To: BOARD OF SUPERVISORS
From: Supervisor Haschak and Supervisor Cline
Meeting Date: February 11, 2025
|
Department Contact: |
Supervisor Haschak |
Phone: |
707-463-4221 |
|
Department Contact: |
Supervisor Cline |
Phone: |
707-463-4221 |
|
Item Type: Regular Agenda |
|
Time Allocated for Item: 30 Minutes |
Agenda Title:
title
Discussion and Possible Action Including Referral of Cannabis Cultivation Limits to the General Government Committee
(Sponsors: Supervisor Haschak and Supervisor Cline)
End
Recommended Action/Motion:
recommendation
Refer discussion of the cannabis cultivation limits to the General Government Committee.
End
Previous Board/Board Committee Actions:
On April 23, 2024, the General Government Committee received notification that a plain reading of Mendocino County Code, as had been adopted by the Board, did not limit second Commercial Cannabis Cultivation License (CCBL) types on a single eligible parcel to only that of a nursery.
On September 10, 2024, the Board directed staff to prepare an ordinance amendment so that the plain reading of MCC §10A.17.070(D) would limit all non-nursery CCBL cannabis canopy to 10,000 square feet per parcel. Additionally, the Board directed MCD to pause its review of all CCBL applications that were submitted after April 24, 2024, and which sought to obtain two (2) separate non-nursery CCBLs on a parcel with a total cannabis canopy over 10,000 square feet (the “Applications”). The Board also provided staff with direction to present options on how MCD should handle those Applications given that the ordinance amendment would prohibit the issuance of the CCBLs sought by the Applications.
On October 22, 2024, in response to Board direction, an Ordinance Amendment was brought forward which would have expressly prohibited parcels from exceeding 10,000 square feet of mature canopy and provided information for the Board to direct staff regarding the handling of the Applications. The Board declined to take action, meaning the Mendocino County Code regarding cannabis density limits was unchanged and the County must continue to apply its plain reading.
Summary of Request:
There has been recent controversy about allowable cannabis cultivation limits within Mendocino County Code Section 10A.17.070(D). The County’s cannabis cultivation ordinance has been consistently understood to allow up to two separate CCBLs to be issued on a parcel. In most zoning districts, CCBLs have historically been issued allowing up to 22,000 square feet of cultivation area on a parcel, with one CCBL allowing up to 10,000 square foot limit of mature canopy, and a second nursery CCBL allowing up to 12,000 square feet of immature canopy.
On April 24, 2024, the General Government Committee learned that a plain reading of the County’s Code did not limit the second license type to that of a nursery. The practical implication is that additional mature canopy may be permissible in areas not zoned Rural Residential:5 or “Resource Lands” (rangeland, timber production, and forestland). This is all consistent with the County’s existing CEQA review, and the Mitigated Negative Declaration which considered parcels having up to 22,000 sq. ft of cultivation when evaluating the potential impacts of the program.
Some members of the public have expressed their feeling that the intent of the ordinance was to limit mature canopy to 10,000 sq. ft, other members of the public are stating that cultivation limits should be further increased. There are strong opinions on this issue of what allowable cannabis cultivation limits should be, and this agenda item would refer the matter to the General Government Committee for community discussion and a recommendation to the full Board. Unless or until the Board would take action to consider an ordinance amendment, the County must apply the plain reading of the ordinance, allowing for two different types of CCBLs on eligible parcels and up to 20,000 square feet of mature cannabis canopy in appropriately zoned areas. If the BoS wants to change the cultivation limits, an ordinance amendment would be necessary. Discussion could also include other options such as discretionary permits.
Alternative Action/Motion:
Have the full Board discuss this issue without a referral to the GGC; provide direction to staff.
Strategic Plan Priority Designation: An Effective County Government
Supervisorial District: All
Vote Requirement: Majority
Supplemental Information Available Online At: N/A
Fiscal Details:
|
source of funding: N/A |
|
current f/y cost: N/A |
|
budget clarification: N/A |
|
annual recurring cost: N/A |
|
budgeted in current f/y (if no, please describe): N/A |
|
revenue agreement: N/A |
AGREEMENT/RESOLUTION/ORDINANCE APPROVED BY COUNTY COUNSEL: N/A
CEO Liaison: Executive Office
CEO Review: Yes
CEO Comments:
FOR COB USE ONLY
|
Executed By: Atlas Pearson, Senior Deputy Clerk |
Final Status: Approved |
|
Date: February 11, 2025 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|