General Government Committee - Regular Meeting

And I realized, oh, this is this is nice. And now look at me. I'm a I work at a family resource center with parents and families, all all this stuff.

I'm so grateful that I got the opportunity to meet my home visitor because without her,

I think that I would be 06/25/2025 to order and invite the clerk to conduct roll call. Supervisor Mohan? Here. Supervisor Norville?

Here.

And if we could please rise for the Pledge of Allegiance. Thank you. We will get started with item 2A, discussion of possible action, including recommendation to staff regarding potential ordinance amendments related to microbusiness cannabis facilities to align with state regulations. Good morning. Julia Krog, Director of Planning and Building. And Sarah from our Cannabis Department.

Thank you Julia Krog, Planning and Building Services Director and so as was provided in the attachments for this agenda item staff prepared a memorandum that addresses the state regulations surrounding micro businesses as well as our local regulations surrounding micro businesses and I'll just highlight some of the key differences because I think the memo really really covers it relatively well So one of the first is that the state has a process where you can essentially apply for a single license both for your cultivation component as well as your facility components for a micro business. The county does not, we have separate processes you go through the cannabis cultivation business license process and then also the cannabis facilities business license process so we have a dual sort of permitting system. The second item is that the state really does not restrict based upon your zoning requirements whereas the county we did implement both a table that included various zoning districts and where micro businesses are allowed without needing cultivation component and then we did also allow that micro businesses can be conducted on properties where cultivation is occurring as a home occupation or cottage industry and subject to those requirements And I think the the biggest hurdle that we've heard through some of the public comments is the requirement for a dwelling unit as part of the home occupation and cottage industry requirements.

And then the third area that we saw where there's opportunity for alignment with the state regulations is in some of our definitions and including sensitive receptors and then some definitions that the state has that we do not possess within our code presently and then finally I think that there could be opportunity to look at the security requirements between the state and the county and see whether or not we can reduce some of the duplication that might be required between what you provide at the county level versus what you provide at the state level. So with that I'm going to look to Sarah McBurney as well and see if she has anything else she wants to add.

Good morning Sarah McBurney, Medicino Cannabis Department. I do not have anything further to add at this time.

So then with that, we're available for questions. And I'm happy to address any that the committee may have.

Yeah. I'm curious if you could help me understand. I don't want to say why we're here but is this something that the community is pushing for is this something that you're after that's going to make your life easier their life easier

sure thank you for that question and this came out of direction from the board of supervisors meeting gosh I think it was at the May I want to say it was May 8 that agenda but as I understand it there's been requests from the community for some adjustments to the cannabis facility specifically micro business licensing I think is the loudest that we have heard. So that's why we're here today is following that board direction and also hearing from the community as to what their needs are for adjustments to micro business requirements.

The questions from the or the concerns from the community, is it more geared towards aligning with the state?

I think it's looking at ways that we can streamline our local process. And also, I have certainly heard about the concern over the dwelling unit that I mentioned for home occupation and cottage industry micro businesses and you know in terms of aligning with how the state handles a single they do it you know a single permit a single license for the micro business activity including your cultivation I think there is some potential hurdles that the county would have to work through if that were the direction that the county were to move because as we have it right now each department that touches an aspect of a micro business has a separate permitting software. There are you know planning and building is taking steps to move towards the same permitting software that the cannabis program utilizes, Acela, but that's going to be a couple year build out. And then further, if we were to move this direction to have a single sort of license process, we would need to make sure that we build that into any contract to have a specific module established that would have these workflows between our two departments so that way it would process which you know is it's an expense to hire a firm to build out that system for you because Acela is not just necessarily an out of the box type of software, you custom build it to fit your workflows and then beyond that we would also have to coordinate with the treasurer tax collector's office as they do have a component related to micro businesses as well.

Okay, thank you.

Thank you. I appreciate that you did this work and brought this forward with a comparison. I know that it's been a conversation, and it was a conversation during the economic development meetings in WILLET. So at this time, I would love to hear from the public. So if we have folks that would like to speak on this item, if you could please come to the microphone and state your name for the record, we would appreciate it.

Good morning. Corinne Powell, cultivator, cannabis program advocate. And I would like to elaborate a little on the PBS Director's rationale as to why we are here today. And I know that unfortunately you missed the May 6 meeting and some of this may not have been as big a part of your past as it has been for some of the rest of us. So the reason I see that we are here is because there is intent in the cannabis community to do all that we possibly can to remain in business, not only for ourselves, but for the benefit of this industry and the county as well.

So we have, for years now since our 10/17 ordinance was created, identified the differences between what the State requires for micro business and what the county requires for a micro business license. But one thing that is imperative to understand is that without both, a business cannot operate in Mendocino County. So all of the requirements of the State must be met, as well as all the requirements of the county. And what isn't clear to some folks in county government is that the restrictions based on the current elements of the ordinances prevent many business commonalities, universal things in business. And I will just go through a few for you.

As a cultivator, cultivation being the most common and voluminous number of permittees and licenses in the county, it is a cultivation based industry here. It started that way here decades ago. It was an established business item. So we get ordinances and we find that what a cultivator needs to do to stay in business are prevented by some of the State codes and some of the County codes. One in particular, a grower now cannot move their product off their property without some kind distribution license, period.

A cultivator cannot sell directly to consumers. They have absolutely no retail options. These are the kinds of things that we want to look at locally and make more available to the component of the industry that is supporting a tax base at all. I checked with Sarah recently and she said that there are currently six twenty cultivation licenses. I also checked with Julia who reported back that there were 16 micro business licenses.

And at my last query I wasn't able to determine how many cultivation components there are in the 16 licenses and maybe she can provide that information, I don't know. It isn't part of the files kept with cannabis, so we didn't know from the cannabis department. But as Julia went through, there are non cultivation micro businesses available and I am guessing that many in the county may be still in that category and have a separate cultivation license because, as I mentioned, we can't move our product, we can't sell our product, and we can't manage our businesses without access to the market and without access to movement of material as prescribed by the State. So Statewide, a lot of other jurisdictions do not have the dwelling requirement and the various other restrictions that were in Julia's report concerning either a home occupation qualification or a cottage industry qualification. So we are here for those things.

I think it is clear that the information in Julia's report indicates there are quite a few significant differences between the State and the county. And I am hoping that you can appreciate what those differences are and see them as obstacles to business development and economic development in the cannabis sector. And I hope we have an opportunity to address you, the committee, after your comments on these subjects because sometimes what is exchanged doesn't necessarily become complete. If you took the time to reference all of the other code sections that support or complicate or layer additional regulations locally, you will see that there business prevention in the code that we have now. And I would hope that we can cooperate in a way that allows for more flexibility to local farmers.

Thank you.

Karin, can you just wait a second? The reason that we're having this conversation during general government meeting is because we have more time to have a conversation. And frankly, we don't have a lot of folks in the audience today, so I think we have an opportunity, if it's fine with Supervisor Norvell, to have a little bit more dialogue. Can we talk about the self distribution and whether or not people can distribute their own product from the state or from the county, and what is inhibiting that?

Sure so as detailed in the memo the underneath the home occupation and cottage industry you are able to do distribution of your micro businesses own product so the county currently would allow for that type of activity in addition I'll say the retail component as well is allowed but it is limited to no more than 10 customers a day and restricted to the hours eight a. M. To eight p. M.

And so And administrative permits.

That is correct, yes.

Sure. Is that your barrier then, I guess is the question? Because you're allowed to do it, so I'm not sure what the concern is.

Then you go back to those whose farm installations and investment in their property were done at a different time. There is no residence, so there is no ability to even avail oneself of that. And I would really like to know why planning and building from the beginning of this pathway chose to connect cultivation to residency and to what appears to be a constraining attitude as opposed to understanding what is really needed from the farmers, the cultivators perspective.

So I won't speak for planning and building, and I was only here for part of the cannabis conversations. But I sat in the back of that room for an entire year and also watched from home as cannabis conversations rolled out. And it's a community requirement. I don't think that planning a building decided, hey, you need to have residents. The community was concerned about people not being on the site, about not having enough eyes on cannabis at the time, about having an excessive amount of vehicles coming and going. There were a lot of conversations about why the residency requirement went in. I personally don't think that that's well, first

of all, it wasn't a planning building, it

was following direction. But I would say that that was a community concern, and that's why it's there. But Julia?

Sure. I can elaborate a little bit. With the cannabis facilities ordinance, when it was first prepared I think to move expeditiously to establish regulations as well they were tied the activities allowed for cannabis facilities were tied to analogous uses that were already permitted underneath the zoning code in these various districts. So that's where micro business was connected to the home occupation and cottage industry where say it's not for a cannabis related business, a home occupation and cottage industry for any other type of activity, say you're a baker or something like that working from home, you would be still subject to the residency requirement as well as the limitation on customers, etc. So it really was tying it to already existing activities that were permissible underneath the zoning regulations.

Part of my comments today also include, as you were referencing, that was then and this is now. And we have far fewer growers in the county, although we still know that those under regulation are outweighed by perhaps unregulated cultivators at a ratio of six to one. That was the last information we got out of the EIR report. My objective is not to, you know, try to point fingers per se, but to understand how we can make a difference and allow this industry to survive with the style and the ethos that was developed here in Mendocino County and that made it such a mecca for cannabis. So I am happy to give you further perspectives, but I think it is time that we take into consideration that cannabis is not baking.

Cannabis is not candle making. The word micro may have indicated that it was super, super small, but the fact of the matter is that Statewide, micro businesses under the state regulations have a completely broader impact. And we here have a much more limited opportunity under current regulations. So I am volunteering to help that process of making our own local ordinances better. Thanks.

Okay. And, Sarah and Julie, you don't have any indication about the 16 micro business licenses or the six twenty cultivation licenses, how many of those don't have residences on them? Do we have any sort of data or tracking that would tell us that maybe for the cultivation licenses in particular

so it would be a manual search of those 16 licenses which just I did not have adequate time to be able to do before the meeting today but if that's information that the the general government committee would like to have we can certainly do that and review those 16 licenses to see which may be standalone and which may have a cultivation component and if they have been issued the license and they had a cultivation component and they're not in a district that wouldn't have required being cottage industry or home occupation there is still a question of whether or not they have a residence on the property.

Okay and I'm only one person but I'll just say that you know all along, my goal has been to align with the state and to destigmatize cannabis. But if a home baker or candle maker also has that requirement, then I don't know that I'm personally aligned with the idea that we would just not have that rule for cannabis. Are there more public comments?

Morning. Steven Amato, president of the MCA. Thank you for having this discussion here today and for the report that was provided by PBS. Feel that not to just repeat a lot of what Corinne has just said for the last four or five minutes, This is part of a leftover from what was done years ago and the way the whole community did feel about cannabis and how restrictive and taboo ish it was at the time. And there's great concerns about activities happening in certain residential neighborhoods that we're all aware of that people have real major sensitivities towards.

But I feel there are certain areas and certain zonings and certain operations that could totally benefit would absolutely benefit from an expanded uses on their premises. Some of them even range land parcels that are 160 acres that don't have many other neighbors and such, I don't understand why they wouldn't be able to do something that goes beyond those very, very small scope and restrictive uses of the cottage business license of 600 square feet, having to have a home on the property. Like my personal cultivation, I don't reside in. I like to live at my home and have my business as my business. And I wouldn't be able to do any of these operations because I don't have a residential dwelling there.

So I think there's a lot that the next steps would be to really just look determine where it makes sense for some of these things to happen or not, or maybe re examine some of the zoning restrictions for cottage businesses, or whatever it takes to just make it more sensible for our county for business, period. I mean, we're struggling here, all industries. And I think you just having more this is a great step, showing that there's open mindedness. But really diving into it, it's going to take a little bit of work digging into what should be where. I mean, there's an administrative use permit system for some of these things, or certain zonings might have to just have more of a discretionary look at what makes sense for some of these folks.

But I mean, and especially besides just the community view of what cannabis was at the time when this was written, the industry itself has outgrown what's in those roles. It makes it almost negligible to even want to operate under those parameters that are spelled out in that. And folks are just looking to try to see what they could do to just try to survive. I mean, if they have more opportunities, more ways of conducting business. I mean, like for example, having 10 customers.

I understand in certain residential neighborhoods, we're not looking to turn it into like have a McDonald's going there. But 10 customers, let's say each one buys an eighth for $20 I mean, it's not even worth it. The squeeze isn't even nearly worth the juice on something like that. You're there hoping, oh, maybe this guy will be the one that buys more than that. I mean, it's just kind of silly.

It's antiquated. And I think we could do a lot better. I think we just put our minds to it and dig into it and give it a better view and a look with a more open minded modern lens that we have now, now that we see how cannabis is kind of enveloped as an industry, as a practice, it's not this giant boogeyman that was made out to be years ago, think I we could do a hell of a lot better. Thank you.

Steven, thank you very much for your comments. So when we're looking at some of the allowed zones, that's what you're thinking, that those need to be changed to allow additional zones?

I think they could be allowed to be changed. I mean, don't have it right in front of me now. I mean, refreshed myself even again this morning. But I think even more of like even site specific. So like, for example, Rangeland. You're only allowed to grow on Rangeland if you were a phase one operator. You can't get a new rangeland permit unless for phase three, it's not allowed. But I mean, if someone has an operation that's operating and working, the way it's currently written, they have to have a dwelling on that spot in order to do this business. Why wouldn't they be able to do they should be able to do some aspects of this without having to build a residential structure just to be able to try to self distribute.

Okay, thank you.

Good morning.

Good morning, everybody. Nelson. I'm sorry I was late. Our tax dollars are at work out there doing lots of construction. And it's great, but it takes a

lot

longer. Two small technical things that I would love to supplement. The memo that was written, there are a couple of technical things that were not uncovered which might be beneficial to this conversation. One is that under state law, distributor transport only qualifies as an activity. And that might be that we have here just called distributor a qualifying activity.

But it's important for those who are listening at home to understand that they don't have to acquire a full distribution setup in order to qualify at the state level for a micro business. It's a much lower barrier. Likewise, a technical clarification would be that distributor transport only licenses at the state level, just like cultivation, if the distributor transport only is on a cultivation site, it does not need the video cameras and that kind of surveillance. So those are just two lowering the bar, not that I believe our requirements increase the bar, but those are just technical clarifications that might benefit everybody. Going on to the broader themes, I think that for years, I know I've been saying that any discussion of facilities, whether it's micro business license or other kinds of facility license changes, really needs to be done with an analysis of where are the zoning and the building and planning, whether they are policy or interpretations of state law pain points, and how can we really look at them.

So for example, the whole movement that took years of Scott Ward and I getting the former building official to understand that porta potties could be used on cultivation sites rather than permanent ADA bathrooms being built, those kind of things. And actually, interestingly enough, just a few days ago I don't even know what day it is anymore. I've been traveling so much. We have the legacy cannabis genetics grant, and been going around doing community meetings. And when I was in Oakland, whenever it was, it was interesting because one of our meetings was in a community section of a dispensary.

It was separated from the dispensary. But I noticed that the bathroom was literally inside a porta potty, inside the permanent building. And so I said that many, many, many years ago, that there is no state law requirement having, even with a permanent building, a permanent bathroom or accessible bathroom, as the case may be, if there's employees or open to the public. And this was a really perfect example. They just put a porta potty inside.

So I thought that was interesting. So anyway, I think that any discussion, like the small details such as the areas where a residence may or may not be required, it seems like such little details, but some of these pain points are really the things that people have realized that they can't take advantage of full integration of their business. But I think I would be remiss, and I completely appreciate that the scope of this referral and this meeting is to address micro businesses specifically. But I believe that it would be helpful if we look again, and I understand it is a sensitive history, at the full complement of facility licenses because I think that there are other complementary business activities that could benefit our small businesses that should be looked at again. We had that unfortunate history where some comprehensive changes were enacted under facilities licensed previously and then were withdrawn.

And I think that it's been enough years that it's important for us to go back and look at the things that we can do. But any conversation, whether it's micro business or the individual activities, I think really should be coupled with are there policies, are there procedures, are there state laws that can be interpreted in a light that is different than a position that was taken in 2016 and 'seventeen, when some of this stuff was initially passed. Actually, it might have been later for facilities, but anyway. And I think that's what the point that Corinne was making. And it seems to invoke I feel like a comparison of the zoning and the building permit requirements is a necessary part of the discussion.

And I know it was raised in the memo, but analysis of whether or not there are additional interpretations of existing law that maybe can't be changed and identifying those areas where maybe additional laws need to be changed at the local level. For example, if there are updates to the general plan that are being done, where can we have an eye toward that, even if it's not an immediate action that will be affecting people right at the moment. One other thing that I'd also like to suggest to be a part of this conversation that may not be directly related looking at the text of ordinances and state law is the taxation situation. And also even the licensing fee situation, cultivators, as we know, have a minimum cultivation tax. But every other facility license is taxed on gross revenue.

And the state taxes on revenue. And of course, it exempts cultivation taxes. But all of the other license fees are so I'm going to separate this out. License fees are based on revenue under the state. And of course, the tax is also based on revenue, which is one more small plug for please, please, please individually, collectively support the right now urgent freeze on increasing the excise tax.

But that's a separate I'll make a comment in public comment. So I'm happy to talk about details if you'd like, but those are really the main points that I wanted to make, and I appreciate the time.

Thank you. I had a question about where you first started with the technical clarifications that you listed. So those allowances currently exist.

That's correct, State Park.

And there's just a misunderstanding in the

community about that they do exist? I don't know. I don't I think that some people don't realize it. I'm not sure how widespread that I don't know whether it's a misunderstanding. It's just that when the word distributor and it's not incorrect because it is a subtype and what's interesting, and this is an example of creativity at the state level after strong advocacy on our part, There was only distribution, which means you also have to do all this sequestering and testing and all of this stuff, which may not be as complicated as it sounds or take as much space as it sounds.

That's another thing related to our ordinances. I think that there's a vision in some of these terms that make people believe that you need a big huge warehouse to do some of this, and you may not. So it's worth, as Steve said, looking at each site. But back to your question, I am not sure whether people misunderstand that or not. It is just a tool that is available to look at a lower entry point.

The problem, though, is that until we have direct sales for cultivators and other operators as well, they still will, if they don't have a full distribution license, even if they could transport it and even if, let's say, they are doing a small manufacturing, a nonvolatile manufacturing, they are making bubble hash and they are, you know, doing a distributor transport only and they have cultivation, those are pretty low impact activities on a site. And they can qualify for a micro business at the state level. I don't know, I have no information about whether anybody has been denied or even applied under the distributor transport only. So I'm not sure how misunderstood or not it is. I just thought I'd point it out because it is a lower barrier to entry that's available at the state level now.

And it's very possible that people have already taken advantage of that locally.

Yeah. I think it would be helpful. Maybe some folks from MCA could help clarify that for people in the community. I was also wondering about the so obviously, you read the staff report. And the other at the end, there's other opportunities to align with state regulations, with the definitions. I mean, are those some of the things that you're thinking that we should continue to work on changing?

Well, to the extent and really, I think the key here is, on the one hand, we want alignment. On the other hand, we don't want to add burdens that aren't necessary. And so to the extent there are some of those clarifications that add another burden and there hasn't been a problem with those that are operating already, why add an additional item? And I can pull up the list and let you know some of those things, but it would take me a second. I feel like the name of the game here is making sure that there is adequate protection for the county, the neighborhoods, the people, consumers, but at the same time, sure that we really scrutinize every avenue to make sure that we are minimizing if there's not a problem, why create an additional barrier and opening up barriers that exist that may not serve a purpose any longer.

Would you like me to open up I can sit down and then raise my hand when I got it up.

Sure, if you'd like to, or if you want to send an email later, that's Okay, too.

I was going to say staff would be happy to receive that, too, so that way we can work through that.

Absolutely. Let me sit down so you can keep discussing things, and I'll pull it up and raise my hand.

Okay, thanks. Supervisor Norvell, any questions, thoughts?

I do. Thank you. So the 10 customers per day in the Carter's industry, how do we police that? And have we had any situations where we've had to go out and make corrections?

So it's usually a condition in your administrative permit. And we would respond if we received a complaint about it. But we typically haven't required a monitoring mechanism.

And we don't have we had complaints from

Not that immediately comes to mind for me for any not including micro businesses, any cottage industry home occupation. Typically, are they're operating within those bounds of their permit. But we will respond if there's a complaint that expresses noncompliance.

Okay. And then if we were to remove, say, that and or the dwelling requirement, you said that it's going to require CEQA document?

Yes so as it is right now the county utilized a common sense exemption I believe as part of our initial adoption of the cannabis facilities ordinance because we were tying it to analogous uses that had already been evaluated underneath the county's general plan EIR and when we created the zoning regulations. So to decouple from those requirements is certainly something that's possible but the department would really have to look at what's required from an environmental review perspective for allowing possibly a higher intensity level of commercial development in some of these zoning districts that don't allow those types of activities presently.

Okay. That's something I'd be interested in being brought back to the full board, that information. Thank you.

Additional public comment?

Hanna Nelson again. A couple of things in the memo that stand out to me with respect I already mentioned the video surveillance difference, that distributor transport only and cultivation are exempt. It's the distributor transport only if it's actually, think it's in general it's exempt, but maybe it's specific to distributor transport only that are located on cultivation sites. On page two, under the third bullet point, CCR 15000.3F, all structures on a licensed premises must be permanent, there is an important note that, A, cargo containers were specifically allowed B, even prefab sheds are allowed if you bolt down what might be considered a mobile or movable structure. If you have it bolted and you give them pictures, they are allowed.

So for example, if you have a trailer and it's bolted down, if you have a little shed, etcetera. So that's an important thing as well. And so the mobility in that sense is really just specific to the use at the time. And then there was one more thing. I don't really have any feeling here or there about the definitions, I think that would be fine to align.

And the more definitionally that are aligned, the better. I do think that it's worth noting that in some of the advocacy work that we at Origins Council have done,

we're

tracking that it's likely that additional changes to the regulations will be coming next year. And I think that it's important to keep those concepts in mind, particularly where we're talking about a system potentially where activities can be in different locations under one main license and that kind of structure, which is something that I would encourage us to consider here because that's another Avenue. Let's say somebody has they're an individual business, but one location is more appropriate for the cultivation and a different location is more appropriate for the manufacturing or retail, for example, having a system of one combined license but the activities might be occurring in a different area. Again, that's not yet here at the state level, but I believe it's likely to be coming. So depending on our timeframe, I don't want to suggest that we delay some of the changes that we could make right away, but I think that while we are looking at, gee, where can we look at maximizing flexibility and encouraging small businesses to operate, that's something to keep in mind.

I think that's about it. Thank you.

Okay, thank you. Yeah, mean, it's good to know that there might be other changes coming with the state. And I had a question for staff about the 10 customers. So if cannabis changed could you also change other businesses as well then the bakers and the candle makers would also change to whatever number?

Yes you could potentially change it again we would do a level of environmental review as part of changing home occupation cottage industry if we were to do that across the board I don't think that you could ever get away from the dwelling unit requirement as part of that because that's really how it's structured as it's for folks that live on the property to conduct a home based business essentially but I do also want to note that underneath the cottage like there's varying levels in terms of size limitations as you probably saw in the memo as well as to what amount area on your property can be dedicated towards these activities So the lowest tier is home occupation at six forty square feet, cottage industry limited at 1,000 square feet, and then cottage industry general at 2,000 square feet. So there are tiers also too for the level of sort of area that you can utilize for these. Getting back to one of the earlier comments we heard about sort of like the limited size for some of those activities.

Additional public comment.

Hello, Steven Amato again. Sorry, but I forgot last time when I was making my comment that something that's been really a hot topic amongst our members and folks in the cannabis industry and conversations with county economical development in other regions is cannabis tourism and being able to do on-site tours. And four years ago, when they were opening up and looking at these facilities and went through it, did a major discussion, had all these specific rules, regulations, design put in. And then that was squashed by I don't know if a lawsuit was actually filed or threatened. I don't know probably know better than me, but ended up kind of stopping that in its tracks.

And I just want to make sure that gets revisited because it's definitely wanted yesterday. And it could be something that our community could really benefit on and what makes us unique. And I don't see it much different than having a parcel with rangeland and vineyards and being able to do vineyard tours. I don't understand why folks wouldn't be able to share the beauty of what they do in the cannabis industry. Thank you.

Thank you. I have a question for staff. So Mo's cannabis cultivation, where she lives, and can also invite customers, can I give them a tour? And possibly in the future, can I have a low intensity camping site where they might be able to stay over and also have a tour?

Well I don't know if I can speak to low intensity camping yet since we don't have adopted regulations for that, but I think certainly if you have customers coming to your site as part of your home occupation, cottage industry, there's nothing in our eyes that would prevent you from walking them around the property. I think that what we had worked on with the ordinance that was referenced by the public comment was more specific regulations surrounding cannabis farm tours and such but the department itself would not prohibit or say you're in violation if you had your customers coming up to your site that 10 per day and providing them a tour of your facility.

Thanks that's good to know. I don't have a cannabis facility for anybody in the public that's watching the meeting that was hypothetical. Supervisor Norvell any? So additional public comment.

Thank you, Corinne Powell. I have one question for Supervisor Norville because I couldn't quite write fast enough. You wanted what element brought back to the full board?

The idea of separating the dwelling and the customer requirement from the cottage industry, or the home occupation.

So dwelling and then visits per day, was that the question? Correct. Okay, thanks. And I want to be sure that everybody involved is on the same page with plain reading and interpretations, because the residents' requirement always refers to the family. Agriculture is not always connected to a family.

For example, I do not have family members helping me on my farm. And I think that it is going to be restrictive if we continue to just stay within original definitions here. I think it will be detrimental to the county and to all the individuals. So family is a difficult concept to have with developing a business per se. And the elements that Hannah referenced as integrated, I had overlooked that when I was making my initial comments.

The integration of operations in a cannabis industry is what is allowing some larger corporations to thrive and some smaller businesses to go under. We want to have the ability on some competitive level with big ag corporate enterprises to allow us to do the same operations. That is what we are looking for. And yes, it means changing ordinances. It means getting more data, perhaps. But we are trying to survive. That is our main goal. Thank you.

Thank you. At this time I would like to go to our online commenter, Kami. If you could please unmute and be heard.

Hello. Can you

hear me? We can hear you.

Hi. This is Cammy Lynn. I'm a cultivator here in Mendocino County. A point I want to bring up is the zoning. And if I don't think it's in the attachment, but the zoning for the facilities permits, micro businesses are only allowed on RC, c two, I one, I two, and PI. And so I think only of those industrial are the ones they're allowed to cultivate, and so that's a point that would be really helpful is to allow other cultivations to have access to the the micro business.

Thank you.

Thank you. Could we have staff clarify the zoning, please?

Absolutely. So I think what the commenter spoke to are on the Table one within the zoning regulations, there's certain zoning districts where you can have a micro business without needing a cultivation component but then we did craft the regulations such that micro business can be permitted as a home occupation or cottage industry as essentially an accessory use to any cultivation activity that you may be doing on-site so that opened up the zones where you would be able to have it you're just limited to the home occupation and cottage industry standards.

Thank you. And I do believe that that was our only online comment, and I'm not seeing anybody else come forward in the room. I'd like to look towards staff. I'm wondering if you'd like to have this come back to another general government committee meeting, or you think that we have enough information to bring to the full board. What other direction are you looking for?

I think at this point we could probably go back to the Board of Supervisors with the information that we've heard. I think certainly bringing forward to the board for consideration about the decoupling of the home occupation and cottage industry. And then also we can include sort of these those other two buckets that I mentioned as well which is you know the potentially looking towards moving to one license being issued for micro business activities including your cultivation component and having that discussion and then also discussion about aligning with state regulations as it pertains to definitions and possibly looking at so we're not double dipping on some of the security requirements things like that.

Thank you. Supervisor Norveldt, any questions or additional thoughts?

No, I'm good with all of that. Thank you. Thank you.

I don't expect for the county to just advertise what people can do, but it just seems as though we continue to have a lot of misunderstandings about what is currently allowed. So if there's any way that in the item when it comes back to the full board. If it could possibly be, I don't know, an FAQ. Like, we're often asked if can you do this? Well, yeah, you can as it exists today. That's possible. I think that might be helpful if we just spell it out a little bit more for folks.

Yeah I think that's certainly something that we can work on as a department to include and the memo that we prepared I think helps with that so we're a step in the right direction it's just probably consolidating that to some of the questions or misunderstandings that we heard here today.

Great. Thank you. And let's go ahead and have one more public comment.

Quick. Hannah Nelson again. I'm wondering also if it's possible to direct staff to perhaps meet with me and or some other representative to kind of go over some of the opportunities that may exist for interpretation of building permit issues and things like the permanent versus portable toilet situation or bolting down opportunities and things of that technical nature that maybe don't require any kind of ordinance change or consideration, but certainly could be part of the discussion being brought back to the full board that's possible.

I would love to invite you to send an email requesting sending that information and possibly requesting a meeting or a phone call back. I don't think that the two of us can direct staff to work with you on those things but I think that I think that I think that they're open to hearing that feedback

well absolutely and I think Hannah she's worked with our office in the past on some of those clarifications so I think if you just shoot an email to us and we can sit down with the building official as well too if it loops him in and includes Sarah and her team as well.

That

would be ideal. Thank you very much. Thank you.

Well, if staff has enough direction.

We had one additional clarification that I'm going to look to Sarah. Okay.

Thank you, Julia. Sarah McBurney, Medicino Cannabis. One thing I did want to clarify and just mention for the public and just for overall awareness, the Medicino Cannabis website does have a updated FAQ that goes over exactly what can be done and who is needed to be contacted for your license. And additionally, I think both with the planning department and the cannabis department as well, situations can get really unique for each cultivator, so if you ever have any questions on your site or your license and what can be done, please contact us. Whether that's email, phone, you can come into the counter. We're happy to help you too and just kind of navigate your specific situation too. So I just wanted to throw that out there for everyone.

Perfect. Thank you so much. So with that, I suppose I'll make a motion or Supervisor Norvell can make a motion, since I'm the chair, that staff brings back the recommendations from the conversation today to the full Board.

So moved.

And I'll second. Great, thank you. We look forward to having that on the agenda when we can.

Yeah, we'll work with clerk of the board staff. I'm picturing that this probably would be coming back maybe in September since we are coming up on the July meetings very quickly in those due dates, so I'm not sure that we'll be able to turn around a packet in time, and the Board does have that recess during August.

Great. Thank you so much. We're now on to item 3A, the approval.

Through the Chair, if I may, I do need to conduct a vote for the motion.

I am so sorry about that, Clerk. Could we have a roll call vote, please?

Member Mulhern? Yes. Member Norville?

Yes.

The motion carries unanimously.

Thank you. Now we can move on to item 3A, the approval of the minutes from the 03/26/2025 regular meeting.

Move approval of the minutes.

And I will second that. Shall we take a vote on that, please?

Through the chair, if I may, we do need to call for

Are public

there any members of the public that have comments on it's like I'm new here. Are there any members of the public that have comments on the minutes? Okay, seeing none come forward and none in the room, how about now we could have a roll call.

Member Norvell?

Yes.

Member Mulhern? Yes. The motion carries unanimously.

Perfect. Thank you. Item 3B is public expression. Do we have any members of the public that wish to comment on non agendized items?

Hello again. It's as if I'm new here, too. Hanna Nelson. I would like to comment on two things. One is, as I mentioned earlier, Origins Council is partnered co principal Janine Coleman is the co principal investigator on the legacy cannabis genetics research project, which is an amazing, exciting, multidisciplinary research project funded by the DCC.

It involves oral histories, ethnographic studies, genetic testing and research, and creation of an herbarium, culturally sensitive community outreach and education, information regarding intellectual property tools available to cannabis operators and what is not available, and then public policy recommendations. Are in one of the reasons why I was like, ah, so tired was because we're in the middle of first community meeting tour. Just got back yesterday after being gone for quite a while and heading out tomorrow up to Trinity County and then down to Humboldt County. And the meetings in Humboldt County are going to be in Southern Humboldt. So for those people who might be watching this later or listening and you feel hopping up to the Matteel Community Center on Sunday or Monday from one to five, we're holding community meetings, giving information, and receiving feedback about the project.

Moving on to a different topic, the current trailer bill mosh pit is underway, and we encourage the supervisors to reach out to Senator McGuire if you're able to, and even leaving an explicit message with staff if you're not able to get through, to encourage the inclusion of the freeze, not decrease, just freeze, of the cannabis excise tax at the state level. It is set to jump up to 19% at the state level. That's separate from any local taxes. And that would pretty much devastate the struggling cannabis industry at this moment. Hopefully, we can get some freeze and let the industry stabilize.

But voices need to be heard regarding the importance of that for our economic development and survival and thriving in this region. So I appreciate any efforts that can be made. Thank you.

Thank you. Hannah, before you go, have a question. And maybe this is a better question for offline. But do we think the industry is going to stabilize? Like at what point do you think that is the industry going to turn around and be profitable? Are we just where we're at, are there thoughts in the community or conversations around that? We need another five years or ten years? This is just where we are.

I really don't mean to be snarky at all, but I keep ordering that crystal ball and it doesn't arrive. No, I think that it's just as much I don't know the specific answer. We at Origins Council did partner with Doctor. Robert Eiler on his economic study, and that was really instructive. We're definitely through these community meetings, like we were just down in Santa Cruz, we were in Oakland, San Francisco, Trinity, Humboldt, San Diego.

Later, we're going to LA, Sacramento, Richmond, back to Trinity, Humboldt, and Mendo. We were here in Mendo also. And so we are definitely getting even though it's about legacy cannabis genetics, of course those conversations are happening. I do not feel qualified to speak on behalf of everyone. But I think that just as it was death by 1,000 paper cuts getting here, in some part, conversation today is so important because it's perhaps pulling out that paper and letting those wounds heal 1,000 times or maybe even just 700 times that will help move the needle at least for craft cannabis operators.

And I think that the conversation is very diverse, and there are a lot of forces. I think that what's happening on the federal level and internationally will play a part. And that's really, in addition to be hyper locally focused, where we're also looking. We're looking to eventual interstate commerce and international. So for example, Origins Council has been working for the past ten years on the Appalachians program, and that hopefully is coming to final regulations maybe by the end of this year.

Each of these items collectively, the opportunities and then there is the hemp conversation. I mean, every single component of this Medusa is important and I think contributes to how things go. I do think that what we can do is make sure that our operators are able to hang in to get the benefits of some of it. So for example, the legacy cannabis genetics grant that we are doing is foundational work for IP protections, whether it's maybe some of that work can be utilized in the Appalachians or other IP protections. So all of it just has to keep chugging.

I really do wish I knew on kind of a bigger scale, if I could read the temperature. I do look at our larger economy issues and am concerned about that. But then cannabis has not always followed the exact trajectory, so it is really hard to tell. I would invite, if there is any way to invite Doctor. Eiler to come and speak, I think he does charge a small speaking fee.

But I think that would be really instructive and may give some information about the supersizing of small investments and how it rolls out to the community and the larger community and how those economics are bound up. I think that each of us know that experientially, but to have the statistics and maybe forecasting to whatever extent he's doing that would be helpful.

Thank you. Maybe Doctor. Eiler has the crystal ball. Thank you. Additional public expression for items that are not on the agenda?

Corinne Powell. It is not actually an agenda, but it is in response to the question that you set to Hannah about does she think we are going to collapse or does she think there is some future opportunities here with cannabis. And I want to express that those cultivators who are still in business in Mendocino County, who will perhaps no longer be in business in a year or so, it is clear that there is movement back into the black market because they are doing what they know how to do, they have connections, that is the course of least resistance. And I think we all know that it is almost impossible to enforce all components of current state and local regulations, But cannabis is a maligned plant that has many, many beneficial uses for human beings. And I think that it is clear with the way that various states have adopted cannabis regulations that it is here to stay with our society.

I want this community to express the culture and the history and the ethos that has made our cultivations superior and it is going to be a partnership. I hope that you too in hearing more of this will bring that same spirit of partnership with the industry and with regulations for mutual benefit and survival. Thank you.

Thank you. I'm not seeing any additional members of the public, and I have no hands raised online. So we can move on to item 3C. Supervisor Norvell, do you have any announcements?

I do not.

I do not either. So we will adjourn the meeting. Thank you.