time to implement those standards.
In our democracy it is always possible to amend law, but it’s preferable for it to happen publicly. Times change & 8 years later, amendments may be needed, for clarity, for accessibility & to support sustainable small farms.
Thank you for your consideration, Laura & Marty Clein, Martyjuana™
Hello, I support allowing two cultivation licenses on the appropriate parcel as this seems to what is allowed "based on a plain reading of the
existing MCC 10.A.17 and 20.242.040 and is consistent with the County Code."
I support the plain reading of the already existing Mendocino County Code Section 10A.17.070(D). I thought the Board of Supervisors had already approved this plain reading so I am unsure why this is still being discussed. Cultivators have already paid for and received permits in line with this plain reading. Please advise the Board of Supervisors to again approve this plain reading. Thank you.
The initial interpretation of 10.17.A. was 1 permit per parcelrl no larger than 10k.
Now something magically happens and it's up for discussion for 2 permits per parcel?
This benefits a select few and not the whole of licensed farms.
Its nonsensical to even have this discussion after the opposition from country residents from the past proposed 10% expansion.
Existing permits can't even remove trees and create fire defend able space or allow more sunlight for existing permitted cultivation sites.
Arbitrary parcel size limits have prevented current permit holders from even obtaining a 10k permit.
If a new ordnance is drafted changing the current ordnance it may get county support. But these "new interpretations" of the current ordnance smell of a red hearing.
I oppose this "new" interpretation of the current ordnance. No to two permits on 1 parcel.
The State of California defines small cannabis farms at 10k or less. Small farms cultivating quality craft cannabis is what Mendocino County is known for globally. Mendocino is the only County that still holds the size limits at 10k, which honors the heritage & upholds our back-to-the-land homesteading small farm culture roots.
The crux of today’s discussion about whether or not a 22k re-interpretation is within the scope of the MND & EIR, thus no need to amend the ordinance. It still seems that anything above 22k would require further programmatic environmental review & revision of 10a.17.
What we’ve seen since last Spring is renewed efforts over what led to the 2021 debacle of the BOS passing 10% expansion against the will of the voters, then being forced to rescind it. It was a setback for our local industry because it angered the public, but another element of that ordinance was a much needed discretionary permit fix.
The cannabis density shift seems to be fueled now by a small group of licensed farms located on AG land vs a small group of their neighbors. Most cannabis farms are stuck in the middle on this issue, mostly quiet these days in public meetings because, due to zoning, they are not allowed to expand, so it does not benefit or really even affect them. But continuing this dispute is creating a nonexistent nuisance issue & furthering cannabis stigmas.
We see both sides!! The implementation of the law since 2017 has been 10k per parcel. The previous 10% expansion seemed excessive in a county of small farms. Our Covelo Cannabis Advocacy Group (CCAG), supported 22k even back then. To expand from 10k to 22k sounds more reasonable.
The 2017 MND notes 10,000 farms pre Prop 64 & the 2024 EIR says that 1000s more illegal than legal farms remain. If 22k becomes the new interpretation, it seems plausible to expand the allowable zones to include all 250+ approved State licenses. As long as they meet environmental requirements, phase 1 farms could be grandfathered in. Most small farms in our County are also environmentalists, whether they wish to expand or not.
Martyjauna is a 10k farm that has been engaged with this process all along. We have been fully approved by the County since 2017 & just last week finally got word we were transitioned from State provisional to annual license. We have no plans to expand, but we are not against 22k, although we do wish it would be a more equitable & available option to anyone who wants it & can show it works on their property.
One of the biggest recent shifts to this issue is the County only had 6 State annuals approved for a number of years, but since the EIR was completed last October, hundreds more State licensed farms are now fully approved in Mendocino. The County focus now should be on how to help these small farms succeed. We are glad there is an economic development meeting scheduled for tomorrow, we have many ideas.
Our guess is that Mendocino Cannabis Alliance (MCA), like the majority of small farms, is stuck in the middle, since MCA was always neutral on the expansion issue that has been so contentious even between their own members.
We know Mendocino Producers Guild (MPG) would like to see a set of countywide Best Management Practices regulating all farms, regardless of footprint. In fact, being synonymous with organic standards is what was promised to all our farms initially by the County (we still have that original application packet if you would like to see it). Now would be a good time to implement those standards.
In our democracy it is always possible to amend law, but it’s preferable for it to happen publicly. Times change & 8 years later, amendments may be needed, for clarity, for accessibility & to support sustainable small farms.
Thank you for your consideration, Laura & Marty Clein, Martyjuana™
Hello, I support allowing two cultivation licenses on the appropriate parcel as this seems to what is allowed "based on a plain reading of the
existing MCC 10.A.17 and 20.242.040 and is consistent with the County Code."