Supervisors OK permits for contentious pot grow
The Humboldt County Board of Supervisors has given the controversial Rolling Meadow Ranch cannabis project the green light. After a lengthy discussion on Tuesday, supervisors voted 3-2 to deny the appeal of the Planning Commission’s Jan. 21 approval of the industrial scale cannabis project near the community of McCann in rural Southern Humboldt.
The proposed project consists of six conditional use permits for 5.73 acres of mixed-light cultivation, including 16 greenhouses, five processing facilities, onsite water treatment systems and has an overall footprint of 8.5 acres.
The 12,000-acre ranch was historically used for ranching and timber operations.
During a presentation to the board, senior planner Meghan Ryan boiled down the appealants’ concerns to three major points:
• The project could be bad for the environment
• The project does not comply with Humboldt County rules related to cannabis and fire risk.
• The project needs an (environmental impact report and should be redesigned to comply with the General Plan and county code.
“A fair argument must be based on substantial evidence such as factual data or expert opinion,” Ryan said. “The existence of public controversy over environmental impacts and projects should not require preparation of an environmental impact report if there is not substantial evidence for the lead agency.”
The appellants — Fran Greenleaf, John Richards and Patty Richards who live near the project site — also questioned whether or not the property’s three groundwater wells and rain catchment would accommodate the project’s annual demand of 4,628,200 gallons of water without
affecting the neighboring Eel River. They also questioned the maintenance of McCann Road and access roads, especially in the event of a fire.
Jason Holder, the attorney hired by the three appellants, argued that the project does not comply with CEQA, the state’s Environmental Quality Act.
“If there is a disagreement among expert opinions supported by facts over the significance of an effect on the environment, the lead agency shall treat the effect as significant and shall prepare an EIR as a mandatory duty,” Holder said.
During public comment, all but one of the 20-plus callers asked the board to uphold the appeal and deny the project.
Speaking on behalf of the Environmental Protection Information Center, executive director Tom Wheeler said the project is “too impactful for the location it is being proposed.”
“Contrary testimony from the appellant and the applicant can confuse what is obvious and what is at the heart of this, which is the desire by the people of this county to discourage cannabis production in the hills,” Wheeler said. “EPIC participated in the development of both cannabis ordinances 1.0 and 2.0. and behind both ordinances was a gold desire to prevent or discourage large growth from the areas out in the hills, as we euphemistically refer to them here in Humboldt County, and to prioritize large developments, like the one proposed, in already impacted areas.”
Lifelong Humboldt County community member Ryan Rice, a self-described property rights advocate, argued on behalf of the project and said everyone “should be able to enjoy the same rights to prosper.”
“The extremely thoughtful planning commission … on Jan. 21 approved this project,” he said. “The intent of the commission is to be the oversight authoritative body that approves the project that meets all the criteria the county ordinance is asking of an applicant. This project passed 4-1 on Jan. 21 by the Commission. It should also be noted that the Board of Supervisors is the body that puts those individuals onto the commission. For this, I ask that you vote to reject the appeal and approve the Rolling Meadow Ranch’s project as proposed.”
Following public comment, Humboldt County Planning and Building Director John Ford told supervisors significant impacts must be factually based.
“When it comes to fair argument, it’s not that the staff is attempting to put the unfair burden on the appellant to demonstrate that there is a significant adverse impact,” Ford said. “What we’ve been trying to say is that you can’t have proof of a significant adverse impact because a lot of people are opposed to a project, it has to be factually based.”
Third District Supervisor Mike Wilson brought up the possibility of increased development in the McCann area if the project is approved.
“I don’t really see any real guarantee that the ranch will never be developed or
the rest of the 12,000 acres or that this development doesn’t somehow incentivize more subdivision of that of the ranch,” Wilson said. “…When we looked at those other branches that had been subdivided up, it was driven by this development.”
Fifth District Supervisor Steve Madrone lamented the days of small farms and described the increased potential of environmental impacts.
“I have a lot of heartburn over these large industrial grows out in the middle of nowhere. … I wish we had maintained the small farms and the high quality and lower industrial use, but there were problems with those as well, the roads were a mess, all kinds of things,” Madrone said. “… A lot of people think an EIR somehow will automatically cause a project to fail but that’s not necessarily true at all. In fact, having gone through an EIR, it actually almost bulletproofs the project from litigation.”
After nearly three hours of discussion, supervisors ultimately rejected the appeal and directed staff to add five additional conditions of approval to address fire preparedness, prevent the spread of sudden oak death and to add a second rain catchment.
The board voted 3-2 with Wilson and Madrone dissenting.