NV County supervisors move to bring equitable access for retail cannabis, neighbors object
Nevada County residents who want more legal cannabis retail businesses in unincorporated areas of the county may gain more equitable access to dispensaries after the Nevada County Board of Supervisors voted this week to pursue grant funding.
During Tuesday’s board of supervisor’s meeting, the board approved an application from the Department of Cannabis Control that if approved, would allow for Phase I funding of up to $10 million to enable Nevada County to establish a cannabis retailer licensing program in unincorporated location(s) according to the staff report.
Up to $10 million in total funding is available for Phase I and an additional $105,000 equity bonus is available for jurisdictions meeting qualifications, according to the report.
“This grant program aims to provide consumers with reliable consumer access to regulated, tested cannabis in the legal market, and reduce demand in the illicit market,” the memo said.
Cannabis may be legal in California, but 56% of cities and counties in California do not allow any type of cannabis business, according to The Department of Cannabis Control (DCC) on the CA.gov website.
This limits consumer access to regulated, tested cannabis and cannabis products and creates a need for an “equity bonus” within the grant for counties that qualify, especially for individuals who can not travel long distances to purchase cannabis or do not have access to delivery services in their area, according to DCC.
A blank application for the Phase I of the grant was included in the board packet and Lisa Swarthout, supervisor for district 3 commented that staff needs to be given clear direction, even though she was in support of the application, she felt some unintended consequences occurred.
“I want to make sure that we are really clear when we check these boxes,” Swarthout said. “I want to make sure we are… holding community outreach meetings and engagement events, conduct surveys or otherwise solicit input, form a stakeholder workgroup or technical advisory committee, consult local jurisdictions with existing cannabis programs, conduct economic studies and conduct environmental reviews.”
The Supervisors discussed the plan in January at their board workshop, and because the grant is a planning grant and a competitive grant it will return for the supervisors to review several times as the application moves through the grant process, according to Kimberly Parker, Economic Development Office.
“There are often unintended consequences with new projects like this, I think we saw that this morning with the people who came in to talk about the cannabis grows in their neighborhood,” Swarthout said. “I want to make sure the public is fully aware and that there is a lot of public input and insight into the process.”
Swarthout’s comments were referring to four residents on Meyers Ravine Road who spoke during public comment urging the board not to approve a permit for a 4,995 square foot mixed light cannabis cultivation, according to Matthew Kelley, Nevada County senior planner.
“There are several deficiencies of infrastructure along Meyer Ravine Road,” Jeanne Franklin, a neighbor objecting to the commercial cannabis grow said.
“The road is a dead end, narrow, unevenly paved [private] road which handles light traffic….It is unsuitable for …the proposals for a 5,000 square foot commercial building and three 3,000 square foot greenhouses,” Franklin said.
Increased traffic, noise, lighting at night and odors from harvesting were key complaints from the Meyers Ravine Road neighbors, according to Franklin.
Franklin requested info from the board of on how they and other residents in Nevada County could form an exclusionary zone to keep commercial cannabis away from their properties during a January meeting.
“Let’s nip this in the bud and end this commercial grow,” Franklin said.
District 2 supervisor Ed Scofield visited the properties of neighbors along Meyer Ravine Road on April 4, 2023, after receiving many emails, phone calls and the list of signatures against that particular permit for a commercial cannabis grow.
“We’ve dealt with illegal black market grows for years with little success,” Scofield said in an email to Franklin. “Once California made cannabis legal, we had to create an ordinance that allowed for permitted cannabis operations. This operation, which is not a huge grow, is going through the legal process. If a permit is obtained, we are able to monitor the operation. We can go on site at any time and rectify any violation of the permit. This is not a black market operation.”
Other neighbor’s concerns centered around the quality and quantity of groundwater.
“If they intend on importing water…with the use of heavy trucks will destroy our private road. Autumn Yoder, a neighbor of the proposed commercial cannabis grow said. “A residential neighborhood is no place for a commercial pot grow. It simply will not be safe for my children to play.”
Other residents expressed their opposition to the permitting of the project.
“We were not notified of these permits. It was by chance that the homeowners found out when paid surveyors were on our road,” according to information Franklin included in a petition.
Support Local Journalism
Support Local Journalism
Readers around Lake Tahoe, Truckee, and beyond make the Sierra Sun's work possible. Your financial contribution supports our efforts to deliver quality, locally relevant journalism.
Now more than ever, your support is critical to help us keep our community informed about the evolving coronavirus pandemic and the impact it is having locally. Every contribution, however large or small, will make a difference.
Your donation will help us continue to cover COVID-19 and our other vital local news.