MENDOCINO CO., 4/10/25 – A technicality in Mendocino County’s cannabis ordinance has left growers and county officials confused for years, but at their Tuesday meeting the Board of Supervisors voted to keep the ordinance unchanged, which has the impact of allowing cultivators with two different licenses to grow up to 20,000 square feet of commercial cannabis on a single parcel.
A county ordinance restricts growers to 10,000 square feet of commercial cultivation per parcel, provided they hold a cannabis cultivation business license, or CCBL. Parcel sizes are governed by license type, with the minimum being two acres for some licenses, ten acres for others. In this case, large commercial grows, the minimum parcel size is ten acres.
Growers are allowed to hold two types of CCBLs and can trade one license for another if they submit a completed application and pay the required fees. Because of the confusion surrounding the ordinance, cultivators with a nursery license, for example, believed they would be allowed to trade the nursery license for a cultivation license and end up with two 10,000-square-foot growing areas or 20,000 square feet. The vote Tuesday will allow that interpretation of the ordinance to go forward.
For District 1 Supervisor Madeline Cline, the decision to allow more commercial cannabis could negatively impact residential communities. She explained that she would rather see the ordinance honor the original interpretation, which limited cultivation to 10,000 square feet of commercial cannabis on a single parcel.
“The conflicts that exist at this point lead me to go back to what the original intent was,” Cline said during the meeting. “I hope the board can consider what is happening to some of the neighborhoods and homes, not just about the [cannabis] industry and the economic impact.”
But District 5 Supervisor Ted Williams noted that limiting commercial cannabis to 10,000 square feet per ten-acre parcel could be detrimental to the local cannabis industry and isn’t a fair decision.
“I have businesspeople in my district who are watching carefully,” Williams added.
He said cannabis businesses throughout the community have already invested resources in expansion and have interpreted the ordinance as allowing them to increase commercial cannabis operations.
“Can the county, years after the fact, decide to pull the rug out from under businesses that have invested money and planned for this?” Williams asked.
This interpretation of the ordinance has sparked dissent among environmental groups and nearby residents and increased concerns that expanded cannabis cultivation could strain natural resources and bring unwanted foot traffic and other issues to residential neighborhoods.
During the public comment portion of the meeting, environmentalists and some cannabis growers offered differing opinions on the board’s actions and how the ordinance should be interpreted.
“There is another body that isn’t being consulted, and that is the flora and fauna of this county,” said Kate Marianchild, Ukiah resident and environmental writer. “There’s a huge impact on wildlife to doubling the size of a cannabis grow.”
Marianchild explained that wild food webs rely on insects, songbirds and butterflies to survive — and that those creatures, in turn, depend on native plants to thrive. She noted that expanding cannabis farms could be harmful to these organisms.
“To thrive, insects need locally native plants, but commercial monoculture usually requires the destruction of native plants,” she added. “Every single native plant we have is precious, so to do anything that could double the destruction is a blow to our native ecosystems.”
Steve Amato, president of the Mendocino Cannabis Alliance, said prohibiting cannabis cultivators from expanding their farms could hurt Mendocino County’s tax revenue, business stability and overall economic health.
“We are in a climate where we are losing cultivators, operations, businesses and tax revenue by the day,” he exclaimed. “I ask you to explore if this is worth it to keep going back and forth.”
After hours of discussion and public comment, the board voted 3-2 in favor of allowing growers to apply for commercial cannabis permits for up to 20,000 square feet on a plot of land. Supervisors Mulheren, Norvell, and Williams voted in favor, while Supervisors Cline and Haschak dissented.
Environmentalist’s suck
I have to believe that even food farming or nurseries would affect the food web as Ms. Marianchild explained it. So, in theory, there should be very little impact.
So after 7 years they have finally interpreted their own ordinance correctly. Meanwhile our farm is on rangeland and we cannot submit for another license because phase 3 excludes rangeland zoning?? All license holders who were licensed before phase 3 should have the right to apply for expansion regardless of zoning due to the incompetence of our “supervisors”
I agree 100% this is true and I am affected as well by this I am one of the first licenses approved in Mendocino County I have one of the first permits they have a picture of me with my license in their office yet because I missed a deadline because I wasn’t informed because of some technicality I cannot expand I cannot have a Nursery license there is no reason why people like you and me on rangeland who have proper lease set up properties cannot expand we should be able to expand
Economic stability is a must in a County that has no industry to speak of. When the County itself is the largest local employer, that is a death knell for local economic success. Cannabis cultivation could provide some of that economic viability. It is an existing industry with an informed leadership and a trained work force. It is in place and highly regulated. All of the cannabis business owners I know are stewards of their land. Most are organic growers.
This minor expansion will stimulate the Mendocino county economy: building permits and increased property taxes, spending at local supply stores, hiring local contractors, unsecured property tax increases, increased employment.
I think if the all of cultivators in the county doubled their canopy without telling anyone, you would never have notice. My nursery license allows for a 12K canopy. If I change it, the cultivation license caps out at 10K canopy.
To say that 500 acres of cannabis cultivation County-wide would be a negative impact in any way is absurd. Our local environmental groups are fully supported by the cannabis industry, yet no love?
So I say to them: How do you support local economic survival? When was the last time a retired community member/ environmentalist pulled a county permit, or increased their property taxes, or hired an employee? How much hard earned money did you spend in your community to enhance/expand/maintain your business? Bet you know the answer.
And, if a viable food web is such a priority, why the hate for hoop houses? If the economy collapses tomorrow what can the local environmentalists do about it (not a rhetorical question)?
But, I can start growing food for 100 people, tomorrow, because I have the agricultural ability. And I would do that if needed. And saying growing pot on such a small scale is detrimental to local plants is, I’m sorry, just stupid. Emotional reactions get you no where.
I have mentioned in the past, and I say it again, there is room for growing on a small scale (1/2 acre max) and addressing ANY environmental concerns. Pushing one’s own personal agenda and passing it off as concern for the environment or concern for the community is wrong.
If you want to know if this expansion is needed, go ask an HHIS county employee if they would like a raise to a living wage. Bet you know the answer
The fact that Haschak voted against this is cause for a new supervisor from the North County. This county desperately needs leadership, someone to create a slipstream of ideas and innovation and solutions.
All we get are committee members and paper-pushers and monthly reports of nothing. Let’s change that.