Community calls on commission to deny Arcata Bottoms megagrow
More than 30 Arcata community members spoke out against the Arcata Land Company’s proposed 22.9 acre megagrow at the former Simpson Timber Mill site during the Humboldt County Planning Commission’s virtual meeting on Thursday. After nearly three hours of discussion, most of which was public comment, commissioners voted to continue the conversation during its next meeting on April 1.
Since it became public knowledge, community members have raised concerns that the industrial commercial cannabis project — spanning nearly 1 million square feet — is too big and too close to residential neighborhoods in the Arcata Bottoms.
The applicant, Lane DeVries CEO of the Arcata-based floral company Sun Valley Floral
Farms, created the Arcata Land Company to administer the former mill site after purchasing the property in the 1990s. The 38.3-acre property was originally purchased to serve as an additional cultivating site for irises, tulips and lilies but after taking a hard hit from the COVID-19 pandemic, DeVries decided it was time to dive into the cannabis industry.
“We have been working really hard to continue to be a flower
farm and it’s not been easy in a difficult environment in California,” DeVries said during Thursday’s meeting. “Now on top of that, last year the COVID-19 pandemic hit our company particularly hard. We had our greenhouses full of flowers slated for the Easter holiday. When the pandemic hit, we lost millions and millions and millions of flowers that just bloomed out in our greenhouses.”
DeVries said the cannabis project would save Sun Valley Farms and the livelihoods of its 450 employees but said his company does not intend to grow cannabis. The Arcata Land Company is looking for a “logical tenant” interested in leasing or purchasing the site.
“We discovered that on heavy industrial property, like the (Arcata Land Company) property, provided for the type of things that we’ve been talking about which is why we proceeded with the application process over four years ago,” DeVries said. “Sun Valley is not a cannabis grower and we do not intend to grow cannabis. We intend to grow flowers, we are principally flower farmers, but we look at this as an avenue to continue to stay in business.”
“The livelihood of 450 team members and their families depend on the approval of this project,” he added.
Humboldt County Planning and Building Director John Ford admitted that the “size probably shocks people” but said the proposed project aligned with the county’s push for industrial commercial cannabis grows to be located on industrial properties and out of rural communities.
“It has been a priority of the county to process cannabis cultivation on industrial sites,” Ford said.
During senior planner Rodney Yandell’s presentation to commissioners, he explained how the applicant would mitigate the community’s primary concerns — increased traffic, odor, light/noise pollution, energy use, impacts to bird and pesticide use — but more than 30 public commenters said it was not enough.
Natalynne DeLapp, executive director of the Humboldt County Growers Alliance, told the commission the 22.9 acre project does not comply with the county’s Commercial Cannabis Land Use Ordinance.
“What you have before you is a one million square foot 23 acre project that on its face seems to conform to the first cannabis land use ordinance,” DeLapp said during public comment. “Well, at least the ordinance doesn’t expressly prohibit what’s being proposed but it is in violation of the principles of the second land use ordinance which clearly state that eight acres is the maximum allowed for cultivation.”
The Commercial Cannabis Land Use Ordinance states, “No more than eight acres of commercial cannabis cultivation permits may be issued to a single person.” However, the county’s Commercial Medical Marijuana Land Use Ordinance does not provide size limits for cannabis cultivation operations zoned Heavy Industrial.
“Never in all of my years of attending and actively participating in these chambers was cultivation greater than eight acres imagined or discussed,” DeLapp said. “This project is a bloated monstrosity, arrogant and out of touch in its assumptions of legality and does not conform with the vision of Humboldt’s cannabis industry is craft, local or independent as we have collectively established within our laws, policies and programs.”
Referring to DeVries’ presentation, Humboldt County community member Dave Dickenson told commissioners he had never before seen “such an infomercial” before the Planning Commission.
“That was pretty spectacular,” Dickenson said. “Sadly, I think this project is out of scale and out of proportion. I think that this actually more problems for our local industry than it proposes to solve.”
Kim Puckett said she lives 800-feet away from the project site and urged commissioners “to act in the public’s interest” as the vast majority of public commenters voiced opposition to the project.
“I think it’s really unfortunate that Mr. DeVries’ business is failing but is that our responsibility? Is it the community’s responsibility to bail out a failing business?” she asked.
Fewer than than 10 community members, many of whom were Sun Valley Farms employees, spoke out in favor of the project.
“I sympathize with those (who don’t want this project) but we employ 450 real people at Sun Valley and the general public should think about that employee count,” said Cindy Stezel. “…We cannot disregard the emotional toll of watching our friends and families suffer economic hardship and the personal loss we will feel when our friends and family are forced to leave this beautiful area we all know, love and want to preserve.”
Sun Valley employee William Padilla said DeVries instilled in his employees, “treat your neighbors as you want to be treated.”
“Lane cares about his community, he cares about his workers,” Padilla said. “We’re talking 450 people and their families, thousands of people that are part of this community as well…I think that needs to be taken in consideration.”
After two hours of public comment, commission chairman Alan Bongio told the remaining public commenters they would have the first opportunity to speak during the planning commission’s April 1 meeting. The commission voted unanimously to continue the conversation next month.