Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

May I have your attention, please? Out of respect for the proceedings and consideration of others in the audience, please turn off or silence any sound emitting devices. If you wish to speak on an item or register your opinion for an item on today's agenda, speaker slips are available in the rear of the chambers and must be turned in prior to the item being called on the agenda to the commission secretary in the front of the room. Complete the green slip if you are in support of an item. Complete the green slip if you are in support of an item. Complete the pink slip if you are in opposition of an item. Complete the white slip if you are neutral on an item. If you have questions about today's hearing process or need assistance with speaker slips, staff is available to assist you. These hearings are recorded. So when your name is called, please approach the lectern and give your full name. Each speaker will have three minutes unless otherwise approved by the chair. Information on how to appeal any decision can be found on the last page of today's agenda and we will begin shortly.

Good morning, ladies and gentlemen, and welcome to the County of San Diego Planning Commission hearing for April 10th, 2026. Madam Secretary, could you please call roll?

Commissioners, please answer for the record when your name is called. Commissioner Ashman?

Here.

Commissioner Calvo? Here. Chair Edwards?

Here.

Commissioner Pallinger.

Here.

Commissioner Weber. Commissioner Sudbury. Commissioner Sibelico. Please note for the record that five commissioners are present and two are absent.

My microphone doesn't work.

That one works. Item public communications. Ladies and gentlemen, public communications provides an opportunity for members of the public to speak to the Commission on any subject matter within the Commission's jurisdiction, but not on any item on today's agenda. No specific action will be taken on any comments or queries that come from the public communication. However, this could result in a referral to staff. Madam Secretary, are there any members of the public wishing to discuss a topic that is not listed on today's agenda?

Chair Erwerth, I have no one in person who wishes to speak. Sean, do we have anyone on hold for item D?

We have no callers for public communication.

So there are no holder, nobody on hold, right, John?

Correct. Not for public communication.

All right. We do have documents to be considered as evidence that shall be filed with the Secretary of the Planning Commission not later than 4 p.m. on Wednesday, April 8th. The Planning Commission may, however, receive into evidence for good cause shown or impose reasonable conditions on late filed documents. Please note that this does not apply to materials presented at a meeting as part of a visual presentation. A staff presentation for today's items was posted online for the public to view on Tuesday, April 7th, more than 24 hours in advance of the hearing. And the public was able to provide comments by submitting e-comments prior to the hearing. Madam Secretary, are there any handouts or e-comments related to today's agenda items?

Chair Edwards, 41 correspondences have been received. All items were submitted to the Commission through email or hard copy. They have been made available to the public on the Planning Commission website and at the rear of the chambers.

Director, are there any requests for continuances from staff?

Chair, there are no requests.

We could go to item G, which is a formation of a consent calendar, but I doubt that would happen, but I guess I'm counsel under law required to do so. We will now form the consent calendar. These items are items to which there is no opposition, has been expressed or received. Madam Secretary, are there any items for consent?

Chair Edwards, we have no items available for consent.

And the item is? No. Oh, there is none?

No, sir.

No. All right. There are no items available for consent. Therefore, we will now begin with item one. Socially Equitable Cannabis Program. If you wish to speak on item one, please call in on 619-343-2539. The conference ID is 577-575-966, pound sign. We will now begin with the staff presentation. Good morning, Chair.

And commissioners, today's staff will provide a presentation on the Socially Equitable Cannabis Program, or the SECP. In October of 2025, staff came to the Planning Commission with an informational item to familiarize the Commission with the SECP prior to the Commission making any formal recommendations. Staff presented a summary of the SECP, including stakeholder feedback and potential land use changes that could be made into the SECP that were developed in response to that feedback. In January of 2026, staff presented the Board of Supervisors with a developed land use options, which differed based on buffer distances, the definition of sensitive land uses, separation requirements, and limitations for cannabis cultivation. At that hearing in January, The board reaffirmed its original 2021 direction to proceed with developing the program that mirrors state requirements. Today, staff requests that the Planning Commission make recommendations to the board on the certification of the final Programmatic Environmental Impact Report, or PEIR, the related zoning ordinance amendments, which align with the board's direction from January. The Planning Commission has the option to support staff recommendations or to provide a different recommendation, which may include any of the alternatives or variations of the alternatives from the programmatic EIR, including the no project alternative, which was supported by several community planning and sponsor groups. Following the Planning Commission's recommendation today, staff will return to the Board of Supervisors this summer for consideration of the entire SECP, including zoning ordinance and regulatory code amendments, certification of the final PEIR, and permitting and licensing fees. With that, we'll begin our presentation. Thank you.

Good morning, Chair Edwards and Commissioners. Today, staff requests that the Planning Commission provide a recommendation to the Board of Supervisors on the Socially Equitable Cannabis Program, also known as the SECP. Staff will first provide an overview of the SECP, including the main themes of stakeholder feedback. Then, staff will move on to the Draft Zoning Ordinance Amendments, the Final Program Environmental Impact Report, or PEIR, and the Future Permitting Process and Fees. Staff will conclude with the recommendations to the Commission. In January 2021, the Board provided the initial direction for the cannabis program, which would allow new cannabis facilities in the unincorporated area. In response to the Board's direction, the following four draft SCCP components were developed. The first component is the Social Equity Program, which is led by the Office of Equity and Racial Justice. The goal of the Social Equity Program is to ensure that communities that were disproportionately impacted by the war on drugs have equitable opportunities to participate in the cannabis industry. In April 2024, the Board approved policy direction for the social equity program. This direction established a county-wide limit of 25 licenses for retail storefront facilities or dispensaries, with half of those being designated for social equity applicants. The board also directed a three-year head start for social equity applicants to apply for a cannabis facility before applications open to the general public. The second component, proposed regulatory requirements, are revisions to the county's regulatory code and zoning ordinance, which specify where cannabis facilities can be located and how they operate. The board directed the development of a local program that aligned with state requirements. The third component is the Program Environmental Impact Report, or PEIR. The board directed a PEIR in June 2021 with the intent to create a streamlined environmental review process for future applicants. The fourth component includes developing procedures and fees to issue the licenses and permits to run a cannabis facility. Since 2021, the county has led or participated in over 285 outreach meetings to date and collected valuable feedback from diverse stakeholders. Staff received feedback on the environmental analysis with some community groups and members raising concerns about cannabis odor and asking for stronger odor control standards at cultivation facilities. The ordinance amendments require cannabis facilities to buffer from certain sensitive uses. Industry advocates, social equity applicants, and the Farm Bureau asked to narrow the list of sensitive uses and buffers, citing concerns that broader definitions would significantly reduce the number of viable locations for cannabis businesses. In contrast, community groups, certain community members, and public health advocates supported additional sensitive uses and expanded buffers. They also raised concerns about potential over concentration of mixed light or greenhouse facilities and outdoor cultivation. In addition, staff received comments from public health advocates who oppose cannabis use altogether. These comments focused on public health concerns such as addiction, mental health, and youth drug prevention. There were also concerns about impaired driving related to cannabis consumption at lounges and events. Six community planning and sponsor groups provided comment letters expressing concerns regarding aesthetics, lighting, overconcentration, buffers, temporary events, odor, public health and safety. Some groups recommended to move forward with a program that limits cultivation. Others opposed the program altogether. Next, staff will cover the draft zoning ordinance amendments. Currently, there are five existing cannabis licenses in the unincorporated county that are operating in an unconforming status as either retail storefront or microbusiness facilities. In 2017, the board directed a moratorium on any new cannabis licenses within the unincorporated area. The draft amendments described in detail on the next slide would repeal that moratorium and allow for the permitting of new facilities. In line with the board's direction, staff drafted amendments to the county zoning ordinance to establish where and how cannabis facilities can operate. Facility types could include cultivation, retail dispensaries, non-storefront retail also known as delivery, onsite consumption lounges, temporary events, manufacturing, distribution, testing, and microbusinesses. Facilities could locate in certain agricultural, commercial, and industrial zones outside of a state-mandated 600-foot buffer from schools, daycares, and youth centers. The draft zoning ordinance requires cannabis facilities to comply with performance standards related to lighting, fencing, noise, odor, and water usage, among others. It also incorporates mitigation measures that were prepared as part of the program environmental impact report. This ensures that projects are reducing significant environmental impacts where feasible. Some standards apply only to certain activities to address impacts that are unique to facility types. For example, cultivation projects are required to perform all processing of cannabis within an enclosed structure to minimize odors.

Now, staff will speak about the Final Program Environmental Impact Report, or PEIR. The Board directed the preparation of a PEIR to streamline the environmental review for future applicants. The draft report, along with the draft ordinances, was released for a 60-day public review period from January to March 2025. The final report, including responses to public comments, was released in March 2026. The PEIR evaluated five project alternatives, which differed in their definition of sensitive uses, buffer distances, allowed facility types, and whether to allow, restrict, or prohibit outdoor cultivation. The proposed project is Alternative 2, which aligns with state standards in the January 2021 board direction. The final report identified that the proposed project could cause significant and unavoidable impacts to aesthetics, temporary construction-related noise, air quality, specifically odor, groundwater and water supply, and transportation. It is important to note that all project alternatives would result in similar significant and unavoidable impacts. Alternative 4, which prohibits outdoor cultivation, would not have the same odor impacts compared to the other alternatives. The PEIR identified mitigation measures to minimize potential environmental impacts, which are outlined in a mitigation monitoring and reporting program . Environmental impacts may still occur, even when all feasible mitigation measures are applied. Next, staff will discuss the local permitting requirements and fees for future cannabis facilities. There are two different local land use permit pathways a project may take depending on the facility type. The zoning ordinance amendments define which type of permit a cannabis facility would need to obtain. Retail, manufacturing, distribution, testing laboratories, and outdoor cultivation that is 5,000 square feet or less in canopy area may be allowed with a ministerial zoning verification permit. To qualify for this permitting pathway, These facilities must meet specific zoning criteria. For example, if a special area designator applies to the property or a clearing or grading permit is needed, this would trigger a discretionary review. Microbusinesses, storefront retail with consumption lounges, indoor cultivation, mixed light cultivation which is cultivation in greenhouses, outdoor cultivation greater than 5,000 square feet in canopy area, and all other facilities that do not meet the criteria to be processed ministerially must obtain a discretionary administrative permit. Both permits are approved by the Director of Planning and Development Services. Land use permit fees will vary depending on the type and scale of proposed cannabis businesses and any required CEQA analysis. These permits will be deposit-based to ensure applicant costs are directly linked to the overall size and scope of the proposed business. Deposits start at roughly $5,400 for ministerial projects and $9,500 for projects subject to discretionary review and associated CEQA analysis. More complex projects may require additional costs beyond the deposit amount. Please note additional applicant costs may apply for permits and licenses required by other agencies such as building permits, hazardous materials permits, or municipal stormwater permits. In addition to a local land use permit, all future cannabis facilities would be required to obtain a state cannabis license, a local cannabis business license , and comply with any additional review or approvals required by state resource agencies and affiliated local departments. Cannabis business license fees will cover staff time for processing applications of new cannabis facilities, inspection fees, and verification of operational requirements from the regulatory code, such as security, packaging, and labeling requirements. The business license fee process will include three phases to minimize upfront financial burden on applicants. It is currently projected that cannabis business license fees will vary by cannabis business type from roughly $23,000 to $26,000 for new facilities. Annual license renewals will remain at the current rate of $19,756. These fee amounts are comparable to other local and state cannabis business license fees in other jurisdictions. Next, staff will discuss the recommendations for the Planning Commission. Based on the Board's latest direction, staff requests the Planning Commission to make a recommendation to the Board of Supervisors to first adopt the California Environmental Quality Act Findings of Fact, which include the findings regarding significant effects of the SECP, the Mitigation, Monitoring, and Reporting Program, and the Statement of Overriding Considerations. as well as certify the final program environmental impact report and find that it was completed in compliance with CEQA and the state and county CEQA guidelines, and second, adopt the amendments to the zoning ordinance to allow for the permitting of new cannabis facilities in the unincorporated area. The Planning Commission has the option to support staff recommendations or to provide a different recommendation, which may include any of the alternatives in the PEIR, including the no project alternative. This concludes staff's presentation. Staff is available for any questions.

Thank you for that presentation. Before we start, ladies and gentlemen, it's important for you to know that the staff report on this particular item was over 2,000 pages. And I, for one, tried to read a great deal of it. I think all the commissioners do. I realize there's at least three points of view here, number one. We don't want this in our neighborhood, period. Number two, we do. Number three, somewhere in between. We are aware of that. We are aware this is important to you. And we want to give everybody a fair opportunity to speak to the issues. All I would ask is that you remain polite and proper with each other during the testimony. Commissioners, do you have any initial questions for staff? I have a couple. The 600-foot buffer, is that the state, how should I put it, requirement that we are aiming at?

That is correct, Chair. That's a minimum requirement established by the state, and the proposed project is consistent with that.

Go ahead, Commissioner. Yes, but go ahead.

Just on that issue, thank you, Mr. Chairman. Is that 600 feet consistent with alcohol distances from the facilities?

Commissioner, through the Chair, there is no minimum buffer to residential areas for things like liquor stores, et cetera, that's basically built into zoning where you're not able to have a liquor license generally in a residential zone. So there is no minimum state standard there.

So the 600-foot buffer, council, do we have the opportunity or the recommendations that we could make it, say, 500 or 1,000 or 800 or another number? Chair.

We would still need to maintain the minimum setback established by the state, so we don't have an opportunity to reduce that less than 600. However, the commission does have the ability to recommend increasing the buffers above 600. We do have alternatives identified in the IR that exceed the 600 and go up to 1,000 foot setbacks.

Thank you, I was just imagining, I think 600 is two football fields, so that's fairly substantial. Just to focus this, what you're recommending mirrors the state requirements and aligns San Diego County with the state requirements. Did I say that right? That is correct. the buffers, the 600 foot triggers, you had schools, daycares, and youth centers. Would we have, I think I know the answer, but I wanna make sure. Would we have the opportunity to add additional I GUESS YOU'D CALL THEM TRIGGERS LIKE A PARK OR A CHURCH OR WHATEVER?

CERTAINLY, CHAIR. THE COMMISSION CAN RECOMMEND THAT THE BOARD CONSIDER ADDITIONAL BUFFERS LIKE PARKS. WE DO HAVE IDENTIFIED ADDITIONAL SENSITIVE RECEPTORS AND THE PROGRAMMATIC EIR AND THOSE CAN BE FOUND IN ALTERNATIVES THREE AND FOUR AND FIVE.

All right, Commissioners, I think that's all I have for now. Other questions? Commissioner Asher.

There's a mention of a limit of 25 licenses. Does that number include the five existing? It does, Commissioner. Thank you.

Thank you. Madam Secretary, are there any planning or sponsor groups wishing to speak?

Chair Edwards, yes, we do have two present. We have the Falberg Group and also Bonzel. I'll go ahead and call them up. Can I please have Eileen Delaney and Janine Demerk, please? You have your 15 minutes for your presentation.

So, ladies and gentlemen, this planning group asked in advance for 15 minutes, and I told them that that was acceptable.

Hopefully we won't take that long. Good morning, Chair. Good morning, Commissioners. There are over 500,000 residents in the county's unincorporated areas. Planning groups are elected by those residents to represent them and advise the county on land use issues. Sponsor groups are appointed for the same purpose. So it's shocking that the will of the residents has so far been completely ignored. Planning and sponsor groups have consistently voiced opposition to this program, which is being forced on all of us in the unincorporated areas. Planning and sponsor groups have spent endless hours reviewing the PEIR and have documented safety, health, and environmental impacts based on CEQA and the county's own PEIR. If the purpose of CEQA and EIRs is to prevent significant avoidable environmental damage by requiring changes in projects, either by adoption of alternatives or imposition of mitigation measures, then why would staff be directed to develop the option that according to the county's own draft environmental impact report would have the most unmitigatable, not sure if that's a word but I'm gonna use it, environmental impacts but also is overwhelmingly opposed by residents who will suffer the environmental safety impacts that this program will bring. To be clear, the opposition is not about marijuana itself. It is not about using marijuana. This is legal in the state of California. Most of the planning groups are not opposed to dispensaries. We may not personally like them, but it is legal. This is about two separate issues. Equity for those affected by the war on drugs, land use, and the negative environmental impacts on the residents who live in some of the most beautiful land in our state. Our opposition is about the land use issues that would allow outdoor marijuana grows, large commercial cultivation close to residential areas, and the extremely harmful environmental impacts which have been documented in other regions that have legalized cannabis cultivation. It's also about the potential rise in crime, safety issues that have been well documented, as well as the dangers that consumption lounges and events, impaired drivers, on our winding rural roads, planning groups have supported a reasonable alternative that would only allow cultivation to help environmental and health concerns. Sorry, indoor cultivation.

Thank you.

That's why I bring her with me. It would help mitigate health concerns, greater buffer setbacks, like the city of San Diego, which has 1,000 foot setbacks. or buffers. More locations like parks, trails, and churches. This is, I believe, alternative number four. It would remove consumption lounges and events which are most damaging to public safety. Again, impaired drivers. We know that you are appointed by supervisors to represent each of their districts. And so I will say the quiet part out loud. Three of these supervisors who have supported this program live in cities and have very little to no unincorporated areas and constituents in their districts. If this program is about equity, then this program shouldn't be forced on the residents of the unincorporated areas who will suffer and live with environmental destruction that this may cause. Where is the equity in that? How about children? Can they go out and play on certain days of the year when the smell is so bad and the toxins are so bad? If you look at Carpinteria, you'll see that. That's exactly what happened up there. Again, planning groups are elected by the residents of the unincorporated areas. What is our purpose if we are ignored? So I ask you, dig deep into your ethical conscience and recommend Option four and four things. Larger buffer zones at minimum 1,000 feet. Now you mentioned that it's baseball fields or football fields, excuse me. Yes, it is. But come to the unincorporated areas and see really how small a distance that is when you have wind and traffic and all those other things. So larger buffer, indoor cultivation, no lounges, and no events. These are reasonable options. Thank you. Thank you very much.

Good morning, I'm Jeanine DeMarc with the Fallbrook Planning Group. I was also the chairperson for the Cannabis Ad Hoc Committee, and the first thing that I always like to tell people is we had a very diverse group. We had people that are cannabis users, that are very pro-cannabis, and we also had people that were against it. The very interesting thing that happened when we came together and we read the entire 1500 page document that was handed to us was that we all really thought alike. Dispensaries, absolutely logical. Why do people have to drive so far for the products that they use? not really seem to be fair. The thing that we all agreed on that we were all against is cultivation. Cultivation will damage the unincorporated areas to a great extent. Again, everyone agreed on this. We asked for compromises. We asked that the buffers were larger, that there were no outdoor cultivations. That's really where the most damage will be. Outdoor cultivation, you're talking 600 foot buffer with cultivation, residential and ag properties are right up against each other in the un-corporate areas. So honestly, 600 feet is nothing. Carpinteria and Santa Barbara had a class action lawsuit. The class has won so far. And it's a mile and a half away from these facilities. There was over 3,000 odor complaints. So I'm hoping that these things are looked at very, very carefully. Again, we are not talking about the social equity portion of this, not at all. We are talking about the land use and how the way that this is written and the way that this is being proposed is actually unequitable for the unincorporated areas. And when we're talking odor, I hear lots and lots of talk about the Tijuana River odor. I'm hearing nothing about the marijuana odor. And so I'm just asking, please take all of these things into consideration. Again, we're not against dispensaries. We are talking about land use only and the negative impacts it will have on 500,000 residents. Thank you.

Thank you, ma'am. Any other community planning groups? Madam Chair.

Up next, we have Larissa Anderson.

Jennifer Heider is going to start the presentation for the Bonsall Unified School District and the Bonsall Community Sponsor Group.

Good morning. My name is Jennifer Heider, and I'm with the Bonsall Community Support Group. And this, I mean, Fallbrook said it all so perfectly. This is not about whether you're for or against cannabis. This is about the safety and well-being of our children. That 600-foot buffer is ridiculous. It's totally unacceptable. I think everybody's willing to compromise, but you can't throw us under the bus, guys. We cannot understand. If they want it so badly, the supervisors at that meeting in January, put it in their backyards. Make them take part of the burden. Do it. Share it apportionately if this is the way we're going to go. The odor, our air quality, our water quality, the safety of our children. We're already fighting for proper infrastructure. The unincorporated areas feel like we're the problem child and we've never gotten our fair share. And I think that's pretty much across the board. And I will tell you there's a lot of talk. It's not just, you're not flying under the radar this time. People are involved, they're engaged, and we want to be heard. And with the planning groups, yeah, we're put there. to tell everyone what the residents want. And we listen to the residents very carefully. And the residents do not want this. And it's not because they're for or against. It's because of the reasons that have been discussed here. And also, have you looked at the federal component on this? There was a letter sent by an attorney in New Jersey who is a cannabis expert. He sent it to the supervisor's meeting on January the 14th, and he lays out all the differences in the federal laws versus what the county is trying to do here. I'm telling you guys, better buckle up because there's going to be a lot of problems with this. And I definitely will be out there hounding it too. And a lot of people will be. So you need to, I want to put that on record. I want to send it in, that letter, because I got the feeling nobody read that with the supervisors. And the only, I will say, and I will say this out of deep respect for working with Supervisor Desmond, he seems to get it. He seems to work for the taxpayer, and we need more people like that. We need people who will listen to us and understand what we need. Thank you for listening.

Good morning, Chair and Commissioners. My name is Larissa Anderson. I'm the president of the Bonzel Unified School District, and I'm chair of the Bonzel Community Sponsor Group. Today is April 10. It's the deadline for property taxes. Residents across San Diego County are paying into systems we expect to be governed with consistent standards, defensible analysis, and real alignment between what is approved and what can actually be supported. Both the Bonzel Community Sponsor Group and the Bonzel Unified School District have taken formal unanimous positions opposing the impacts of the Socially Equitable Cannabis Program, or SECP. These remarks are my own, informed by over a decade of navigating land use restrictions, infrastructure constraints, and the realities we face trying to site a school in a semi-rural community. I understand your role. As the Planning Commission, you are not making the final decision today. You are shaping the analysis and the record that will guide the Board of Supervisors and ultimately define land use policy for all of San Diego County. My goal is to focus your attention on where that record becomes difficult to defend. And under CEQA, the adequacy of that record is everything. Because SECP is not just a cannabis policy. It is a land use decision that sets the standard for everything that follows. I care deeply about San Diego County. This is where we all live. And the impacts of our decisions do not sit neatly in one boundary line. Let me ground that. In Bonzel, we have spent decades working to build a school on Gird Road at Highway 76 in the heart of the San Luis Rey Valley, a 50-acre parcel already zoned for public use. That effort has been delayed, not because the need is unclear, but because the standard is high. Traffic has to work, evacuation has to work, water has to be there, the land has to be compatible with what surrounds it. Under the California Environmental Quality Act, these are not requirements that we can bypass. If they are not met, the project does not move forward. Now, compare that to the SECP. SECP opens the door to industrial-scale cannabis cultivation across rural areas without demonstrating that same level of analysis, without tying impacts to funded solutions, and without showing that the same constraints are being applied. Same land, same constraints, different standards. The 600-foot, 1.67 football field distance buffer expands that even further. In a rural landscape, that is not a guardrail, it is a multiplier. So it increases how much land becomes eligible. And the questions are clear. How much land are we actually opening up? And where is the analysis that shows what happens when you scale this? If the program expands the footprint, the analysis must expand with it. If it does not, the record is incomplete. Because CEQA requires analysis not just of individual sites, but of cumulative and reasonably foreseeable impacts at scale. And that is where the record becomes vulnerable. If key impacts are left to be addressed later through permitting rather than analyzed and mitigated now, that is not alignment with CEQA. It is deferral. because the impacts are not abstract. Cannabis at this scale pulls hard on groundwater in already stressed basins of sensitive watersheds. Cannabis brings persistent odor that does not respect parcel lines. Large-scale cannabis introduces lighting, energy demand, security operations, and enforcement needs into areas built for small-scale agricultural, not industrial intensity. And it lands directly next to farmers doing something very different. In Basel, we have growers producing organic crops and flowers, relying on clean water, stable soil, and environmental consistency. That is a delicate system. The socially equitable cannabis program does not sit well alongside that. It competes with it. It stresses the same water and it changes the conditions those farms depend upon. That is not coexistence. That is displacement. So are we applying the same standard to every use of land or are we creating a double standard? Because when the same land under the same constraints is evaluated differently, that is a double standard. and double standards do not hold legally. They weaken the system we rely upon in order to make defensible decisions. And when CEQA is applied inconsistently across uses, that is not just a policy concern, it is legal exposure. This comes down to stewardship. Whether all of us, from community sponsor groups, to this commission, to the board of supervisors, are applying land use standards consistently and defensively. Because the moment we do not, the standard breaks down, and so does its defensibility. And when that happens, what follows is not flexibility, it is unpredictability. That is not how we build healthy communities, and at scale this matters. The county's unincorporated areas already include more than 500,000 residents, and that number is growing with new development that does not yet have the infrastructure necessary to support healthy, thriving, multi-generational communities. Those residents rely on the same groundwater, the same evacuation routes, and the same limited systems. Land use decisions made today will define whether those systems remain viable. And I will close with where I began. Today is the deadline for property taxes. When a community wants to build a school, those same residents are asked to go back to the ballot box and approve additional taxes because development dollars do not cover the cost. That is accountability. So it is a fair question. Why would we approve the socially equitable cannabis program that adds intensity, demand, and impact without that same level of accountability, analysis, and defensibility? Pause. align the standard. Because if it cannot withstand CEQA for a school or a hospital or another public serving use, it should not be advanced to a lesser one. These decisions do not stay in one place. They shape the San Diego County we all love and are responsible to protect. Thank you.

Thank you.

We do have one additional that is on the line for Valley Center.

Go ahead. I'll be joining now. Thank you. With the caller ending in the last four digits of 4323, please press star six and mute your mic and state your name for the record before I begin speaking.

Thank you. Good morning. This is Dori Rattray with the Valley Center Community Planning Group. I'm calling just to also compliment the Fallbrook Planning Group. We are definitely in alignment with the comments, so I won't reiterate what they've said. But my point is you have a letter on record on behalf of the planning group that states that we would prefer not to incorporate the event, the outdoor grows, we are concerned about the environmental aspect, not necessarily the socially equitable portion of the ordinance. We are aware that cannabis is going to be used and it's legal. It's not that concern. Our concern is a land use issue. And as elected officials on the planning group, we would prefer to be considered and recognized, representing the unincorporated as such. And so I appreciate you hearing us. We were distraught in the fact that our concerns were not covered by several board members at the Board of Supervisors meeting. We though we were recognized and we hope that you will hear us and hear our concerns. That is the purpose of our planning group and that we would like to be on record and our references on our letters of them. So thank you for the opportunity. I appreciate it and hopefully we can come to some kind of resolution. Thank you.

Thank you ma'am. Sean, any other community planning groups?

We have no other committee planning groups.

All right, ladies and gentlemen, we'll now take public testimony. Madam Secretary, do we have any members of the public wishing to speak on this item?

Chair Edwards, yes. We're actually going to proceed with the phone calls first and then do the in-person. All right. So, Sean, can you go ahead and proceed with the phones?

I'll join the calls again. With the caller ending in the last four digits of 2972, please press star six to unmute your mic, and please state your name for the record before you begin speaking. Caller ending the last four digits of 2972. All right, we'll return to that caller. With the caller ending in the last four digits of 1822, please press star six to unmute your mic and please state your name for the record before you begin speaking. Checking again on caller ending last four digits of 1822, please press star six to unmute your mic and state your name for the record before you begin speaking. Okay, we'll return to those callers after going through caller ending in the last four digits of 3627. Please press star six to unmute your mic and please state your name for the record before I begin speaking. I will try one last caller caller and the last 4 to 7 of the 7, 7, 3, 4, please press star 6, 2, 3, 6, 7, 3, 6, 2, 7, go for it.

Yes, thank you. I'm sorry. Hi, this is Terry Hoyer. I am a resident in California here and I'm a parent. I'm a mom. I have two small young kids. I also participate in a lot of different things locally to the community and I'm calling in because I just want to echo everything that has been said by representatives of both Fallbrook and Bonsall. In this case, we're absolutely urging you on behalf of parents and community members to listen to these individuals, specifically, you know, Eileen and Jeanine. They're speaking on behalf of greater Fallbrook. I know that there are a lot of people that are calling in and are showing up and speaking in voice and concerns about equity and different, sorry, I apologize. I did not come prepared for this call this morning. So I'm just trying to speak off the top of my head and from the heart. We're asking you guys to listen to the representatives that are there today speaking on behalf of all of the residents here. They are representing tens of thousands, several thousands of residents in the unincorporated areas. And those are the people that you need to listen to. They're telling you what the community wants, what the community needs, and what is best for us and our future. Our landscape, we've all moved here for different reasons. And one of those reasons is the landscape and the rural beauty that we have. We do not want the lounges, the events to come here. We're urging you guys to please And if you have to, the option for that was recommended with a larger buffer zone, um, and not allow all of this to come to our areas. You guys don't live here. A lot of people do not live here. So you're not as invested. And the people that are speaking today in front of you represent all of us. They represent all of these people that live here. So, If you guys do anything, please just take into consideration all that they said. You may not get a lot of participation on the phone and a lot of emails and stuff because we are parents, we have kids, we are very busy. And a lot of people are not able to call in this morning. It does not mean that we are not interested and that we don't have an opinion or, you know, we can't say something. But we, as one of the speakers spoke a little earlier today, We don't want to see this, and we don't want to be pushed to go down a road where we have to fight back if decisions are made. But I'm just asking you guys, please prevent all of the noise from happening and problems from coming by listening to the individuals that spoke today that are representing Bonneville and Valbrook. Thank you so much for your consideration. Appreciate it.

you for your comment with the caller ending the last four digits of 7734 please press star 6 to mute your mic and please state your name for the record before I begin speaking okay hi good morning my name is Madison and I also just want to also let these standing group members have said about concerns with getting this those equity cannabis programs going. Obviously, the equity part of it is one thing, but the issue that we're concerned about is the environmental issue. And for over five years, community-sponsored planning groups have invested significant time researching, recruiting staff, and those efforts are now being largely disregarded, which raises serious concerns about the integrity of this public process. In unincorporated areas, it's a long-distance relationship without rideshare options and serious environmental risk to groundwater and water. Our rural zoning and infrastructure as well. We also have to look at the real-world outcomes of programs like this. And in states like Colorado and Oregon and here in California, expanding cannabis licensing has not eliminated the illegal market, and it has actually expanded them. It means more problems, not fewer. This is not a program that should move forward. for the families and the communities that are worried about our children and about our health and about the danger and the safety issues that will come along with these things. So I urge you to reject it outright and prioritize long term health, safety and the character of our community.

Thank you for your comments. With the caller ending the last four digits of 6598, please press star six to mute your mic and state your name for the record before I begin speaking.

Good morning, Planning Commission. I'm hoping you can hear me. It seems sort of garbled. This is Ann Riddle calling in from my school site. Very busy time for us out here in our unincorporated area in our schools. We involved with the school district to first plan what marijuana use and subsequent drug use looks like. And consistently, our planning groups have weighed in with the county board of supervisors regarding the lack of wisdom going forward with this program. It seems to us that the county either cares about good health or it doesn't. And there's nothing to be gained by the sale of their cultivation of a plant that is primarily smoked and vaped and that is a highly concentrated THC product. known for its hallucinatory and intoxicating properties. How could this be a good choice on the part of a board of supervisors who wants long-term good health for its residents? And surely we must understand the cost of poor health. Why would we want to pour our resources when enabling an industry that's only going to contribute to poor health? This is a poorly thought-through program. We haven't done a good cost analysis of what this really means. And we have spent an enormous amount of staff time, hours, money on putting together the proposal. Our money out here in the unincorporated area needs to be spent far more wisely on other things. No one out here wants marijuana cultivation or businesses. We have five businesses already. We know what they look like. We know that they are rapid advertisers and deliverers. We don't need more of it, and we certainly don't need a wonderful farmland to be turned into pot shops, a creamily water-thirsty plant. We need to take some time and study this. This is a poor choice for our backcountry residents. Thank you.

Thank you for your comments. I'll be now returning to the two callers who are unresponsive. Please, with a caller in the last four digits of 2972, please press star six to unmute your mic and please state your name for the record before you begin speaking.

You're muted. Go for it. My name is Thomas Lowerman. My name is Farmer Tom. I'm a San Diego County native, a federal government cannabis educator, an advocate for social equity, a passionate entrepreneur. More importantly, I'm a survivor of the war on cannabis, which has devastated my family and countless others for the past 25 years. I grew up in San Diego, witnessed firsthand how outdated cannabis prohibition policies destroys families, communities, and perpetuates injustice. The war on cannabis just didn't affect me personally at all. My mission is to fight for reform, education, and equity in our region. Today as a federal government cannabis educator, I'm dedicated to breaking down the stigma, spreading evidence-based information, and helping others navigate this evolving industry with integrity and purpose. I'm a passionate advocate for option A astronomy. Support cannabis land use and community events. I believe that only in regulated and transparent markets, no fentanyl-based products poison in our communities. No mystery ingredients hiding in our chain supply. Transparency and accountability are non-negotiable. Public health is protected through education and oversight. Local businesses thrive and strengthen our economy. This isn't about this about cannabis. It's about building a safer community for everyone. Equity program is one of the most transformative initiatives that has been undertaken. I believe applicants and businesses in our community in ways of far back, far beyond cannabis. This program provides real, hands-on education and starting and launching a sustainable business of any type, managing operations with integrity, efficiency, building financial literacy, long-term stability, and understanding compliance and best practices in creating community impact with social responsibility. I have personally walked away from this program with a deeper understanding I believe that San Diego County has the opportunity to become a national model for equity and responsible Canada's reform. Protecting public health through regulation and education, supporting the local economy and small business owners, correcting historical injustice through equity programs, creating jobs, economic opportunities, and to underserved communities. Building community space where adults can consume responsibly. Generating tax revenues for schools. Please summarize. As someone who has experienced consequences.

We're moving on to the next caller. With the caller ending in the last four digits of 1822, please press star six to mute your mic. And please state your name for the record before I begin speaking.

I'm calling from an out-of-town trip because like so many, I'm concerned that water diversion and environmental smudging or sensitive odors on predatory marketing to use are only a fear of the hazards that this invites. A new CalMatters report says rates of illegal cannabis operations have uncovered piles of pressurized pesticide sprayers releasing dangerous chemicals, and that multiplies our concerns. One ecologist called these little death bombs after finding the carcasses of creatures who gnawed them were so poisoned, even flies feeding on them died. That ecologist team has paid over $5 million to conduct studies on cleanup at road sites. The horror of their findings leads us to live in rural areas to question who We'll conduct and enforce restrictions on fertilizers and pesticides. We will ensure oversight of hazardous waste and prevent odor issues here. 600 foot buffer is no guarantee that ticking environmental time bombs will not impact our communities. We know that cannabis waste products have negative impacts. We know lawsuits in other counties demonstrate numerous other adverse impacts on neighboring communities have come at very high cost to residents and to land values. No plan of reparation justifies forcing these problems on rural residents. Further, as a public health professional, I see no analysis that demonstrates need for still more dispensaries when online delivery services are readily available. I ask you to please listen to our planning group. Thank you very much.

Thank you for your comments. That is all callers, and I'll be leaving the call.

Thanks, Sean. Shall we take public testimony now?

When your name is called, please come forward and stand near the lectern. As soon as the person before you is finished, please approach the lectern and state your name for the record and begin your comments. You will have the three minutes. We will begin with Kathleen Lippitt.

Good morning. Before I start my comments, I'd like to, in defense of the people who try to call in, it is a very difficult system to navigate. It's the most difficult of any of the planning groups or city council meetings in the county. I hope that you will take a look at that. Try to call in yourself. You can hear yourself echoing and you can't concentrate. Sorry for that diversion. But good morning, chair and planning group members. My name is Kathleen Lippitt, and as a public policy and drug researcher, I have been participating in county planning meetings ever since the county handed out their twelve hundred and seventy five page environmental impact analysis. Planning group members spent hundreds of hours poring over the analysis, related research, the history of similar ordinances in other cities and counties. They realized that their interests were no longer a priority or even a consideration of what was in their best interests according to this new board majority. who has decided to align with the state's recommendation. This is the same state that determined marijuana and alcohol businesses were essential, but churches should be closed and small businesses, and 90% of them went under during COVID. This ordinance is not just a misalignment of community priorities, it's an intentional disenfranchisement of community priorities. The voices of over a half a million unincorporated residents. It's in their county planning groups and the two supervisors elected to serve their interests were all ignored. The political maneuvering undermining of these authentic stakeholders were subverted in favor of a predatory for-profit addiction industry, along with the exploitation of their fragile and diverse unincorporated community lands. It is an environmentally destructive ordinance which does not fulfill a single objective of the California's Environmental Quality Act. Instead, it makes it a mockery. Were it not for CEQA exemptions granted to this industry and its stakeholders, this ordinance would not stand a chance of prevailing. When you have a county that approves a battery storage facility in a watershed, that rather says it all of where their concern for the environment is this county's marijuana ordinance was subject to if it were subject to CEQA the super majority on the board of supervisors would not have been able to justify its existence they have acted as de facto defense attorneys for the marijuana industry ignoring all exculpatory evidence that was provided to them by planning group members and residents of the communities. These are people who were stakeholders, not those who would like to come to profit from unincorporated lands. Thank you very much.

Thank you.

Up next, we have Scott Chipman.

Good morning. Although I'm a resident here in San Diego County, I'm also here representing civil cannabis industry victims, educating litigators. I want to urge all of those who are testifying in opposition to this equity program to begin now, collect your evidence of your damages because there will be lawsuits. Every time you hear the word, comment related to race or demographics or individual groups that is being used to justify this program, you are hearing an illegal justification. Social equity is social discrimination. We have lawsuits ongoing already in New York related to similar programs. Were this to proceed, we will file Complaints with Federal Division of Civil Rights in the Attorney General's office. It's amazing, every planning group and sponsor group is opposed and yet just being ignored. Are you aware that 80% of the marijuana grown in California is exported to other states? This is a drug cartel state. 70% of the permitted grows send their pot out of state. Look at the Emerald Triangle, Humboldt, Mendocino, Trinity counties. 50,000 grows, almost most of them illegal, but there's not the law enforcement effort needed to take care of these grows, contaminating the wells, drying up the wells, pumping water out of wells, and then driving tanker trucks to grow sites, indoor grow sites. Devastating. Pot plants use eight gallons a day. Who is measuring the cost? We hear about, oh, well, we're going to have tax revenue. We're going to have a better industry. We're going to have jobs. Who's measuring the cost of addiction, dropouts, car crashes, psychosis, mental illness? Next week, we will announce federal class action lawsuits against four major pot corporations operating in 13 states. These are similar to the tobacco and opioid lawsuits. These lawsuits describe the harms and malfeasance of the industry and billions of dollars of harm that has been caused against the public. These harms include but are not limited to fraudulent medical claims, mislabeling, contamination, fail to warn of mental and physical harms such as lung, heart, brain, sexual organ, liver damage, impacts to the brain causing depression, anxiety, Addiction, psychosis, schizophrenia, brain damage to the unborn, and more. You and county supervisors have a responsibility.

Could you summarize, sir?

Yes. Protect public health. Don't endanger it. Thank you. Thank you.

Up next, we have Dorothea Flanagan, please.

Good morning, honorable supervisors. I'm a resident of Gopher Canyon. My qualifications are that I have a master's degree in educational leadership, aka administration of a school district. I'm retired. I think this is the worst thing is that we're presenting to the American Indians who go over to those schools in our Bonsall community a new thing to destroy them. Already two billboards are down the street from our home that says highest vibes. advertising cannabis from 18 miles away where they can get it.

First it was alcohol, now we're gonna give them, teenagers, look at these billboards.

Now we're gonna give them something to get high on and wreck their life the other way. I'm here because I have gone before the San Diego County Board of Supervisors many times over the past three years regarding no, there's no enforcement code compliance department is a joke. The maturity level is very low on the ones answering the phone. When you call about an event going on with real loud noise, somehow nobody's going to be anywhere on the weekend to go tell them to turn the noise down. And that echo really travels out there in the mountains. These are the after effects. They don't... They're going to go park their trucks, do whatever they want to do in their trucks, throw their trash out the windows. This is what they do up north. I'm hearing this from my friend that lives up there. Leave the trash behind, go hide on the side roads to do what they want after they get the product. These are things nobody's even talking about. We don't want our students offered trash. This, so Bonsall, the little town that it is, can have a name. Bonsall, cannabis country. It's a very bad aura. Four times I have called code compliance. And I'll just give you one example. There's a business with five billboards on their property down the street from me in a residential Malibu-looking neighborhood. Right in the right-of-way, five of them they put up for their business. They just laugh.

Thank you, ma'am. Could you summarize?

You guys can't do anything if you have no code compliance or enforcement, not from your sheriff, your health department, your supervisors, none of you, they laugh about code compliance.

Thank you.

Up next we have Edward Gonzalez.

Thank you. I apologize that I'm against these beautiful ladies that come up here and speak, you know, all their rights. But it seems like, but it seems like basically that this industrial business, there's other states like Colorado that were very successful. They were able to get a lot of money together to build schools. It got to that point like Amsterdam where they don't even steal a bicycle on the street anymore because everybody has a better life of living. Chicago, Illinois they're building stock markets in the industry where a lot of people are getting successful because they're investing into it so I mean the 5,000 square foot would not even bring not even a piece of rice against the black market here in California which one of the persons that was up there speaking about 80% of Northern California just literally blows up a bunch of junk and just sells it you know across the country. Us as education And our school and our teachers were able to grow way, way better products where people won't get sick, which is supposed to be like medicine for people. I hate to say that because I do have evidence of that. But I can't speak about that right now because I'm not a doctor. But life goes on. San Diego has been a victim of drugs because we live in the corner southwest of California. There's tons of drugs coming in boats. over the water, over the hills, what would be benefit of this? Nothing. So thank you, have a good day. Thank you for letting us be part of the social equity program and we'll look positive of doing this correctly. Thank you.

Up next, Kelly Hayes.

Good morning. My name is Kelly Hayes. I'm an attorney and I specialize in working with cannabis businesses. I've been working with this industry since 2014 and I've seen how this industry has developed in San Diego County. I've seen how it went through the ban and here we are now again. I want to thank staff for their hard work in developing this ordinance. And I'm here in support of this ordinance. I'm here to just talk to you about a couple of things that I noticed when I was able to get through the 2,000 pages. I'm here to talk to you about temporary cannabis events. There are two types of temporary cannabis events. There are those that are licensed through the county or city. and that require a state license. And then there are those which are called informational or educational events. Those types of events do not require a permit or a license because they're First Amendment protected activity. Here in your ordinance on page 2067, You are proposing that informational and educational events be held only at retail facilities. This is going to be an issue. You can put parameters around First Amendment activity, but you cannot put these types of strict parameters around it. There are a lot of educational organizations out there that like to hold educational and informational events such as, you know, Americans for Safe Access, Normal, the Cannabis Chamber of Commerce, among many others. So I'm here to just point that out and request that that be removed and that state law be followed for informational or educational events. As for temporary cannabis events, I would request that the commission consider maybe expanding the zones that are allowed to include agricultural zones and to allow those temporary cannabis events to be held at cannabis facilities. Right now there's a prohibition in the zoning ordinance, which doesn't really make any sense. Cannabis facilities are already well regulated, so to host a cannabis event at a cannabis facility seems like common sense. So those are the couple of things I noted, and I hope that you would take them into consideration, and thank you for your time today.

Thank you.

Up next, Andrew Benes.

Good morning, Chair and Commissioners. My name is Andrew Banez, President of the Filipino-American Chamber of Commerce, Greater San Diego, and I'm a cannabis social equity applicant. I lived in District 4 for 39 years. I want to thank the county staff for working on all of this. I support the county's cannabis social equity program because it provides a structured path for small businesses to operate under strict state oversight. The final EIR addresses the necessary mitigations to ensure our businesses and events are good neighbors. For decades, specific neighborhoods in our county bore the brunt of enforcement. This program ensures that us, who have paid the highest price, have a fair shot at participating in the legal regulated market. We have waited long enough for a program that balances economic opportunity with environmental responsibility. I urge you to recommend adoption to the Board of Supervisors so that implementation can begin this summer. Let's ensure that San Diego County leads with a program that is both environmentally sound and socially just. Thank you.

Thank you, sir.

Robert Wood.

How's everybody doing, first of all? I want to start by saying that I have been formerly incarcerated. I'm a social equity cannabis applicant. During my incarceration, I earned four degrees, a general studies associate's, one in sociology, and a double bachelor's of science in small business management and marketing, graduating back in from Lyme. Since I've been home, I earned an MBA in business leadership. I'm an adjunct professor for Adams State University. I'm on the board of director for the Prison Scholar Fund. I am also a community violence interruption specialist. And I am on the Federal Advisory Committee for Dream.org, one of the largest criminal justice reform organizations on the planet. With all of those credentials, because I'm formerly incarcerated, I have a hard time finding a good paying job. traditional one. So I had to put together a bunch of different legitimate hustles for myself. Social equity cannabis aims to change that for people like me who have done the work, took the time to change their self, and want to do something better. It is an opportunity for me to exercise my business skills, my people skills, in an arena where I have a fair shake. Social equity cannabis is not only good for individuals like me, people who have been formerly incarcerated during the cannabis and drug wars, but it's also good for communities. What it does is it brings in tax revenue, additional foot traffic, it creates jobs. One of the things I hear a lot of people that talk against it talk about is how it's going to ruin communities. They're not thinking about streets. They're not thinking about additional funding for schools. All these things that need additional funding, social equity cannabis will be taxed harder than anything that comes into the community. They may not understand that. There are already rules and laws. Why do I think that what the state did is perfect? Has Mr. Edwards said two football fields? What the state did, they have laws, they have compliance. We already voted on this issue in California. We did, and we passed it. Now it's time to do it right and allow people who have been harmed by cannabis to have the opportunity to benefit from it. Now it's time to do the right thing and allow these rural communities. I live in El Cajon, so I'm not one of the people that don't live in the unincorporated county. I stay in El Cajon, been staying there for about five years. I stay in the unincorporated county. I'm a citizen of the unincorporated county. And it's time for people in the unincorporated county to be able to do something. One of the things I want to do out in El Cajon is build homeless shelters once I start making money. Because we have a homeless problem. And we have a lot more problems that this tax revenue and this inflow from social equity cannabis could help out with. So rather than looking at the negative, I ask you guys to look at the positive, make the additions that the attorney talked about, and pass alternatives to what we're here to talk about today. I thank you and I submit to you, social equity cannabis is good for all. Thank you.

Thanks, sir. Up next, can I please have Alan Toma?

Good morning. My name is Alan Toma.

I'm a social equity applicant.

And I just wanted to clear up a couple buzzwords some of the opponents are using. Nothing from a cannabis plant is toxic. It does not emit anything toxic. It emits oxygen. Also, there was another buzzword. They use the... Sorry, I got a little nervous once I stepped up to the microphone. But the state has made it clear what the distance they want to use. So I'm an opponent of that. Thank you very much.

Thanks, sir.

Up next, I have Sarah Anaraki.

Hello. I'm a proponent of the, hello, good morning. I'm a proponent for the cannabis in unincorporated areas. I believe that the demand for cultivation exists regardless of local zoning. So I think that Having a zoning oversight would actually protect it better than having illegal grows happening because those things can cause more harm than good. I think having an oversight and having it zoned properly would be better. I also believe that it preserves, sorry, I'm sorry. It would bring higher revenue per acre than traditional farmland and growth. This would help support small landowners financially and prevent farmland from being sold for dense development. I believe that Everyone in those areas should have proper access and having a zone properly would give them also safer access rather than using the black market because we know that even in those areas there's people that and this is for adults, but people are gonna want it regardless, so they should have a chance to have those opportunities, not have to travel out of their neighborhood. And as far as a danger, I mean, we know that there's wineries all over those areas, and windy roads, and I mean, obviously, you shouldn't drive impaired no matter what, but that hasn't stopped all the wineries from opening in those areas and all of that. So I do believe that having it zoned properly by you guys and having an oversight would be a lot more good than harm because either way I think illegal growth would happen either way and that would cause more harm and a lot more water theft and things like that. Thank you.

Thank you, ma'am.

Shelby Huffaker.

Good morning commissioners. My name is Shelby and I'm a public health professional and chair of the San Diego chapter of Americans for Safe Access, a nonprofit dedicated to advancing safe access to cannabis for therapeutic use and research. I'm speaking today to urge the commission to certify the final cannabis program environmental impact report and to adopt the zoning ordinance amendments with several important revisions to the restrictions on temporary cannabis events. Alternative two of the EIR is critical to expanding safe, regulated access to cannabis for patients and adult consumers in the unincorporated county. while ensuring that individuals harmed by the war on drugs have equitable participation in the now legal industry. Beyond equity, a well-regulated marketplace delivers broader benefits. It increases competition with unlicensed operators, generates meaningful tax revenue for the county, and ensures robust age restrictions and product safety standards. Indeed, numerous federal studies show that cannabis legalization is not associated with increased underage use, while states without legal access demonstrate increased use of unregulated intoxicating hemp products by teens and adults alike. The proposed zoning ordinance amendments also help to achieve these goals, though they are undermined by several of the restrictions on temporary cannabis events. Many patients and consumers simply do not have legal places to consume cannabis, and events serve as a necessary and practical stopgap for safe access. For that reason, the annual cap on the number of events that can be held along with the prohibition on holding such events at licensed cannabis businesses and in agricultural zones should be eliminated. San Diego County has the opportunity to implement one of the most comprehensive cannabis social equity programs in the nation, benefiting patients, adult consumers, and vulnerable populations and the broader community. This program has been years in development and has undergone extensive community review. Please certify the EIR and advance the modified zoning ordinance amendments so that the benefits of this program can be realized once and for all.

Thank you.

And our last speaker, Charles Barnes.

Good morning to all. I'm Charles Barnes, and I'm a recent applicant in the San Diego SEED program. I have learned very, very many interesting things consideration for this cannabis program. There are a lot of rules that are very strict. Everything's measured going in and out, whether it be fertilizers, plant weight, and all of these things are definitely keeping a tight lid on the business itself. We can't cancel out the black market on our own, for sure. That's obvious. And I don't really see where that would be in any of our real business. What we're trying to do, as far as I can see, is give a safe alternative so that people like myself who have lost family members to substances like fentanyl don't have to answer these late-night phone calls or have somebody come and knock on our door in the morning and tell us that our loved one has just been found dead in a hotel room somewhere. It's really tragic, and I've lost quite a few friends to the fentanyl crisis. Safe access is a great way for people to be able to pick up the products that they were going to use anyways, as opposed to doing some seedy deal in some dark alleyway and getting tainted products. And that's about all I got for you all. Thank you for your time.

Thanks, sir. Well, ladies and gentlemen, that ends public testimony. Commissioners, do you have questions or discussion on the proposal here in front of us? Yes, go ahead, Commissioner.

So there's multiple alternatives that are presented, and alternative two is the one recommended by staff, but is it possible for us to sort of mix and match and take what we like from other alternatives and Let's start with alternative two and then take some things that we like about alternative three and put that in the recommendation. Are we capable of doing that at this meeting and not having to come back?

Through the chair, yes. What we could do is we could pull up a slide that has the different alternatives from within the programmatic EIR and you could look at the different alternatives to look at the various aspects that you'd like to discuss.

Okay, thank you. Did you want to take a look at the alternatives now, Commissioner?

Sorry, this one isn't working well today. Sure, yeah, let's do that. Unless someone else wants to ask a question of staff.

Do you have a question, Mr. Ashman, Commissioner?

At this point, I just be a point of clarity. We are here today to make recommendations. We're not deciding anything. And this is going to the Board of Supervisors. And And so we have a programmatic EIR to speak to, and then we have some regulatory components. And I'm going to say it, but correct me if I'm wrong, but the EIR, It's a disclosure exercise. This is pulling together all this technical information and providing it to the communities and the people who make recommendations and decisions. And we, in this particular instance, have a document that is, has found that there are significant and unmedicable impacts that can arise. And there's a prepared set of overriding circumstances. And that would allow the EIR and the regulatory document to go forward. But it does have mitigations that arise like doing bio reports and groundwater reports and those sorts of things, depending on the nature of the application. And so, and that is kind of the framework of all of that, because the EIR, and as folks always mention that it regulates, it doesn't regulate. It provides information. And that information is what we're supposed to take into consideration in making recommendations.

Is that the way this works through the chair commissioner? You got it. Um, that, that is how it works. Um, just for a good illustrative example, um, for, for the folks today, um, you know, the mitigation measures, those tie in largely to things like the setbacks and the restrictions of where these can go. Another good example would be just the cultivation itself, since a lot of people brought up outdoor cultivation as a concern. So within our programmatic EIR, what we have said is people can convert existing agriculture up to 5,000 square feet to outdoor cultivation. That's generally, there's some other criteria in it, but at high level, That's the limitation and the mediation measure for outdoor cultivation. So to do it by right under the programmatic EIR, you are capped at the 5,000 square feet for existing cultivation. So it's not allowing people to go out and disturb and grade habitat to put in football fields of outdoor cultivation. And just as an example, most of the farms in San Diego County are less than five acres. And so when you look at 5,000 square feet of a, let's say it's a fully developed five acre farm, that would be roughly 2% of that full five acre property that could be used for cultivation under the ministerial aspects of the programmatic EIR allowing outdoor cultivation. So I just shared that as a good example of the point that you were making on the intent and role of the programmatic EIR.

And one other quick question. Does the unincorporated area have a significant problem with illegal growing of cannabis?

I'm going to ask my code compliance chief, Connor McGee, to answer that. In general, I would say right now, I'd start by just addressing dispensaries. I do not believe we have any cases open for dispensaries. The PDS code compliance and sheriff have worked very diligently over years to address that. We do periodically have outdoor cultivation cases. Connor, can you speak to that?

Certainly. On average, each year in the last few years, we've had anywhere between about 20 and 25 situations of outdoor grows that have been identified mainly by the sheriff's marijuana enforcement team. We work in conjunction with them to address any land use issues that might come up as a part of that. That's certainly much less than other regions. Things like today, folks have mentioned the Green Triangle, if you will, or the Emerald Triangle in the north. We have nothing like that occurring in San Diego, mainly due to the cost of land and the cost of water.

Thank you. Commissioner Pallinger.

So generally speaking, what's the scope and size of those illegal operations, the 20 to 25 a year? Is it 5,000 feet or five acres or?

It really varies, Commissioner, depending on the specific circumstances. We have not had outdoor cultivation, illegal outdoor cultivation in some time. We're talking greenhouses, so it's much smaller in scale. We base it on plants. When I say we, the county as a whole, we've had a few that are 5,000 plants plus, but for the most part, these are smaller grows happening interspersed with other. Exactly, yes, sir.

Thank you.

Commissioner Calvo.

Yes, I would like to just offer some comments or recommendations for the commissioners if they would consider it. Please. One would be to increase the buffer to 1,000 feet and also to include, I think we mentioned here, parks and churches. That would be my recommendation.

Parks, trails.

Right?

Parks, trails, and churches.

Yes.

Staff, did you hear that parks, trails, and churches in increased buffer from 600 to 1,000 feet?

Commissioner, that would be as part of alternative two or alternative four? Yeah.

Can you pull it up, please?

Yes, that would be great.

Just a moment until we pull up the slide. So PER alternative three identifies additional sensitive receptors and an additional 1,000 foot buffer, excuse me, a total of 1,000 foot buffer. I believe the proposal by Commissioner Calvo would be pretty much in line with that, but limiting the sensitive receptors to a total of six. which would be youth centers, daycares, schools, parks, trails, and religious facilities.

Yeah, I think that's what she mentioned, yes. Correct. So that dovetails, in your opinion, into alternative three?

With the modification to the number of sensitive receptors.

Okay, thank you. Commissioner Fallinger.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for the motion, I guess, or proposed a motion. Thank you, Commissioner Calvo. After hearing from Connor that these illegal facilities are generally in greenhouses, and I don't know anything about cannabis growing, but it seems like it's generally in greenhouses, which seems to me it might lend itself more to alternative four, than alternative three, that would be my input. I mean, hearing my constituents in both Bonzel and Fallbrook, I'm surprised we didn't have somebody from Ramona here, I would be inclined to just vote no on this entire recommendation. But I know that that's not gonna float at the Board of Supervisors, so looking to try to be some middle ground between what the Board is gonna do with their majority and what we can do to protect our communities. I would support your motion, but using alternative four.

I would be fine with that too.

Staff, how does that sit with you? So, Chair, what alternative four will introduce would be a prohibition on outdoor cultivation. that will still allow indoor cultivation and it would still allow mixed light cultivation. But what you would normally see as like a hot house, like those tents, those are not considered indoor or mixed light, those would be outdoor. So a mixed light facility is usually a facility that's more permanent, has a lot of glass panes that introduce light into the building. Now, if I may add to that is what alternative four would do, it will reduce one of the unavoidable impacts to less than significant, which is odor. However, all of the other unavoidable impacts that have been identified would still remain.

Thank you for that clarification, Rami. And up where we live, where they're using hothouses, they're a lot of times mushrooms. So I think... keeping it indoors addresses the most vocal concern about the outdoor growing. So if we have to do something, I think Alternative 4 is most, in my opinion, probably the most reasonable at this point, Mr. Chairman.

Did you want to second Commissioner Calvo's tentative motion? Because if you are, I'm going to need Robbie to restate it.

We'll craft a motion after we... Commissioner Salvo?

I'm sorry, Sabella?

Okay, I think if all five of us went down each item that we have to craft a recommendation, in the buffers and the receptors, the consumption lounges, the outdoor cultivation, the cap of the dispensaries, the signage, the fees, we'd probably come up with five different proposals. So I think we're gonna have to compromise here and I'm definitely open to compromising. So I'm gonna propose something that I think is gonna get us most of the way there, but I'm very interested to hear Commissioner Calvo and Commissioner Pallinger what you think here. If we start as a base with alternative two, and we add the following amendments, and I think some of these are less important to me than others, but here we go. So I really feel strongly that we should allow the informational and the commercial events consistent with the letter we got from attorney Kelly Hayes. I believe the informational events, I think we're legally required to do that. I think to do our jobs and protect the taxpayer, we need to allow those events because that is their First Amendment right, and we have a duty to uphold the Constitution up here. The other ones I won't fight as hard for, but I think if we add the sensitive receptors, all of them, from alternative three, but apply them exclusively to the outdoor cultivation, which seems to be the biggest sticking point here, then I think we can come up with a pretty good compromise between the community planning groups and the applicants here. Because all of the sensitive receptors Most of the comments are addressing the odor, and the odor is really only coming from the outdoor cultivation. So if you would be amenable to adding all of the sensitive receptors and the additional buffer distances from alternative three into alternative two, but having those additional receptors and buffer distances only apply to outdoor cultivation, then I think we could all be in agreement. 1,000 feet and the additional receptors for outdoor cultivation, but leave the 600 feet and the more state minimum receptors for retail and other uses. Could that be agreeable?

Commissioner.

Commissioner Pellinger.

As a lot of the speakers pointed out, 1,000 feet where we live is nothing. And my next door neighbor's 1,000 feet away. And I think we heard so strongly about the outdoor cultivation. I think we should not allow the outdoor cultivation at all.

Commissioner Calvo, anything?

Honestly, I don't think I'm opposed to outdoor, but I would still want the $1,000 regardless of whether it's retail or... No matter what.

No matter what. But that's just my opinion. Mr. Ashman?

I'd like to throw something else into this. If you're going to have events and retail sales and those types of activities, I don't think these types of facilities should be on private roads. I think the county is going to get themselves into a legal conundrum with that type of activity because private roads are private. not for events. And I think you'd have to have something put in there that says that these facilities have frontage on a public right-of-way, or at least one that was offered for dedication. And I think that's something that I think we should at least acknowledge, and if we're gonna have these types of composite recommendations, something like that be tossed in there for consideration. I know they mentioned that there's three board members that are gonna have this thing, follow them around for a considerable amount of time if it goes forward. The other part of this that I would throw out there as a recommendation, Board members should take a good, long look at the statement of overriding considerations. When you're going to come in and you're going to say we have all these significant environmental effects that we. Work everybody else over who's making a permit application in this county for but in this instance we're going to set that aside to some extent I know there's some. Potential requirements for looking at that but. to accommodate that, you have to make these statements of specific economic, social, and environmental benefits, and there's three of them that I thought were gonna be problematic. Number three, which is to make a generalized statement about prioritizing social equity, economic access, and business opportunity, which is not real specific. Number six, the project minimizing the effects of commercial cannabis activities on sensitive populations and land uses. However, this compromise that's floating around here I think would step in that direction. I DON'T THINK THE ALTERNATIVE TWO WOULD, FOLLOWING THE STATE GUIDELINES. AND THEN ALTERNATIVE OR ITEM 10B WAS USING THE STATE BUFFER STANDARDS AND THAT AGAIN SPEAKS TO THAT A LITTLE BIT. AND 10C WAS A BIT OF A WORD SALAD. I WASN'T REALLY CLEAR ON WHAT THAT WAS ATTEMPTING TO to assert the vocabulary I think got a little garbled up when it was printed out. But it infers that the mitigation measures included in the EIR include more restrictive conditions than And then it gets difficult to understand, but it's I think then what's currently there. But currently I believe it's a ban. So I'm not sure how it could be more restrictive than that. But I just wanted to put that out there as part of a recommendation that they take those things into consideration unless, if indeed they're gonna barrel ahead with alternative number two, but if they're willing to consider looking at some of these other suggestions that they might find less conflict in the end result.

Thank you, Commissioner Bellinger.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. On the public road issue, we went through that on the Boutique Winery Ordinance, and we ended up amending it and allowing access on private roads, right? I don't know if there's a parallel between the two or an access, but...

Through the Chair, Commissioner, I don't think we're going to have the ability to legally limit it on the private roads. I do want to do a little bit of research with Council and Public Works to look at that, but I don't think that we will have that ability.

Because we did it in the boutique winery though, but then we changed it when we did the amendment, right?

I would need to go back to where we had, that was years ago, but we'll pull that.

You're a lot younger than I am, so you must remember better than I.

If I could just while we're, we'll do the research on the ability to do any restrictions on private roads. I do also want to address the comments on the informational events. The letter we received I think was the first time that we had received some feedback on that. We will absolutely get together with the individuals who submitted those comments.

Explain to me what that is. I mean, informational event. Is it having people that are ill and using cannabis to heal? What is it?

Yeah, so I'm gonna let our team answer it, but there's two different types of events that we're referring to. There are the special events where you would have the products and themselves.

More like a sales event. Bring in, let's try this one, try that one.

And informational is people sharing information about the product itself without the product. Team, go ahead and elaborate on that nuance. Thank you, Mr.

Certainly, an informational or an educational event would essentially be having a representative from a particular company there at a retail outlet. So like a wine tasting? Yes, however, there would not be a consumption component. So the difference is really a discussion. Exactly.

This grape grew on this slope, and so this varietal, okay, but you don't get to taste it.

Correct. A full-blown temporary event would assume that there's consumption. You have to use the wine analogy with me. Indeed, indeed. I think the most important part is there wouldn't be any sampling of the product as a part of an informational or educational event.

Anything further? So I'm not sure if we are able to craft a motion. Seems to me that, you want to take a crack at it? Go ahead.

I'm not sure that we're going to reach consensus here, but I'll support Commissioner Calvo's motion. I think the outdoor cultivation is a real issue for the communities. I'm not sure that the three supervisors that are probably going to support whatever happens drive around the uncorporated area very much. So that would be alternative four with the restriction on the outdoor growing. the additional receptors, parks, trails, and churches in the 1,000 feet and allowing the informational events suggested by my fellow commissioner at both the cultivation and the retail events. Is that correct?

Thank you. Well, my proposal was to have the sensitive receptors added, the expanded sensitive receptors added only to outdoor cultivation. But if we're not going to do outdoor cultivation at all, and I think that seems to be the will of the commission, perhaps alternative three unchanged exactly as it is right now. But that allows outdoor growing.

Three, three does. Three does, okay. You're right, you're right, thank you. So my proposal is a proposal of 4,000 feet for everything. And I wasn't exactly clear when I asked my question earlier. What is the ABC buffer for retail events? I think you were talking more about residential, but what is it in retail events from churches and sensitive receptors?

That's really going to be based on the individual property and whether they already hold a liquor license. For example, a restaurant holding a special event, there is no buffer. No, but a retail liquor store, I think there's a pretty standard... Correct, however, there's nothing in county regulations, that's all state ABC. That's right, it would be state ABC, but we don't know that answer.

All right, that's my motion. I would look for a second.

Thank you.

I'd be happy to repeat it.

It's basically, Commissioner Cal, 1,000 feet from all, yeah. For all events, and you are allowing educational events to occur on site.

Correct. Is that clear enough? Just a clarifying question, Commissioner, if I may. With Alternative 4, currently there's a lot more sensitive receptors. So I just wanted to confirm that in the motion, it's only the six sensitive receptors that is included. The schools, daycares, youth centers, and then the additional parks, trails, and churches. That's correct. And not the remaining sensitive. Yes, that's correct.

Second? I would second. Commissioner Calvo seconds. Discussion? If there is no discussion, then let's vote.

Commissioners, when your name is called, please vote. Commissioner Ashman?

Yes.

Commissioner Calvo? Yes. Chair Edwards?

Yes.

Commissioner Pallinger?

Yes.

And Commissioner Sibelico?

No.

Let the record show that this item passes with a vote of four in favor, one opposed, and two absent.

Mr. Chairman, I have one question for the director. Yes, go ahead. In rough dollars, how much do you think the county spent processing this Issue. Tome. It's war and peace. I mean, it's got to be. Do you track that? We do, through the chair, commissioner.

We do track it. The last time we updated it was looking at it probably four months ago, and I believe at that time it was between three and four million for total county costs having worked on this over the past five.

So maybe $5 million in round numbers. Wow.

Yeah, what I would say is, you know, this project probably included more community outreach than any project that we can recall in the past 10 or plus years. So it was extremely labor intensive in outreach and engagement. Thank you.

Thank you. We'll move on to item H, the administrative agenda.

We have one administrative agenda item today, which is the El Nepal time extension and revised tentative map. The director of PDS has issued a preliminary decision to approve the time extension and revised tentative map. The preliminary decision has been filed with the Planning Commission as an administrative item. Unless the Planning Commission or a member of the public request that a public hearing be scheduled to review the preliminary decision, the preliminary decision shall become a final decision of the Planning Commission that is effective immediately.

Mr. Director, has there been any requests for a review? There has not. Anybody in the audience requesting a review? So let it be written, so let it be done. The department report, the director's report.

Commissioners, just a housekeeping item. During the months of June and July, this hearing room will be doing renovations for some IT upgrades and changes, including our call-in system that was referenced today. So we're going to be seeing changes coming out of the summer for that. And then also just wanted to note a previous item that you considered, the Harmony Grove Village Work-Live Units General Plan Amendment for 27 units. We'll be taking that to the Board of Supervisors on April 20th for consideration. And that is the end of our report.

Thank you. Right our next scheduled Planning Commission hearing will be on Friday May 8th 2026 but here