SANTA CRUZ — Following input from both neighbors and cultivators, the Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors this week voted 3-2 to revise the setbacks for non-retail commercial cannabis backing up to residential zones to include a 400-foot setback from residence to outdoor grow area.
The setbacks are potentially lessened for indoor cultivation, such as nursery operations.
“The advantage of this option would allow for site-specific evaluations which can be a better way to address specific neighborhood concerns without a broad stroke elimination of eligible parcels,” staff added in its report to the elected leaders. “In addition, exceptions to setbacks would require a public hearing, allowing for community input and adjudication by an impartial administrator.”
The motion passed with a request for a study session in 2022 in order to follow up on the effectiveness of the moratorium through a means that will add to quarterly reports. County staff will work with the planning commission to study and address the conflicts presented by agricultural production near residential neighborhoods before it comes back to the board.
Through prior analysis, staff determined that safety, noise and water usage have not been determined to be identifiable concerns in Santa Cruz County in the past.
Supervisors Zach Friend and Greg Caput did not agree with the motion. Both spoke on the basis that the cannabis community should be working with the neighbors, in good faith, to make everyone happy.
“The staff report read like an advocacy for the industry and did not contain a vein of neutrality in any stretch,” said Friend, who brought the item forward in August due to the disproportionate impact of adjacent agricultural and residential land in his district. “The setback that (the other supervisors) are speaking of really does nothing to improve the situation within the residential areas… The issues have arisen specifically where we allow a license to be secured within a residentially zoned or conflict area.”
Their colleagues, Supervisors Ryan Coonerty and Manu Koenig, both spoke of the reality of legality and protections around commercial cannabis. Koenig, who went out and visited several cannabis farms in the region, said that the state requires the county to promote commercial agriculture in the zoned areas; though some community members would favor turning the zone residential and adding more housing, that would not be permitted by state officials.
“Within the next five years cannabis will be treated like a crop … greenhouses could be converted and there would be no regulations,” Coonerty said. “This is our opportunity to have a community voice on the use and put conditions on (non-retail commercial cannabis) to reduce the impact.”
An open invitation
On Tuesday, the conversation around whether or not to limit the Non-Retail Commercial Cannabis Program was largely based on a pending application at 110 Crest Drive in La Selva Beach. This is because Crest Drive neighbors showed up in droves for the second time since the idea of a moratorium was brought up.
Approximately 22 residents in favor and three residents opposing one proposed staff option, an extension of the moratorium, spoke during public comment, listing burdens such as looming grow lights and benefits such as existing procedures that already regulate cannabis operations.
Both Crest Drive neighbors and local cultivators sent their own group letters to the Board of Supervisors prior to the hearing.
Crest Neighborhood’s letter, provided by resident Sara Broadbent, specifically asked the board not to allow a proposed 22 cannabis greenhouses bordering a preschool and day care.
“Our neighborhood farm is in the core of our area and we have worked cooperatively with the past nursery operators and their farm workers. We have banded together to keep it as a traditional farm, not a large industrial/commercial enterprise as is being proposed,” neighbors said.
The cannabis community’s letter, offered by Bird Valley Organics CEO Terry Sardinas, spoke of the thorough testing cannabis farms endure and the incomes and taxes yielded that support the community as a whole. It also invites neighbors to come and take a look at what’s happening there.
“We are proposing opening up the communication channels with neighbors and those in opposition,” Sardinas said before this week. “We know that people have been taught to be a little bit afraid of cannabis and the people who farm it … we want them to see we are focused on doing good things for our community and for our planet.”
The debate should not begin or end at 110 Crest Drive, contested the project’s applicant Alex Monceaux.
“The county has notified us that we are going through a Level 5 (review) so every neighbor will be brought out to discuss all concerns whether we move forward or not.”
Ultimately, Monceaux and his crew at Merced Investment Co.LLC don’t want to be in a neighborhood where they aren’t wanted. They are used to addressing concerns, such as protecting the habits of nearby endangered species, at other locations in the Central Valley and would be more than willing to do the same in La Selva Beach, he said.
“We are still six to eight months away, maybe a year the county said to us. Please don’t hold up the other 23 applicants,” Monceaux concluded.
Editor’s Note: This article has been adjusted since print publication to erase an inaccuracy around part of the board’s decision-making. The interim urgency moratorium set in September will expire at the end of the month.
