MENDOCINO CO., 9/10/24 — The Mendocino County Board of Supervisors unanimously voted on Tuesday not to alter the current cannabis density allowed in Mendocino County under code section 10A.17.070(D).
The proposal to reinterpret the ordinance, led by a supervisorial advisory committee called the General Government Committee as well as County Counsel, would have changed ordinance 10A.17.070 (D) to increase the allowable size of cannabis cultivation sites in certain zones. If the board had decided to adopt this proposal, a grower could technically double the size of commercial cannabis cultivation on a single parcel.
First District Supervisor Glenn McGourty said during the meeting that many citizens he’s spoken to are against increasing the density of cannabis cultivation sites. “Ninety percent of the constituents I’ve talked to want to keep it at 10,000 square feet,” said Supervisor McGourty. “The overwhelming support is against increasing the size of the grow.”
The Board of Supervisors’ agenda item led to a tense dialogue between environmentalists, cannabis growers, and homeowners about the subject. Environmentalists stated that increasing cannabis density could negatively impact the land and shrink the local water supply, while growers expressed frustration about the economic downturn of the cannabis industry.
“Because many of us rely on well water only for our homes, we are very concerned about this reinterpretation of this cannabis ordinance,” said Redwood Valley resident Frances Owen during the public comment portion of the meeting. “We know well permits have been approved for some of these large grows, and some nearby residential wells have suffered greatly.”
But Matt Humphrey, a Mendocino County cannabis operator, believes a new interpretation of the ordinance would support growers in bouncing back from financial struggles. “We are in some hard times right now,” Humphrey said. “No one is talking about the increase in revenue for the county, cannabis farmers are suffering. I’m asking you to think about the future economy of Mendocino County and keep cannabis at the top of this thriving community.”
The original interpretation of the ordinance, introduced in 2017 and amended in 2018, allows a person to have a maximum of 10,000 square feet of cannabis cultivation on one parcel, providing that person has a specific type of Cannabis Cultivation Business License, also known as CCBL.
The types of CCBLs granted to cannabis cultivators are complicated to understand. Some CCBLs, such as Type C, allow growers to have a maximum of 2,500 square feet of cannabis canopy without artificial light, which would characterize a small, outdoor grow. Other CCBLs, such as Type 1A, allow growers to have a maximum of 5,000 square feet for an indoor grow with artificial lighting.
The CCBLs that would mainly be impacted by the reinterpretation of this ordinance would be Types 2, 2A, 2B, and 4, all of which apply to larger cannabis farms. Types 2, 2A, and 2B allows growers to have a maximum of 10,000 square feet of cannabis cultivation, with various requirements limiting whether the plants can be indoor or outdoor and have artificial lighting or not.
Type 4 allows for the cultivation of a cannabis nursery (a site that produces cannabis clones, immature plants, and seeds) and cannot exceed a total of 22,000 square feet on one piece of land.
It is crucial to note that a grower was always permitted to have two different kinds of permits, if the cannabis cultivation didn’t exceed 10,000 square feet. For instance, a grower could apply for two commercial cannabis permits so long as each permit was for 5,000 square feet of cultivation, equaling a total of 10,000 square feet.
Another type of cultivation permitted under the original reading of the ordinance was that a grower could have 10,000 square feet of commercial cannabis and 12,000 square feet of nursery cannabis so long as the total amount didn’t exceed 22,000 square feet on one parcel. (This would also be allowed under the reinterpretation of the ordinance.)
If the proposal to reinterpret the ordinance was passed, one person could double the amount of commercial cannabis cultivation on one parcel to 20,000 square feet, which was prohibited under the original interpretation.
For example, if one person has two permit types, one Type 2 permit to cultivate commercial cannabis and one Type 4 permit to produce cannabis nursery stock, the new reading of the ordinance would have allowed that person to trade in their nursery license for a cannabis cultivation license, meaning that person could have a maximum of 20,000 square feet dedicated to commercial cannabis cultivation.
Many cannabis workers, like Kelly Hubbard of Mendocino Mountain Farms, stated that they 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,” Hubbard said online in the public comments section of the meeting. “Please allow for more canopy. An additional 10,000 square feet of canopy will give us the possibility to make it through this bear market.”
Supervisor Haschak said in an interview with the Mendocino Voice that there were only 10 applicants looking to double the size of their cannabis cultivation sites, and the board needs to decide out how to support those applicants in lieu of this final decision.
“It’s not going to affect many people. That was my point of view the whole time, it wasn’t going to have a major impact on the county,” Haschak said. “We’ve already lost 150 cannabis growers in this year alone. Would it have created a great expansion? No, I don’t feel like that.”
If the board had decided to honor the reinterpretation of the ordinance and allow an increase in cannabis cultivation acreage, the proposal would need to be reviewed in an Environmental Impact Report, a document that helps decisionmakers evaluate the potential environmental impact of a project in California. The California Environmental Quality Act requires the preparation of an EIR when a study indicates that a project may severely impact the environment.
Although Haschak originally supported the proposal, he said he’s glad the board made a unanimous decision. “It’s about the understanding of what the limit was,” he said. “Do we honor the intention of the people who crafted the ordinance? Yes.”
Mendocino county supervisors are fools.
We have this, meanwhile Lake county has several farms over 30.acres in size & the county is reaping the benefits through taxes, job creation, sales, & so on.
The meditated negative deceleration (MND) conducted prior to the adoption of 10a.17 considered canopy sizes up to 22,000 square feet. No additional CEQA review was needed for this interpretation. This decision pushes more cultivators back towards the black market. Last I checked there are no CEQA requirements for black market cultivators. Oh and they don’t pay taxes. Nice job Supes!
Things have gotten so much better since our county went against federal pot laws, besides the kids love the stuff.
Tax whoknows wefe it going they dont co e out inspect the grow or do they regulate on fertilizers all big joke if they aprove a grow might inspect it once after that need get it together and put some that tax money to better regulateing grows and fetilizers going into ground water also should put a tax for do not use drugs campain in our local schools so kids dont think pot cool go to useing fetnyal even the dispensarys should be taxed for schools dont do drugs campain
Taxes and job creation are not the only values we humans should have. We also need to have a sense of balancing our needs with the needs of others including the plant and animal life. Many folks can appreciate a Small Is Beautiful lifestyle. Unpolluted night skies, water in our rivers and streams instead of algae, peace and quiet, and unobstructed views of the natural beauty of this place. And country living free from fear of theft and violence, Imagine that!
Sheila, the black market is just as, if not more so prone to violence and theft than the legal market. Depriving cultivators the chance to be competitive in this awful market will drive them out of legal business and back into the black market. It may also likely force them to move out of the area to a place where they CAN legally grow more cannabis, taking with them their tax money, supporting local businesses and the jobs they support. We all love the natural beauty here, but the shortsightedness of the BOS and the people who did not support expansion don’t seem to take into the long term effects of hamstringing the cultivators here to a barely-sustainable amount of available cultivation. I know for a fact that more than 10 people were interested in expansion, since I have talked with dozens of cultivators who expressed the desire to expand.
So, Tau161 you say you all love the natural beauty here so does this mean you’ll be doing something to combat the algae problem from your fertilizers in our rivers and streams? Will you also be tackling the excessive grading on our steep hillsides which chokes our salmon streams with sediment? What about the light pollution and the plastic pollution from your green houses? Got a plan for that? How ’bout your excessive use of water when many aquifers are struggling to keep up? The noise impacts?
What you really care about apparently is money. That’s as far as it goes for you’ve presented no real discussion much less a plan here for safeguarding our environment.
I dont think that the legal grows are responsible for the algae and the water impacts that you speak of.. Im fairly certain that those issues are a result of illegal gardens that have been forced to grow insane amounts of product in order to profit now that marijuana is “legal”! Not saying that i agree with these illegal growers but where it was once possible for them to satisfy their agenda with 50 or so plants they now attempt to stay profitable by skirting the laws and growing ten times that amount to make the same profits..and thats where the algae and water issues come to exist… but we are discussing legal farms here and by default those issues are covered by these exact votes and the meetings that preceed them.
The whole county is covered in canatrash.
Abandoned hoop houses flapping in the breeze. Piles of vermiculite laden soil.
Pots and pipe. Leaking chemical containers. Disgusting. We are all myself included, responsible. Another reason why no fish.