County sued over rules on pot growing

The Board of Supervisors unanimously agreed last month to allow cannabis cultivation in existing greenhouses in unincorporated areas of the San Mateo County coastside.

The lawsuit filed Friday cites potentially adverse environmental impacts to water use, light pollution, energy demands and on habitat. It also notes the increased number of people who will come to the area to work in the cannabis industry.

In the suit, the coalition alleges “the county prejudicially thwarted CEQA’s statutory goals, including environmental protection, informed decision-making and informed public participation.”

Concerned coastsiders previously started online petitions asking the county and city of Half Moon Bay to ban all pot businesses from sprouting up until the effects of the new statewide law are understood. The coalition’s petition cites concerns about the impacts to youth, public safety and the environment.

Local governments across the state have responded differently to Proposition 64, and CEQA is often cited as grounds for lawsuits on land use decisions.

Proponents of legalizing recreational marijuana say the new rules enhance safety and note the state prepared a comprehensive environmental analysis of the industry.

“The suit is sponsored by an anti-pot group,” Dale Gieringer, director of the California chapter of the National Organization for the Reform of Marijuana Laws, said in an email. “Their complaints are without merit.”

The county spent months studying the industry and hosting various stakeholder as well as public meetings before outlining an extensive licensing process for commercial cultivation on the coast.

Attorneys with the Aqua Terra Aeris Law Group are representing the coalition in the suit that claims the county should have prepared formal documents that studied the impacts to the environment. The ATA law firm was recently awarded thousands of dollars for a case in San Francisco County Superior Court. In that case, ATA attorneys represented a nonprofit that alleged a medicinal marijuana company failed to warn consumers about the health hazards of pot.

Attorneys representing the SMC Marijuana Moratorium Coalition did not respond to requests for comment Monday. Officials with San Mateo County were also not available to discuss the pending litigation.

Impact report

Gieringer, whose Cal NORML group supports reform of marijuana laws, said Proposition 64 extensively regulates the industry and noted the California Department of Food and Agriculture prepared a comprehensive environmental impact report on the cannabis-licensing program.

In the case against San Mateo County, the SMC Marijuana Moratorium Coalition alleges officials should have conducted their own full environmental impact report before approving rules in December. As part of its approval, the county prepared a “negative declaration,” which suggests the rules will not result in any significant impacts, according to the suit.

The local regulations came in response to Proposition 64, which legalized a budding industry and recreational marijuana for adults 21 years and older. The state began licensing businesses that grow, test, manufacture and dispense marijuana. On Jan. 1, 2018, the first legalized recreational pot sales took place.

But local governments also have the ability to restrict what types of personal cultivation and business can occur in their jurisdiction. In San Mateo County, the vast majority of cities have banned commercial operations and restricted personal growing to indoors only. Pacifica has medicinal dispensaries and is in the process of accepting applications for recreational sales.

County oversight

The Board of Supervisors, which has jurisdiction over land use policies for unincorporated areas of the county, put a moratorium in place on retail sales. But citing a dwindling cut flower industry on the coastside, it unanimously agreed to allow commercial marijuana cultivation in existing greenhouses so long as it doesn’t displace traditional crops being grown. It also set up a requirements related to odor control, energy and water consumption, waste management and surveillance systems.

The local ordinance goes beyond state regulations by limiting grows to properties that are set back at least 1,000 feet from lots zoned for residences, schools, youth centers, day care centers or rehab centers.

The county’s ordinance does not cover Half Moon Bay, which also wrestled with the topic before the council agreed to hold off last year and potentially return to voters for a decision on a local ordinance.

In the meantime, the coalition’s lawsuit against the county could have statewide ramifications if a judge rules individual jurisdictions are required to undergo their own extensive environmental reviews before legalizing pot businesses.

samantha@smdailyjournal.com

(650) 344-5200 ext. 106

Twitter: @samantha_weigel