The Coast News Group
Cannabis plants grow in an outdoor cultivation site, a practice that opponents say could expand into unincorporated San Diego County under the proposed Socially Equitable Cannabis Program. Photo by Alex Sole Gallego
Cannabis plants grow in an outdoor cultivation site, a practice that opponents say could expand into unincorporated San Diego County under the proposed Socially Equitable Cannabis Program. Photo by Alex Sole Gallego
CitiesCommunity CommentaryFallbrook/BonsallLettersOpinionOpinions

Opinion: County cannabis proposal threatens rural communities

There are over 500,000 residents in the county’s unincorporated areas. County planning groups are elected by residents to represent them and advise the county on land-use issues.

Sponsor groups are appointed for the same purpose. So it was shocking when the will of these residents was completely ignored at the Jan. 14 meeting of the Board of Supervisors.

At this meeting, staff presented the Socially Equitable Cannabis Program to the supervisors for their direction on three options in the Draft Environmental Impact Report (DEIR). There was also a fourth option: to discontinue the program.

Planning and sponsor groups have consistently voiced opposition to this program, which is being forced on all of the unincorporated areas in the County of San Diego.

This program would give those who have convictions and were affected by the war on drugs preferential treatment and grants to start cannabis businesses in the unincorporated areas. It would allow outdoor cultivation, labs, dispensaries, consumption lounges, events, and other cannabis-related businesses throughout the entire unincorporated San Diego County.

During lengthy public testimony, documented safety, health and environmental impacts were presented based on CEQA and the county’s own DEIR. The purpose of CEQA is to prevent significant, avoidable environmental damage by requiring changes in projects, either by the adoption of alternatives or the imposition of mitigation measures.

Nonetheless, the majority of supervisors not only directed staff to develop the option that, according to their own Draft Environmental Impact Report, would have the greatest environmental impacts, but also disregarded the overwhelming opposition to this program from the residents who will suffer the environmental and safety impacts it will bring.

To be clear, the opposition is not about marijuana itself. It is not about using marijuana. This is legal in the state of California. Most of the planning groups are not opposed to dispensaries.

This is about two separate issues. 1: Equity for those affected by the war on drugs, and 2: Land use and the negative environmental impacts on residents living in some of the most beautiful land in our state. Land use and the negative impacts are our concerns.

The opposition centers on land-use issues that would allow outdoor marijuana grows and large-scale commercial cultivation near residential areas. The extremely harmful environmental impacts have been documented in other regions that have legalized cannabis cultivation.

It’s also about the potential rise in crime, health and safety issues that have also been well documented, as well as the dangers that consumption lounges and events (impaired drivers) will bring to the rural and semi-rural towns.

Planning groups supported a reasonable alternative that would only allow indoor cultivation to address environmental and health concerns, and greater buffers/setbacks at more sensitive locations like parks, trails, and churches. It would remove the consumption lounges and events, which are the most damaging to public safety (impaired drivers).

Incredibly, the majority of supervisors completely ignored this alternative. This reasonable compromise would substantially lessen the program’s land-use and safety impacts and meet most of the program’s basic objectives.

However, it appeared that the majority of supervisors had already made their decision, and their only concern was for those affected by the war on drugs, not the residents who live in the areas that will be affected.

Supervisors, there is still time to revise your direction and establish your goal of a Socially Equitable Cannabis Program. We are not being unreasonable.

We are simply asking for more environmental and public health and safety guardrails to protect the half a million residents, especially the most vulnerable children and seniors who live in the beautiful unincorporated San Diego County.

Respectfully,

Fallbrook Community Planning Group

Fallbrook Community Planning Group members are Chairperson Eileen Delaney, 1st Vice-Chair Stephani Baxter, 2nd Vice-Chair Jeniene Domercq, Secretary Jim Loge, and Ross Pike, Roy Moosa, Steve Brown, Kelly Hansen, Tom Harrington, JJ Neese, Lee DeMeo, Aldo Alvidres, Scott Spencer, Debbie Williams and Kathleen Morris.

Leave a Comment