Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Cannabis Policy topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Residents and growers sharply divided as public comments press Mendocino supervisors on cannabis rules and permits
Summary
Dozens of public speakers pressed the Mendocino County Board of Supervisors to act on cannabis canopy sizes, on-site sales and permit processing; county staff said forums are planned and one speaker urged staff to stop accepting applications exceeding existing limits.
MENDOCINO COUNTY — Dozens of residents and cannabis industry representatives used the Board of Supervisors’ public comment period to press the county on three related issues: the allowable cultivation canopy per parcel, the possibility of on-site sales or self-distribution, and whether county staff should be accepting applications that exceed the existing 10,000-square-foot limit.
The comments began with industry representatives urging the board to keep local taxes low and restore self-distribution. “We definitely should prioritize the legal farms here,” said Cody Aiken, a cannabis industry speaker who said county farms have shrunk to “about 500 legal farms.”
Other speakers described business and property impacts tied to the county’s interpretation of state permitting. Liana Costa told the board that some applicants need 22,500 square feet to be viable and asked the board to “tell the DCC to look at those other 100 applicants” so they will not lose land or income. A different speaker urged the board to direct staff to stop accepting applications for more than 10,000 square feet, saying that, as written, the law on the books allows only 10,000 square feet per parcel and that staff accepting larger applications creates legal risk.
Opponents of expansion also addressed the board. Christine Boyd said she is “one of the 70% who do not favor expansion of cannabis grows in Mendocino County” and asked supervisors to heed what she described as the will of residents. A speaker who identified a citizens’ referendum said roughly 6,000 residents opposed commercial expansion in prior proceedings.
Board members and staff responded during the meeting. Chair Supervisor Haschak said the topic is not on today’s agenda but noted the board will limit the public-expression block to 10 minutes on a single topic when many people speak. County CEO Darcy Antle told the board she and the CEO’s office are organizing industry forums, with cannabis listed as “one of the first ones” and that those forums would likely begin in February. Chair Haschak said the county also can refer detailed policy work to the general government committee.
The transcript shows multiple, competing claims about permit processing and legal authority. One commenter asserted staff was accepting applications for more than 10,000 square feet despite the ordinance; another said many applicants had not received state approval and risked losing their land. The board did not take formal action on cannabis policy or adopt a change to permitting rules at this meeting.
The discussion produced several clear next steps that were stated on the record: the CEO and staff plan to host public industry forums beginning in February and the general government committee can take up more detailed policy work. The board also reminded members of the public about formal channels to request agenda items and contact supervisors outside the public comment period.
The divide between growers and neighborhood residents — and repeated requests for the board to act — suggests the issue will return to the board in committee or at a future hearing rather than ending at this public-comment session.
