The Mendocino County Board of Supervisors voted 3-2 this week to uphold an interpretation of the county’s cannabis ordinance that allows licensed farms in appropriately zoned areas to double their mature canopy from 10,000 square feet to 20,000 square feet.
The decision followed months of impassioned public comment and revealed sharp divisions among both the public and the board.
“This is a betrayal of public trust,” said Francis Owen of Redwood Valley, who criticized the county for denying a request to establish a cannabis prohibition zone in her neighborhood. “We are being negatively impacted by large commercial grows which were allowed into our heavily populated residential areas without prior notice or input.”
Owen and her neighbors unsuccessfully petitioned the Board of Supervisors to prohibit cannabis growing in their community in 2023. County code allows the creation of small-scale specialty zoning districts where cannabis cultivation is prohibited, even if the area’s base zoning permits it.
However, the Board of Supervisors voted 3-2 to deny the proposed prohibition zone, citing the need for economic development, the importance of honoring existing zoning regulations, and increased code enforcement as a more appropriate response to nuisance activity.
Similar arguments have emerged over the past year regarding the interpretation of the cannabis ordinance. At Tuesday’s hearing, representatives of the cannabis industry focused on providing context.
Ian Powell, founder of Mendocino Grasslands, said he already holds licenses to grow the maximum acreage — 22,000 square feet — including 10,000 square feet of mature canopy and 12,000 square feet of nursery space. He said the ordinance change simply allows him to recognize revenue from the nursery, which is already being used for seed production.
“My footprint is already there, and it’s been there since 2018,” he said. “I’m not expanding anything.”
Steve Amato, president of the Mendocino Cannabis Alliance, emphasized that only a small number of farms would be eligible to expand. Out of 614 licensed cannabis farmers, only 18 have applied for the license allowing an additional 10,000 square feet of canopy — a total of four acres.
Amato added that another 22 farmers who applied for permits during “Phase One” of the licensing process are located in eligible land-use zones and could apply to expand their grows. If all 22 pursued expansion, it would total an additional five acres. So far, none have applied.
It remains unclear how many “Phase Three” applicants would be eligible for expansion. The county’s cannabis department said it could not provide that information.
Supervisors Madeline Cline and John Haschak opposed the expansion. Cline, who represents parts of Redwood Valley, said allowing larger grows would intensify land-use conflicts.
“In my district, there is intense conflict between what's happening with cannabis and residential homes,” she said. “I cannot support having 20,000 as the limit.”
Supervisor Ted Williams, who introduced the motion, said the county’s enforcement efforts should focus on unlicensed operations.
“Unlicensed cannabis in this county is a large nuisance,” Williams said. “We’re spending a lot of time focused on the licensed cannabis — people who are trying to play by the rules.”
Supervisors Bernie Norvell and Maureen Mulheren joined Williams in voting to affirm the current interpretation of the ordinance.