4i) Discussion and Possible Action Including Direction to Staff Regarding Potential Ordinance Amendments Related to Microbusiness Cannabis Facilities to Align with State Regulations
(Sponsor: Planning and Building Services)
I appreciate the intent to make legal cannabis operations in the County profitable, as some of our legal, legacy growers are running clean and safe operations. However, some of the proposals in this agenda item would have the overall effect of increasing cannabis operations in Mendocino County in all zones, including RESIDENTIAL. One grave error in the implementation of legal cannabis in the County to date is the allowing of large (my definition--example is 6-14 hoop houses) within or immediately adjacent to HOMES and family activities. In Redwood Valley in particular, the views across the valley floor are riddled with plastic-covered pot farms. You know well that over 200 of us followed all County rules to submit a request for an Exclusion Zone in a small residential area of Redwood Valley, for which we spent hundreds of hours and over $6,000, only to have the Board deny our valid request. This has not gone down well. We resent the favoring of several cannabis growers, including some who have, since legalization, been subject to large busts due to illegal activities. And they're back in business in the same neighborhood. This continuation of the County enabling pot businesses right next to our residences is a serious mistake. Recently, the Board elected to DOUBLE the size of legal grows, against the widely understood intent of legally enacted ordinance language. We're feeling this already in Redwood Valley with additional hoop houses.
Several of us met with CAO and PBS managers last month and were assured that, before canna micro-business and cottage business rules change in the Ordinance, there would be ample opportunity for various stakeholders (including Redwood Valley residents) to participate in this rule-making process. Instead, a single General Government Committee meeting, little publicized and attended only by canna industry representatives, has led to Tuesday's proposed action. Some questions: 1) Exactly what kinds of business, processing, manufacturing, and/or sales would be allowed in RESIDENTIAL neighborhoods? 2) What would be set-back rules between these operations and family activities (homes, schools, places of worship, walkways to schools and parks, etc.)? 3) Santa Barbara County recently enacted both acreage limits for cannabis cultivation of about 1,500 acres for the entire unincorporated area, as well as odor mitigation and controls. This reflects an increasing, State-wide concern with poorly regulated cannabis activities, and we in Redwood Valley ask you to consider that a trend toward unchecked growth of the industry is causing more concern. 4) Enforcement will be a bigger problem than it already is. For example, if a grower is approved for processing, manufacture, and/or sales on one site, how often will inspectors visit? Manufacture and processing can involve hazmats, heating, and volatility, requiring fire and building code permits and ANNUAL INSPECTIONS. Further, because of the many instances of non-compliance, unannounced inspections would be needed to ensure safety for these operations. Our rural fire departments don't need bigger workloads nor more emergency incidents. Thus, any expansion of operations and their nature (eg, greater risk) must be carefully considered. 5) Limits on vehicle trips, vehicle sizes, parking, use of private roads and easements, numbers of sales, etc., must be specified. Self-regulation is inadequate; verification is required. It's a truism to say that regulated businesses don't want to be regulated, but regulation and verification MAKE GOOD NEIGHBORS. And once again: we want cannabis out of residential areas. This county has thousands of acres, and farms currently located within our family communities could be given a 3 year phase out to enable them to re-locate.
These are the kinds of issues that stakeholders should be working together to solve with County staff.
I oppose any action taken on this matter that involves permanent or 'soft' modifications to the microbusiness ordinance(s) until the public has had ample opportunity to be informed and contribute to the conversation. The General Government Committee meeting of August 2025, was not an open forum with all parties involved, but an input gathering session with representatives of the cannabis industry and their legal and administrative representatives. The public was largely absent and not invited to participate in the conversation. Thus, the people have not been heard.
Dear Supervisors,
Our small farm in the mountains of Covelo has had a (County permit) currently known as CCBL license since 2017, and earlier this year finally received our State Annual license. Yet we remain stymied by heavy restrictions, some of which do not make sense eight years after the original County Cannabis ordinance was passed. We know you cannot change the Federal status (we hope it's soon descheduled, not rescheduled), or State laws, which are overly burdensome and slow to amend. But you do have some power in our County.
Like so many of the complex issues affecting the cannabis industry from banking, to social media, fair / free trade, shifts in laws cannot happen without the political will. Reconciling the State vs County regulations is a big part of it. Being creative about structuring our County Microbusiness license to accommodate most of our local industry would bring more taxes back to the County, rather than what's happening now, farms, distributors and retailers in our County are struggling, many are closing.
Origins Council put out a white paper about State Microbusiness licenses. It clearly showed the original intent to assist small farms in rural areas was not met, and in reality this license type mostly benefited small businesses in urban areas. Most of the barriers identified were due to advantages in the way zoning is regulated in populous areas. Another reason small farms need the ability to take back control back of their business and commerce directly, is that many retailers who were able to avail themselves of the State Microbusiness license are now vertically integrated. In other words, they're cultivating, distributing and retailing their own brands, making it harder for a small farm to even get placed on a retail shelf. The supply chain is broken.
We were told recently by the Mendocino Cannabis Dept that without changes in policy, we are not eligible to apply for a County Microbusiness license. Most of us who have endured the last eight years of licensing turmoil are not going to make it as wholesale farms. We urge the County to consider adopting a stance that would allow small farms to explore additional activities that would suit their individual situations. In our case, the farm is atop a mountain and down a rural road, with no residence on the property. We are licensed to cultivate 5k sq ft of our 27 acre parcel (down from our original 10k due to financial stress). Our farm is likely not a good option for onsite retail, but it could be a hub for us to create our own product distribution, delivery, sell our own products at events, and eventually direct-to-consumer shipping. Those are activities that would actually lessen traffic to our location as well as increase our ability to run our business and increase our local sales. We all know local profits affect local taxes.
We support the Original Cannabis Business License - OCBL concept, which has previously been shared with at least some Supervisors as well as the Cannabis and Planning & Building department heads. Rather than repeat the actions outlined in the OCBL, we will attach it here. To summarize: The OCBL would facilitate diversification of other activities.
Every phase 1 farm in Mendocino could be granted the ability at the County level to have an OCBL as a kind of all inclusive micro vertical integration license (self distribution, processing, packaging, non solvent manufacturing, eventually self retail - probably delivery only for most rural parcels, direct shipping, etc). OCBL would, of course, all be based on approvals each particular parcel can obtain at the County Planning & Building and the State DCC as well all the other agencies with oversight of cannabis licensing. The reason to exempt some of the zoning and other requirements for small farms, who are already under far heavier constraints than typical agriculture including crops and ranching, is with the goal of promoting a healthy industry-wide ecosystem.
One of the biggest recent shifts to weigh in this decision is that we only had 6 State Annual licences approved in the County for years, but now there are 600+ State Annual Licensed Cultivation sites approved in Mendocino County, the majority located in rural resource lands, such as ours is on Rangeland. The BOS was willing recently to allow 20k expansion in Ag land zones to benefit only a handful of farms. But most of County / State licensed farms are still left behind, unable to expand their footprint. Also, and more importantly, unable to expand their allowable activities onsite.
Considering how to help these legal local farms survive can only benefit the County's bottom line.
Success will only happen with direct to consumer sales opportunities, from events like farmers markets to shipping door-to-door. Those of us who want to stay small need to find ways to sell direct, to keep our ethos and stories alive. To do so makes the most economic sense, because, at the end of the day, a small farm is a small business contributing to the County coffers.
Right now, California Cannabis Medical Patient Shipping Bill - AB1332 is making its way through the State Assembly, so far with unanimous support. It would allow ONLY Microbusinesses, to sell via direct shipping to medical patients around the state. Also important to consider, federally, the SHIP act was recently re-introduced by our own north coast US Representative Huffman. These are reasons it is crucial to give small farms the ability to develop on-site strategies now that would best adapt to future success.
Use existing solutions to facilitate growth of our nascent industry. For example, the wine club model started as a workaround for Federal vs State to State laws, and there are ways it can be adapted to cannabis. We would like to see the BOS be bold and take action that allows small farms to remain viable businesses fostering true Economic Development and fulfilling the County Strategic Plan Priority Designation for cannabis of a thriving economy.
Thank you for your consideration.
Laura Marty Clein, Martyjuana™
ORIGINAL CANNABIS BUSINESS LICENSE
Introduction: The purpose of this proposal is to request amendments to Mendocino County Code that will thereafter, maximize small farmers’ opportunity to integrate their operations and reduce costs, allow activities as per the state’s regulations which now only benefit large corporate businesses in jurisdictions with less burdensome and expensive compliance, as well as generate taxable revenue (based on current conditions in the marketplace) on which the County depends.
The parameters of the Original Cannabis Business License (OCBL) will be applicable and specific to Mendocino County cannabis farmers ONLY. It is anticipated that streamlining of CCBLs to OCBLs is perfunctory and that Administrative or Use Permits are not required as applicants must be Phase 1 or 2 permitted businesses that established and maintained compliant operations prior to January 1, 2016, until today, on the same parcel without significant changes to operations. Minimal staff time to check via aerial imaging will suffice to determine the cultivation sites, relevant structures and PBS permitted buildings have not changed materially.
The proposed OCBL will maintain the same permit size as approved for the farmers’ CCBL, hence not impacting the evaluations recorded in the Mitigated Negative Declaration related to current cannabis operations.
An OCBL will mirror the definitions and activities allowed under the Department of Cannabis Control’s (DCC) Microbusiness license, thus permitting OCBLs to operate cultivation, manufacturing 1, distribution and retail activities which pertain to, utilize and incorporate only plant material grown on the OCBL premises. Any manufacturing done under an OCBL will be composed of OCBL raw materials. Distribution will be self-distribution of farm products. Retail will be via storefront dispensaries, delivery, farmers markets and tourist visits—until regulations change at the federal level.
The OCBL concept is the best way to provide the opportunity for small, local farmers to sustain their farms, homes and businesses. The current economic conditions and local compliance obstacles will not support and maintain small farmers, the backbone of Mendocino County’s cannabis industry. To continue producing the high quality, small batch, and award winning cannabis Mendocino is famous for, a new, more competitive license is required.
An OCBL will allow:
1. Current and continuously licensed cultivators, who have cultivated cannabis on the same parcel/premises prior to January 1, 2016 and licensed under Phases 1 or 2 are eligible to apply. The Mendocino Cannabis Department has reported in their June 26, 2024 Deliverables Report that 638 applications in process and/or CCBLs issued coulld conceivably apply for OCBLs.
2. The OCBL will be a stand-alone license to which current DCC Microbusiness criteria apply. Applicants transitioning from CCBLs to OCBLs must fulfill all requirements to obtain a DCC Microbusiness License to qualify for an OCBL.
3. All current language in Chapters 10, 20 and 6 requiring cannabis “Microbusinesses” to operate as a “home occupation” or “cottage industry” shall be deleted from the County Ordinances and Muni Code pertaining to OCBLs.
4. No changes to current CCBL operations, as presented in the most recent license renewal, will be allowed in the new OCBL license, unless verified by a scientific amendment approved by DCC.
5. Activities allowed as “accessory uses” of the OCBL may take place in structures permitted by PBS as AG Exempt or Utility structures.
6. OCBL Permit fees shall be $150 annually for 2500 sf or less, $300 for 5000 sf or less, and $500 for 10,000 sf or less operations.
7. OCBLs will pay County cultivation taxes based on 1% of gross revenue or whatever is parity with the tax rate for bulk grape production, whichever is greater.
8. Existing Microbusinesses may convert to OCBLs, if eligible, or continue as per their CFBL.
9. No residency requirement in RL, TPZ and FL zones shall remain.
I appreciate the intent to make legal cannabis operations in the County profitable, as some of our legal, legacy growers are running clean and safe operations. However, some of the proposals in this agenda item would have the overall effect of increasing cannabis operations in Mendocino County in all zones, including RESIDENTIAL. One grave error in the implementation of legal cannabis in the County to date is the allowing of large (my definition--example is 6-14 hoop houses) within or immediately adjacent to HOMES and family activities. In Redwood Valley in particular, the views across the valley floor are riddled with plastic-covered pot farms. You know well that over 200 of us followed all County rules to submit a request for an Exclusion Zone in a small residential area of Redwood Valley, for which we spent hundreds of hours and over $6,000, only to have the Board deny our valid request. This has not gone down well. We resent the favoring of several cannabis growers, including some who have, since legalization, been subject to large busts due to illegal activities. And they're back in business in the same neighborhood. This continuation of the County enabling pot businesses right next to our residences is a serious mistake. Recently, the Board elected to DOUBLE the size of legal grows, against the widely understood intent of legally enacted ordinance language. We're feeling this already in Redwood Valley with additional hoop houses.
Several of us met with CAO and PBS managers last month and were assured that, before canna micro-business and cottage business rules change in the Ordinance, there would be ample opportunity for various stakeholders (including Redwood Valley residents) to participate in this rule-making process. Instead, a single General Government Committee meeting, little publicized and attended only by canna industry representatives, has led to Tuesday's proposed action. Some questions: 1) Exactly what kinds of business, processing, manufacturing, and/or sales would be allowed in RESIDENTIAL neighborhoods? 2) What would be set-back rules between these operations and family activities (homes, schools, places of worship, walkways to schools and parks, etc.)? 3) Santa Barbara County recently enacted both acreage limits for cannabis cultivation of about 1,500 acres for the entire unincorporated area, as well as odor mitigation and controls. This reflects an increasing, State-wide concern with poorly regulated cannabis activities, and we in Redwood Valley ask you to consider that a trend toward unchecked growth of the industry is causing more concern. 4) Enforcement will be a bigger problem than it already is. For example, if a grower is approved for processing, manufacture, and/or sales on one site, how often will inspectors visit? Manufacture and processing can involve hazmats, heating, and volatility, requiring fire and building code permits and ANNUAL INSPECTIONS. Further, because of the many instances of non-compliance, unannounced inspections would be needed to ensure safety for these operations. Our rural fire departments don't need bigger workloads nor more emergency incidents. Thus, any expansion of operations and their nature (eg, greater risk) must be carefully considered. 5) Limits on vehicle trips, vehicle sizes, parking, use of private roads and easements, numbers of sales, etc., must be specified. Self-regulation is inadequate; verification is required. It's a truism to say that regulated businesses don't want to be regulated, but regulation and verification MAKE GOOD NEIGHBORS. And once again: we want cannabis out of residential areas. This county has thousands of acres, and farms currently located within our family communities could be given a 3 year phase out to enable them to re-locate.
These are the kinds of issues that stakeholders should be working together to solve with County staff.
I oppose any action taken on this matter that involves permanent or 'soft' modifications to the microbusiness ordinance(s) until the public has had ample opportunity to be informed and contribute to the conversation. The General Government Committee meeting of August 2025, was not an open forum with all parties involved, but an input gathering session with representatives of the cannabis industry and their legal and administrative representatives. The public was largely absent and not invited to participate in the conversation. Thus, the people have not been heard.
Dear Supervisors,
Our small farm in the mountains of Covelo has had a (County permit) currently known as CCBL license since 2017, and earlier this year finally received our State Annual license. Yet we remain stymied by heavy restrictions, some of which do not make sense eight years after the original County Cannabis ordinance was passed. We know you cannot change the Federal status (we hope it's soon descheduled, not rescheduled), or State laws, which are overly burdensome and slow to amend. But you do have some power in our County.
Like so many of the complex issues affecting the cannabis industry from banking, to social media, fair / free trade, shifts in laws cannot happen without the political will. Reconciling the State vs County regulations is a big part of it. Being creative about structuring our County Microbusiness license to accommodate most of our local industry would bring more taxes back to the County, rather than what's happening now, farms, distributors and retailers in our County are struggling, many are closing.
Origins Council put out a white paper about State Microbusiness licenses. It clearly showed the original intent to assist small farms in rural areas was not met, and in reality this license type mostly benefited small businesses in urban areas. Most of the barriers identified were due to advantages in the way zoning is regulated in populous areas. Another reason small farms need the ability to take back control back of their business and commerce directly, is that many retailers who were able to avail themselves of the State Microbusiness license are now vertically integrated. In other words, they're cultivating, distributing and retailing their own brands, making it harder for a small farm to even get placed on a retail shelf. The supply chain is broken.
We were told recently by the Mendocino Cannabis Dept that without changes in policy, we are not eligible to apply for a County Microbusiness license. Most of us who have endured the last eight years of licensing turmoil are not going to make it as wholesale farms. We urge the County to consider adopting a stance that would allow small farms to explore additional activities that would suit their individual situations. In our case, the farm is atop a mountain and down a rural road, with no residence on the property. We are licensed to cultivate 5k sq ft of our 27 acre parcel (down from our original 10k due to financial stress). Our farm is likely not a good option for onsite retail, but it could be a hub for us to create our own product distribution, delivery, sell our own products at events, and eventually direct-to-consumer shipping. Those are activities that would actually lessen traffic to our location as well as increase our ability to run our business and increase our local sales. We all know local profits affect local taxes.
We support the Original Cannabis Business License - OCBL concept, which has previously been shared with at least some Supervisors as well as the Cannabis and Planning & Building department heads. Rather than repeat the actions outlined in the OCBL, we will attach it here. To summarize: The OCBL would facilitate diversification of other activities.
Every phase 1 farm in Mendocino could be granted the ability at the County level to have an OCBL as a kind of all inclusive micro vertical integration license (self distribution, processing, packaging, non solvent manufacturing, eventually self retail - probably delivery only for most rural parcels, direct shipping, etc). OCBL would, of course, all be based on approvals each particular parcel can obtain at the County Planning & Building and the State DCC as well all the other agencies with oversight of cannabis licensing. The reason to exempt some of the zoning and other requirements for small farms, who are already under far heavier constraints than typical agriculture including crops and ranching, is with the goal of promoting a healthy industry-wide ecosystem.
One of the biggest recent shifts to weigh in this decision is that we only had 6 State Annual licences approved in the County for years, but now there are 600+ State Annual Licensed Cultivation sites approved in Mendocino County, the majority located in rural resource lands, such as ours is on Rangeland. The BOS was willing recently to allow 20k expansion in Ag land zones to benefit only a handful of farms. But most of County / State licensed farms are still left behind, unable to expand their footprint. Also, and more importantly, unable to expand their allowable activities onsite.
Considering how to help these legal local farms survive can only benefit the County's bottom line.
Success will only happen with direct to consumer sales opportunities, from events like farmers markets to shipping door-to-door. Those of us who want to stay small need to find ways to sell direct, to keep our ethos and stories alive. To do so makes the most economic sense, because, at the end of the day, a small farm is a small business contributing to the County coffers.
Right now, California Cannabis Medical Patient Shipping Bill - AB1332 is making its way through the State Assembly, so far with unanimous support. It would allow ONLY Microbusinesses, to sell via direct shipping to medical patients around the state. Also important to consider, federally, the SHIP act was recently re-introduced by our own north coast US Representative Huffman. These are reasons it is crucial to give small farms the ability to develop on-site strategies now that would best adapt to future success.
Use existing solutions to facilitate growth of our nascent industry. For example, the wine club model started as a workaround for Federal vs State to State laws, and there are ways it can be adapted to cannabis. We would like to see the BOS be bold and take action that allows small farms to remain viable businesses fostering true Economic Development and fulfilling the County Strategic Plan Priority Designation for cannabis of a thriving economy.
Thank you for your consideration.
Laura Marty Clein, Martyjuana™
ORIGINAL CANNABIS BUSINESS LICENSE
Introduction: The purpose of this proposal is to request amendments to Mendocino County Code that will thereafter, maximize small farmers’ opportunity to integrate their operations and reduce costs, allow activities as per the state’s regulations which now only benefit large corporate businesses in jurisdictions with less burdensome and expensive compliance, as well as generate taxable revenue (based on current conditions in the marketplace) on which the County depends.
The parameters of the Original Cannabis Business License (OCBL) will be applicable and specific to Mendocino County cannabis farmers ONLY. It is anticipated that streamlining of CCBLs to OCBLs is perfunctory and that Administrative or Use Permits are not required as applicants must be Phase 1 or 2 permitted businesses that established and maintained compliant operations prior to January 1, 2016, until today, on the same parcel without significant changes to operations. Minimal staff time to check via aerial imaging will suffice to determine the cultivation sites, relevant structures and PBS permitted buildings have not changed materially.
The proposed OCBL will maintain the same permit size as approved for the farmers’ CCBL, hence not impacting the evaluations recorded in the Mitigated Negative Declaration related to current cannabis operations.
An OCBL will mirror the definitions and activities allowed under the Department of Cannabis Control’s (DCC) Microbusiness license, thus permitting OCBLs to operate cultivation, manufacturing 1, distribution and retail activities which pertain to, utilize and incorporate only plant material grown on the OCBL premises. Any manufacturing done under an OCBL will be composed of OCBL raw materials. Distribution will be self-distribution of farm products. Retail will be via storefront dispensaries, delivery, farmers markets and tourist visits—until regulations change at the federal level.
The OCBL concept is the best way to provide the opportunity for small, local farmers to sustain their farms, homes and businesses. The current economic conditions and local compliance obstacles will not support and maintain small farmers, the backbone of Mendocino County’s cannabis industry. To continue producing the high quality, small batch, and award winning cannabis Mendocino is famous for, a new, more competitive license is required.
An OCBL will allow:
1. Current and continuously licensed cultivators, who have cultivated cannabis on the same parcel/premises prior to January 1, 2016 and licensed under Phases 1 or 2 are eligible to apply. The Mendocino Cannabis Department has reported in their June 26, 2024 Deliverables Report that 638 applications in process and/or CCBLs issued coulld conceivably apply for OCBLs.
2. The OCBL will be a stand-alone license to which current DCC Microbusiness criteria apply. Applicants transitioning from CCBLs to OCBLs must fulfill all requirements to obtain a DCC Microbusiness License to qualify for an OCBL.
3. All current language in Chapters 10, 20 and 6 requiring cannabis “Microbusinesses” to operate as a “home occupation” or “cottage industry” shall be deleted from the County Ordinances and Muni Code pertaining to OCBLs.
4. No changes to current CCBL operations, as presented in the most recent license renewal, will be allowed in the new OCBL license, unless verified by a scientific amendment approved by DCC.
5. Activities allowed as “accessory uses” of the OCBL may take place in structures permitted by PBS as AG Exempt or Utility structures.
6. OCBL Permit fees shall be $150 annually for 2500 sf or less, $300 for 5000 sf or less, and $500 for 10,000 sf or less operations.
7. OCBLs will pay County cultivation taxes based on 1% of gross revenue or whatever is parity with the tax rate for bulk grape production, whichever is greater.
8. Existing Microbusinesses may convert to OCBLs, if eligible, or continue as per their CFBL.
9. No residency requirement in RL, TPZ and FL zones shall remain.