Planning for Cannabis Cultivation As a Land Use in California's Emerald

Pot Zoning Planning for Cannabis Cultivation as a Land Use in California’s Emerald Triangle

Daniel C. Froehlich Pot Zoning Planning for Cannabis Cultivation as a Land Use in California’s Emerald Triangle

A thesis presented to the Faculty of the Columbia University Graduate School of Architecture, Planning, and Preservation in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree Master of Science in Urban Planning

May 2019

Daniel C. Froehlich

Faculty Advisor: Moira O’Neill-Hutson, JD

Jury Reader: Anthony Borelli, MSUP Abstract Table of Contents Despite ongoing federal prohibition, American states continue to legalize the cultivation, pro- I. Introduction...... Page 6 cessing, distribution, and possession of cannabis for both medical and recreational purposes. State-level frameworks for legalization vary greatly across the nation, including whether counties II. Background: Humboldt County in Context...... Page 10 and municipalities are authorized to use their zoning and other police powers to regulate canna- bis-related uses within their jurisdictions. In California—where medical marijuana has been legal III. Legal Context: California Cannabis Conundrum...... Page 16 since 1996 and recreational cannabis since 2016—localities are granted such authority, placing IV. Literature Review...... Page 22 planners on the frontlines for devising land use schemes for a once prohibited activity and doing so with little guidance from higher levels of government. Cannabis cultivation has a storied history V. Methodology...... Page 32 in California’s Humboldt County, where it is a multibillion-dollar industry with well-documented environmental impacts. This study deploys a qualitative, multiple-case study research design to VI. Multiple-Case Study: Jurisdiction Narratives...... Page 36 better understand how Humboldt County and three of its incorporated cities have used their zoning and land use authority under state law to regulate cannabis cultivation not only for neighborhood VII. Discussion: Cross-Case Analysis...... Page 50 impacts or environmental concerns but also for other components of public health, safety, and welfare. The study reveals the innovative planning interventions these jurisdiction have deployed, VIII. Conclusion...... Page 60 which not only reflect local goals pertaining to the ever-evolving cannabis industry but also local IX. Bibliography...... Page 64 considerations of equitable economic development. X. Appendices...... Page 72

4 5 Map 1: Landscape of State- Level Cannabis Liberalization in the Unted States (November 2018) I. Introduction

Medical Use Permitted

Recreational Use Permitted

he code of the mountain: take the 34 American states have legalized the cultiva- law into your own hands.” Spoken tion, processing, distribution, and possession by a self-described isolationist of cannabis for medical use (NORML 2018). “Tand longtime resident of Alderpoint, a remote Additionally, ten states (Alaska, California, Col- community in the mountains of southwest Hum- orado, Maine, Massachusetts, Michigan, Neva- boldt County, CA, in the 2018 documentary da, Oregon, Vermont, and Washington) and the series Murder Mountain, these words represent District of Columbia have legalized recreational a mentality held pervasively by those who have use. risked their lives to covertly grow cannabis in Humboldt County and the wider Emerald Previous scholarly research has demonstrated Triangle, the historical source of the majority that state-level frameworks for legalization vary of the American marijuana supply. For decades, greatly across the nation (Cambran et al. 2017, cannabis growers in this remote, predominantly Chapman et al. 2016, Chumbler et al. 2017, rural region have faced drug enforcement and Grimes et al. 2015, Klieger et al. 2017, Pacula persecution but have continued to hone their et al. 2014). A key distinction among regulatory craft, motivated not only by cannabis’ inflated regimes is the authority granted by state legis- prices under prohibition but, for many, also by lation to county and municipal governments to the particular way of life it represents. The law- regulate cannabis-related land uses within their lessness of Humboldt’s mountains, however, is jurisdictions. There are generally two approach- today confronted with a new reality. As of 2017, es in this regard: to expressly authorize locali- California has a state-sanctioned, regulated, ties to use their zoning and other police powers commercial cannabis industry for both medical to regulate cannabis-related uses beyond those and adult use. standards established by statewide legislation or to expressly limit such local authority (Chum- Since the United States adopted the Controlled bler & Fields 2017). In the former instance, Substances Act in 1970, marijuana has been urban planners are placed “in the unusual classified as a Schedule I substance. However, situation of devising land use schemes” for an since 1996, the landscape of state enforcement activity that was once entirely prohibited (Ste- of this federal prohibition has changed swiftly phens 2010) and doing so with little guidance and remarkably. As of the 2018 election cycle, from higher levels of government (Ward 2010).

6 7 8 I. Introduction safety, andwelfare.Given Humboldt’s long- but alsoforother componentsofpublic health, borhood impactsandenvironmental damage bis cultivationnotonlyout ofconcernforneigh use authorityunderstate lawtoregulatecanna how localitieshaveused theirzoningandland Dell—in amultiple-casestudyforexploring incorporated cities—Eureka, Arcata, andRio Humboldt Countyandthreeofitsconstituent ing. This studyseekstofillthatgapbyusing industry fromaplanningperspectiveislack view ofhowlocalgovernmentsaddressthis marijuana cultivation,acomprehensiveover community impactspresentedbycommercial nities, environmentalissues,andotherpotential Despite theseconsiderableeconomicopportu 2015, Mills2012, Wang 2016). in thecounty(Baueretal.2016,Carah able environmentalimpactsofgrowoperations search hasdocumentedthoroughlytheconsider Gianotti etal.2017). Additionally, previousre- to $3.6billiontheregion’s economy(Short cultivation annuallycontributesasmuch$1.5 Polson 2013).Sourcesestimatethatcannabis tural movements(Corva2015,Keene legalization andwithstrongtiestocountercul cultivation, apracticedatingfromlongbefore California, isanhistoriccenterforcannabis Humboldt County, locatedinnortherncoastal al. 2017). use planning,andotherpolicepowers(Butsicet cannabis-related usesthroughtheirzoning,land municipalities considerableauthoritytoregulate resultant stateframeworkgrantscountiesand lation toclarifyandsupplementbothlaws. The California legislaturehaspassedfurtherlegis 64. Overthecourseoflasttwodecades, legalize recreationalusethroughProposition sionate Use Act). In2016,residentsvotedto Proposition 215(alsoknownastheCompas cal marijuanathroughthe1996ballotinitiative, California becamethefirststatetopermitmedi 2010). 2016, Nemeth&Ross2014,SalkinKansler facilities (Freisthleretal.2013,Mead&Costa tions havesoughttoregulatemarijuana-related use mechanismsthroughwhichlocaljurisdic Previous studieshaveidentifiednumerousland ------tive andtherapeuticproperties. genus Cannabiscultivatedfortheirpsychoac interchangeably inreferencetotheplantsof the terms“cannabis”and“marijuana”areused Please beadvisedthat,throughoutthisreport, for futureresearchonthistopic. concludes thestudyandofferspotentialavenues different regulatoryframeworks.Chapter VIII differences, andrecurringthemesacrossthe across thefourcases,identifyingsimilarities, examined, whileChapter VII offersananalysis the casestudyfindingsforfourjurisdictions data sources,andmethods.Chapter VI presents describes thequalitativestudy’s researchdesign, and planning,zoning,landuse.Chapter V plementation andpolicy, environmentalimpacts, activities, focusingonthreebroadthemes:im literature pertainingtostate-sanctionedcannabis fornia. ChapterIV reviewstheextantacademic state legalcontextsofcannabisactivityinCali the region.ChapterIIIoutlinesfederaland gle, andthetraditionofcannabiscultivationin view ofHumboldtCounty, theEmerald Trian- provides anhistoricalanddemographicover This studyisorganized asfollows.ChapterII underlying them. mechanisms utilizedandtheplanningrationale study paysspecialattentiontothespecificlocal modate itintotheircommunities. Therefore, the vation asalandusebuttoalsoactivelyaccom mechanisms tonotonlyregulatecannabisculti have deployedinnovativezoningandlanduse try has,thehypothesisisthatlocalgovernments the significantlocaleconomicimpactindus standing statusasamajorgrowingcountyand ------21 24 18 12 6 0 Fields Landing [ ! ! 3 Humboldt County, CA (2019) Eureka Samoa ¤ £ 101 Census DesignatedPlace Incorporated City County Seat Humboldt Hill Bayview ¤ £ ¤ 255 101 [ ! Map 2: Manila Pine Hills Cutten Myrtletown Indianola Miles Ferndale Eureka ! Trinidad Rio Dell Loleta Fields Landing [ ! ! ! Fortuna ! Big Lagoon Scotia ! Westhaven-Moonstone Hydesville McKinleyville Shelter Cove Arcata Orick Fieldbrook ! ¤ £ 101 Blue Lake Redcrest Redway Weott ¤ £ 299 Myers Flat

Miranda ¤ £ Garberville 36 Phillipsville Benbow

¤ £ 96 Alderpoint Willow Creek ¯ 9 II. Background: Humboldt County in Context

Two greenhouses are visible from a scenic outlook along California Highway 299 outside Willow Creek, unincorporated Hum- boldt County, CA (January 2019). he County of Humboldt is a largely rural especially commercial timber and fishing, drove jurisdiction located in northwest Califor- Humboldt’s economy (ibid.). However, these nia. The County fronts on 100 miles of industries began to decline substantially in the TPacific coastline and encompasses 2.3 million 1980s, requiring a considerable diversification acres; approximately, 80 percent of the land of the economy. Today, a plurality of employ- area is forested, with 50 percent of that area in ment is in the sales and services sectors (ACS). commercial timber production and an addition- The County’s 2012 economic development al 35 percent held as state and federal public plan identified diversified healthcare, speciality lands (County of Humboldt 2017). Public lands foods, flowers, and beverages, building and sys- include Redwood National and State Parks, Six tems construction, investment support services, Rivers National Forest, King Range National management and innovation services, niche Conservation Area, and Humboldt Redwoods manufacturing, forest products, and tourism as State Park, in addition to considerable tribal target industry sectors for the County’s future lands. According to the United States Census economic development (County of Humboldt Bureau’s American Community Survey (ACS) 2012). 2013-2017 five-year estimates, Humboldt Coun- ty has a population of nearly 135,000 residents. However, perhaps the most defining aspect The county seat and largest incorporated city of Humboldt County’s historical, social, and is Eureka, located on Humboldt Bay, approxi- economic identity has, until recently, been mately 270 miles north of San Francisco. The forced to clandestinely operate in the County’s County’s six other incorporated cities, listed in most remote expanses: cannabis cultivation. descending order by population, are: Arcata, Humboldt—along with neighboring Trinity and Fortuna, Rio Dell, Ferndale, Blue Lake, and Mendocino Counties—constitute what is widely Trinidad. Over 50 percent of the County’s pop- referred to as the Emerald Triangle, “the canna- ulation resides in unincorporated areas (County bis bread basket of the Pacific Northwest” (Lee of Humboldt 2017). 2012). The academic literature estimates that the State of California produces up to 79 percent of Historically, resource production industries, the United States cannabis supply, and the vast

10 11 12

II. Background ed amarket opportunity fordomestic growersin ly, this focusonforeigncannabis sourcescreat tween thetwocountries (Corva 2014).Ironical order tocombatthetransnational marketbe to eradicatecannabiscultivation inMexico In 1972,theUnitedStates beganfundingefforts Presidents RichardNixon andRonaldReagan. federal enforcementofanti-druglawsunder County begantochangerapidlywithincreased al natureofcannabiscultivationinHumboldt However, the small-scale andcountercultur and asamodestmeansofsupplementalincome. homesteaders grewcannabisforcommunityuse 2017). Among other agrarianpursuits,thehippy subdivided andsoldforshortmoney(Bauss beyond commercialviabilitywhichcouldbe of formertimberlandsandranchesdegraded to thesenewsettlers,asithadapreponderance Humboldt Countywasparticularlyattractive counties ofnorthernCalifornia(Corva2014). and foundedcommunitiesintheremote,rural and “back-to-the-land”mentalities—relocated by concurrentlydevelopingenvironmentalist & Rashidian2014).Manyhippies—influenced and politicalattitudestowarddruguse(Martin peace, love,andprotest”amidshiftingsocial reclaimed marijuana“asapoliticalsymbolof & Rashidian2014). The counterculturehad for progressivechange(Corva2014,Martin adults organized againstpoliticalturmoiland white, middle-class,andcollege-educatedyoung that emerged inthe1960’s, whereinlargely counterculture andcampusactivismmovements Humboldt Countycannabishasitsrootsinthe annually (ShortGianottietal.2017). be asmuchbetween$1.5and$3.6billion industry’s economicimpactinHumboldtcould Humboldt 2017).Onesourceestimatesthe the impactisdifficulttoquantify(Countyof utes substantiallytothelocaleconomy, though cultivation, bothsanctionedandillegal,contrib plan, theCountyacknowledgesthatcannabis 67 plants(Butsic&Benner2016).Initsgeneral gest theaveragegrowcontainsapproximately Humboldt Countyalone,andresearcherssug about 6,000outdoorcannabisgrowslocatedin interviews, countyplannersestimatedthereare Triangle’s 10,000squaremiles(Corva2015).In majority ofthatisgrownacrosstheEmerald ------and fishing industries; cannabiscultivation was of thecontemporaneous implosionof thetimber true forthosestruggling economically because nomic gain(Corva2014). This wasespecially willing toriskprosecution forconsiderableeco ing lucrative“protective subsidies”forgrowers served tofurtherconstrict supply, therebycreat Additionally, thepressureexertedbyCAMP ment intervention.” ijuana cultivationwasdrivenbylaw-enforce technological developmentthatimprovedmar As Lee(2012)describesit,“Nearlyeverymajor a searchwarranttoenteranenclosedstructure. time, aslawenforcementofficialswouldneed and greenhousecultivationalsoemerged atthis cally plantedacrossremoteproperties.Indoor air withsmaller, decentralizedgardensstrategi easily detectedbylawenforcementfromthe large, densely-plantedgrowsthatcouldbe their cultivationpractices.Growersreplaced local scale,however, growerssimplyadjusted tion. Despitethisincreaseinenforcementona the epicenterof1960scounterculturemigra Counties, theheartofEmerald Triangle and southern HumboldtandnorthernMendocino va 2014).CAMP focusedmuchofitseffortson grows duringthesummergrowingseason(Cor an annualefforttoeradicateoutdoormarijuana state, andfederallawenforcementagenciesin Planting (CAMP),whichbroughttogetherlocal, ed thenotoriousCampaign Against Marijuana In the1980s,Reaganadministrationfound (ibid.). rently withthetruncationofinternationalsupply and mostexpensiveherbintheworld”concur transform ‘homegrown’ intothebest,stoniest, other words,“Americanpotfarmersmanagedto elevated levelsofcannabinoids(Lee2012).In to producerobust,high-qualityflowerswith fertilized femaleplantsareselectivelygrown sinsemilla cannabiscultivation,whereinun map. Emerald Triangle growershadperfected horticulture hadputHumboldtCountyonthe 2011). At thesametime,advancesincannabis to smuggleproductacrosstheborder(Regan remote publiclandsintheUnitedStatesthan who founditmoreviabletogrowcannabison this newsituationwasnotlostoncartels,either, California whocouldfilltheshortageinsupply; ------ated aperfect stormintheEmerald Triangle and prohibition, and astagnatinglocaleconomy cre the artificially-inflated cannabis marketunder cannabis, federalandlocal drugenforcement, In aword,thecommodification of creasing economicopportunities (Hecht2014). an agriculturalalternativeinaregionofde 100,000 120,000 140,000 160,000 20,000 40,000 60,000 80,000 Distribution of Race inHumboldtCounty (2017) 0 Democratic County of Humboldt City of Eureka City of Arcata City ofRio Dell City ofArcata City ofEureka City County ofHumboldt VoterRegistration (2016) byPartyAffiliation White 134,490 1% 3.18% 0.98% 3% 2.37% 5% Population byJurisdiction (2017) Republican 24.3% Black 16% 23.66% Asian 27,024 Green Native AmericanNative Independent Selected RecentPoliticalOutcomes 17,841 sinsemilla Selected DemographicStatistics 81% Libertarian 45.53% Other - 3,385 - Other Figure 1: Figure 2: ered considerably, itsoperations hadbecome the 1990s,CAMP’s federalfunding hadwith ly survivedthecrackdown underReagan.By The Emerald Triangle’s cannabisindustrylarge- to growmarijuana”(Lee 2012). vast thatsomefolkssimply couldn’t affordnot Humboldt Countywherein“potprofitswereso EducationalAttainment Humboldt inCounty (2017) Distribution of AgeinHumboldt County (2017) Bachelors Degree (NoSome Degree) College HighSchoolNo Diploma 65 Yearsand Older 30 to 39Years 9 Yearsand Younger H. Clinton H. Presidential ElectionResults (2016) 31% 20.3% 19.3% 9.4% 6.2% D. TrumpD. 16% 11.1% .%3.1% 3.7% 10.1% 40 to 49Years 10 to 19Years J. SteinJ. 27.7% Graduate orProfessionalGraduate Degree Associates Degree High School orEuivalent Diploma 13.3% 9.5% 11.5% G. JohnsonG. 50 to 64Years 20 to 29Years 16.4% 11.8% 24% 56% - Other 13 14

II. Background divergent regulatoryframeworks(Hale2017, 2000s, sustainedbyambiguousandlocally seeking quickprofitsduringthe1990sandearly bis-related operationsbyspeculativeinterests eration ofcannabiscultivationandothercanna is nowreferredtoastheGreenRush,prolif These developmentstogetherprecipitatedwhat time setthelocallimitat99plants(ibid.). The districtattorneyforHumboldtCountyatthe to settheirownlimitsoncannabispossession. fication programandallowedlocalgovernments tory framework—whichcreatedapatientidenti small stepstowardbuildingastatewideregula pass SenateBill420in2003—thefirstofmany purposes. The statelegislaturewouldgoonto possession, andusageofmarijuanaformedical Act), permittingunderstatelawthecultivation, proved Proposition215(theCompassionateUse further bolsteredwhenin1996Californiansap public lands(Corva2014). The industrywas had turnedtocannabiscultivationoccurringon widely diffusedacrossCalifornia,anditsfocus $10,000 $20,000 $30,000 $40,000 $50,000 $60,000 $70,000 $80,000 Education, Legal, Occupations and CommunityEducation, Arts, Media Service, $0 Production, Transportation, and Material Transportation,Production, MovingOccupations: and MedianHousehold Income by Jurisdiction(2017) California State of State Management, Business, and Financial Business,Management, Occupations and Healthcare Practitioner and Technical Occupations and Practitioner Healthcare Technical Installation, Mainten Installation, Computer, Engineering, and Science Engineering, Computer, Occupations Farming, Fishing, andFarming, ForestryOccupations Humboldt County of Construction andConstruction Occupations Extraction City of Eureka City of Arcata City ofRio Dell City ofArcata City ofEureka City an ce, and Occupations Repair ce, Sales and OfficeSales Occupations and HumboldtCounty Employment by Sector (2017) Service OccupationsService Selected EconomicStatistics ,0 ,0 ,0 ,0 0001,0 40016,000 14,000 12,000 10,000 8,000 6,000 4,000 2,000 0 Figure 3: - - - - - Regulation andSafety Act in2015. legislature’s passageoftheMedicalMarijuana concerning cannabis-relatedusesafterthestate to draftacomprehensivelanduseordinance County becamethefirstCaliforniajurisdiction cannabis farmers. Within thiscontextHumboldt nity (Baueretal.2016,Carah2015)and and enforcementbyboththeresearchcommu the ever-growing litanycallingforregulation tion, especiallyenvironmentaldamage,despite apparent impactsofcommercial-scalecultiva ly difficultforlocalgovernmenttoaddressthe and consequentlegalactionsmadeitextreme county plannerdescribedit,Proposition215 the dissolutionofsocialcohesion(ibid.). As one caused byextractivecannabiscultivationand the unregulatedenvironmentaldegradation the County’s counterculturalhistorywitnessed licit state,thosecommunitiesstillconnectedto County’s mostsignificantcovertindustryintoa icy liberalizationsuddenlybroughtHumboldt Meisel 2017). While California’s cannabispol County ofHumboldt State ofCaliforniaState Percent of PopulationPovertyin Status (2017) 0 01 025 20 15 10 5 - - - - 02 040 30 20 10 0 [ ! ! 5 Counties andCitiesofthe Incorporated City County Seat Emerald Triangle(2019) Map 3: Miles Eureka Ferndale ! HUMBOLDT COUNT [ ! ! ! ! Fortuna Trinidad ! Rio Dell Arcata ! Blue Lake ! Fort Bragg ! MENDOCINO COUNT Point Arena

Ukiah

TRINIT COUNT Weaverville !

Willits [ !

[ ! ¯ 15 he purpose of this chapter is to provide Figure 4: an overview of state-sanctioned cannabis Timeline of American Legal Actions regarding activities within their federal (Section A) Tand California (Section B) legal contexts. It also Cannabis-Related Activities Controlled Substances examines developments in case law (Section C) 1970 Act (CSA) passed that pertain to state and local authority to regu- Federal Action Campaign Against late cannabis-related activities and land uses. 1983 Marijuana Planting State Action (CAMP) instituted Indeed, the legal context within which state-sanctioned cannabis operates is complex Proposition 215 (Compassionate Use Act) 1996 approved III. Legal Context: and ambiguous. Kamin (2013) argues that no other human activity in the United States faces 2001 United States v. Oakland Cannabis Buyers “the disparity in the way the subject is treated” Cooperative decided by the three levels of federalism, whereby “it is California Cannabis Senate Bill 420 (Medical Marijuana Program seen as a serious felony… at the federal level, 2003 Act) passed as something akin to a constitutional right at the state level, and as either a nuisance to be reg- 2005 Gonzales v. Raich decided Conundrum ulated or as a tax source to be exploited at the local level.” County of San Diego v. San Diego NORML 2006 decided A. Federal Law 2008 Brown Memorandum issued The United States Congress passed the Con- trolled Substances Act (CSA) in 1970, mark- ing a shift in federal policy toward regulating 2009 Ogden Memorandum issued narcotics under the interstate commerce clause (Ferraiolo 2007). The CSA classifies the can- 2011 Cole Memorandum I issued A. Federal Context nabis plant and its derivatives (principally the compounds delta-9 tetrahydrocannabinol and Pack v. City of Long Beach decided B. California Context cannabidiol) as Schedule I hallucinogenic or psychedelic substances. Schedule I substanc- es are the most highly regulated, as they are 2013 City of Riverside v. Inland Empire decided C. Case Law considered to have high potential for abuse, to have no currently accepted medical use in the Cole Memorandum II issued United States, and to lack accepted safe use standards under medical supervision (Garvey 2014 Omnibus spending bill places enforcement & Doyle 2014). Possession of marijuana for restrictions on DOJ personal use is a misdemeanor subject to up to Assembly Bill 243, Assembly Bill 266, and one year in federal prison and $100,000 in fines 2015 Senate Bill 643 (Medical Marijuana Regula- for a first offense, and cultivation is considered tion and Safety Act) passed felony manufacturing of a controlled substance, Kirby v. County of Fresno decided subject to five years in federal prison and up to $250,000 in fines for a first offense (Eddy Safe Life Caregivers v. City of Los Angeles 2011). Furthermore, it cannot be prescribed by 2016 decided a physician, and marijuana-related financial Proposition 64 (Control, Regulate, and Tax transactions cannot be processed through fed- Adult Use of Marijuana Act) approved erally-regulated institutions (Garvey & Doyle 2014). Nevertheless, the CSA explicitly chooses People v. Onesra Enterprises, Inc. decided not to preempt state-level activity in the legisla- tive field of controlled substances. Senate Bill 94 (Medicinal and Adult Use Can- 2017 nabis Regulation and Safety Act) passed

16 17 18 III. Legal Context medical marijuana’”(Warren 2015). use, distribution,possession, orcultivationof menting theirownState laws thatauthorizethe passed medicalmarijuana lawsfrom‘imple using anyofthefundsto preventstatesthathad omnibus spendingbill“prohibitedtheDOJfrom pacted thefederalcontextin2014. That year’s tive branch,Congressalsotookactionthatim In additiontothesedirectivesfromtheexecu lands; andpossessiononfederalproperty. impacting publichealth;cultivationonfederal violence incultivationordistribution;adversely authorized marijuanaactivity;usingfirearmsor ficking otherillegaldrugsunderthepretextof possession islegaltooneswhereitnot;traf criminal activity;diversionfromstateswhere distribution tominors;diversionofrevenue two ofwhichdirectlypertainedtocultivation: es towardeightparticularcriminalactivities, instructed federalprosecutorstodirectresourc as strictregulatorycontrolswereinplaceand that legalizedmarijuanainsomefashionaslong not bringlegalchallengesagainstjurisdictions tive (ibid). The guidancestatedthatDOJwould recreational cannabisusethroughballotinitia voters inColoradoand Washington authorized Cole issuedanothermemorandumin2013after increased federalprosecution. cial dispensaries”violatedtheCSA,resultingin marijuana cultivationfacilities”and“commer that “large-scale, privatelyoperated industrial Cole clarifiedtheOgdenMemorandum,stating In 2011, Deputy Attorney GeneralJamesM. providing forthemedicaluseofmarijuana.” ambiguous compliancewithexistingstatelaws individuals whoseactionsareinclearandun prosecutors to“notfocusfederalresourceson David W. Ogdenissuedguidancetofederal ing itsstance.In2009,Deputy Attorney General Obama DOJissuedseveralmemorandaoutlin and eventuallyrecreationaluselaws—the ever-increasing statemedicalmarijuanalaws— has variedacrossadministrations.Facedwith taken againststate-legalizedmarijuanaactivity forcement oftheCSA (ibid.),sofederalaction prosecutorial discretionoverfederallawen The USDepartmentofJustice(DOJ)maintains ------ance onCalifornia’s cannabis laws. That guid state attorneygeneralto provide furtherguid Importantly, SenateBill420alsoinstructedthe or collaboratively. caregivers whocultivatedcannabiscollectively state law, andremovedpenaltiesforpatients tional medicalmarijuanalawsconsistentwith limit, allowedlocalgovernmentstopassaddi and caregiverscouldpossesstoabovethestate increase thenumberofmarijuanaplantspatients departments, permittedcountiesandcitiesto program tobeadministeredbycountyhealth tary medicalmarijuanapatientidentification 2. SenateBill420, StateofCalifornia(passed12October 2003). (passed 5November 1996). 1. Proposition215: CompassionateUse Act of1996,State ofCalifornia to theCaliforniaHealthandSafetyCode. Compassionate Use Act, addingtwosections initiative, Proposition215,alsoknownasthe enact medicalmarijuanalawsthroughtheballot In 1996,Californiabecamethefirststateto B. CaliforniaLaw of theseissues. ijuana Program Act) in2003toaddresssome ture passedSenateBill420(theMedicalMar uncertain state(Vitiello 2013). The statelegisla left potentialentrepreneursandinvestorsinan through theirzoningandlanduseplanning; ernments onhowtoimplementthenewactivity law enforcement;failedtoinstructlocalgov ing, anddistribution;providednoguidanceto regulatory frameworkforcultivation,process diately apparent. The law:created nostatewide The newlaw’s weaknesseswere almostimme punishment. and protectedrecommendingphysiciansfrom session forpatientsandtheirprimarycaregivers removed penaltiesagainstcultivationandpos in medicalneedofmarijuana.” Additionally, it fordable distributionofmarijuanatoallpatients implement aplantoprovideforthesafeandaf physician andinstructedthestatelegislature“to medical purposesupontherecommendationofa patients therighttoobtainandusemarijuanafor 2007).The propositiongrantedseriouslyill tives to“tapintopublicsentiments”(Ferraiolo institutions andtowarddirectdemocracyinitia alization movementawayfromrepresentative marked adefinitiveshiftinthecannabisliber 2 The billestablishedavolun 1 This ------to cultivatemedicalmarijuana.” tions orordinance,may issue ordenyapermit through itscurrentorfuturelanduseregula regulation, acity, county, orcityandcounty, law states,“…withoutlimitinganyotherlocal land useregulationforcannabiscultivation. The time theroleoflocalgovernmentsinzoningand tionally, AB243 explicitlyaddressesforthefirst collective andcollaborativecultivation. Addi - collect ataxonmarijuanasales;andrepealed a standardizedschema;authorizedcountiesto growers atbothstateandlocallevelsbasedon cal MarijuanaCultivationProgramtolicense Medical MarijuanaRegulationandtheMedi diversion regulations;establishedtheBureaufor pesticide, landconversion,energy, andwater as anagriculturalcropsubjecttoenvironmental, tivation sites,andnurseries;classifiedcannabis lated activitiesanduses,suchascultivation,cul tions: providedlegaldefinitionsforcannabis-re mandates, thesecomplimentarylegislativeac juana RegulationandSafety Act). Among other 6. AB 243,Section6. 5. SenateBill643, StateofCalifornia(passed9October 2015). 4. Assembly Bill266,State ofCalifornia(passed9October 2015). 3. Assembly Bill243,StateofCalifornia2015(passed9October2015). in 2015through Assembly Bill243, work forregulatingmedicalcannabisstatewide finally actedtocreateacomprehensiveframe After nearly20yearsofambiguity, California the MedicalMarijuanaProgram.” outside theprotectionsofProposition215and with theguidelinessetfortharelikelyoperating “dispensaries thatdonotsubstantiallycomply could potentiallyoperateoutofastorefront,but and inanonprofitmanner. Theseorganizations operate “forthemutualbenefitofitsmembers” articles ofincorporationwiththeStateandmust 2008). Inaddition,suchanentitywouldrequire for non-medicalpurposes”(StateofCalifornia of thecropandsafeguardsagainstdiversion operated inamannerthatensuresthesecurity tive orcollaborative“shouldbeorganized and orative cultivation.Heassertedthatacollec Brown’s clarificationofcollectiveorcollab G. Brown,Jr. Mostpertinenttothisstudyis authored bythen Attorney GeneralEdmund ance arrivedin2008throughamemorandum have landuseregulations orordinancesregulat “If acity, county, orcityandcounty doesnot Bill 266, 4 andSenateBill643

5 (MedicalMari 6 Itcontinues, 3 Assembly ------county, orcityandcounty.” marijuana cultivationapplicantsinthatcity, shall bethesolelicensingauthorityformedical division [oftheBusinessandProfessionsCode] section, thencommencingMarch1,2016,the a conditionalpermitprogrampursuanttothis permissive zoning,orchoosesnottoadminister either expresslyorotherwiseunderprinciplesof ing orprohibitingthecultivationofmarijuana, 7. Ibid. trol, Regulate,and Tax Adult UseofMarijuana in 2016andpassedProposition64—theCon short-lived. Californiansreturnedtothepolls na industry, theaccomplishment wasrelatively plans foracommercial-scalemedicalmarijua cities todesigntheirownlocalregulationsand legislative actsfinallypositionedcountiesand latory frameworkestablishedbythissuiteof While thelong-awaited,comprehensiveregu tive discussedlater. prove importantintheHumboldtCountynarra Humboldt CountyElectionOutcomesfor

Cannabis-Related BallotInitiatives 58.4% 57.1% Proposition 215(1996) Proposition 64(2016) Figure 5: Yes Yes 7 This deadlinewill No No 41.6% 42.9% - - - - 19 20

III. Legal Context established astatewidecommercialmarket. cannabis foradults21yearsofageorolderand Act—which allowedfortherecreationaluseof under thisdivisionwithinthelocaljurisdiction.” tion ofoneormoretypesbusinesseslicensed completely prohibittheestablishmentoropera ments, businesslicenserequirements…orto limited to,localzoningandlanduserequire licensed underthisdivision,includingbutnot enforce localordinancestoregulatebusinesses the authorityofalocaljurisdictiontoadoptand “shall notbeinterpretedtosupersedeorlimit revisions totheBusinessandProfessionsCode cannabis relateduses,assertingthattheresultant ernments toexercisetheirauthorityinregulating 11. SB 94,Section102. 10. SB94,Section 1. Safety Act, StateofCalifornia(passed 27June2017). 9. SenateBill94:Medicinaland Adult UseCannabisRegulationand Act, StateofCalifornia(passed8November 2016). 8. Proposition64:Control,Regulate, and Tax Adult UseofMarijuana legal plants. Additionally, this departmentwas tion chain;andissuingunique identifiersfor of cannabisproductsthrough theentireproduc designations; trackingandtracingthemovement cannabis certification;countyoforigincrop ticides, andestablishingprogramsfor:organic sions, developingguidelinesfortheuseofpes charged withissuingpermitsforwater diver of Foodand Agriculture. The Departmentwas cultivation undersupervisionoftheDepartment cannabis asanagriculturalcrop,placingits As inthepreviousregulation,SB94classified 11 nabis.” structure forbothmedicinalandadult-usecan is necessarytoprovideforasingleregulatory intent… aswell[maintain]localcontrol,it and thatinorder“toimplementthevoters’ regulation hasbeenlefttolocalgovernments” 215 waspassedin1996,“most,ifnotallthe on localities.ItadmittedthatsinceProposition nabis policyandtheeffectsthoseattemptshad California’s previousattemptstoliberalizecan lature fullyacknowledgedtheshortcomingsof In thedeclarationsheadingbill,legis tion andSafety Act (MAUCRSA). the Medicinaland Adult-Use CannabisRegula state’s cannabislawsintoasingleframework, 94 (SB94)in2017,therebyconsolidatingallthe response, thestatelegislaturepassedSenateBill 10 Indeed,thebillempowerslocalgov

9

8 - - In ------the 2006California case to theillicit interstate market”(Lee2012). In local activitiesthat“could affectorcontribute disagreed andruledthat Congress couldregulate na forpersonaluse(ibid.). The SupremeCourt intrastate cultivationand possessionofmarijua CSA underthecommerceclauseininstancesof the federalgovernment’s abilitytoenforcethe The 2005case was classifiedasaScheduleIdrugbytheCSA. ble incasesinvolvingmarijuanaaslongit medical necessitydefenseswerenotpermissi 2001 decision,thecourtruledunanimouslythat nabis clubsinnorthernCalifornia1998.Inits the JusticeDepartmentfiledsuitagainstsixcan Cooperative was UnitedStatesv. Oakland CannabisBuyers lowing passageoftheCompassionateUse Act reach theUnitedStatesSupremeCourtfol through caselaw. The firstpertinentcaseto concerning cannabishavenotbeenresolved flicts betweenfederalandCaliforniastatelaws statewide regulatoryframework. The con frequently inCaliforniatheabsenceofa bis-related businessesandtheirlegalityarose Unsurprisingly, litigationconcerningcanna C. CaseLaw specified someotherallowableradius. time oflicensure,unlessthelocalauthorityhas daycare center, oryouthfacilityexistingatthe in 600feetofaprimaryorsecondaryschool, the locationofacannabis-relatedbusinesswith local zoningordinances.Secondly, itdisallows could serveasmodellanguagefordefinitionsin of termsrelatedtothecannabisindustrythat regulations. Firstly, itlegally definesanumber with implicationsforlocalzoningandlanduse Finally, SB94containstwootherprovisions of plants(see Appendix B). and theareaofplantcanopyand/ornumber lighting, oringreenhouseswithmixedlighting) ficial lighting,indoorwithexclusivelyartificial intended lightingsource(outdoorwithnoarti of cultivationlicenses,basedontheoperation’s as well. The billprovisionsfor14differenttypes received authorizationfromalocalgovernment tivators afterdeterminingthattheapplicanthas also responsibleforissuingstatelicensestocul (Eddy2011). The casearoseafter Gonzales v. Raich County ofSan Diegov. challenged ------stacle totheaccomplishmentofCSA. expressly authorizingit,therebyposinganob inalization ofmedicalcannabiscultivationby city’s permittingschemewentbeyonddecrim the CSA.In2011, thecourtofappealfound the ordinance,claimingittobepreemptedby compliant bythedeadline—soughtrelieffrom members ofacollectivethatfailedtobecome tions byagivendate. The plaintiffs—whowere ing noncompliantcollectivestoceaseopera to establishapermittingprogram,whilerequir locations ofmedicalmarijuanacollectivesand ordinance toplacerestrictionsontheallowable limits. prohibited inallzoningdistrictswithinthecity’s marijuana dispensary, havingdeclaredsuchuses city broughtanuisanceactionagainstmedical Patients Health&Wellness Center, Inc.,the 2013 caseCityofRiversidev. InlandEmpire local governments’ authorityinthisarea.Inthe lation, resultinginajurisprudencesupporting issue inlightofstateratherthanfederallegis However, subsequentcaseshavereviewedthe cannabis businesseswithintheirjurisdictions. and countiesseekingtolegislativelyregulate decision appearedtobeamajorblowcities Center, Inc., 56Cal.4th729(2013). 14. CityofRiverside v. Inland EmpirePatientsHealthand Wellness 13. Ibid. (2011). 12. Pack v. SuperiorCourt(City of LongBeach), 199 Cal. App. 4th1070 of LongBeach land uses. A pioneeringexampleis governments’ ability to regulate cannabis-related cases establishedusefulprecedentsforlocal of governmentremain,severalCaliforniacourt in cannabisliberalizationatthehighestlevels While theissuesoffederalismandpreemption the statelegislature. mative responsibilityimposedonthecountyby arguing thattheCSA didnotpreempttheaffir superior courtjudgedecidedagainstthecounty, tient identificationcards(Heddleston2013). A health officestoissuemedicalmarijuanapa Marijuana Program’s provisionrequiringcounty fornia DepartmentofHealthovertheMedical San DiegoNORML,thecountysuedCali Care Act and Medical MarijuanaProgramdid public nuisance,statingthat theCompassionate the city’s ability toabatethedispensaryasa

14 The CaliforniaSupreme Courtupheld . 12 In2010,thecityadoptedan Pack v. City 13 This ------to reinintheirproliferation. collectives afterfourpriorandfailedattempts regulate medicalmarijuanadispensariesand D in2013asacomprehensiveframeworkto when Los Angeles votersapprovedProposition Safe LifeCaregivers v. CityofLos Angeles ment. land use,”therebyupholdingthenuisanceargu- local government’s inherentpowertoregulate that thelegislaturehadnotintended“torestrict of suchuseswaspreemptedbystatelawbut appeals concludedthatthelocalcriminalization Act. acted MedicalMarijuanaRegulationandSafety ernment codes,citycharter, ortherecently-en proposition waslegal,havingnotviolatedgov court ofappealsdeterminedin2016thatthe cedures foradoptinglanduseregulations. The by ballotinitiativeviolatedstateandcitypro plaintiffs argued thattheordinanceas enacted proximity toresidentialandsensitiveuses. The restrictions onhoursofoperation,andlimits including registrationunderpriorordinances, ness unlawfulunlessitmetanumberofcriteria, It alsomadeowningoroperatingsuchabusi in Peoplev. OnesraEnterprises,Inc. to qualifiedpatient…oraprimarycaregiver.” cessed, distributed,anddelivered,orgivenaway “location wheremarijuanaiscultivated,pro defined amedicalmarijuanabusinessasany (2016). 21. Peoplev. OnesraEnterprises,Inc.,7Cal. App. 5thSupp.7 20. Ibid. 19. Ibid. (2016). 18. SafeLifeCaregiversv. CityofLos Angeles, 243Cal. App. 4th1029 17. Ibid. 16. Kirbyv. CountyofFresno, 242Cal. App. 4th940(2015). 15. Ibid. tives, collectives,ordispensaries.” accommodation ofmedicalmarijuanacoopera powers oflocaljurisdictions;ormandate use; oroverridethezoning,licensing,andpolice of convenientaccesstomarijuanaformedicinal legalized medicalmarijuana;orgranta‘right’ not “establishacomprehensivestatesystemof districts andasmisdemeanors. facilities asbothpublicnuisancesinallzoning juana dispensaries,cultivationsites,andstorage to invalidateanordinancethatclassifiedmari of Fresno, whereintheplaintiffsuedcounty decision wasreachedin2015 20

17 A similar rulingwasissuedlaterthatyear

18 The proposition 16 The courtof Kirby v. County 15 A similar 21

arose - - - - 19 - - -

21 IV. Literature Review

A work crew installs ventilation system components at an indoor cannabis cultivation facility in Eureka, CA (Jaunuary 2019). ecause the emergence of state-level can- study and its significance within the context of nabis policy liberalization is a relatively the extant literature (Section D). recent phenomenon, the literature review Bpresented in this chapter takes a broad approach A. Implementation and Policy in identifying central issues in the field (Cre- A. Implementation and Policy Great heterogeneity exists across state-level swell 2014) as they pertain to local zoning and approaches to marijuana legalization. In the land use authority over cannabis-related activi- broadest sense, states contemplating policy lib- B. Environmental Impacts ties, especially cultivation. The review synthe- eralization can decriminalize possession, permit sizes sources across disciples, including public medical use of marijuana or its derivatives, or policy, legal studies, drug policy, economics, so- C. Planning, Zoning, and Land Use allow for adult recreational use (Cambran et cial sciences, environmental studies, and urban al. 2017). Among those authorizing medical or planning. However, in order to maintain focus, recreational use, implementation varies widely. two limits were placed on the review’s breadth. D. Current Study’s Position in the Literature Using a database of state medical marijuana Firstly, it focuses solely on literature pertain- laws, Pacula et al. (2014) demonstrated that ing to cannabis policy in the United States, due permissive states vary significantly in their poli- to the fundamental differences in governance cies toward obtaining permission to use medical across nations. Secondly, it avoids the well-doc- marijuana, registering patients and caregivers, umented debate about how legalized marijua- and sourcing medical cannabis. Their analysis na affects drug use; while this is an important also showed great variation among model legis- public health topic in its own right, this study lation developed by organizations to assist states takes as given the cannabis industry’s presence in legalization efforts, reflecting divergent policy in communities and focuses on its implications goals. Chapman et al. (2016) developed a tax- for planning and land use regulation. onomy for evaluating the restrictiveness of state The literature is grouped according to three medical marijuana laws; their analysis rated broad themes: implementation and policy (Sec- California as the second least-restrictive state, tion A), environmental impacts (Section B), and slightly trailing behind Washington. Despite planning, zoning, and land use (Section C). The these differences across states, Fisk et al. (2018) chapter concludes by positioning the present found in their review of state legislation that it

22 23 24

IV. Literature Review ing onthepower andadvocacystructures that granted wide authorityinthisdomain, depend outcomes canbewhenlocal governmentsare demonstrates justhowdivergent cannabispolicy Francisco, andSanDiego, Heddleston(2013) bis. Inhismultiple-case study ofOakland,San sible,” giventhecontroversial natureofcanna so faraspracticable,atlocalalevelpos subsidiarity, “that decisionsoughttobemade,in this localizedapproachedappealstotheideaof 2013, Ward 2010).Kleiman (2017)argues that their regulation,fornearlytwodecades(Caplan municipalities havebeenontheforefrontof operations anddispensarieshaveexisted, ing andlanduseplanning—eventhoughgrow cultivation, andlocalregulationthroughzon permits fordispensaries,homeandcommercial cal andrecreationalmarijuananowdefinitively ed, integratedregulatoryregimeforbothmedi Grimes etal.2015).California’s newly-institut ernment’s abilitytodoso(Chumbleretal.2017, frameworks whichexpresslyrestrictlocalgov planning, andotherpolicepowersorimpose bis-related usesthroughtheirzoning,landuse counties andmunicipalitiestoregulatecanna that expresslyauthorizelocalgovernmentslike Secondly, statescaneither adoptframeworks it (Pacula&Sevigny2014). lated businessestoprocess,distribute,andretail juana andrequiringothertypesofcannabis-re growers toproducesizableamounts”ofmari that emerge by“creatingalegitimateneedfor impacts thestructureofcannabismarkets distribution. The latterpolicyapproachgreatly scheme forcommercial-scaleproductionand caregiver” whileothersestablisharegulatory vation exclusivelybythepatientand/orhis/her (2014) notethat“somelawscontemplateculti to thepresentstudy. Firstly, Garvey&Doyle latory regimesareofparticularimportance Additionally, twootherdistinctions inregu create anewsortofinstitutionalbody. to itsexistingalcoholcontrolboardratherthan State entrustedrecreationalmarijuanaregulation risk anduncertainty.” Forexample, Washington their regulatoryregimesinorderto“minimize processes” whenincorporatingcannabisinto institutional structuresandorganizational is commonforjurisdictionstoutilize“known ------the taxdifferential betweenmedical andadult- op-Henchman &Scarboro(2016)observe that viable. UsingColoradoas anexample,Bish prices tothepointthat blackmarketremains on commercialcannabis productsdonotinflate makers mustbecarefulto ensurethattaxrates legalization (Rogeburg 2018).However, law- a commoneconomicargument insupportof would directlycompetewiththeillegalmarket, market deflatescannabisprices,thelegal realm oftaxation. As thelegalcommercial Economic considerationsalsoextendtothe 2017, Davenport&Caulkins2016,Pardo2014). ranges ofquality, price,andpotency (Caulkins resulting inawiderarrayofproductsacross tion anddiversificationofthecannabisindustry, equipment willresultinconsiderableinnova research anddevelopment,accesstobetter costs ofproductionanddistribution,improved economists agreethatlegalization,reduced ty products(Caulkinsetal.2012).Furthermore, niche marketswhichdemandorganic orspecial gate manysmall-scalecannabiscultivatorsto legalization. This precipitousdrop couldrele under prohibitiontoaslittle$38pretax California couldplummetfrom$300to$450 the averagecostofoneouncemarijuanain orado, andKilmeretal.(2010)estimatethat much as50percentbasedonevidenceinCol a reductionincannabisproductionpricesbyas (2014) assertsthatlegalizationhasresultedin the blackmarket(Kilmeretal.2010).Pardo their risksandtheinefficienciesassociatedwith holders intheindustrytocharge apremiumfor inflated byprohibition,whichrequiresstake the historicmarketpriceforcannabisisgreatly US supply(Corva2014).Economistsagreethat tially contributingasmuch80percentofthe to $37billion,withCaliforniagrowerspoten the UScannabismarketatapproximately$32 port &Caulkins(2016)estimatedthevalueof consequences ofpolicyliberalization.Daven gaps soastopredictthepotentialeconomic merous scholarshaveattemptedtofillinthese tifying theindustry’s economic impacts.Nu is furtherexacerbatedbythedifficultyinquan regulatory frameworksforthecannabisindustry The challengesinimplementinganyofthese exist indifferentcommunities. ------and otherdeveloped countriesreported grow majority ofrespondents fromtheUnited States cannabis growers,Potter etal.(2015)founda cultivation ismorecommon. Inasurveyof 2012). However, othersourcesargue thatindoor to 41percentofindoorplants (Caulkinsetal. percent ofoutdoorplants nationallycompared California, whichaccountsforanestimated74 Giannoti etal.2017). This islikelythecasein vation occursoutdoors(Carahetal.2015,Short some scholarsbelievethatthemajorityofculti cultivation isnearlyimpossibletoquantify, and outdoorgrowing. While thescale of indoor cultivation’s twoprimarytypologies:indoor ing accountsabouttheprevalenceofcannabis of prohibition. The literatureoffersconflict operations, longforcedtobecovertintheera stand thecannabisindustry’s structuresand Scholars havealsoattemptedtobetterunder and regulators. structures extremelytroublesomeforlegislators activities makesestablishingcomprehensivetax that thesheervarietyofcannabisproductsand of grayandblackmarkets. They alsocontend products hasenabledtheongoingoperation the hightaxleviedagainstcommercialcannabis hilation oftheformermarketbylatter, but use marijuanahaspreventedthecompleteanni A store sellinghempproducts inGarberville,southernHumboldtCounty(January2019). - - - - - Perhaps because ofitswell-document history 2015, Yates &Speer2018). prevent andmitigatethat damage(Carahetal. the totalabsenceofcomprehensive legislationto American federalismand, untilveryrecently, by marijuana’s ambiguouslegalstatuswithin mental damage,aphenomenononlyworsened has alreadyresultedinmeasurableenviron Scholars widelyagreethatcannabiscultivation cultivation, especiallyinthelastfiveyears. mented theenvironmentalimpactsofcannabis The academicliteraturehasthoroughlydocu B. Environmental Impacts 2010, Martynyetal.2013). ensuring productqualityandfreshness(Decorte temperature, andcarbondioxide,better per year, enablingthecontroloflight,humidity, tages ofallowingforuptosixcroprotations content, indoorcultivationalsohastheadvan addition toencouragingelevatedcannabinoid for sinsemillastrainsthatflourishindoors.In tion ofthecannabisindustryandapreference agencies, suggestingtherisingprofessionaliza cannabis seizedbyCalifornialawenforcement observed amulti-yearincreasein THC levelsin ing marijuanaindoors.Burgdorf etal.(2011) - - - - 25 26

IV. Literature Review Humboldt County’s ecology (January2019). Creek RedwoodsStatePark,are prominent features of Old growth forests, likethosepcitured above atPrairie woodrats, which areamenabletoconsuming ARs entered thefoodwebthroughdusky-footed region. Franklinetal.(2018) hypothesizedthat of ARs intwodifferentowlspeciesthe same Gabriel etal.(2018)also observedhighlevels tously presenteveninremote, forestedareas. centers, suggestingthechemicalswereubiqui observations anddistancetohumanpopulation strated nospatialrelationshipbetweentheir vent damagefrompests. Their resultsdemon quently appliedaroundcannabisgrowstopre anticoagulant rodenticides(ARs),whicharefre of fishercarcassesexaminedwereexposedto briel etal.(2012)discoveredthat77percent fisher populationsinnorthernCalifornia,Ga forest ecosystems.Inalongitudinalstudyof cannabis cultivationwithinHumboldtCounty’s ence ofagriculturalchemicalsassociatedwith Numerous studieshavedocumentedthepres mentation comparedtotimberproduction. patch shapecomplexity, perforation,andfrag vation inremoteareasledtoincreasedcanopy 2017. The spatialpatternsofsmall-scaleculti deforestation inHumboldtCountyfrom2013to nabis cultivationwasresponsibleforobservable low-flow periods. Wang (2017)argues thatcan typical watershedinHumboldtCountyduring day, farexceedingthestreamflowcapacityofa uses between900and5,000litersofwaterper that theaverageparcelwithcannabisgrows onsite surfacewatersources.” They estimated used formarijuanacultivationisobtainedfrom ed that“thevastmajorityofirrigationwater issue. Their observationsofgrowsitessuggest almonds. Baueretal.(2016)focusonthewater consumption forcannabistobesimilarthatof steep slopes. Additionally, theyestimatedwater developed roads,and22percentwerelocatedon grows werelocatedmorethan500metersfrom and 4,470plantsperwatershed.68percentof County, theyidentifiedanaverageof70grows approximately twosquarekilometersacrossthe cannabis cultivationonlyhadafootprintof in HumboldtCounty. While theyestimatedthat (2016) identifiedgrowsitesin60watersheds gard. Usingsatelliteimagery, Butsic&Benner subject ofenvironmentalresearchinthisre legality, HumboldtCountyhasbeentheprimary of cannabiscultivationlongbeforestate-level ------sively carbon-free energy sources(ibid.). by requiring indoorgrowfacilitiesto useexclu with thecannabiscultivation’s energy intensity could offsettheclimate change riskassociated toward reducingit(Warren 2015). Regulators sumption inrecentyears despitelocalstrategies experienced increasesin residentialenergy con- three years(Bauss2017). The Cityof Arcata has demand foratleastonemonthinthepreceding 600 percentoftheaverageresidentialenergy in unincorporatedHumboldtCountyutilized Gas andElectricrevealedthat3,000households 2014 reportissuedbythelocalutilityPacific of medicalmarijuanain1996(Mills2012). A residential energy usefollowingthelegalization ty experienceda50percentriseinper-capita lion vehicles(Warren 2015).HumboldtCoun or theequivalentofemissionsfromthreemil million metrictonsofcarbondioxideannually, demand acrossCalifornia,therebyproducing15 for asmuchthreepercentofannualenergy mates thatindoorcannabiscultivationaccounts data centers(Mills2012). The literatureesti watts persquaremeter, aratecomparableto which canresultinenergy useofupto2,000 tion, aircleaning,andodorsuppression,allof irrigation, carbondioxidegeneration,ventila dehumidification, spaceheatingandcooling, vation facilitiesrequirehighintensitylighting, energy intensityofindoorgrows.Indoorculti literature hasdrawnconsiderableattentiontothe impacts arealsonotnegligible.Inparticular, the alternative tooutdoorcultivation,itsecological sibly offeramoreenvironmentally-friendly While indoorcannabiscultivationmayosten specifically approvedformarijuana. little choicebuttousechemicalproductsnot crop. Therefore, cannabisgrowersareleftwith ance for, orregisterpesticidesforuseonthe risk assessmentsof,determinepesticidetoler Protection Agency (EPA) isunabletoconduct Controlled Substances Act, theEnvironmental is consideredaScheduleInarcoticunderthe dler etal.(2019)explainthat,becausecannabis also poseconsiderableenvironmentalrisks.San Unregulated pesticidesincannabisagriculture cannabis growers. as nestingmaterial,andisthereforetargeted by the cannabisplantandusingitsfibrousstalks ------whelming buildingventilationcapacity, thereby crease indoormoisturetolevelscapableofover that bothcannabiscultivationanddryingin door cultivation.Johnson&Miller(2012)argue environmental healthrisksassociatedwithin Scholars havealsoidentifiedoccupationaland landlords because oftheotherwiselow demand ties; theseleases areparticularlyattractive to industrial spacesforindoor cultivationfacili cannabis entrepreneursare securinglow-grade pacts onlocalrealestate markets.InColorado, anticipate thecannabisindustry tohaveim is alsomountingevidence thatplannersshould municipal infrastructuretosupportthem. There of suchfacilitiesandtheprovisionadequate uses, includingequitablespatialdistribution justice implicationsofsitingcannabis-related must considertheenvironmentalhealthand Zemel (2013)argues thatlanduseplanners odor, traffic, andenergy demand(Chaffee2017). other agriculturalorindustrialuses,suchas impacts includethoseoftenassociatedwith neighborhood disorder, anddruguse.Other locally unwantedlandusesthatincreasecrime, cannabis-related usesareoftenperceivedas community. Boggesetal.(2014)assertthat perceived—of cannabiscultivationwithina need toconsidertheimpacts—bothrealand In doingso,planningprofessionalswillalso Stephens 2017). in thisprocess(Kaiser2011, Stephens2010, public benefits;plannerswillplayacriticalrole can belocatedandhowtodirectanypotential mit cultivationatall,andifso,wheresuchause Jurisdictions willneedtodecidewhetherper considerable authoritybystatewidelegislation. California wherecountiesandcitiesaregranted planners inaddressingit,especiallystateslike til recently, greatresponsibilitywillfallupon contemplated bylocalzoningregulationsun Because cannabiscultivationisalandusenot C. Planning,Zoning,andLandUse moved orhandled. creased substantiallywhencannabisplantswere fungal sporesinindoorgrowroomsthat health-threatening concentrationsofairborne et al.(2013)observedelevatedandpotentially encouraging moldandfungigrowth.Martyny ------27 28

IV. Literature Review 2019). in Garberville, Eureka, Arcata, andRioDell(January Examples ofdowntown buildingstock,from toptobottom, high percentages ofcommercially-zoned land of MMDsin Los Angeles neighborhoods with Yates &Speer(2018)foundhigherdensities Bogges etal.(2014)produced similarresults. levels ofpovertyandminority populations; was concentratedincensus tractswithelevated ries (MMDs)underDenver’s zoningcontrols suitable landformedicalmarijuanadispensa methodology, Nemeth&Ross(2014)foundthat Using ageographicinformationsystems(GIS) recreational marijuanaretailstorescanlocate. ed zoningorsiting-basedrestrictionsonwhere 65 percentofthestate’s population)hadenact State that64citiesand19counties(covering in areviewoflocalordinances Washington process forsuchuses.Dilleyetal.(2017)found have beenorwillbeinvolvedintheplanning said thattheirzoningandplanningdepartments cities permittingrecreationalcannabisactivities Johns (2015)foundthat86.4%ofColorado veys ofandinterviewswithmunicipalofficials, facilities” inthesupplychain. Through sur requirements fordispensariesand/orother location, and24stateshave“explicitstructural ries, 21stateshaverestrictionsondispensary ments toplacezoningregulationsondispensa (2017) foundthat20statesallowlocalgovern reviewing statemarijuanalaws,Kliegeretal. play inregulatingcannabis-relateduses.By zoning, landusecontrols,andbuildingcodes Several studieshavesoughttoelucidatetherole ing ordinances”(Salkin2011). are justbeginningtobedealtwiththroughzon cultivation, distribution,anduseof[cannabis] Nevertheless, “thelanduseimplicationsforthe risks totheircommunities(Asheetal.2003). uses thatcouldposepublichealthandsafety their zoningcodestoaddresscontroversialland jurisdictions havealonghistoryofutilizing local planningforcannabis-relateduses.Local zoning undoubtedlyplaysasignificantrolein Given thesemanyconsiderationsandimpacts, mercial businessparks(Widener 2011). conflict withprotectivecovenantswithincom have effectsonsurroundingrealestatevaluesor 2017). Additionally, cannabis-relatedusescould ated withsuchtenants(Gale2017,Zhangetal. an above-marketpremiumfortherisksassoci for suchpropertiesandbecausetheycancharge ------locations while localitiesworktoimplement locally-imposed moratoriaonnewdispensary a whole.Freisthleretal. (2013) addtothislist community district,orwithin ajurisdictionas the numberofallowable MMDsbypopulation, sity controlsrefertoregulations whichrestrict rehabilitation centers)or fromoneanother. Den- childcare facilities,youthcenters,churches,or distance fromsensitiveuses(suchasschools, which requireMMDstobesitedaminimum districts. Proximitybuffersrefertoregulations residential districtsorrestrictthemtoindustrial ple, manymunicipalitiesdisallowMMDsin MMDs canorcannotlocatewithin.Forexam es whichestablishtypeofusedistricts controls. Zoningrestrictionsrefertoordinanc ing restrictions,proximitybuffers,anddensity land userestrictionsintothreecategories:zon as nuisanceorviceuses. They dividepertinent uses” thatareoftencontrolledviasimilarmeans MMDs as“prototypicallocallyunwantedland governments. Nemeth&Ross(2014)describe cific landusemechanismsdeployedbylocal Studies havealsoattemptedtosurveythespe crime ratesintheirimmediatevicinity. deployed certainsecuritymeasureshadlower (2013) foundthatMMDsinSacramentowhich and atleastonehighwayramp.Freisthleretal. A billboard advertisesacannabisnursery, RioDell,CA (Jaunuary2019). - - - - resulting spatial outcomesforagriculture ingen zoning practices inHumboldtCounty andtheir body ofliteraturethatexplicitly examines Finally, andmorespecifically, thereisasmall stand uptolegalchallenges inthatstate. restrictions placedonhome cultivationmaynot warn thatoutrightbansofMMDsorzoning available tomunicipalities. Additionally, they tion usesandoverlaydistrictsaspotentialtools they suggesttheseparationofretailandcultiva addition tothosemechanismsdiscussedabove, local marijuanaregulationsinMassachusetts.In Mead &Costa(2016)explorethelandscapeof facilities orrestrictthemtoagriculturalzones. some localgovernmentsallowonlyindoorgrow disposal. Intermsofcultivationspecifically, nage restrictionsmayalsobeatamunicipality’s Nuisance lawsortime,use,manner, andsig- use regulationsbeforebeingallowedtooperate. which requirefacilitiestosatisfyparticularland also establishspecialorconditionalusepermits authority toregulatethem.Municipalitiescan nances canprovidelocalitieswithconsiderable tions formarijuana-relatedusesintotheirordi of strategiesevenfurther. Adding zoningdefini Salkin &Kansler(2010,2011) expandthislist more restrictivecontrols. - - - - 29 30

IV. Literature Review cause dispensaries arethemostvisible partof on marijuana dispensaries. This could be Firstly, theliterature hasbeenprimarilyfocused research. researcher considerstobe gapsintheprevious Nevertheless, thisstudy seeks tofillwhatthe bis cultivationandinformingspatialoutcomes. and landusecontrolsplayinregulatingcanna nabis cultivation,andthepotentialrolezoning mental impactsofbothindoorandoutdoorcan concerning licitcannabisactivities,theenviron has documentedthediversityinstatepolicy As demonstratedabove,thepreviousliterature Literature D. Current Study’s Positiontothe holding pounds. 91.5 percentofwatertanks,and82.7 of greenhouses,89percentoutdoorgrows, of thestudyareayetaccountedfor86.1percent and landusedesignationscovered47.8percent of thelandarea. Additionally, ruralresidential tanks despiteencompassingonly20.6percent cent ofoutdoorgrows,and44percentwater account for44.6percentofgreenhouses,26per land area;similarly, unclassifiedzoningdistricts despite encompassingonly18.1percentofthe of watertanks,and49percentholdingponds houses, 37percentofoutdoorgrows,26 districts accountedfor28.1percentofgreen area, shefoundthatforestryresidentialzoning Humboldt Countywatersheds. Within thestudy identified throughaerialimageryforasampleof operations andon-sitewaterstoragestructures nificance. Bauss(2017)examinedbothgrow cultivation sitestoalevelofstatisticalsig increased thelikelihoodoffindinggreenhouse agricultural zoningandunzoneddesignations al imageryinHumboldtCounty, findingthat sis ofmarijuanagrowsitesidentifiedbyaeri Butsic etal.(2017)conductedaspatialanaly not assignitanysignificanceintheirstudy. cultivation asanagriculturalactivity, theydo contracts. While theybrieflymentioncannabis conservation measureslike Williamson Act lost agriculturallandtodevelopmentdespite & Giraud(2006)concludedthattheCountyhas eral andcannabiscultivationspecifically. Smith ------are uniqueacross thefourjurisdictions. will likelyreflect localconditionsand goalsthat Furthermore, theregulatory strategiesemployed welfare throughzoningand landuseplanning. attempting topromotepublic health,safety, and take intoaccounteconomic considerationswhen communities likelydictatesthatlocalauthorities for decades. The industry’s prevalenceinthese damentally informedbythecannabisindustry use withinlocalcontextsthathavebeenfun for addressingcannabiscultivationasaland identifying uniqueorinnovativemechanisms of Eureka, Arcata, andRioDellascasesfor using theCountyofHumboldtandCities Given thesegaps,thepresentstudyproposes local planningrationaleunderlyingthem. ities functionwithintheirlocalcontextandthe zoning mechanismsforcannabis-relatedfacil er, littleattentionhasbeengiventohowspecific potentially-applicable landusecontrols.Howev state andmunicipalcodes,oraggregatedlistsof overviews ofregulatoryregimes,surveys Thirdly, mostpreviousstudieshaveprovided and economicdevelopment. considerations, suchaslocaldevelopmentgoals zoning andlanduseplanningalsorequiresother ing publichealth,safety, andwelfarethrough mitigating impactsfromparticularuses.Promot land useplanningarenotonlyconcernedwith and sensitivereceptors.However, zoningand ing distancebetweencannabis-relatedfacilities conflicts betweenincompatibleusesorprovid from theperspectiveofpreventinglanduse regulating cannabis-relateduseshavedoneso potential zoningandlandusemechanismsfor Secondly, moststudiesthathaveidentified different fromcannabisretailfacilities. likely requirespecificplanningcontrolsvery outdoor cultivation. Therefore, theseotheruses other landusesinthesupplychain,especially them—undoubtedly manifestmoreclearlywith traffic, dangerouschemicals,orcrimeamong real impactsofcannabis-relatedfacilities—odor, built environmentperspective,theperceivedor with cannabis.However, fromaplanningor sent thedivergent normativevaluesassociated health risksassociatedwithdruguse,orrepre the cannabissupplychain,posepotentialpublic ------are uniqueacrossthefourjurisdictions. will likelyreflectlocalconditionsandgoalsthat Furthermore, theregulatorystrategiesemployed welfare throughzoningandlanduseplanning. attempting topromotepublichealth,safety, and take intoaccounteconomicconsiderationswhen communities likelydictatesthatlocalauthorities for decades. The industry’s prevalenceinthese damentally informedbythecannabisindustry use withinlocalcontextsthathavebeenfun for addressingcannabiscultivationasaland identifying uniqueorinnovativemechanisms of Eureka, Arcata, andRioDellascasesfor using theCountyofHumboldtandCities Given thesegaps,thepresentstudyproposes local planningrationaleunderlyingthem. ities functionwithintheirlocalcontextandthe zoning mechanismsforcannabis-relatedfacil er, littleattentionhasbeengiventohowspecific potentially-applicable landusecontrols.Howev state andmunicipalcodes,oraggregatedlistsof overviews ofregulatoryregimes,surveys Thirdly, mostpreviousstudieshaveprovided Figure 6 Literature Map: Planning for and Regulating the Cannabis Industry

Planning and the Law, Policy, and Built Environment Ecology and Environment Implementation Best 2015, Chaffee 2017, Kaiser 2011, Zemel 2013, Daughtry 1998, Short Gianotti et al. 2017 Stephens 2010, Stephens 2017 Local Real Estate Issues with Planning Practice Energy Use Water Usage Authority Widener 2011, Zhang Federalism Dilley et al. 2017, Johns Mills 2012, Warren Bauer et al. 2016 Beebe 2012, Caplan 2015, Short Giannotti et al. 2017, Gale 2017 2015 Blake & Finlaw 2014, 2013, Grimes 2015, & Duane 2016 Camban et al. 2017, Heddleston 2013, Eddy 2011, Ferraiolo Environmental Impacts and Keene 2015, Kleiman - Degradation 2007, Garvey & Doyle Zoning and Land Use - 2017, Vitiello 2013, Butsic & Brenner 2016, Carah et al. 2015 2014, Kamin 2013, Ward 2010 Chumbler & Fields 2017 - Kleiman 2017, Pardo 2014, Subritsky 2016 Deforestation Hazards and Sociopolitical Locally Unwanted Building Codes Wang et al. 2017 Chemicals Contexts Land Uses Johnson & Miller 2012 Ashe et al. 2003, Bog- Franklin et al. 2018, Regulatory Hale 2017, Hecht 2014, Gabriel et al. 2012, Lee 2012, Martin & ges et al. 2014, Salkin Frameworks 2011 Gabriel et al. 2018, Chapman et al. 2016, Rashidian 2014, Meisel Martyny et al. 2013, 2017, Polson 2013, Pol- Fisk et al. 2018, Kilmer Zoning Spatial Outcomes Sandler et al. 2019 & Pacula 2016, Klieger son 2015, Regan 2011 Mechanisms Bauss 2017, Butsic et et al. 2017, Pacula et al. al. 2017, Smith & Gi- 2014, Room 2013 Economic Freisthler et al. 2013, Mead & Costa 2016, raud 2006, Thomas & Considerations Nemeth & Ross 2014, Freisthler 2016, Yates Drug Policy Bishop-Henchman & Salkin & Kansler 2010, & Speer 2018 Burgdorf et al. 2014, Scarboro 2016, Caulk- Salkin & Kansler 2011 Corva 2014, Decorte ins 2017, Davenport & 2010 Caulkins 2016, Kilmer 2014, Kilmer et al. 2010, Pacula & Sevigny 2014, Rogeberg 2018

Current Study: Zoning and land use controls for regulating cannabis cultivation and its impacts in local contexts 31 his chapter provides a detailed expla- specifically. Primary data concerning Humboldt nation and justification of the present County’s cannabis regulatory structures and study’s methodological approach. Sec- their development can be collected in situ and Ttion A describes the overall research design, compared with secondary data sources available while Section B offers a description of the in the public record so as to not only identify study’s data sources and methods for analysis. specific mechanisms but to also better under- stand the planning goals and rationales underly- A. Research Design ing these interventions. This approach “empha- sizes the relationships between decision making 1. Overall Approach and the social interests leading the cognitive V. Methodology This study employs a descriptive, convergent, processes that are related to planning,” thereby qualitative research design in order to develop a bridging the gap between professional and com- multiple-case study comprehensively analyzing municative planning process within the context how Humboldt County, CA and its incorporated of a specific planning intervention in a given cities utilize their zoning and land use authority place and time. (Palermo & Ponzini 2014). to regulate cannabis cultivation. 2. Multiple-Case Study Firstly, the study is qualitative in that it seeks to explore and understand “the meaning indi- In addition to these methodological characteris- viduals or groups ascribe to social or human tics, the present study takes on a multiple-case problems” (Creswell 2014) through data based study design. Yin (2014) provides a two-part “on observations of physical settings and how definition of a case study: (1) “an empirical they are experienced by people,” as well as data inquiry that investigates a contemporary phe- emerging from “existing documents, public nomenon in depth and within its real-world con- records, and archival materials” (Silverman text, especially when the boundaries between 2014). Secondly, it is convergent in that mul- phenomenon and context may not be clearly A. Research Design tiple qualitative data sources are gathered and evident” and (2) that “copes with the technically analyzed simultaneously, allowing the study to distinctive situation in which there will be more begin broadly and then to focus over time on variables of interest than data points and as a re- B. Data Sources and Methods core categories and concepts (Creswell 2014, sult relies on multiple sources of evidence.” The Hakansson 2014). Thirdly, the study is descrip- present study satisfies both of these conditions. tive in that it seeks to build a rigorous and accu- In terms of the former, the study explores how rate portrait of the field of inquiry as it currently communities in a given geography are planning exists, “to provide a better understanding of for cannabis cultivation uses in real time while the nature of planning itself and the reality that navigating complex sociopolitical contexts, planning deals with” (du Toit 2015). especially in Humboldt County where marijuana cultivation has been prolific despite only re- This descriptive, convergent, qualitative ap- cently becoming a legitimate economic activity. proach is well suited to the research question, In terms of the latter, the study recognizes that which is concerned with identifying specific local planning for state-sanctioned marijua- zoning and land use strategies for addressing na activities is but a nascent phenomenon, so the emerging phenomenon of commercial-scale the analysis of local narratives, outcomes, and cannabis cultivation within a determined geo- expertise within their specific contexts will offer graphic area and unique sociopolitical context. keen insight into a subject matter only recently The wide-reaching literature review above contemplated by researchers. provides a broad foundation for the rest of the study, by developing an historical, political, and Furthermore, the study’s multiple-case approach policy context for the cannabis industry general- examines four local jurisdictions: the County of ly and by identifying potential geographies and Humboldt, as well as the Cities of Eureka, Ar- data sources for pursuing a more refined, local- cata, and Rio Dell. The multiple-case approach ized analysis pertaining to cannabis cultivation allows for the detection of similarities or differ-

32 33 34

V. Methodology legal frameworks forregulatingcannabis-relat jurisdiction’s website. These texts establish the to cannabiscultivationwere retrievedfromeach land useordinancesand zoning codespertaining data sourcesinaconvergent manner. Firstly, er collectedandanalyzed severalqualitative In building the multiple-case study, theresearch B. DataSources andMethods social relationsthroughterritory”(2015). CA asa“formofpolicepowerthat[governs] rounding medicalmarijuanain Amador County, (2013) andexaminestheplanningregimesur to extractthehighestandbestuseoftheirland a landuseregimethatallowedpropertyowners use inHumboldtCountythedevelopmentof role ofcannabis’ increasing legitimacyasaland following Proposition215.Polsonconsidersthe capital accumulationmotivatingGreenRushers was underminedbythecommercializationand land communitiesinnorthernCaliforniawhich economy amongcountercultureandback-to-the- a community-oriented,anti-capitalistmoral plores howcannabiscultivationhelpedtobuild San Diego,respectively).Keene(2015)ex California cities(Oakland,SanFrancisco,and development ofthesemodelsinthreedifferent political opportunitystructuresthatenabledthe laissez-faire, andpunitive.Hethenexaminesthe cannabis regulatoryframeworks:pro-regulation, ernments topursueoneofthreemodelsforlocal flexibility ofProposition215allowedlocalgov Heddleston (2013)argues that theintentional case studiesserveasprecedentsforthisstudy. gating localcannabisregulations,andthese approaches tothatproposedhereininvesti Several previouscasestudiestakesimilar cannabis cultivation. the approachestakentowardlocalregulationof environment ofeachjurisdictionlikelyinfluence particular planningprioritiesandsociopolitical economic centersintheEmerald Triangle, the tions shareacommonhistoryaspopulationand under Californialaw. Although allfourjurisdic use mechanismstoregulatecannabiscultivation able prerogativetousezoningandotherland because localgovernmentsaregivenconsider Such aperspectiveisvaluableinthisinstance, ences inoutcomesacrossjurisdictions(ibid.). ------the absence of robustsupportfromhigher levels regulation and theneedto“workon the fly”in institutional learningfrom earlierphasesof bis liberalizationonplanning practice,including views revealedmultiple implications ofcanna bis usesinColoradotogreat effect. Theinter study oflocalregulation ofrecreationalcanna interviews withplanningprofessionalsintotheir ical contexts.Johnsetal.(2015)incorporated as insightsintolocalhistoricalandsociopolit experiences inlocalcannabisregulation,aswell provide valuableinsightsfromtheirfirsthand present study, becauseinterview subjects can This methodisparticularlywell-suitedtothe cesses, andidentifyvariables”(Weiss 1994). integrate multipleperspectives,describepro material… todevelopdetaileddescriptions, to “achievecoherence,depth,anddensityof open-ended linesofinquiry, thismethodhelps dard questionsacrossinterviewsandmore (Silverman 2014).Byallowingforbothstan through arelativelynaturalisticconversation” an issue”by“[identifying]emergent themes how keystakeholdersperceiveandunderstand are used“togainanindepthunderstandingof planning officials.Semi-structuredinterviews semi-structured interviewswithpublicsector Thirdly, theresearcherconductedextended, regulatory structures(Hakansson2015). serve astheplanningrationaleunderlyingthese concepts, orempiricallybasedrelations”that eral plans—soasto“identifyprinciples,abstract mental impactstatements,memoranda,andgen and governmentdocuments—includingenviron with otherpublicly-availableplanningagency Secondly, theresearchsupplementedthesedata et al.2017)pertainingtocannabis-relateduses. es andcodes(Dilleyetal.2017,ShortGiannoti al. 2017,Paculaet2014)andlocalordinanc Chapman etal.2016,Fisk2018,Klieger tive reviewsofstatelaws(Cambranetal.2017, previous studieshaveconductedsimilarqualita considerations justifyingtheiradoption.Several about thepolitical,social,andenvironmental perspective. They canalsorevealsomething tured inpreviousstudiestakingamoregeneral including innovativelocalstrategiesnotcap mechanisms deployedbyeachjurisdiction, ed landusesandhighlightthespecificzoning ------City of Arcata wereunable toaccommodatein 2014). Unfortunately, twoplanners fromthe tions foranalysisacross all fourcases(Creswell tive codes,soastodevelop themesanddescrip ing tobothpredetermined andemergent qualita researcher latercodedthese interviewsaccord in HumboldtCountyand itsmunicipalities. The of comprehensivecannabislanduseordinances planning processesthatresultedintheadoption seven stakeholdersweredirectlyinvolvedinthe representing compliantcannabiscultivators. All ty Growers Alliance, alocaladvocacy group with anorganizer fromtheHumboldtCoun ees, theresearcheralsosecuredaninterview Upon therecommendationoftheseinterview Humboldt andthreefromtheCityofEureka. to 1.5hours:threeplannersfromtheCountyof tured interviewsthatlastedapproximatelyone six subjectsagreeingtoin-person,semi-struc contact listings. This initialoutreachresultedin each jurisdictionsbasedonpublicly-available stakeholders fromtheplanningdepartmentsof For thisstudy, theresearchercontactedmultiple communities, respectively. and cannabiscultivationinnorthernCalifornia environmental regulationsforsedimentcontrol interviews tosupplementtheirreviewsoflocal and ShortGianottietal.(2017)usedstakeholder of government.ShortGianotti&Duane(2016) 2. Planning Agency 2. 3. Semi-Structured and Government Stakeholder Documents Interviews Proposed DataSources - 1. LocalOrdinances and ZoningCodes ------Figure 7: (2017), and Wang etal.(2017). (2017), Butsic&Benner (2016),Butsicetal. tivation inHumboldtCounty, including Bauss ogies tomeasuretheimpactsofcannabiscul studies haveusedspatially-explicitmethodol regulatory regimesexamined.Severalprevious outcomes forcannabiscultivationunderthefour ally analyzethroughoutthisreportthespatial publicly-accessible geospatialdatasetstovisu of zoningandlanduse,theresearchercollected Finally, giventhefundamentallyspatialnature Humboldt CountyinJanuary2019. by theresearchercollectedduringfieldworkin contained inthisreportareoriginalcaptures built environments(Yin 2014). All photographs understanding ofHumboldtCounty’s socialand proved extremelyusefulinfashioningaworking mended sitesforfielddocumentation,which primary data,manyintervieweesalsorecom Fourthly, inadditiontoprovidingvaluable earlier andbymediareportsasnecessary. plemented byexistingdocumentsasdescribed Dell declinedtoparticipate. These gapsaresup interest, andoneplannerfromtheCityofRio terviews inatimelymannerdespiteexpressing 4. SpatialDatasets 5. Fieldworkand Ground Truthing - - - - - 35 Map 4: his chapter presents the findings for each Location of Case Study City of Arcata of the four jurisdictions examined are Jurisdictions within presented based on qualitative analysis Humboldt County (2019) Tand synthesis of the aforementioned data sourc- es. For each locality, the findings are reported in two subsections. Subsection One describes the context of local planning efforts for cannabis cultivation as a land use, and Subsection Two summarizes the zoning and land use mecha- nisms employed by the jurisdiction concerning City of Eureka VI. Case Studies: cannabis cultivation. A. County of Humboldt Jurisdiction Narratives 1. Local Context Under California state law, counties are charged with adopting local zoning and land use sche- mas for the unincorporated territories of their jurisdiction. The narrative of the emergence of Humboldt County’s land use regulations for commercial cannabis activities—as told by interview subjects—is fundamentally struc- tured around discussion of “Ordinance 1.0” and ¯ “Ordinance 2.0” These phrases have come to be City of Rio Dell Miles 01.25 2.5 5 7.5 10 Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics, CNES/Airbus DS, colloquial shorthand among those involved in USDA, USGS, AeroGRID, IGN, and the GIS User Community the planning process for referencing Humboldt’s A. County of Humboldt 2016 Commercial Medical Marijuana Land v. City of Long Beach—which struck down a Use Ordinance1 and 2018 Commercial Canna- municipal licensing scheme for cannabis collec- B. City of Eureka bis Land Use Ordinance,2 respectively. Though tives as an obstacle preempted by the Controlled Ordinance 1.0 represents the County’s first Substances Act—discouraged local action. successful attempt at establishing a comprehen- This changed fundamentally when California C. City of Arcata sive local regulatory framework for the cannabis lawmakers approved the Medical Cannabis industry, it was not the County’s first foray into Regulation and Safety Act (MMRSA) in Octo- D. City of Rio Dell considering cannabis cultivation as a land use ber 2015, which created the first comprehensive, with associated impacts. In 2014, the county statewide framework for cannabis regulation supervisors passed a land use code for indoor since voters passed Proposition 215 almost and outdoor cultivation of medical marijuana for twenty years earlier. Not only did this legislation personal use so as to promote “the health, safety, explicitly authorize counties and cities to create comfort, convenience, and general welfare of local zoning and land use codes for cannabis-re- the residents and businesses” by balancing the lated activities, it also imposed a March 1, 2016 needs of patients and caregivers, the preven- deadline to do so, or else forfeit that authority tion of nuisance impacts, and the need to limit to the state. This served as an impetus for the 3 harmful environmental impacts of cultivation. county supervisors to give the county planning Discussion had circulated even before this about and building department an “unambiguous” creating local regulations to address the Green mandate to develop a land use code to assist Rush’s impacts, but the court decision in Pack in transitioning Humboldt’s covert cannabis 1. Ordinance No. 2559: Commercial Medical Marijuana Land Use Ordi- industry into a licit, regulated market. Growers nance, County of Humboldt, CA (passed 13 September 2016). 2. Ordinance No. 2599: Commercial Cannabis Land Use Ordinance, and cannabis activists—having experienced County of Humboldt, CA (passed 8 May 2018). firsthand the Green Rush’s “atrocious” envi- 3. Ordinance No. 2523: Medical Marijuana Land Use Code for Indoor Cultivation, County of Humboldt, CA (passed 28 October 2014). ronmental and social impacts—also pressured 36 37 38

VI. Case Studies County ofHumboldt, CA (passed 8May2018). 4. OrdinanceNo.2599: CommercialCannabisLandUse Ordinance, use regulations concerningthecommercial The ordinance’s purposewas“toestablishland the CommercialCannabis LandUseOrdinance. adopted ina4-1voteOrdinance 2.0,formally In May2018,Humboldt CountySupervisors of Ordinance1.0. use codesbuttoalsoaddresstheshortcomings cial recreationalcannabisinitszoningandland opportunity notjusttoaccommodatecommer tunity torevisititslocalregulations.Itwasan resulting fromOrdinance1.0–utilizedtheoppor onslaught ofcannabiscultivationpermitting na, HumboldtCounty—stillnavigatingthe regulatory frameworkforadultusemarijua Bill 94in2017,therebyauthorizingastatewide When theCalifornialegislaturepassedSenate 2,300 permitapplications. By theendof2016,countyhadreceived approved Ordinance1.0onSeptember13,2016. less, HumboldtCountysupervisorsunanimously localities’ hesitancytoengagetheissue. Regard lawmakers subsequentlydisregardedbecauseof diction tomeettheMMRSA’s deadline,which Humboldt Countybecametheonlylocaljuris With themitigatednegativedeclarationinplace, would necessarilymitigateexistingimpacts. were alreadywidespread,anyregulationthereof cannabis cultivationanditsunregulatedimpacts behind thedeterminationwasthat,because ration (CountyofHumboldt2015). The logic planners utilizedamitigatednegativedecla deadline inMMRSA. To avoidthissituation, could notpossiblyhavebeencompletedbythe to acompleteenvironmentalreview, which were expected,theordinancewouldbesubject environmental impacts.Ifsignificantimpacts needed tomakeadeterminationofitspotential before theordinancecouldbepassed,planners assess itseffectiveness.UnderCalifornialaw, forced todraftlegislationwithouttheability industry andhowitfunctioned,officialswere institutional knowledgeaboutthecannabis With noguidancefromthestateandlimited scribed thesubsequentmonthsas“ascramble.” Planners involvedindraftingOrdinance1.0de face apotentialvoterreferendum. government toexpeditiouslydraftregulationsor

------4

6. Ibid. 5. Ibid.314-55.4.2. operators tofollowandauthoritiesenforce.” while creatingaclearandattainablepathfor public awareness,communityhealthandsafety our communityandenvironment,increases sible growththatreducesnegativeimpactson order toencouragesafe,reasonableandrespon or adultusewithintheCountyofHumboldtin tion, testing,andsaleofcannabisformedicinal cultivation, processing,manufacturing,distribu law.” ed… cannabisforpurposesnotauthorizedby safeguard againstthediversionofstate-regulat of state-regulatedoradultusecannabis;andto from cannabisactivities…toensurethesecurity “protect theenvironmentfromharmresulting welfare, theordinance’s expressedgoalsareto In additiontoensuringpublichealth,safety, and by Ordinance 1.0encouragedanincrease inthe explained thatthesiting requirements imposed rated citiesorresidential areas.Countyplanners use conflictsduetotheir proximitytoincorpo cannabis cultivationsites thatcouldcauseland Conditional usepermitsarenecessaryfor clearance certificate. existing, non-residentialbuildingswithazoning feet ofindoorcultivationareaispermissiblein mit. Inthosesamedistricts,upto5,000square icate or10,000squarefeetwithaspecialper area isallowedwithazoningclearancecertif square feetofoutdoorormixed-lightcultivation and unclassifiedzoningdistricts,upto5,000 exclusive, agricultural general, forest residential, parcels between five and ten acres in agricultural permit typebyzoningdistrict.Forexample,for rizes theallowablecultivationusesundereach parcel, andthezoningdistrict. Table 1summa cultivation area,lightingsource,acreageofthe given cultivationsiteisdictatedbytheproposed conditional usepermits. The type requiredfora clearance certificates,specialpermits,and ing orderofrequiredreviewintensity:zoning lishes threelocalpermittypes,listedinascend dition toastate-issuedlicense. The codeestab for everycannabiscultivationsiteandisinad framework isthelocalpermit,whichrequired The foundationoftheCounty’s regulatory 2. ZoningandLandUseMechanisms 6

------5 -

resolution. Allowable permitsare thendistrib countywide is setbycountysupervisors through mum allowablenumber of cultivationpermits Under theCounty’s landusecode,themaxi prevent adverseeffects on existinguses. sure anddiscretionaryreview arenecessaryto from theseareas,butconsiderablepublicdisclo this scheme,cannabiscultivation is notexcluded community planningarea,ortriballands.Under or within1,000feetofanincorporatedcity, fluence oramappedcommunityplanningarea, for cultivationsiteswithinacity’s sphereofin- Ordinance 2.0requiredaconditionalusepermit them. To minimizesuchconflictsinthefuture, unincorporated landsimmediatelyadjacentto cities protestingthesitingofcannabisgrowson property ownersontheedgeofincorporated County plannersfacednumerousinstancesof be attractiveplacesforresidentialdevelopment. perspective, theseideallocationsalsohappento the Emerald Triangle. However, fromaplanning remote, inaccessiblecannabisgrowstypicalof impacts wouldbenegligibleasopposedtothe place insuchareaswheretheenvironmental seem preferableforcannabiscultivationtotake From anenvironmentalperspective,itmight tively flatparcelswithprimeagriculturalsoils. number ofcannabisgrowsproposedforrela A large-scale, mixed-lightcannabisgrow operationinWillow Creek, unincorporatedHumboldtCounty (Jaunuary2019). - - - - acres. and authorizingamaximumof1,205cultivation May 2018,cappingallowablepermitsat3,5000 County supervisorspassedResolution18-43in shed’s abilitytosupportcannabisagriculture. eligible parcelsinthatwatershedandthewater watersheds, basedonthenumberofcultivation uted accordingtotheCounty’s 12planning tion, CountyofHumboldt, CA (passed8May2018). and Acres which maybe Approved for CommercialCannabisCultiva 7 Resolution.No. 18-43 EstablishingaCapontheNumber ofPermits types ofgrows.Outdoor growsaresubjectedto tribal ceremonialsitesis alsorequiredforboth and schoolbusstops. A 1,000-foot bufferfrom worship, publicparks,tribal culturalresources, tors subjecttothesamerestriction: placesof law, whileaddingseveralothersensitiverecep 600-foot bufferfromschoolsprescribedbystate outdoor andindoorfacilities,itmaintainsthe imposes anumberofdistancebuffers.Forboth pertaining tocannabiscultivation.Firstly, it contains severalstandardzoningmechanisms In additiontopermitting,thelandusecode acres ofcultivationarea. eligible toreceivepermitsformorethanthree area andlimitstotenthenumberofoperators allowing morethaneightacresofcultivation restricts anyoneoperatorfromholdingpermits tribution ofcultivationpermits,thezoningcode 7 Furthermore,toensuretheequitabledis

- - - - 39 40

VI. Case Studies accommodations thecodemakesfor existing cannabis cultivation ismostapparent inthevast County’s approachtolanduseregulation for are, thetrulyinnovative nature ofHumboldt As robustastheaforementioned regulations archaeological assetson the proposedsite. ects mustalsotakecaretoprotecthistoricalor assess environmentalimpacts.Cultivationproj and soilmanagement,aswellfurnishdatato material, stormwater, wastewater, solidwaste, supply theCountywithplansforhazardous the purchaseofcarboncredits. Applicants must otherwise offsetbyonsiterenewablesourcesor is metby100percentrenewablegridpoweror to energy standards,whereinenergy demand to forbearance.Cultivationsitesmustadhere ter diversionswithoutaspecialpermitsubject utilizing truckedwater, orutilizingsurfacewa levels atpropertylinesmorethanthreedecibels, to sunrise,increasingexistingambientnoise or greenhousegrowstobevisiblefromsunset ing plantmaterial,allowinglightfromindoor of service.Operatorsareprohibitedfromburn must bedesignedormaintainedtoagivenlevel that allaccessroads(whetherpublicorprivate) more thantwomilesalongadead-endroadand standards dictatethatprojectscannotbelocated are imposedoncultivationuses.Roadsystems Thirdly, anumberofperformancestandards percent oftheareasuchsoil. tural soils,thecannabisgrowcanonlycover20 When occurringonparcelswithprimeagricul cannot beclearedforcannabiscultivation. the slopeislessthan15percent.Forestedareas must belocatedontheportionsofalotwhere requirements areimposed.Cultivationsites Secondly, severaladditionalsiteplanning industry). for heavymanufacturingorplannedgeneral or triballands(exceptwhentheparceliszoned an incorporatedcity, communityplanningarea, community planningareaorwithin1,000feetof located withinacity’s sphereofinfluenceora areas andfromresidencesonseparateparcelsif adjacent lots;600feetfromresidentially-zoned es onadjacentlots;270feetfromundeveloped feet frompropertylines;300residenc additional bufferandsetbackrequirements:30 - - - - - and encourage theretirement,remediation, and and itwascreated to“incentivize,promote, but forallowablecannabis cultivationarea, a transferofdevelopment rightsmechanism (RRR) provision. The provisionis essentially Relocation ofPre-Existing CultivationSites mechanism: theRetirement, Remediation,and through Humboldt’s mostfascinatinglanduse commodations forpre-existingcultivationsites The County’s land usecodealsoprovidesac years. to bringthesiteintofullcompliancewithintwo mit acomplianceagreementoutliningactions ers tosecurestatelicensure,buttheymustsub sites areprovisionallyapprovedtoallowgrow a specialpermit. Applications forpre-existing districts, cultivationmayalsobepermittedwith percent. Forsmaller-sized lotsincertainzoning tivation areascanremainonslopeslessthan30 system performancestandards,andexistingcul feet. These sitesareexempted fromcertainroad on thedateofapplication)upto3,000square outdoor ormixed-lightcultivation(depending the pre-existingcultivationareaispermittedfor on theparcel.Upto100percentor50of erator’s primaryresidencemust alsobelocated land usedesignations)zoningdistricts;theop sified (withresourceproductionorresidential floodplain, Timber ProductionZone,andunclas rural residentialagricultural,forestresidential, in agriculturalexclusive,general, parcels arefiveacresorlarger, and arelocated with slightlylessrestrictiveregulations.Eligible to applyforalocalzoningclearancecertificate tween January1,2006andDecember31,2015 dence ofcannabiscultivationonaparcelbe allow existinggrowerswhocanprovideevi To thisend,theCounty’s landuseregulations region. of theEmerald Triangle’s historyasagrowing solely onsatisfyingthelegalmarketregardless pecially sincethestatewideframeworkfocused legacy growerstransitiontoalicitmarket,es had avestedinterestinassistingexistingand explained thatthereforethecountysupervisors and awayoflifeforcountlessindividuals. They Humboldt’s economy, thatitisbothalivelihood acknowledged thatcannabiscultivationbuoys growers. Ininterviews,countyplannersopenly ------. 52. 30 22.5 15 7.5 0 Cultivation FacilitiesbasedonZoning District inUnincorporatedHumboldt Potential LocationsofNewOutdoor 3.75 Incorporated Cities Unclassified Districts Commerce/Industry Districts Forest ResidentialDistricts Agricultural Districts Tribal Lands Permit Areas Conditional County (2019) Map 5: ¯ Miles 41 42

VI. Case Studies 9. Ibid. 8. OrdinanceNo.2599, section55.4.6.5.9. vation sites,afinalnotable innovationinHum Aside fromtheprovisions forpre-existingculti for exercisingtheirproperty rights. by providingpre-existing growersalternatives visions protecttheCountyfromtakingsclaims would beotherwisepossible. Thirdly, thesepro- legal commercialmarkettoagreaterextentthan ers aregiventheopportunitytoparticipatein commodity. Inallthreeinstances,legacygrow their existingcultivationrightsasatransferable sites andbecomecompliant,ortomonetize sites, totransfertheirgrowsmoresuitable by givingthemtheoptionstoreconfiguretheir flexible accommodationsforexistinggrowers cannabis cultivation.Secondly, theyprovide environmental damagecausedbyunregulated Firstly, theyprovidefortheremediationof program addressseveralplanningobjectives. of pre-existingcultivationsitesandtheRRR Taken together, theprovisionalpermitting or environmentallysensitivesites.” operations occurringininappropriate,marginal, relocation ofpre-existingcannabiscultivation property inperpetuity.” or disturbtheremediationareaofsubject enant “nottocommerciallycultivatecannabis remediation oftheRRRsite”andrecordacov must submitaplan“forthefullenvironmental a multiplier. Insodoing,theRRRsiteoperator for sites with 20,000 square feet or more without feet, orthefullareaofpre-existingcultivation a factoroffouruptototal20,000square which complieswithalllanduseregulationsby the pre-existingcultivationareatoanewsite cate, theoperatorofaneligiblesitecantransfer quired setbacks. With azoningclearancecertifi percent, orcultivationoccurringoutsidere standards, cultivationonslopesgreaterthan15 versions, accessroadsnotmeetingperformance noncompliant becauseofunpermittedwaterdi forest residentialzoningdistrictsandmustbe agricultural general,exclusive,or production, residentialagricultural,unclassified, eligible sitesmustbelocatedwithintimber January 1,2006andDecember31,2015. The of priorcannabiscultivationonthesitebetween of RRRsitesmustbeabletoprovideevidence

9

8 Operators ------use permit.In additiontoperformance standards allowable floor areacanbeconsidered witha within existingstructures. Expansionsofthe a zoningclearancecertificate whenoccurring of indoorcultivationisa permissibleusewith veloped forheavyindustrial uses,uptooneacre parcels larger thantwoacresandpreviouslyde of industrialsites.Undertheseprovisions,on tivation isitsprovisionsfortheadaptivereuse boldt’s landuseregulationsforcannabis cul Outdoor andMixed-LightCultivationSites Indoor CultivationSites Lighting Table 1:Summaryof Allowable CultivationSitesin Source Unincorporated HumboldtCounty al, ForestResidential,andUnclassified Agricultural Exclusive, Agricultural Gener or Industriallandusedesignation) turing, andUnclassified(withCommercial C-3, LightManufacturing,HeavyManufac al, ForestResidential,andUnclassified Agricultural Exclusive, Agricultural Gener tion) Commercial orIndustriallandusedesigna Manufacturing, andUnclassified(with C-2, C-3,LightManufacturing,Heavy Districts Zoning acres >320 >10 acres acres 5-10 acres >= 2 >=320 acres < 320 mum No mini- Parcel Size crement acre in per 100- 43,560sf 43,560sf 10,000sf 10,000sf 5,000sf 43,560sf > 43,560sf 10,000sf 5,000sf 10,00sf up tp 5,000sf up to vation Culti- Area - Permit Use Permit Special ance Clear Zoning Permit Special ance Clear Zoning Permit Use ance Clear Zoning Permit Special ance Clear Zoning Permit Special ance Clear Zoning Permit Type ------been occupied. also notpermitteduntilallexistingoneshave re-occupancy bynewuses;”structuresare site infrastructuressoasto“notpreventfuture to avoiddestroyingexistingbuildingsoron- adaptively reusedfacilitiesarealsorequired imposed onallcommercialcannabisactivities, 10. Ibid.,section55.4.9. They admitted thatthelackofknowledge per City todowhatwasbest forthecommunity. onus ofresponsibilityremained largely withthe nabis policyatthestatelevel atthattime,sothe difficult tokeeptrackof developmentsincan interviews, cityplannerssaiditwasextremely cial medicalmarijuanaactivitiesin2016.In duced locallanduseregulationsforcommer residents (ACS).Likethecounty, Eurekaintro population andcommercialcenter, with27,000 of HumboldtCountyanditsmostsignificant The CityofEurekaisthegovernmentseat 1. LocalContext B. CityofEureka Facilities basedonZoningDistrictinthe Potential LocationsofCultivation City ofEureka(2019) 10

Map 6: - - - - was notabout exploitation,asthecase isin proach toward theburgeoning cannabis industry From theplanners’ perspective,Eureka’s ap- Eureka forthefirsttime indecades. represented job-intensive industryreturningto ities werenotjustcontroversial nuisancesbut many stakeholdersbegantorealizethesefacil shifting attitudestowardtheindustry. Indeed, lated facilitiesprovedtobepowerfultoolsin government andelectedofficialstocannabis-re reluctant electedofficials. Tothatend,visitsfor departments tosupporttheprocess,including significant hurdletheneedtoconvinceother Additionally, theplannersalsodescribedasa regulations toadapttheindustryasitgrew. of theprocessandaneedforgovernment quired anhonestattitudetowardthe“messiness” was notjarringtotheirpreviouseffortsbutre adult usecannabisbyProposition64in2016 difficult. Theyexplainedthat thelegalizationof level, madedraftinglocalregulationsextremely constantly evolvingpolicylandscapeatthestate taining tothecannabisindustry, aswellthe and theGISUserCommunity Source:Esri,DigitalGlobe,GeoEye,EarthstarGeographics,CNES/AirbusDS,USDA,USGS, AeroGRID, IGN, . . 2 1.5 1 0.5 0 ¯ 0.25 Service CommercialDistricts Manufacturing Districts Eureka CityLimits - - - 43 Miles 44

VI. Case Studies indoor cultivation facilityinEureka, CA (Jaunuary2019). Immature, hydroponically-grown cannabisplantsat an the manufacturingofvalue-addedcannabis supply chainthatfollowcultivation,especially mary focusisonthosesegmentsofthecannabis Interviewees acknowledgedthatEureka’s pri- various cannabisenterprises. just outsidetheOld Town hasbecomealocusof industrial districtintheCity’s northwestcorner nabis industry. Inparticular, thelargely-dormant would neverhavebeenrealizedwithoutthecan mercial buildingsundergoing improvementsthat degraded andunderutilizedindustrialcom the buildingstockas“transformational,”with planners describedtheprivateinvestmentin larly successfulinachievingthatlastgoal. The improve buildings. The Cityhasbeenparticu to reducetheblackmarket,createjobs,and that light,theCity’s primarygoalshavebeen land usesneededfortheentiresupplychain.In accommodating themultiplecannabis-related as acenterforthecannabisindustrycapableof uine “opportunity”forEurekatoestablishitself cannabis policyliberalizationpresentedagen revenue frompermittingandtaxation.Rather, other Californiacitiesmotivatedbyextracting - - - - increase inresponsecosts.” vasion robberiesandsimilarcrimes…[and]an and mildew, increasedfrequencyofhome-in grows… inadequateventilationleadingtomold ings containingillegalandunpermittedindoor seeks tomitigateinclude“damagebuild welfare. The observednegative impacts the code jurisdiction topromotepublichealth,safety, and City toregulatecannabis-relateduseswithinits er, subsequentstateactionshaveenabledthe 12. Ibid. 11. Municipal Code,CityofEureka,CA, section 158-001. cannabis cultivationwithinthecity.” or issuesarisingfromtheresultingincreasein not addresslanduseorbuildingcodeimpacts edge that“theCompassionateUse Act does activities. The chapter’s findingsacknowl - the landuseregulationsforcannabis-related Chapter 158ofEureka’s citycodeestablishes 2. ZoningandLandUseMechanisms currently hometofoursuchoperations. facilities, andplannersestimatedthatEurekais pal landusecodeaccommodatesindoorgrow Humboldt County. Nevertheless,themunici to bringmarketthecropsofgrowersacross ing, distribution,andresearchfacilitiesneeded is ideallysuitedtoattractingthelarge process- of vacantindustrialandcommercialproperties products. Indeed,theCity’s abundantsupply for developers orbusinessowners. To theplan siting options,thisapproach easessiteselection ate overlayorspecialdistricts thatwouldrestrict ing cannabis-relatedland uses.Ratherthancre City’s “business friendly”approachtoregulat ners explainedthatthisdecisionwaspartofthe uses intoexistingzoningdistricts. The plan scheme incorporatescannabiscultivationland areas ofHumboldtCounty, Eureka’s regulatory Similar totheframeworkforunincorporated cultivation 10,000sf of cultivation 5,000sf of Table 2:Summaryof Allowable CultivationSitesby Up to Up to

Zoning DistrictintheCityofEureka N?A Use Permit Conditional Commer Service cial - Permit ditional Use Minor Con- Permitted Principally Manufac- General 12 turing

11 Permit ditional Use Minor Con- Permitted Principally Light Man- ufacturing Howev-

------for commercial medicalmarijuanaactivities Arcata began issuingconditionaluse permits 2008). of Arcata versity, thecommunity’s largest employer(City 2008). Arcata ishometoHumboldtState Uni imately 11 squaremiles(Humboldt LAFCO county seatatEurekaandencompassesapprox is locatedapproximatelyeightmilesnorthofthe 18,000 residents.Incorporatedin1858, Arcata second-largest incorporatedcity, withnearly The Cityof Arcata isHumboldtCounty’s 1. LocalContext C. Cityof Arcata ed usesandexistingschools. 600-foot distancebufferbetweencannabis-relat ty protocols. Additionally, thecitymaintains site plans,operationmanuals,andcannabissafe to thecityplanningdirector, includingdetailed operators arerequiredtofurnishextensivedata ground check.Duringthepermittingprocess, program; andbesubjectedtoacrinalback industrial uses;participateinatrackandtrace off-street parkingandloadingsimilartoother tilizers, pesticides,andotherchemicals;provide refrain fromtheimproperstorageoffuels,fer gas, smoke,traffic,vibration,andsurfacerunoff; mold, mildew, dust,glare,heat,noise,noxious tions; eliminateadverseeffectsassociatedwith trance tothefacility;adheresignagerestric clear andlegiblenoticesdenyingminorsen licenses; pursueandobtainstatelicensure;post must: possesscity-issuedcannabisandbusiness the issuanceofausepermit,facilityoperator satisfy thefindingsandconditionsnecessaryfor use permitinservicecommercialdistricts. To turing districtsbutaresubjectedtoaconditional permitted usesingeneralandlimitedmanufac tion areaupto5,000squarefeetarenormally conditional usepermit.Facilitieswithcultiva manufacturing zoningdistrictswithaminor square feetareallowedingeneralandlimited with amaximumcultivationareaof10,000 Under theCity’s landusecode,indoorgrows be willingto. routine landusesthanotherjurisdictionsmight to treatcannabis-relatedusesmoreclosely ners, thiswasrepresentativeoftheCity’s efforts ------addition tomedical, andtheoverlay district was permitting commercial cannabisactivities in With newlegislation in2018, Arcata began grown, andmanufactured” (Stephens2017). areas, wheremarijuanacould beprocessed, a safelocation,thatdidn’t haveimpactstoother that was…somewhatcontrolled…. To provide of thelanduseactionwas“toprovideanarea official explainedtothemediathatpurpose industrial parksurroundingthem. A planning from theoriginalthreesitestoentiretyof By 2016,theInnovationZonehadexpanded Innovation Zoneasacombiningzoningdistrict. cil obligedandcreatedtheMedicalMarijuana corner. (Cityof Arcata 2015). The citycoun blighted industrialarea”intheCity’s northeast trict acrossthreesitesinan“underutilizedand a medicalmarijuanainnovationoverlaydis requesting azoningcodeamendmenttocreate to theplanningcommissionandcitycouncil development departmentissuedastaffreport Safety Act. In2015,theCity’s community passed theMedicalCannabisRegulationand in 2014,evenbeforetheCalifornialegislature Cannabis InnovationZone Combining Districtinthe City of Arcata (2019) Map 7: USDA, USGS, AeroGRID, IGN,andtheGISUserCommunity Source:Esri,DigitalGlobe,GeoEye,EarthstarGeographics,CNES/AirbusDS, . . . 0.4 0.3 0.2 0.1 0 ¯ 0.05 - - CIZ Area 2 CIZ Area 1 CIZ Area Cannabis InnovationZone City Limit 45 Miles 46

VI. Case Studies cannabis retailsalesandservicefacility.” when operatedinconjunctionwitha“medical tivation incommercialdistrictsisonlypermitted use withaconditionalpermit.However, cul- commercial cannabiscultivationisanallowable In centralandgeneralcommercialdistricts, district. within theCannabisInnovationZonecombining ited conditionsandinindustrialzoningdistricts in somecommercialzoningdistrictsunderlim mercial cannabiscultivationisanallowableuse approach, Arcata’s isfarmorenuanced.Com scheme. ComparedtoEureka’s straightforward helpful inunderstanding Arcata’s regulatory 1,500 squarefeet,whicheverisless.Suchverti 25 percentofthefacility’s totalfloorareaor this instance,thecultivationareacannotexceed Innovation Zone, Arcata, CA (Jaunuary 2019). A newcannabis-related facilityobservedin theCannabis 15.. LandUseCode,Cityof Arcata, CA,section9.42.105. lations, Cityof Arcata, CA (passed2017). 14. ResolutionNo.178-23:CommercialCannabis Activity PermitRegu 2018). to CannabisRetailSalesandServices,Cityof Arcata, CA (passed 13. OrdinanceNo.1501 Amending ZoningRegulationsPertaining nance 1501 pal codeandlandusecode.CityCouncilOrdi ties arevariouslydictatedbytheCity’s munici Arcata’s regulationsforcannabis-relatedactivi 2. ZoningandLandUseMechanisms located inthedistrict. approximately 11 newsmallbusinessarenow cate highlypraisedtheproject,estimatingthat During interviews,thecannabisgrowersadvo Cannabis InnovationZoneduringfieldwork. ed tothecannabisindustrythroughout Arcata’s The researcherobservednewdevelopmentrelat renamed theCannabisInnovationZone.

13 andResolution178-23

14 arealso

15 In ------development isstronglyencouraged.” text goesontospecify, “Newcannabisproduct 18. Ibid. 17. Ibid.,section9.28.130. 16. Ibid.,section9.28.010. primary zoningdistrict.” addition tothestandardsandregulationsof standards thatapplytoproposeddevelopmentin development withinthecombiningzonethrough zones aremappedsoasto“provideguidancefor cording totheCity’s landusecode,combining novation Zone(CIZ)combiningdistrict. Ac- which intersectwiththeCity’s CannabisIn- to generalandlightindustrialzoningdistricts Commercial cultivationisotherwiserestricted feet ofaschool,youthcenter, ordaycare. cannabis retailandservicesuse,orwithin500 a residentialzoningdistrict,500feetofanother such facilitieswhenlocatedwithin300feetof to give“specialconsideration”approving reviewing theusepermitapplicationisrequired combining district.Furthermore,theauthority City overallandtwointheCity’s centralplaza cally-integrated facilitiesarelimitedto15inthe properties in Area 2requireaconditional use with justazoningclearance certificate,while 1, commercialcannabis activities areallowable is splitintotwonon-contiguous areas.In Area creation, andtoeliminateblight.” ucts…. tostimulateinvestment,newbusiness businesses cansafelyproducecannabisprod “to establishanareawherenichemanufacturing Cannabis InnovationZone(Area2) Cannabis InnovationZone(Area1) Central CommercialandGeneral Table 3:Summaryof Allowable CultivationSitesin Districts Zoning

>25% 25% >25% 25% 25% Cultivation of Building Floor Area Area as% the Cityof Arcata

16 >4,000sf 4,000sf >4,000sf 4,000sf 1,500sf Cultivation Maximum The CIZ’s intentis Area 17 The zoning The Use Permit Conditional Use Permit Conditional Use Permit Conditional Certificate Clearance Zoning Use Permit Conditional 18 The CIZ The Permit Type - a sustainability reportdisclosingenergy useand a trackandtraceprogram; andannuallysubmit visible fromoutsidethe building; participatein control measures;ensure cultivationisnot place, andmannerrestrictions; implementodor maintain statelicensure;complywithtime, conditions forissuanceoftheirlocalpermits: department, cultivatorsmustmeetthefollowing security planstothecommunitydevelopment In additiontofurnishingsite,floor, waste,and 19. Ibid. bis cultivation.” feet orgreaterinsize,andisnotusedforcanna zone or[CIZ]combiningthatis600square designated forallowableusesintheprimary commercial orindustrialspacedesignedand independently accessible,occupancyready, cultivation facilitiesmustprovide“atleastone here—is thespecificationthateachparcelwith and uniqueamongthejurisdictionsexamined with issuanceofausepermit.Furthermore— ever, eitheroftheselimitationscanbeexceeded area butcannotexceed4,000squarefeet.How to nomorethan25percentofthefacility’s floor Within eitherarea,thecultivationareaislimited Area 2islimitedto20. permit. The numberofpermitstobeissuedfor New developmentisvisibleintheSawmill Annexation Area, Rio Dell,CA (Jaunuary2019).

19

- - allow thecommercial cultivation,processing, ical Cannabis LandUseOrdinancewhich would the citycouncilapproved theCommercialMed became increasinglyapparent. InOctober2016, economic potentialofthe site’s redevelopment nia’s cannabis policiesbegantocoalesce,the as thesitelayotherwise dormant andCalifor system (HumboldtLAFCO2008).However, tate improvementstoitswastewatertreatment originally annexedthesiteinordertofacili the EelRiverandUSHighway101. The City at themunicipality’s northwestcorneralong Humboldt-Rio DellBusinessPark,itislocated operations in2005(ibid.). Also knownasthe the formerEelRiverSawmill,whichceased In 2009,RioDellannexedthe245-acresiteof residents (HumboldtLAFCO2018). 2.5 squaremilesandhasapproximately3,400 rated in1965,theCitycoversapproximately tion centerforthetimberindustryandincorpo 26 milessouthofEureka. An historicpopula within HumboldtCounty, locatedapproximately The CityofRioDellisanincorporatedcity 1. LocalContext D. CityofRioDell emissions equivalents. - - - - - 47 48

VI. Case Studies 2. ZoningandLandUse Mechanisms operations (Butler2018). and wellnesscenterwithspa,severalgrow processing andmanufacturingfacilities,ahealth the site,includingatestinglab,researchspace, the numerousproposedcannabisprojectsfor construction. The localmediahasreportedon several cannabis-relatedfacilitiesalreadyunder area’s redevelopmentduringfieldwork,with The researcherobservedsignsoftheannexation licenses. adult uselicensestoalsomaintainmedical tions examinedhereinrequiringoperatorswith this end,RioDellisuniqueamongthejurisdic 22. Ibid.,section17.30.195. tions, CityofRioDell, CA (passed20February2018). 21. OrdinanceNo. 364-2018:CommericalCannabisLand UseRegula Ordinance, CityofRioDell,CA (passed2016). 20. Ordinance348-2016:MedicalCannabis CommercialLandUse ation Area. medical usesolelywithintheSawmill Annex- manufacturing, anddistributionofcannabisfor serve therecreationalmarketaswell. cannabis businessesintheannexationareato ed Ordinance364inFebruary2018,allowing 64 andSenateBill94. The citycounciladopt regulations followingpassageofProposition Rio Dellreconsidereditscommercialcannabis Like theotherjurisdictionsdiscussedabove, California 2016b). Measure T ina53 to47percentvote(Stateof the measurebypassingHumboldtCountyBallot gave thecitycounciltheiradvisoryconsentto a researchcenterforthecannabisindustry.” ture fortheHumboldtRioDellBusinessParkas In thislight,theCityofRioDellenvisionsafu and innovativeresearcherstolocateinRioDell. oriented businesswillthriveandencouragenew will provideanenvironmentinwhichresearch understand themedicalbenefitsofthisplant nabis industry. The effortsoftheCitytobetter medical researchasassociatedwiththecan ket andactivelyseekbusinessesthatconduct to focustheireffortstowardsthemedicalmar nance reads:“We encouragethebusinesses… preference forthemedicalmarket. The ordi the ordinance’s text,whichincludedanexpress annexation area’s futureredevelopmentwithin Rio Dellexpresslylaidoutitsvisionforthe 20 Subsequently, RioDellresidents

21 Notably, - - 22 - To To - - - - and maintain validstatecultivationlicenses and check, participateinatrack andtraceprogram, quarterly inspections,consent toabackground community relationscontact person,submitto groundbreaking construction activity, identifya consult withlocaltribal authorities forany and asafetyplan. Additionally, operatorsmust site plans,flooraplanofoperations, mit, facilityoperatorsmustsubmitforreview To receivethenecessaryconditionaluseper are permitted. indoor ormixed-lightstatecultivationlicenses zoning districts.Onlybusinessesoperatingwith in naturalresourceandindustrialcommercial land usewithaconditionalpermit commercial cannabiscultivationisanallowable the annexationarea. Within theannexationarea, cannabis related uses without explicitly rezoning created aspecialpurposeoroverlaydistrictfor setting thisrestriction,thecityhaseffectively restricted totheSawmill Annexation Area. By mercial cannabisactivitieswithincitylimitsare regulations. Underthoseprovisions,allcom tates theCity’s commercialcannabislanduse Chapter 17ofRioDell’s municipalcodedic Indoor CultivationSites Mixed-Light CultivationSites Table 4:Summaryof Allowable CultivationSitesin Lighting Source Natural Resources Industrial Commercial Resources Industrial CommercialandNatural Districts Zoning the CityofRioDell >= 10acres 5-9.99 acres 2-4.99 acres 1-1.99 acres <1 acre mum No mini- >=20 acres acres 5-19.99 acres 2.5-4.99 1-2.49 acres <1 acre Parcel Size 22,000sf 10,000sf 5,000sf 2,000sf 1,000sf 22,000sf up to 22,000sf 10,000sf 5,000sf 2,000sf 1,000sf Allowable Canopy - - - - trict. Lotsize doesnotimpactmaximum allow mum allowable canopydiffersbyzoning dis acres. Forindoorgrowoperations, themaxi to 22,000squarefeeton parcels larger than20 1,000 squarefeetonparcels lessthananacre tricts, allowableplantcanopies canrangefrom commercial andnaturalresourcezoningdis greenhouse growoperationsinbothindustrial district, andthelotsize.Formixed-light by theoperation’s lightingsource,thezoning lowable plantcanopyonapremisesisdictated As summarizedin Table 4,themaximumal able sourcesorbeoffsetbycarboncredits. and aportionofenergy mustcomefromrenew scrubbers mustbeinstalledtoeliminateodors; according tostateguidelines;exhaustfiltersand fuel andagriculturalchemicalsmustbestored withdrawals andtruckedwateraredisallowed; mance standards.Forexample:surfacewater facilities arealsosubjectedtostringentperfor local businesslicenses.Cannabiscultivation .50507 1 0.75 0.5 0.25 0 Facilities intheCityofRioDell,CA 0.125 Potential LocationsofCultivation Natural ResourcesDistrict Industrial CommercialDistrict Sawmill AnnexationArea City Limits Map 8: (2019) ¯ Miles ------feet requiredbystatelawto1,000feet. distance bufferfromschoolsthe600 Additionally, themunicipalcodeextends lines innaturalresourcezoningdistricts. observe a50-footsetbackfromallproperty in otherjurisdictions.Cultivationsitesmust buffer requirementsaremorerestrictivethan Finally, RioDell’s setbackanddistance zoning districts. districts, butitdoesinnaturalresources able canopyinindustrialcommercialzoning and theGISUserCommunity Source:Esri,DigitalGlobe,GeoEye,EarthstarGeographics,CNES/AirbusDS,USDA,USGS, AeroGRID, IGN, 49 VII. Discussion: Cross-Case Analysis

Deteriorating locomotives of the largely-defunct Northwest Pacific Railroad--once a critical link for transporting Humboldt County’s lumber and fish to market--are visible at an abandoned railyard, known as the Balloon Tract, along Eureka’s waterfront. Stakeholders see the cannabis industry and the tourism it could generate as catalysts for the property’s future redevelopment (Jaunuary 2019). his chapter presents an analysis of the The County of Humboldt holds land use author- study’s findings across all four juris- ity across vast expanses of remote, unincorpo- A. Divergent Regulatory Approaches dictions examined in order to highlight rated, mountainous, forested territory. Indeed, Tsimilarities and differences in their regulato- these characteristics are what made the County ry approaches, as well as to explore common attractive to the countercultural settlers, illicit B. Cannabis Planning for Economics and Equity themes and dynamics. The analysis is structured commercial-scale growers, and Green Rush- within four primary findings: the divergent reg- ers in the first place; these characteristics also C. Paradigm Shift: Cannabis as a Subject of ulatory approaches to cannabis-related activities made the County uniquely susceptible to the (Section A), cannabis planning for economics significant environmental damage unregulated Planning and equity (Section B), cannabis as a subject cannabis cultivation can cause. In this light, of planning (Section C), and conflicting power Humboldt County’s regulatory approach is per- structures in cannabis land use action (Section haps the most environmentally-conscious one D. Conflicting Jurisdictions in Cannabis Land D). examined here. While the incorporated cities generally only permit indoor grows, the County Use Action A. Divergent Regulatory Approaches must plan for the prevalence of outdoor opera- Even within a region as unique as Humboldt tions, whether open air or in greenhouses. This County—where cannabis cultivation has been environmental awareness is reflected in land use prolific for decades and is nearly universally policies such as disallowing timberland clearing (though not necessarily officially) recognized as for new grows, requiring forbearance on surface a significant element of the economic and social water diversions during periods of low flow, and landscape—local jurisdictions have taken con- protections for prime agricultural soils. siderably different approaches toward regulating However, the County’s approach is also unique- cannabis cultivation as a land use. As Pacula et ly people-oriented. One county planner asserted al. (2014) suggest, these differences reflect each “land use planning is all about people in a place locality’s diverging policy goals. to protect the environment…. We get so con- cerned with regulations, we forget about people, 50 51 52

VII. Discussion less, Arcata’s commitmenttocannabis industry flexible onthe sizeofsuchfacilities. Neverthe the combiningdistrictallow cityplannerstobe tem, andtheadditionalcontrols establishedby as anecessarypartofthis innovationecosys innovation zone,itallows cultivationfacilities ly encourages“productdevelopment” inthe cannabis businesses. Though Arcata strong and thatfacilitatescollaborationamongdifferent location bestsuitedtothemandtheirimpacts and othertypesoffacilitiesintoageographic tion Zone,whichtargets marijuanacultivation primarily achievedthroughitsCannabisInnova emphasize differentpriorities. Arcata’s visionis the cannabisindustryintheirjurisdictionswhich use regulationstoimplementfocusedvisionsfor edly differentapproachbyutilizingtheirland The Citiesof Arcata andRioDelltakeamark forward aspossible. by makingzoningcontrolsasclearandstraight many diverseusesinthecannabissupplychain facilitates theseinvestmentsandsupportsthe rating, underutilizedindustrialdistricts.Eureka welcomes theprivateinvestmentinitsdeterio port Humboldt’s widercannabiseconomyand al-scale cannabis-relatedusesnecessarytosup sees itselfasanoptimallocationfortheindustri commerce, andtransportationcenter, Eureka As HumboldtCounty’s primarypopulation, facilities toberule-abiding“goodneighbors.” impacts (especiallyodor)andencouraging focuses onworkingwithoperatorstominimize through theCity’s existingzoning. The City mal uses”thatcanbeappropriatelysitedlargely cannabis-related activitiesaretreatedas“nor friendly.” Morethananyotherjurisdiction, ulatory approachasintentionally“business In Eureka,plannersdescribedtheCity’s reg- problematic grows. tivizes offeredforrelocatingandremediating for pre-existingcultivationsitesandtheincen including relaxationofenvironmentalstandards dations theCountymakesforlegacygrowers, This isperhapsmostevidentintheaccommo reflected throughouttheCounty’s landusecode. its equallyrealsocioeconomicimportanceis ronmental impactsofcannabiscultivationwith The necessityofbalancingtheveryrealenvi about howweengagewiththeenvironment.” ------would entail. The presentstudy hashypothe has notoffered avisionforwhatthat regulation and calledforregulation thereof,butitgenerally environmental impactsof cannabiscultivation uses. Ithasalsothoroughly documentedthe and onlyrarelytoothercannabis-related land ment, usuallyastheypertaintodispensaries impacts oncommunitiesandthebuiltenviron mechanisms thatcanbedeployedtomitigate focus. Ithasdiscussedthestandardzoning activities hasoperatedwithinarathernarrow ing andlanduseregulationforcannabis-related As assertedearlier, theextantliterature onzon and Equity B. CannabisPlanningfor Economics them. reveal differingplanningrationalesunderlying ing andlandusecontrolsintheirlocalcontexts port thehypothesisthatinvestigatingthesezon local conditionsandgoals. These findingssup- cannabis cultivationlanduseplanswhichreflect In aword,allfourlocalitieshaveimplemented permitting. over newdevelopmentthroughconditionaluse campus andmaintainingconsiderablediscretion a containedsiteforthedevelopmentofsuch cannabis researchandinnovation,settingaside uniquely situateditselfasalocusformedical sidering recreational.Insodoing,RioDellhas to servethemedicalmarketfirstbeforecon ipal coderequirescannabis-relatedbusinesses recreational marijuanamarkets,anditsmunic a cleardistinctionbetweenthemedicaland only jurisdictionexaminedherewhichmakes commercial cannabisactivities.RioDellisthe gle area,essentiallycreatingabusinessparkfor complimentary cannabis-relatedusesintoasin development byconcentratingacollectionof ed usesmostclosely resembles amaster-planned Rio Dell’s approach to regulating cannabis-relat appropriate spacesin Arcata. zone andthatsmallbusinessescontinuetohave cultivation usesdonotovertaketheinnovation uses besidescultivation;thisprovisionensures trial orcommercialspaceintendedforother cultivation facilitiesprovideadditionalindus innovation isreflectedintherequirementthat ------Zoning Districts Siting Restrictions Zoning Definitions Permitting Performance Standards Overlay orSpecialZoningDistricts Lighting Sources Allowable Cultivation Area Allowable Adaptive ReuseStandards Distance Buffers Accomodations forExistingCultivators

Industrial Districts Setbacks Prime Agricultural SoilRestrictions Permit Caps Steep SlopeRestrictions Conditional UsePermit Special Permit Zoning ClearanceCertificate Other Standards Water SourcingRestrictions Waste and Water Management Time ,PlaceandMannerRestrictions Timberland Conversion Security/Safety Plans Road SystemStandards Renewable Energy Requirements Parking andLoadingRequirements Odor Control Cultural Assets/Community Relations Cultural Assets/Community Hazardous MaterialHandling Environmental DataProvision Ambient Light/NoiseRestrictions Mixed-Light CultivationPermitted Outdoor CultivationPermitted From JurisdictionalBoundaries From otherSensitiveReceptors From Residences Indoor CultivationPermitted Other Districts Based onParcelSize From Schools Based onBuildingSize Commercial Districts Table 5:SummaryofZoningandLandUseControls for CannabisCultivationacross Jurisdictions Mechanisms Humboldt County of X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X City ofEureka X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X City of Arcata City X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X City ofRio Dell X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X 53 54

VII. Discussion 2019). tive naturalresource production alternative (January ty’s lumberindustryhas positionedcannabisasalucrac The decliningeconomicsignificance ofHumboldtCoun - - cultivation presents. This planner pointedtothe ly awareofthe economicinterest”cannabis knows thisisourindustry” andthatitis“acute against thisassertion,stating that“theCounty Another HumboldtCounty plannerpushedback cultivation. the Emerald Triangle’s primacyincannabis commercial marijuanaindustrywouldimpact development, acknowledgingthatanexpanding as “economicretention”ratherthaneconomic described theCounty’s strategyonthisfront ity ofsmall-scale,legacygrowers. This planner licit, statewidemarketwouldthreatentheviabil county” astheeconomiesofscaleenabledbya put it,“Therewasareckoningcomingtothis sanctions. As oneHumboldtCountyplanner the faceofincreasedsupplyanddecreasedlegal poses agravethreat:deflatingcannabispricesin market toenterthemainstreameconomy, italso nity forthoseparticipatinginaformerlyblack While cannabislegalizationopenstheopportu primarily ruralregionofnorthernCalifornia. faced limitedeconomicopportunitiesinthis for countlessindividualswhohavehistorically ity inHumboldtCounty, providinglivelihoods nabis cultivationisanessentialeconomicactiv denied that—thoughdifficulttoquantify—can Neither theliteraturenoranyinterviewsubject localized contexts. they operatewithintheEmerald Triangle andin tation oftheseuniquelanduseregulationsas represents thefirstcomprehensivedocumen best oftheresearcher’s knowledge,thisstudy but equityconcernsalsoarisethroughout. To the land useschemesofeachjurisdictionexamined, ations figureprominentlyinthecannabis-related literature. Notonlydolocaleconomicconsider more nuancedexercisethanportrayedbythe local planningforthecannabisindustryisafar gathered heresupportsthishypothesis.Indeed, the faceofcannabislegalization. The evidence particularly localeconomicconsiderationsin and welfarenotcontemplatedbytheliterature, address otheraspectsofpublichealth,safety, for cannabiscultivationininnovativewaysto ernments wouldutilizetheirlanduseplanning cultivation fornearlysixdecades—localgov position astheepicenterof American cannabis sized that—givenHumboldtCounty’s singular ------ized business interestswhichcanachieve econo Additionally, alegalmarketgiveswell-capital can bequiteprohibitive for small-scalegrowers. and participatingintrack andtraceprograms— existing growsintoenvironmental compliance, clude localpermitting,state licensure,bringing costs ofenteringaregulated market—whichin a numberofchallengestolegacygrowers. The However, the statewide, legalizedmarketposes way oflifeinHumboldtCountyfordecades. marijuana hasbeenaneconomicanchorand use planningforcannabiscultivation.Growing dictions toconsiderequityissuesintheirland development alsoplacespressureonthesejuris Simultaneously, thisemphasisoneconomic toward medicalmarijuanaresearch. district reinvigoratedbyprivateinvestment future foraoncehighly-productiveindustrial Cannabis LandUseOrdinanceenvisionsanew product development.RioDell’s Commercial tive locationforfirmsfocusingonnewcannabis ulate businesscreationandtoserveasanattrac Arcata’s CannabisInnovation Districtistostim ties astypicallanduses. The expresspurposeof investments bytreatingcannabis-relatedfacili stock, andtheCityhaschosentofacilitatethose ation andtheimprovement of theCity’sbuilding regulating thecannabisindustryincludejobcre Eureka plainlystatedthattheCity’s goalsin within theincorporatedcities.Cityplannersin bis-related landuseregulationsisalsoapparent The economicconsiderationsunderlyingcanna “new reality.” use” inrecognitionofthecannabisindustry’s actively “tryingtocreateapathwayforevery within theirjurisdiction,HumboldtCountyis to limitthetypesofcannabis-relatedlanduses out that,unlikeotherlocalitieswhichoftenseek ronmental impacts. This planneralsopointed runoff infrastructuresneededtomitigateenvi they alreadyhavetheon-siteenergy, water, and tensive, cannabis-relatedfacilities,because ideal candidatesforredevelopmentasjob-in oped forheavyindustrialuses. These sitesare parcels larger thantwoacrespreviouslydevel cultivation canoccurinexistingstructureson development, whereinuptoanacreofindoor as emblematicofitsactiveroleineconomic County’s zoningprovisionsforadaptivereuse ------demonstrate thatlanduseplanningis notmerely ation. The creative localmechanismsdeployed forts alsotakeotherperspectives intoconsider their surroundingsandon communities,theiref minimize theimpactsof cannabiscultivationon use permits,andperformance standards—to such asdistancebuffers,specialandconditional uses ordinaryzoningandlandusecontrols— While everyjurisdictionexaminedinthisstudy facilities availabletothem. by ensuringsuchbusinesseshaveappropriate its preferencefor“innovative”cannabisfirms real estatespeculationandgivestruecloutto spaces forotheruses,theCityhelpstoalleviate ing cultivationfacilitiestoprovideadditional equity issuesinadifferentmanner. Byrequir Arcata’s CannabisInnovation Zoneaddresses financially fromthenewlegalmarket. difficult tobringintocompliancestillbenefit ing growerswhosecultivationsiteswouldbe cultivation areaasacommodity, therebyallow ly-suitable locationsortotransfertheirexisting their cultivationsitestomoreenvironmental which incentivizeslegacygrowerstomove Pre-Existing CultivationSites(RRR)program, Retirement, Remediation,andRelocationof use codeestablishestheremarkablyinnovative Production Zones. Thirdly, theCounty’s land vation onsteepslopes,andcultivationin Timber ing roadsystemsperformancestandards,culti compliance requirementsforpermitting,includ with accommodationsthatreducesomeofthe County providespre-existingcultivationsites from dominatingthelocalmarket.Secondly, the venting large, industrial-scalegrowoperations acres toten. These limitationscanassistinpre number ofpermitsauthorizingthreeormore than eightacresofcultivation,anditlimitsthe single operatorfromholdingpermitsformore Firstly, itspermitcountingpolicyprohibitsany ty concernsandprotectsmall-scalegrowers. land useregulationstomitigatetheseequi numerous provisionsintoitscannabis-related The CountyofHumboldthasincorporated brand isforcannabisproductmarketing. valuable andpowerfultheHumboldtCounty many interviewsubjectscommentedonhow mies ofscaleanadvantageoverlegacygrowers; ------55 56

VII. Discussion development. it alsohasaroletoplayinequitableeconomic about regulationforregulation’s sakebutthat Humboldt cannabis growers,too,needed a with theneedsofitsconstituents. stake, sotheCountyhad tobalanceenforcement licensure. Legacygrowers’ livelihoodswereat enabled applicantstomove forwardwithstate when theprocessfirstbegan in2016,which sion toacceptincompletepermitapplications discussed earlierbutalsointheCounty’s deci- cial regulationsforpre-existingcultivationsites ket. This attitudeisreflectednotonly in thespe growers cautiouslyapproachedthewhitemar ners neededtobepatientandaccommodatingas people” approachtobeeffective,countyplan only tenuously. FortheCounty’s “planningfor work thateventhegovernmentitselfunderstood denly invitedtocomplywithalegalizedframe manner underprohibitionandwerenowsud they hadbeenforcedtooperateinaclandestine ers couldnotbetreatedastypicaldevelopers; rapidly apparentthatlongtimecannabisgrow County ofHumboldtinparticular, itbecame honesty andadaptabilitywereessential.Forthe aspects oftheprocess,andthatprofessional “messiness” andunknowabilityasfundamental ning effortsfirstbegan. They alsoacknowledged “hanging onby[their]fingernails”whenplan nothing” abouttheindustryandtomerely challenging. Plannersadmittedto“knowing plated bymunicipalzoningcodeswasextremely trols foraonce-illegaluseneverbeforecontem erald Triangle fordecades—implementingcon the cannabisindustryhasprosperedinEm For localgovernmentplanners—eventhough “new reality.” in paradigm,”a“majorculturalchange,”and the publicprocessesleadinguptoit)asa“shift use regulationsforcannabiscultivation(and variously describedtheemergence oflocalland During interviews,nearlyeverystakeholder in HumboldtCountycannotbeunderstated. on localgovernmentplannersandgrowers The impactthatcannabislegalizationhashad Subject ofPlanning C. ParadigmShift:Cannabisasa ------Alliance admittedtobeingfearfulandphysical resentative fromtheHumboldtCountyGrowers become compliant.Duringinterviews,therep to engagewiththosesamegovernmentsand to feargovernment.Now, theywereexpected Under prohibition,growershadeveryreason refreshed perspectivewiththisparadigmshift. holding everything together”andpraised the vocate described thissameplanneras “theglue department andtheindustry. The growersad- sounding boardsbetween thecountyplanning essential rolesasinterpreters, messengers,and County Growers Alliance, whohavefulfilled munity stakeholders,especially theHumboldt tion hasbeenfundamentallybolsteredbycom County hashadinplanningforcannabiscultiva ty plannerassertedthatwhateversuccessthe fruitful, collaborativerelationship.Onecoun erating intwodifferentworlds”topossessinga planners andgrowershaveevolvedfrom“op the process,stakeholderinterviewsindicatethat standing amongallpartiesatthebeginningof Nevertheless, despitethedistrustandmisunder more closelyresemblecommercialagriculture. they willhavetorestructuretheirenterprises for legacygrowers,andtobecomecompliant, structures. These conditionsarenowliabilities ty—whether occuringoutdoorsorinrepurposed ditions—namely remotenessandundetectabili other hand,requiresexactlytheoppositecon government. Illicitcannabiscultivation,onthe and safetystandardsbythehighestlevelsof are subjectedtostrictenvironmentalregulations easy accessibilitytomarkets;commercialcrops soils, gentleterrain,reliablewatersources,and agriculture isconductedinareaswithprime lent topermacultureasalanduse. Traditional cultivation underprohibitionwasnotequiva One countyplannerexplainedthatcannabis will altertheverypracticeofcultivationitself. local governmentsandthecannabisindustry Furthermore, thisemerging interfacebetween Rush’s exploitativepractices. and toprotecttheenvironmentfromGreen responsible growerstohavetheirvoicesheard agencies presentedanimportantopportunityfor theless, engagingwithgovernmentandplanning efforts andcommunityinputprocesses.Never ly shakenwhenfirstparticipatinginorganizing ------knowledge has emerged asaneveryday subject Humboldt County knewaboutbutcould notac In aword,thecovertindustry thateveryonein sympathizing withtheCounty. once unimaginableposition ofdefendingand hours withplannersand frequently beinginthe acknowledged havingnowspenthundredsof officials showupattheirfacilities. Theadvocate inspectors, planners,andothergovernment coming tocityhallbutarenowexcitedwhen that cannabisindustryentrepreneursoncefeared tives. OnecityplannerfromEurekacommented now achieve special accommodations and incen- evidence abouttheironceillegaloperationsto ordinance requirelegacygrowerstofurnishhard sites incorporatedintotheCounty’s landuse special regulationsforpre-existingcultivation anyone. Countyplannersmusedabouthowthe The ironyofthisparadigmshiftisnotloston taking activerolesin“incubatingtheindustry.” ta, andRioDellforintroducingregulations advocate alsopraisedtheCitiesofEureka, Arca- surrounding marijuanapolicyliberalization. The mative issuesthattypicallysurfaceinthedebate cannabis-related activitiesratherthanthenor county forfocusingonthelanduseaspectsof Corridor” (January2019). A portionoftheHumboldtCountyPlanningandBuildingDepartmentinEureka isproudly designated“TheCannabis - - structures have greatlyimpactedthe implemen As inanyplanning process,underlying power Cannabis LandUse Action D. ConflictingPower Structures in use issues. will betaskedwithaddressingtheresultingland governments andtheirplanningprofessionals states liberalizetheircannabislaws,morelocal rated HumboldtCounty. Undoubtedly, as more on servingthemarijuanaindustryinunincorpo tants, andadministrativeassistantsfocussolely wherein dozensof“cannabisplanners,”consul is proudlydesignatedthe“CannabisCorridor,” where thecountyplanningdepartmentoperates nabis landuseordinance. A wingofthebuilding as itwasbeforeadoptionofthecommercialcan county planningstaffisstillabouttwiceaslarge peak inemploymenthassincesubsided,the deal withtheexplosiveresponse. While this the applicationprocessfirstbeganin2016to planners andconsultantswerebroughtonwhen county plannerestimatedthatasmany75 for planningpracticeinHumboldtCounty. A cannabis industryhashadprofoundimplications many ofitsincorporatedcities.Indeed,thelicit of locallanduseplanningintheCountyand - - - - 57 58

VII. Discussion (January 2019). municipality has shunnedcannabis-related landuses porated Cityof Fortuna.Unlikeitsneighborhoods, the Examples ofthedowntownbuilding stockintheincor - For example, stakeholdersdescribed theCity regulations, jurisdictional conflictsstill arise. Despite theprogressmade inlocallanduse in 2009butwhichhadremained largely vacant. ation Area, whichtheCityhadtakencontrol of redevelopment optionfor theSawmill Annex- tify acommercialcannabisdistrictasviable Dell, stakeholdersonlygraduallycametoiden the economicopportunitiesitpresented.InRio on theircommunitiesbutalsoinrecognitionof of theimpactscannabisindustrywouldhave troducing planningcontrols,bothinanticipation Cities’ planningdepartmentstooktheleadin sible legacygrowers.InEurekaand Arcata, the regulations andsoughtprotectionsforrespon cacy groupswhichdemandedenvironmental pressure fromwell-organized cannabisadvo territory. The Countyalsoreceivedconsiderable tion throughouttheCounty’s unincorporated mental degradationcausedbyoutdoorcultiva market andinsodoingtoaddresstheenviron sire totransitionexistinggrowersintothewhite the countysupervisors,whohadanexpressde cannabis-related activitiescamedirectlyfrom to implementzoningandlandusecontrolsfor too. FortheCountyofHumboldt,impetus underlie eachjurisdiction’s regulatoryapproach, As onemightexpect,varyingpowerstructures ment towardcommunitygoals. order todirectfuturecannabis-relateddevelop embrace abottom-upplanningapproachin in termsoflandusecontrols,solocalitiesmust laws imposeverylittleonlocalgovernments adult usecannabisaswell.However, thestate codes followingthe2017lawtoaccommodate law andsubsequentlyrevisedtheirmunicipal mercial medicalmarijuanafollowingthe2015 jurisdictions passedlegislationtoregulatecom comprehensive regulatoryframeworks. All four ing pointsforlocalgovernments’ embraceof the 2015and2017legislationservedasturn case thatthestatewideframeworkscreatedby land usesasearly2008—itisclearinevery ed toimposeregulationsonmedicalmarijuana jurisdictions examinedhere—havingattempt be consideredprogressiveamongtheother porated cities. Though theCityof Arcata could ed activitiesinHumboldtCountyanditsincor tation oflanduseregulationsforcannabis-relat ------the CaliforniaCoastalCommission(January2019). boldt County, are prevented from takingadvantageoftheCounty’s adaptivereuse provisions becauseofinactionby Underutilized industrialfacilitiesinthecoastalzone,likethisoneonSamoaPenninsulaunincorporatedHum areas within thestatecoastalzone; CCC separate zoning andlanduseregulations for California law, localgovernmentsmust develop mentation ofjurisdictions’ zoningcodes.Under sion (CCC)hasbeenan obstacle tofull-imple Additionally, theCaliforniaCoastalCommis responsibility totrackcannabisproducts. local landuseactionandlicensingasastate flating thedistinctionbetweenpermittingasa duplicating licensesandpermits,therebycon to extractvaluefromthecannabisindustryby plained thatmanystateagencieshaveattempted are alsoongoing.Onecountyplannercom Regulatory conflictswiththeStateofCalifornia community planningareasinOrdinance2.0. feet ofcityboundaries,spheresinfluence,and al usepermitsforcannabisgrowswithin1,000 City servedasthebasisforrequiringcondition conflicts between Humboldt County and Fortuna vociferously opposedtheprojects. The ongoing tuna’s citylimits,andabuttingFortunaresidents unincorporated landincloseproximitytoFor a numberofcultivationsiteswereproposedon tion. UnderHumboldtCounty’s Ordinance1.0, commercial cannabisactivitiesinitsjurisdic of Fortunaasvehementlyagainstauthorizing ------approve thelocalzoning. or underutilizedduetothe CCC’s hesitancyto activity district,theseproperties remainvacant industry andbecomeade factocannabis-related tinues toattractinvestmentfromthecannabis coastal zone. While therestofareacon off fromthesurroundingindustrialareaby buildings intheCity’s northwestcornerarecut costs.” InEureka,asmallpocketofindustrial to theCCC’s “myopic visionofregulationatall facilities butremainlargely underutilizeddue velopment intoindustrial-scale,cannabis-related situation, becausethesesitesareidealforrede A countyplannerexpressedfrustrationwiththis tage oftheCounty’s adaptivereuseprovisions. the SamoaPeninsulaareunabletotakeadvan boldt County, formertimberprocessingsiteson tion’s planningefforts.InunincorporatedHum zone. This delayhasdisruptedbothjurisdic the CCCforportionsconcerningcoastal and EurekaCityarestillawaitingapprovalfrom use ordinancesin2018,bothHumboldtCounty having adoptedtheircommercialcannabisland must alsoapprovetheselocalregulations.Since ------59 VIII. Conclusion

A dried Humboldt County cannabis flower at a dispensary in San Franciscon, CA (April 2019). umboldt County—heart of the Emerald gent, qualitative research design in presenting a Triangle and storied marijuana growing multiple-case study of four local jurisdictions— locale for hippies, cartels, and Green the County of Humboldt and the incorporated HRushers alike—has encountered a new era of Cities of Eureka, Arcata, and Rio Dell—within American cannabis policy and commenced a the State of California, wherein local gov- new chapter in its own history. Six decades ernments are given considerable authority to since the first back-to-the-landers established regulate cannabis-related activities. The study their homesteads in the County’s remote tim- hypothesized that these four Humboldt County berlands, and over 20 years since Californians jurisdictions, conscious of the socioeconom- approved Proposition 215, the County of Hum- ic significance of cannabis cultivation to their boldt and its incorporated cities are navigating region, would deploy innovative zoning and their first years of actively planning for the land use mechanisms to not just regulate canna- cannabis industry with both a comprehensive bis-related activities for regulation’s sake but to statewide regulatory framework and local actually accommodate these land uses in their zoning and land use regulations. Implementing communities. The data collected for municipal these policies as been “a once in a career op- zoning codes, planning agency and government portunity” according to one planner, but these documents, stakeholder interviews, fieldwork, policies’ long-term impacts are anything but and spatial datasets has lent support to this clear. During an interview, one Humboldt Coun- hypothesis; economic and equity considerations ty planner estimated it would take three to four do indeed figure prominently in the strategies years for the full effects of a state-sanctioned deployed by these local jurisdictions, and these commercial cannabis market to be discernibly planning interventions reflect local goals per- felt in Humboldt County. taining to the cannabis industry. Notable among the innovative mechanisms discussed are Hum- The purpose of this study has been to consider boldt County’s Retirement, Remediation, and how local governments are using their zoning Relocation of Pre-Existing Cultivation Sites and land use planning authority to regulate provision and Arcata’s Cannabis Innovation commercial cannabis cultivation as an emerging Zone combining district. The study has also land use. It has utilized a descriptive, conver-

60 61 62

VIII. Conclusion would further informlocalplanning practice. Future research intoconditionssuch as these opment considerationsmay belessimportant. or industrypursuitswhere economicdevel siderable pressureonless lucrativeagricultural where thecannabisindustry couldexertcon edly lookverydifferent, especiallyinplaces engrained, thisplanningprocesswouldundoubt In otherregionswherecannabiscultureisnotso local planning efforts undertaken in recent years. are essentialtounderstandingthesuccessful cades. This culture’s sociopoliticalramifications bis intheEmerald Triangle overseveralde unique culturethathasemerged aroundcanna Secondly, thisstudyisnecessarilylimitedbythe important. to apunitivesystemsuchasthisareequally understanding ofthelocalfactorscontributing cial cultivation.Fromaplanningperspective,an cannabis-related activities,includingcommer been usingitslocalzoningauthoritytoprohibit of Fortuna(alsowithinHumboldtCounty)has subjects andmediareportsindicatethattheCity the onlypossibility. Onthecontrary, interview ald Triangle, however, permissivezoningisnot within theirjurisdictions.EventheEmer ments thatchosetoallowcannabiscultivation tionally, thisstudyexaminedonlylocalgovern planning outcomesonthecountyscale. Addi- climates andpowerstructuresimpactlanduse region andforevaluatinghowdifferentpolitical ties wouldallowforcomparisonsacrossthe of neighboringMendocinoand Trinity Coun Triangle. Researchingtheregulatoryapproaches ined onlyoneconstituentcountyoftheEmerald this topicareapparent.Firstly, thisstudyexam number ofopportunitiesforfutureresearchon reform gainsmomentumatthefederallevel. A bis policiesandasdiscussionofcannabislaw more USstatesmovetoliberalizetheircanna appears tobeausefulresearchavenueasever strategies foraddressingthecannabisindustry This lineofinquiryintolocalizedplanning regulation forcannabiscultivation. flicts thatariseasaresultofattemptsatlanduse cannabis industry, andthejurisdictionalcon cations forplanningpracticepresentedbythe jurisdiction’s regulatoryapproaches,theimpli discussed atlengththedifferencesamongeach ------ient andwhatwillnotbe.” told byonecountyplanner“whatwillberesil structures nowinplace,onlytimewillreveal,as na innovators. With comprehensive regulatory selves tocontinuebethepreeminentmarijua industry tolegalmarketsandpositionthem Emerald Triangle, astheyadapttheirhistoric in thecommunitiesofHumboldtCountyand mainstream economy. This willalsobethe case been imaginedaslegitimatecomponentsofthe which, justafewdecadesago,couldneverhave regulate profitablecannabis-relatedlanduses authority willincreasinglybecalleduponto Indeed, localgovernmentsvestedwithplanning bis-related activitiesarenotgoinganywhere. indicator, itappearsstate-sanctioned,canna If the2018generalelectionoutcomesareany and counties. rather thandividedbetweenincorporatedcities by continuousandcontiguousmunicipalities, California, wherelocallanduseauthorityisheld Massachusetts alsooffersacounterexampleto as opposedtoCalifornia’s piecemealapproach. bis industryfromthebeginningofliberalization, prehensive regulatoryframeworksonthecanna rado offerexamplesofstatesthatimposedcom be helpful.Forexample, Washington andColo California tooutcomesinotherUSstatescould Finally, acomparisonbetweenthesefindingsin land usesrequiredtosupportit. couraging thecannabisindustryanddiverse jurisdiction thatisactivelyplanningforanden frequently citesOakland,CA asamajorurban tion establishments.Forexample,theliterature value-added manufacturingandonsiteconsump emerging cannabis-relatedlandusessuchas cultivation maybelessprevalentthatother urban Californiajurisdiction,wherecannabis duct asimilaranalysisformorepredominantly tion ofjust135,000.Itwouldbefruitfultocon rural county, withawidelydistributedpopula Thirdly, HumboldtCountyisapredominantly ------I The authorposes infront ofacrop ofHumboldtCounty cannabisplantsinEureka, CA (Jaunuary 2019). practice asaprofessionalplannerareindebtedtotheircandor, generosity, andkindness. in theireffortsattheforefrontofcannabisrevolutionUnitedStates.Indeed,myfuture Acknowledgements tributed profoundlytothisgrowingbodyofcriticalresearch,andIwishthemcontinuedsuccess Services Department,andtheHumboldtCountyGrowers Alliance. Their perspectiveshavecon from theHumboldtCountyPlanningandBuildingDepartment,CityofEurekaDevelopment holders whosograciouslysharedtheirtimeandexperienceswithme. They includerepresentatives ty, CA throughitsstudenttravelfund.Finally, Ioffermymostheartfeltgratitudetothosestake Preservation, whichprovidedfinancialsupportformytrulyinspiringfieldworkinHumboldtCoun extend mythankstoColumbiaUniversity’s GraduateSchoolof Architecture, Planning,and Anthony Borelli,MSUP, fortheirsupport inthecompletionanddefenseofthisthesis.Ialso wish toacknowledgemyfacultyadvisor, MoiraK.O’Neill-Hutson,JD,andmyjuryreader, - - - 63 Ashe, Marice, David Jernigan, Randolph Kline, and Rhonda Galaz (2003). “Land Use Planning and the Control of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Fast Food Restaurants.” American Journal of Public Health 93.9: 1404-1408. Bauer, Scott, Jennifer Olson, Adam Cockrill, Michael van Hattem, Linda Miller, Margaret Tauzer, Gordon Leppig (2016). “Impacts of Surface Water Diversions for Marijuana Cultivation on Aquat- ic Habitats in Four Northwestern California Watersheds.” PLOS One 10.3. Bauss, Cristina I (2017). “Mapping Marijuana Cultivation Sites and Water Storage in the Redwood Creek Watershed, Southern Humboldt County.” The California Geographer 56: 29-52. IX. Bibliography Bishop-Henchman, Joseph and Morgan Scarboro (2016). “Marijuana Legalization and Taxes: Les- sons for Other States from Colorado and Washington.” Washington, DC: Tax Foundation. Bogges, Lyndsay A., Deanna M. Pérez, Kathryn Cope, Carl Root, and Paul B. Stretsky (2014). “Do Medical Marijuana Centers Behave like Locally Undesirable Land Uses? Implications for the Geography of Health and Environmental Justice.” Urban Geography 35.3: 315-336. Burgdorf, James Richard, Beau Kilmer, and Rosalie L. Pacula (2011). “Heterogeneity in the Com- position of Marijuana Seized in California.” Drug and Alcohol Dependence 117: 59-61. Butler, Andrew (2018). “Rio Dell Cannabis Business Park Begins to Take Shape.” Eureka Times-Standard. Accessed 21 March 2019. https://www.times-standard.com/2018/07/12/rio-dell- cannabis-business-park-begins-to-take-shape/. Butsic, Van and Jacob C. Brenner (2016). “Cannabis (Cannabis sativa or C. Indica) Agriculture and the Environment: A Systematic, Spatially-Explicit Survey and Potential Impacts.” Environmental Research Letters 11. Butsic, Van, Benjamin Schwab, Matthias Baumann, and Jacob C. Brenner (2017). “Inside the Em- erald Triangle: Modeling the Placement and Size of Cannabis Production in Humboldt County, CA USA.” Ecological Economics 142: 70-80. Cambran, Christopher, Katarina Guttmannova, and Charles B. Fleming (2017). “State and National Context in Evaluating Cannabis Laws: A Case Study of Washington State.” Journal of Drug Issues 47.1: 74-90. Caplan, Gerald (2013). “Medical Marijuana: A Study of Unintended Consequences.” McGeorge Law Review: 127-146. Carah, Jennifer K., Jeanette K. Howard, Sally E. Thompson, Anne G. Short Gianotti, Scott D. Bauer, Stephanie M. Carlson, David N. Dralle, Mourad W. Gabriel, Lisa L. Huilette, Brian J. John- son, Curtis A. Knight, Sarah J. Kupferberg, Stefanie L. Martin, Rosamond L. Naylor, and Mary E. Power (2015). “High Time for Conservation: Adding the Environment to the Debate on Marijuana Legalization.” BioScience 65.8: 882-892. Caulkins, Jonathan P., Angela Hawken, Beau Kilmer, and Mark A. R. Kleiman (2012). Marijuana Legalization: What Everyone Needs to Know. New York: Oxford University Press. Chaffee, Karia (2017). “Getting Ready for Marijuana.”Planning 83.8: 49-50. Chapman, Susan A., Joanne Spetz, Jessica Lin, Krista Chan, and Laura A. Schmidt (2016). “Cap- turing Heterogeneity in Medical Marijuana Policies: A Taxonomy of Regulatory Regimes across the US.” Substance Use & Misuse 51.9: 1174-1184.

64 65 66

IX. Bibliography humboldtgov.org/DocumentCenter/View/53373/Final-MND---CMMLUO?bidId=. IV—Commercial CultivationofCannabis forMedicalUse.” Accessed 15March 2019.https:// ---. (2015).“MitigatedNegative Declaration:MedicalMarijuanaLandUse Ordinance—Phase Center/View/53135/Ord-No-2523---IndoorOutdoor-Personal-Use-Cultivation?bidId= ---. (2014).“OrdinanceNo. 2523.” Accessed 15March2019.https://humboldtgov.org/Document Targets_Report_2012%20FINAL.pdf. 15 March2019.http://www.redwoodcoastprosperity.com/sites/redwoodcoastprosperity.com/files/ County ofHumboldt(2012).RedwoodCoast Targets ofOpportunity2012Final Report. Accessed Institution.” Corva, Dominic(2014).“RequiemforaCAMP: The LifeandDeathofaDomesticUSDrug War No.%20364-2018%20February%206%202018.pdf. cityofriodell.ca.gov/files/planning/Cannabis%20CLUO%20Amendments%20Ordinance%20 ---. (2018).“OrdinanceNo.364-2018.” Accessed 21March2019.http://cityofriodell.ca.gov/sites/ da-2016-08-23%20.pdf. riodell.ca.gov/sites/cityofriodell.ca.gov/files/planning_commission_documents/PC%20Agen City ofRioDell(2016).“OrdinanceNo.348-2016).” Accessed 21March2019.http://cityof http://gis.ci.eureka.ca.gov/datadownload.html ---. (2019).“GeographicInformationSystemDataDownloadPage.” Accessed 31March2019. fault.htm$3.0$vid=amlegal:eureka_ca com/nxt/gateway.dll/California/eureka/cityofeurekacaliforniamunicipalcode?f=templates$fn=de tion.” CityofEureka,CaliforniaMunicipalCode. Accessed 14March2019.http://library.amlegal. City ofEureka.(2018).“Chapter158:MedicalCannabis—Cultivation,Processing,andDistribu No-Exhibits. 2019. https://ca-arcata.civicplus.com/DocumentCenter/View/7346/CCAP-Info-and-App-03-2018- ---. (2018d).“CommercialCannabis Activity Permit(CCAP)Information.” Accessed 23March mentCenter/View/7538/Ordinance-1501 ---. (2018c).“OrdinanceNo.1501.” Accessed 23 March2019.https://www.cityofarcata.org/Docu- CA/Arcata/?Arcata05/Arcata0502.html ---. (2018b). Arcata LandUseCode. Accessed 14March2019.https://www.codepublishing.com/ https://www.codepublishing.com/CA/Arcata/?Arcata05/Arcata0502.html ---. (2018a).“Title V—Sanitation &Health.” Arcata MunicipalCode. Accessed 14March2019. View/6705/178-23-Exhibit-A-CCAP-Regulations-Adopted Permit Regulations.” Accessed 23March2019.https://www.cityofarcata.org/DocumentCenter/ ---. (2017).“Exhibit A toResolutionNo.178-23:Cityof Arcata CommercialCannabis Activity ing-Zone_1 cessed 25March2019.https://www.cityofarcata.org/DocumentCenter/View/6312/MMIZ-Combin ---. (2016).“MedicalMarijuanaInnovationZone(MMIZ):CombiningExhibit#1.” Ac - 2019. http://arcataca.iqm2.com/Citizens/FileOpen.aspx?Type=6&ID=1490. City of Arcata (2015).“StaffReport—CityCouncilMeeting:May20,2015.” Accessed21March tion: What Authority isLefttoLocalGovernments?” Chumbler, MarthaHarrellandCarltonFields(2017).“LandUseRegulationofMarijuanaCultiva . International JournalonDrugPolicy . . . . 25:71-80. The UrbanLawyer49.3:505-519. . . . ------tions.” American JournalofCommunityPsychology Marijuana DispensaryPolicies: SpatialMethodsfortheStudyofEnvironmentally-Based Interven Freisthler, Bridget,NancyJ.Kepple,Revel Sims,andScottE.Martin(2013).“Evaluating Medical Species NearMarijuana Growing Operations.” Katherine E.Horak(2018).“Grassisnot Always Greener:RodenticideExposureofa Threatened hane, StevenF. Volker, RobertJ.Dusek, Valerie I.Shearn-Bochsler, Mourad W. Gabriel,and Franklin, Alan B.,PeterC.Carlson, Angela Rex, Jeremy T. Rockweit,David Garza,EmilyCul 189-208. getary HighsandLowsofRecreationalMarijuana PolicyInnovation.” Fisk, JonathanM.,Joseph A. Vonasek, andElvisDavis (2018).“‘Pot’-reneurialPolitics: The Bud- Drug ControlPolicy, 1937-2000.”JournalofPolicyHistory Ferraiolo, Kathleen(2007).“FromKiller Weed toPopular Medicine: The Evolutionof American Publisher. Cannabis SativaforHealthandHemp Eddy, Mark(2011). “MedicalMarijuana:Reviewand Analysis ofFederalandStatePolicies.” New York:Routledge. Methods: 61-73.EditedbyElisabete A. Silva,PatsyHealey, Neil Harris,Pieter Van denBroeck. Du Toit, Jacques(2015).“ResearchDesign.” International JournalofDrugPolicy (2017). “Community-LevelPolicyResponsestoStateMarijuanaLegislationin Washington State.” Dilley, Julia A., LauraHitchcock,NancyMcGroder, Lindsey A. Greto,andSusanM.Richardson Journal ofDrugPolicy Decorte, Tom (2010).“TheCaseforSmall-ScaleDomesticCannabisCultivation.” 411-427. na MarketintheDecadeofLiberalizationbeforeFullLegalization.” Davenport, StephenS.andJonathanP. Caulkins(2016).“EvolutionoftheUnitedStatesMarijua proaches. Thousand Oaks,CA:SAGEPublications,Inc. Creswell, John W. (2014).Research Design:Qualitative,Quantitative,andMixedMethods Ap- GIS-Data-Download. ---. (2019).“GISDataDownload.” Accessed 10February2019.https://humboldtgov.org/276/ mentCenter/View/63738/Resolution-18-43-Countywide-Permit-Cap-PDF ---. (2018b).“ResolutionNo.18-43.” Accessed 15March2019.https://humboldtgov.org/Docu- mentCenter/View/63734/Ord-No-2599-CCLUO-inland-certified-copy-PDF ---. (2018a).“OrdinanceNo.2599.” Accessed 10February2019.https://humboldtgov.org/Docu- Humboldt-County-General-Plan-complete-document-PDF Coastal Zone. Accessed 15March2019.https://humboldtgov.org/DocumentCenter/View/61984/ ---. (2017).Humboldt21stCentury:CountyGeneralPlanforthe Areas Outsidethe Center/View/53372/Ord-No-2559-Adopted-BOS-September-13-2016?bidId=. ---. (2016).“OrdinanceNo.2559.” Accessed 15March2019.https://humboldtgov.org/Document 21:271-275. 42:102-108. : 1-64.EditedbyEthanL.Clarke.New York: NovaScience The RoutledgeHandbookofPlanningResearch BMC Research Notes94.11. 51:278-288. . 19.2:147-179. Journal ofDrugIssues46.4: Politics andPolicy . . International 46.2: - - - - 67 68

IX. Bibliography have UnintendedConsequences.” Kaiser, LibbySky(2011). “CannabusinessComesto Town: Laws Allowing MedicalMarijuana juana inResidentialBuildings.” Johnson, LukeI.andJ.DavidMiller(2012).“Consequences ofLar nal ofGlobal andHistorical Anthropology 73:12-27. Keene, Sara(2015).“Up inSmoke: The MakingandUnmaking ofaRuralMoralEconomy.” Jour the UnitedStates.” Kamin, Sam(2013).“Medical MarijuanainColoradoandtheFutureof Regulationin Marijuana PoliciesinColorado.” Johns, Tracy L.(2015).“ManagingaPolicyExperiment: Adopting andImplementingRecreational boldtlafco.org/wp-content/uploads/City-of-Rio-Dell-MSR-SOI_Adopted-11.14.18.pdf. ---. (2018).“CityofRioDellMunicipalService Review.” tent/uploads/Rio-Dell-ADOPTED-MSR-Annex-Update-Sept-08.pdf of RioDellUpdatedfor Annexations.” Accessed 21March2019.http://humboldtlafco.org/wp-con- Humboldt Local Agency FormationCommission(2008).“MunicipalServiceReviewfortheCity Regulation inCalifornia.” Heddleston, Thomas (2013).“A Tale of Three Cities:MedicalMarijuana, Activism, andLocal Berkeley, CA:UniversityofCaliforniaPress. Hecht, Peter(2014). Island Journal:42-44. Hale, Ronald(2017).“TheGreenRush:HumboldtCountyhasaNewDestructiveIndustry.” Earth Elisabete A. Silva,PatsyHealey, NeilHarris,Pieter Van denBroeck.New York: Routledge. graphic Approach.” Hakansson, Maria(2015).“ResearchingProfessionalPerspectivesinPractice: A Pedagogic-Ethno 47. Regulatory FrameworksandZoningLandUseRegulations.” Grimes, GinaK.andMorrisC.Massey(2015).“MedicalMarijuana:Differences Current PoliticsandEconomicsoftheUnitedStates Garvey, Todd andCharlesDoyle(2014).“Marijuana:MedicalRetail—SelectedLegalIssues.” Legalization ofMarijuanaareChangingtheRealEstateLandscape.” Gale, Cody(2017).“GrowthIndustry: An Appraiser Talks abouthowIncreasing Acceptance and Contamination.” ted andBarredOwlsonRemoteForestLandsinNorthwesternCalifornia:EvidenceofFood Web Robert H.Poppenga,andShannonMendia(2018).“ExposuretoRodenticidesinNorthernSpot Gabriel, Mourad W., Lowell V. Diller, JohnP. Dumbacher, GretaM. Wengert, JohnM.Higley, Carnivore.” Public andCommunityLands:SpatialDistributionofExposurePoisoningaRareForest Wengert, BenjaminN.Sacks,andDeanaL.Clifford(2012).“AnticoagulantRodenticidesonOur M. Matthews,J.MarkHigley, StefanM.Keller, KathrynPurcell,ReginaldH.Barrett,GretaM. Gabriel, Mourad,Leslie W. Woods, RobertPoppenga,Rick A. Schweitzer, Craig Thompson, Sean PLoS One7.7:1-15. Avian ConservationandEcology McGeorge LawReview The RoutledgeHandbookofPlanningResearch Methods:182-191.Editedby Weed Land:Inside America’s MarijuanaEpicenter andHowPotWent Legit Humboldt JournalofSocialRelations Indoor BuiltEnvironment 21.4:595-600. State andLocalGovernmentReview Planning 43:147-167. (March2011): 9-13. 13.1. 16.1. Accessed 21March2019.http://hum 35:123-143. Probate andProperty 29.6:45- ge-Scale ProductionofMari . Valuation Magazine 47.3:193-204. Among States’ . - - -

. - - Nemeth, JeremyandEricRoss(2014).“PlanningforMarijuana: The CannabisConundrum.” ber 2018.https://norml.org/states National Organization forthe ReformofMarijuanaLaws(2018).“StateInfo.” Accessed 4Decem 67. the Drug War’s RentierNexus.” Polson, Michael(2013). “Land andLawinMarijuanaCountry:CleanCapital, DirtyMoney, and rado, Washington, andUruguay,” InternationalJournalof Drug Policy Pardo, Bryce(2014).“CannabisPolicyReforms in the Americas: A Comparative Analysis ofColo- Healey, NeilHarris, andPieter Van denBroeck.London:Routledge. Routledge ManualforPlanningResearch Methods:122-131.EditedbyElisabete A. Silva, Patsy Palermo, PierCarloandDavidPonzini(2014).“Inquiry andDesignforSpatialPlanning.” 212-221. Learn MuchfromPolicyStillinMotion.” Pacula, RosalieL.andEricSevigny(2014).“Marijuana LiberalizationPolicies: Why We Can’t of DrugPolicy Analysis 7.1:1-19. view of Variation amongLegallyEffectiveMedicalMarijuanaLawsintheUnitedStates.” Pacula, RosalieL., Anne E.Boustead,andPriscillaHunt(2014).“Words canbeDeceiving: A Re- nal ofthe American Planning Association Mills, Evan(2012).“TheCarbonFootprintofIndoorCannabisProduction.” California Geographer56:3-26. Meisel, Joshua(2017).“HiddeninPlainSight:CannabisCultivationtheEmerald Triangle.” siderations.” Mead, LisaL.and Adam J.Costa(2016).“ZoningforMedicalMarijuana: Approaches andCon- Environmental Hygiene Exposures Associated withIndoorMarijuanaGrowingOperations.” Martyny, John W., Kate A. Serrano,Joshua W. Schaeffer, andMike V. Van Dyke(2013). “Potential York: The NewPress. Martin, Alyson andNushinRashidian(2014).A NewLeaf:TheEndofCannabisProhibition Scientific Lee, Martin A. (2012).SmokeSignals: A SocialHistoryofMarijuana—Medical,Recreational, and juana ConsumptionandPublicBudgets. (2010). Altered State? Assessing howMarijuanaLegalizationinCaliforniacouldInfluenceMari Kilmer, Beau,JonathanP. Caulkins,RosalieL.Pacula,RobertJ.MacCoun,andPeterH.Reuter Safety, SupplyChains,andDispensaries.” and ScottBurris(2017).“MappingMedicalMarijuana:StateLawsRegulatingPatients,Product Klieger, SaraB., Abraham Gutman,Leslie Allen, RosalieLiccardo Pacula,JenniferK.Ibrahim, What canweLearn?” Kleiman, Mark A. R.(2017).“LegalCommercialCannabisSalesinColoradoand Washington: . New York: Scribner. Boston BarJournal26. Journal ofDrugPolicy Analysis: 1-16. 10:622-639. Political andLegal Anthropology Review . SantaMonica,CA:RANDDrugPolicyResearchCenter. 80:1:6-20. Journal ofPolicyManagementand Analysis 33.1(2014) Addiction 112: 2206-2216. Journal ofOccupationaland 25:727-735. 36.2:215-230. Energy Policy The Journal 46:58- . New Jour The - - - 69 70

IX. Bibliography tion intheNorthCoastalBasinofCalifornia.” Quasi-Legal Challenge: Assessing andGoverningtheEnvironmentalImpactsofCannabisCultiva Short Gianotti, Anne G.,JenniferHarrower, GraemeBaird,andStephenSepaniak(2017).“The Lands.” Environment andPlanningC:GovernmentPolicy alogue inRegulationInfluencesLandowner AdoptofBestManagementPracticesonUnregulated Short Gianotti, Anne G.and Timothy P. Duane(2016).“LearningtoListen:HowCollaborativeDi Conundrum.” Crop Protection Sandler, LeahN.,JannaL.Beckerman,Fred Whitford, andKevin A. Gibson(2019).“Cannabisas 295-319. Meets State Acceptance andFederalQuiet Acquiescence.” Salkin, PatriciaE.andZacharyKansler(2011). “MedicalMarijuanaZonedOut:LocalRegulation Grow, Sell,andSmokethatHere?” Salkin, PatriciaE.andZacharyKansler(2010).“MedicalMarijuanaMeetsZoning:Can You bis.” InternationalJournalofDrugPolicy Rogeberg, Ole(2018).“Prohibition,Regulation,orLaissezFaire: The Policy Tradeoffs ofCanna NJ: John Wiley &Sons,Inc. ber 2018.https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=201520160AB243 ----. (2003).“SenateBillNo.420.” Accessed 27November2018.http://vigarchive.sos.ca.gov/1996/general/pamphlet/215text.htm State ofCalifornia(1996).“Proposition215: Text ofProposedLaw.” CaliforniaSecretary ofState 21.4: 407-421. Agricultural LandConservation: A CaseStudyfromtheUSA.”Planning,Practice,andResearch Smith, MichaelD.andDeborahGiraud(2006).“Traditional LandUsePlanningRegulation and Pieter Van denBroeck.London:Routledge. ning Research Methods:140-156.EditedbyElisabete A. Silva,PatsyHealey, NeilHarris,and Silverman, RobertMark(2014).“AnalysingQualitativeData.” Regan, Trish(2011). tional JournalofDrugPolicy Cultivation: SampleCharacteristicsandPatternsofGrowing Across ElevenCountries.” Jussi Perala,Bernd Werse, andMarije Wouters (2015).“GlobalPatternsofDomesticCannabis tensen, Tom Decorte, Vibeke Asmussen Frank,PekkaHakkarainen, Axel Klein,SimonLenton, Potter, GaryR,Monica J. Barratt, Aili Malm,MartinBouchard, Thomas Blok, Anne-Sofie Chris- 406. itics ofMedicalMarijuanainCalifornia’s Exurbs.”Territory, Politics,andGovernance Polson, Michael(2015).“FromOutlawtoCitizen:PolicePower, Property, andthe Territorial Pol ----. (2015a).“Assembly BillNo.243.” tem/files/attachments/press_releases/n1601_medicalmarijuanaguidelines.pdf August 2008).Officeofthe Attorney General. ---. (2008).“Guidelines for theSecurityandNon-DiversionofMarijuana GrownforMedicalUse, 2018. https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=200320040SB420 Joint Ventures: Inside America’s Almost Legal MarijuanaIndustry 26(2015). 117: 37-44. California LegislativeInformation Planning andEnvironmental Law62.8:3-8. California LegislativeInformation 56: 153-161. Accessed 5December2018. Land UsePolicy Drake Journalof Agricultural Law 34:320-339. 61:126-134. The RoutledgeManualforPlan . Accessed 27November . Accessed 27Novem- https://oag.ca.gov/sys . . Hoboken, 3.4: 387- Interna- . 16: . - . - - - - - . dustry: A Data-AnalyticPerspective.” Yates, DaveandJessicaSpeer(2018).“OverUnder-Regulation intheColorado CannabisIn have LearnedfromProposition215.” Vitiello, Michael(2013).“WhytheInitiativeProcessis Wrong Way toGo:Lessonsweshould and Treatment.”ment Widener, Michael N(2011). “MedicalCannabisEntrepreneursasCommercial Tenants: Assess view Studies Weiss, RobertStuart(1994). Leads toDeforestationandFragmentation.” Wang, IanJ.,JacobC.Brenner, and Van Busic(2017).“Cannabis,anEmerging Agricultural Crop, Marijuana Industry.” ColumbiaJournalofEnvironmental Law40:385-432. Warren, GinaS(2015).“RegulatingPottoSavethePolarBear:Energy andClimateImpactsofthe ABA Journal. in theNovemberElection,SomeExpertssayit’s Time toRethinkhowCannabis isRegulated.” Ward, StephanieFrancis(2010).“UpinSmoke: As Voters RejectSeveralMarijuanaPropositions Development Report ---. (2017).“CaliforniaCitiesConsiderDifferentKindofGreening.” Regulate, Marijuana.” Stephens, Joshua(2010).“PlacemakingforPotSmoking:CitiesConsider Ways toPlanfor, and https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billTextClient.xhtml?bill_id=201720180SB94 ---. (2017).“SenateBillNo.94.”CaliforniaLegislativeInformation. Accessed 27November2018. elections.cdn.sos.ca.gov//county-city-school-district-election-results/2016/city-report-2016.pdf. Offices andBallotMeasures.” ---. (2016b).“CaliforniaCounty, City, andSchoolDistrictElectionOutcomes:2016ElectionsCity Comprehensive%20Adult%20Use%20of%20Marijuana%20Act.pdf of Foodand Agriculture. Accessed 5December2018. ---. (2016a).“Comprehensive Adult UseofMarijuana Act—2016: Proposition64.” 2018. https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=201520160SB643 ---. (2015c).“SenateBillNo.643.” 2018. https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billNavClient.xhtml?bill_id=201520160AB266 mental Health.” Zemel, FelixI(2013).“MedicalMarijuana:Crossroads betweenLandUsePlanningandEnviron Yin, RobertK.(2014).CaseStudyResearch: DesignandMethods . Los Angeles: SAGE. ---. (2015b).“AssemblyBillNo.266.” Journal ofRealEstateLiterature 25.1:1-29. Marijuana’s LegalizationonColorado’s Industrial Warehouse LeaseRates:HowHighis High?” Zhang, Kay, StevenSaules,Leif Wagner, andRon Throupe (2017).“A ReviewoftheImpact . New York, NY: FreePress. Journal ofEnvironmental Health . Real Property, Trust, andEstateLawJournal46.2:377-407. California PlanningandDevelopmentReport Learning from Strangers:The Art andMethod ofQualitativeInter California Secretary ofState California LegislativeInformation McGeorge LawReview International JournalofDrugPolicy California LegislativeInformation Frontiers inEcologyandEnvironment 15.9:495-501. 75.9 (2013):6-57. https://static.cdfa.ca.gov/MCCP/document/ . Accessed 8February2019.https:// . . 16. California Planningand . Accessed 27November . Accessed 27November 59:63-66. Department . . . - - - - 71 A. Index of Figures, Maps, and Tables Number Title Page Figures 1 Selected Demographic Statistics 13 2 Selected Recent Political Outcomes 13 3 Selected Economic Statistics 14 4 Timeline of American Legal Actions regarding Cannabis-Related Activities 17 5 Humboldt County Election Outcomes for Cannabis-Related Ballot Initiatives 19 6 Literature Map: Planning for and Regulating the Cannabis Industry 31 X. Appendices 7 Proposed Data Sources 35 Maps 1 Landscape of State-Level Cannabis Liberalization in the United States (November 2018) 7 2 Humboldt County, CA (2019) 9 3 Counties and Cities of the Emerald Triangle (2019) 15 4 Location of Case Study Jurisdictions within Humboldt County (2019) 37 5 Potential Locations of New Outdoor Cultivation Facilities based on Zoning Districts in Unincor- 41 porated Humboldt County (2019) 6 Potential Locations of Cultivation Facilities in the City of Eureka (2019) 43 7 Cannabis Innovation Zone Combining District in the City of Arcata (2019) 45 8 Potential Locations of Cultivation Facilities in the City of Rio Dell (2019) 49 Tables 1 Summary of Allowable Cultivation Sites in Unincorporated Humboldt County 42 2 Summary of Allowable Cultivation Sites by Zoning District in the City of Eureka 44 3 Summary of Allowable Cultivation Sites in the City of Arcata 46 4 Summary of Allowable Cultivation Sites in the City of Rio Dell 48 A. Index of Figures, Maps, and Tables 5 Summary of Zoning and Land Use Controls for Cannabis Cultivation Across Jurisdictions 53 B. Summary of Land Use Controls Pertaining to Cannabis Cultivation in Senate Bill 94

72 73 74

X. Appendices Distance Buffers Licensing tions Zoning Defini- B. SummaryofLandUseControls PertainingtoCannabisCultivationinSenateBill94 different radius. or youthcenterexistentatthetimelicenseisissued,unlessalocaljurisdictionspecifies Licensed premisesshallnotbelocatedwithina600-footradiusofK-12school,daycarecenter, Two LicenseDesignationsbasedonenduse: mature plants: Fourteen classesofcultivationlicensesbasedonlightingsourceandcanopyareaornumber local jurisdiction. Requires statecultivationlicenseissuedbyDepartmentofFoodand ery,” “premises” Defined termsinclude:“commercialcannabisactivity,” “cultivation,”“cultivationsite,” “nurs “M” “A” Type 5B Type 5A Type 5 Type 4 Type 3B Type 3A Type 3 Type 2B Type 2A Type 2 Type 1C Type 1B Type 1A Type 1 Type For commercialmedicinialuse For commrecialadultuse Mixed-light Indoor Outdoor Nursery Mixed-light Indoor Outdoor Small mixed-light Small indoor Small outdoor Specialty cottage Specialty mixed-light Specialty indoor Specialty outdoor Description >22,000sf >22,000sf >43,560sf 10,001 to22,000sf 10,001 to20,000sf 10,001 to43,560sf 5,001 to10,000sf 5,001 to10,000sf 5,001 to10,000sf <= 500sfindoor <= 2,500sfmixed-light, 2,501 to5,000sf 501 to5,000sf <= 5,000sf Canopy Area Agriculture aswellfrom 25 outdoor 50 # ofPlants - 75