PREVIOUSLY: Pressured by Upcoming Ballot Measure, County Supervisors Look to Improve Existing Cannabis Regs

###

The Humboldt County Board of Supervisors unanimously voted Tuesday to scrap its plans to place a county-backed alternative to the controversial Humboldt Cannabis Reform Initiative (HCRI), also known as Measure A, on the March 2024 ballot, opting instead to “wait and see” how the election unfolds before amending existing county rules.

The county’s proposed ballot measure would have served as a less extreme alternative to Measure A, which seeks to restrict commercial cannabis cultivation across the county through a host of stringent new rules.

At the beginning of this month, the Board of Supervisors asked staff to come up with a competing referendum that would limit the acreage and number of legal cannabis permits in the county by amending the county’s Commercial Cannabis Land Use Ordinance (CCLUO). The decision was sort of a last-ditch effort to address some public concerns about the county’s existing cannabis permitting rules ahead of the upcoming election. 

The proposed ballot initiative, “Humboldt County Limitations on Cannabis Permitting,” sought to lower the cap on the total number of cultivation permits by 60 percent, from 3,500 to 1,400, and reduce allowed acreage from 1,205 to 617. The proposal would have also set a one-acre maximum cultivation area and required additional public noticing for permits over 2,000 square feet.

Speaking during Tuesday’s meeting, Humboldt County Planning and Building Director John Ford noted that there are currently 1,578 permits and applications in the county’s database. A 50 percent reduction in cultivation permits would allow for roughly 1,736 permits and/or applications, he said.

Second District Supervisor Michelle Bushnell asked if the proposed changes to the CCLUO could be made without a ballot measure. Ford said, “Yes.”

Fourth District Supervisor Natalie Arroyo said she was appreciative of Planning and Building Department staff who put the proposed ballot measure together, but said the majority of the constituents she had spoken with “don’t feel like it is addressing their needs.”

“This was sort of an 11th-hour attempt to put something together that could be an alternative that addresses many folks’ concerns, but I also wanted to acknowledge that up until a month and a half ago, my expectation … was that we were going to see how it went in March and then adjust accordingly,” she said. “We’re all here kind of trying to cobble something together from the input we’ve received, which is all over the map, and it’s not the ideal way to do things.”

First District Supervisor Rex Bohn suggested that the board should do “everything in our power to make sure Measure A doesn’t pass.” 

“My issue with it – and I’m just gonna go ahead and say it – I’m not getting any correspondence from anybody saying it’s the greatest thing since buttered popcorn except for Mark [Thurmond] and Betsy [Watson],” Bohn said, referring to primary proponents of the HCRI. He acknowledged some of the shortcomings of the county’s ordinance but said, “We are trying to fix what we did, and I know that a ballot measure is not the way to do it.”

Speaking during the public comment portion of Tuesday’s meeting, John Casali, co-owner of Huckleberry Hill Farms, said he would oppose an alternative cannabis initiative, in part, because it could send a “conflicting message to voters” and imply that the county’s existing ordinance is flawed. 

Casali | Screenshot

“Putting any kind of restrictions on our small farms right now is really a death sentence, and I’d rather roll the dice on Measure A,” he said. “I believe the voters will do the right thing, and if they don’t it’s really going to be devastating to the whole industry.”

Dylan Mattole, owner of Mattole Valley Sungrown, also felt the proposed ballot measure was a “reactionary response” to Measure A.

“I think that Measure A is an example of when somebody has a personal problem – in this case, two individuals [that have] a problem with an individual, specific neighbor – that they then throw this big response at that affects the entire community,” he continued. “That’s not a good way to enact policy. … I would like to propose that we have a rule that we make no more rules restricting cannabis right now. … We don’t need new rules, we just need to start dealing with what we already have.”

Natalynne DeLapp, executive director of the Humboldt County Growers Alliance (HCGA), thanked the Board of Supervisors and county staff for responding to the cannabis community’s concerns but felt the proposal was too complex.

DeLapp | Screenshot

“Measure A is a gun pointed to everyone’s head and we should not be forced to make decisions under duress,” she said. “If you want to give voters a choice, keep it simple. … It feels a little like we’re going off the rails.”

Similarly, Ross Gordon, policy director of the HCGA, said the county had “some good ideas on the table” but felt the proposed ballot measure, as written, would have numerous unintended consequences.

Following public comment, Bushnell thanked staff for their time spent on the referendum but agreed that the whole process felt “a little rushed.” 

“I would also like to thank Director Ford because he pivoted very fast … and I just really want to say thank you for addressing [these] concerns so quickly, I know it’s been a heavy lift for you,” she continued. “I think the issue throughout the communities – and what that initiative was based on signature-wise – now has grown to something a lot larger.”

Bushnell made a motion to withdraw the proposal for the time being. Arroyo seconded the action. 

The motion passed 5-0.