Four Topics the Cannabis Framework may have missed the mark on

While we like many of the 16 items listed in the recently published Cannabis Framework, there are four areas that are cause for concern:

1. What is the purpose of the evaluation of whether or not to classify cannabis as agriculture?  Is one purpose is to allow cannabis the protections under the Right to Farm laws?  If so, this is a waste of time as the state does not classify cannabis as agriculture as confirmed by County Counsel last spring when the proposed Chapter 38 was discussed.  Furthermore, we all know that cannabis can be a huge nuisance to neighbors due to many aspects including odor, noise, lights, traffic, 24/7 activities, and safety.    Seeking Right to Farm protections not only violates state law, but also violates all the issues of neighborhood compatibility that are now being studied.   It’s putting the cart before the horse to consider a General Plan Amendment, prior to the EIR.  If the EIR supports expanded uses on Ag lands, only then should amendments to the General Plan be evaluated in parallel with crafting the new cannabis ordinance to harmonize them.  But such harmonization would not require that cannabis be classified as Agriculture!
   ‍
2. Environmental Analysis:
               c) Air quality.  Air quality must be analyzed not only for neighbors, but across the county.  Other counties and states have experienced a general stink in the air across wide swaths due to cannabis odors, with negative impacts on quality of life and tourism including for the wine industry and events.  We have discussed minimum setbacks of 1000 ft from a one-acre grow, but that setback may need to be much larger if down wind or if several grows are in the vicinity, or if grows are larger than 1 acre.
               e) Energy.  Potential impacts on fire risk must also be evaluated from indoor and mixed light cultivation, which should never be allowed in high or very high fire risk zones.
                f) Hydrology.  Impacts must be studied across all water uses, not just cannabis and Ag.  This includes residential in addition to agriculture, commercial and industrial, both current and projected uses and needs.  And it goes without saying that these analyses need to be done under the increased drought conditions that are projected with increased frequency due to climate change.  As these models are evolving, the most conservative should be followed.  The 50 year ‘wetter-than-normal’ rainfall forecasts previously accepted by the county need to be discarded, and a detailed new analysis be conducted for all water uses county wide.
                i) Wildfire.  In addition to our comments under Energy and to the site considerations staff mentioned, the increased wildfire risk from more people, vehicles, and construction need to be studied.  We appreciated your inclusion of the need of roads to support concurrent ingress of first responders and civilian evacuation, but this should also include at minimum a similar secondary ingress/egress route (not farm or PG&E roads!).  Evacuation planning needs to be part of these analyses, for the fast-moving wildfires that are the norm now.
   ‍
3. Permit Streamlining, Inclusion and Exclusion Zones.  We fully support the proposal for Inclusion Zones, with prior analysis of environmental and neighborhood factors that could lead to permit streamlining, eg for a greenhouse grow in an industrial park, with prior analysis of issues such power, water, waste management, parking, fire risk, emergency response times, proximity to sensitive uses, etc.
   ‍
   We also support the concept of streamlining options for discretionary permits, but this needs to be carefully thought through, only applied in certain pre-defined areas and never should be applied carte blanche.
   ‍
   However, ministerial permits should be discontinued.  As discussed above, expedited approval could be given in Inclusion Zones for certain types of pre-analyzed operations: eg greenhouse grow under XX sq ft in a pre-approved industrial park Inclusion Zone. Otherwise, there are always discretional issues to resolve.
   ‍
   Likewise, Exclusion Zones should be established, both as requested by communities as well as from analyses in the EIR of areas that are unsuitable due to issues such as wildfire risk, road access and remoteness, water availability, sensitive habitats and proximity to residences.
   ‍
4. Economic Analysis.  We urge you to include careful economic analysis by qualified outside experts, taking into account current as well as projected situations.  Increased production in other areas and states with much lower land, water and labor costs needs to understood, especially if interstate commerce is legal.  We also need to decide if we want cannabis production to be with small local growers, or if we prefer to cater to large corporate players such as is occurring in most other counties in California as well as here. Even in Humboldt County, the original heart of small local growers, the locals are being forced out by large, out of county and out of state corporations.

‍