Tomorrow you Supervisors will be voting between two bad options regarding whether to allow doubling the size of cannabis cultivation sites in the rural and residential areas of our county. Both options assume the validity of your unelected cannabis department’s new interpretation of the original ordinance, which was adopted in 2017 and has been implemented and legally enforced ever since. Last September you even voted unanimously to uphold and ratify the intended meaning of the original ordinance after your staff started to implement their new interpretation without your own or the public’s knowledge or approval. However, it appears you are now taking direction from your staff and accepting, in a reversal of of your own decision, their assumption that the original ordinance allowed for 20,000 square feet of any type of cultivation per parcel. But that assumption is unsubstantiated by the clear language of the ordinance, and their recent arbitrary re-interpretation does not negate legislative history, particularly your Board’s own public decisions. Additionally, your attached CCBL FAQ sheet claims that the new interpretation is CEQA-compliant. How can it be? The original cannabis ordinance was very clear about the types of cultivation and their size limits, enforced since its adoption, and with good reason. Doubling the size of a cannabis cultivation site automatically doubles its negative impacts on the environment, water use, air quality, and erosion from heavy equipment, not to mention the quality of life of nearby neighborhoods, and on the already over-stretched capacity of local law enforcement officers to protect them from the criminals these operations attract out in the more remote areas of the County. But you Supervisors already know all that. It has been pointed out to you ad nauseum by your constituents, apparently to no effect. What you may not have considered is how unfair it is to suddenly allow major expansion to new applicants when for eight years you prohibited it to the growers who worked hard and paid a lot of money to legalize their grows. Please vote No on this false dilemma of options and continue implementing and enforcing the original ordinance. Do not allow your staff to approve any more permits for cultivation expansion, and if necessary return whatever fees that may have paid for the new permits.
The two previous comments exemplify the deep divide on this issue. It is unfortunate the GGC sent it back to the BOS with no clear recommendations. There were many great public comments, from both sides, expressed at the GGC meeting. We hope the Supervisors were able to review it to get as much context as possible as to the present predicament. It is a shame our County is spending so much time & resources on this density issue, which apparently only affects a handful of farms, all Phase 3. It was stated during the GGC meeting that not one 100s of Phase 1 farm has applied for this reinterpretation because most don't even qualify.
Below is the letter we sent to the GGC:
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™
Tomorrow, you, our esteemed Board of Supervisors, is planning to vote on the issue of cannabis expansion.
Expansion to 20,000 square feet has been granted to single parcel owners who previously have been cultivating on the allowed 10,000 square feet. This happened because of an internal reinterpretation of the Cannabis Ordinance 10A.17 by cannabis staff and council. This expansion allowance and the issuance of permits was done without the knowledge or consent of the public, which voted down cannabis expansion with 6,000 signatures in July 2021.
Neither of the two motions in agenda point 4.f make sense because both are denying the true matter at hand and presumes that the expansion of cannabis cultivation to 20,000 square feet was prescribed in the Cannabis Ordinance, 10A.17
It was not: the original and intended meaning of the cannabis ordinance limits the cultivation of cannabis on one parcel to 10,000 square feet, as it was understood by the people who created it.
I urgently request that you reformulate the two motions to the most urgent question before the public at this moment:
1. To limit cannabis cultivation on one parcel to 10,000 square feet - full stop, no conditions attached, until the public has had time to weigh in on mitigating circumstances concerning neighbors, water and the environment.
2. To give in to the so-called 'plain reading' of the ordinance and let cannabis expansion occur without the consent of the people - and accept the possible legal consequences.
Unfortunately, the 'select a position' options fo not let me choose an appropriate box, which is neither.
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.
Tomorrow you Supervisors will be voting between two bad options regarding whether to allow doubling the size of cannabis cultivation sites in the rural and residential areas of our county. Both options assume the validity of your unelected cannabis department’s new interpretation of the original ordinance, which was adopted in 2017 and has been implemented and legally enforced ever since. Last September you even voted unanimously to uphold and ratify the intended meaning of the original ordinance after your staff started to implement their new interpretation without your own or the public’s knowledge or approval. However, it appears you are now taking direction from your staff and accepting, in a reversal of of your own decision, their assumption that the original ordinance allowed for 20,000 square feet of any type of cultivation per parcel. But that assumption is unsubstantiated by the clear language of the ordinance, and their recent arbitrary re-interpretation does not negate legislative history, particularly your Board’s own public decisions. Additionally, your attached CCBL FAQ sheet claims that the new interpretation is CEQA-compliant. How can it be? The original cannabis ordinance was very clear about the types of cultivation and their size limits, enforced since its adoption, and with good reason. Doubling the size of a cannabis cultivation site automatically doubles its negative impacts on the environment, water use, air quality, and erosion from heavy equipment, not to mention the quality of life of nearby neighborhoods, and on the already over-stretched capacity of local law enforcement officers to protect them from the criminals these operations attract out in the more remote areas of the County. But you Supervisors already know all that. It has been pointed out to you ad nauseum by your constituents, apparently to no effect. What you may not have considered is how unfair it is to suddenly allow major expansion to new applicants when for eight years you prohibited it to the growers who worked hard and paid a lot of money to legalize their grows. Please vote No on this false dilemma of options and continue implementing and enforcing the original ordinance. Do not allow your staff to approve any more permits for cultivation expansion, and if necessary return whatever fees that may have paid for the new permits.
Dear Supervisors,
The two previous comments exemplify the deep divide on this issue. It is unfortunate the GGC sent it back to the BOS with no clear recommendations. There were many great public comments, from both sides, expressed at the GGC meeting. We hope the Supervisors were able to review it to get as much context as possible as to the present predicament. It is a shame our County is spending so much time & resources on this density issue, which apparently only affects a handful of farms, all Phase 3. It was stated during the GGC meeting that not one 100s of Phase 1 farm has applied for this reinterpretation because most don't even qualify.
Below is the letter we sent to the GGC:
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™
Tomorrow, you, our esteemed Board of Supervisors, is planning to vote on the issue of cannabis expansion.
Expansion to 20,000 square feet has been granted to single parcel owners who previously have been cultivating on the allowed 10,000 square feet. This happened because of an internal reinterpretation of the Cannabis Ordinance 10A.17 by cannabis staff and council. This expansion allowance and the issuance of permits was done without the knowledge or consent of the public, which voted down cannabis expansion with 6,000 signatures in July 2021.
Neither of the two motions in agenda point 4.f make sense because both are denying the true matter at hand and presumes that the expansion of cannabis cultivation to 20,000 square feet was prescribed in the Cannabis Ordinance, 10A.17
It was not: the original and intended meaning of the cannabis ordinance limits the cultivation of cannabis on one parcel to 10,000 square feet, as it was understood by the people who created it.
I urgently request that you reformulate the two motions to the most urgent question before the public at this moment:
1. To limit cannabis cultivation on one parcel to 10,000 square feet - full stop, no conditions attached, until the public has had time to weigh in on mitigating circumstances concerning neighbors, water and the environment.
2. To give in to the so-called 'plain reading' of the ordinance and let cannabis expansion occur without the consent of the people - and accept the possible legal consequences.
Unfortunately, the 'select a position' options fo not let me choose an appropriate box, which is neither.
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.