Original Link

FALLBROOK — San Diego County is moving forward with a sweeping cannabis program aimed at addressing decades of inequity from the War on Drugs, but the proposal is drawing pushback from rural communities that would bear the brunt of the potential impacts to land use and quality of life.

In a 3-2 vote on Jan. 14, the county Board of Supervisors advanced updates to its proposed Socially Equitable Cannabis Program, a framework that would allow a wide range of commercial cannabis activities — including cultivation, manufacturing, retail, distribution, testing, consumption lounges, temporary events and microbusinesses — in unincorporated areas.

Supervisors Jim Desmond and Joel Anderson, who represent unincorporated communities in East and North counties, voted against the program.

In 2021, the Board of Supervisors, led by former Chair Nathan Fletcher and Vice Chair Nora Vargas, directed county staff to develop the program, requesting a social equity component that would allow individuals with prior cannabis-related arrests and convictions, along with individuals in low-income and high-arrest communities, “greater opportunities to secure a county operating permit.”

“We know that many communities have been devastated by the War on Drugs and disproportionately impacted by the criminal justice system. We seek to undo these past wrongs by centering social justice at the core of our cannabis approach,” Fletcher said after the Board of Supervisors adopted a marijuana policy overhaul in January 2021.

According to the county, the Socially Equitable Cannabis Program aims to establish a regulated legal market for medical and adult recreational marijuana operations in unincorporated areas.

The program will expand access to the legal cannabis industry by providing grants, tax relief and licensing pathways for individuals impacted by “cannabis-related criminalization.” County planners say it also aims to align local rules with state law, promote safe access and economic opportunities and limit the negative effects of cannabis cultivation on the local environment.

Supporters say the effort is long overdue. Supervisor Monica Montgomery Steppe, who represents District 4 and the cities of La Mesa, Lemon Grove and portions of San Diego, along with unincorporated areas of Helix, Casa de Oro and Rancho San Diego, framed the program as both an economic opportunity and a moral imperative.

“For me, this really has always been about a moral obligation to repair harm,” Steppe previously said, referring to the disproportionate impacts of cannabis criminalization.

But in the 28 unincorporated communities where the program would take effect — spanning roughly 772,239 acres under county land-use control — residents and planning groups warn the trade-offs remain largely unexamined and could carry lasting consequences.

‘It’s about responsible land use’

At the heart of the debate is land use, according to leaders of several community planning groups in the county’s unincorporated areas.

“This isn’t about whether cannabis is legal — it’s about responsible land use,” said Jeniene Domercq, chair of the Fallbrook Planning Group’s cannabis ad hoc committee.

County planners presented five alternatives for the program, covering a range of potential regulations related to outdoor cannabis cultivation, license types and buffer distances from sensitive areas, such as schools and parks. From indoor-only operations and 1,000-foot buffers to limited outdoor grows (1 acre or less), the Board of Supervisors ultimately chose the least restrictive option.

The county’s approved plan, Alternative 2, allows all types of cannabis facilities, including outdoor farms, with a 600-foot buffer from schools, day cares and youth centers, while continuing to study lounges and events.

Rural planning groups had pushed for stricter limits, including indoor-only cultivation and larger setbacks.

“We ultimately recommended Alternative No. 4 — indoor cultivation only — to prevent many of the concerns around odor, crime and environmental impacts,” said Eileen Delaney, chair of the Fallbrook Planning Group. “(The Board of Supervisors) chose the option with the most impacts.”

In the final program environmental impact report, the county acknowledges that Alternative 4, which allows only cultivation within buildings or greenhouses, would eliminate impacts related to odors and water supply and was therefore “the environmentally superior alternative.”

For Alternative 2, the county’s report outlines potential effects across a wide range of categories, including air quality, water quality and supply, noise, transportation and public services and classifies the impacts as “significant and unavoidable.” The county anticipates up to 372 cultivation sites and 170 non-cultivation licenses by 2044 under this alternative.

Despite significant and, in some cases, unavoidable environmental impacts, county officials selected Alternative 2 — the version of the cannabis program that mirrors state regulations — because it best meets the core goals of creating a legal, regulated market and expanding economic opportunity under a social equity framework.

But Delaney, pointing to similar coastal communities farther north, said the environmental effects are not theoretical or easily dismissed.

The Santa Barbara experiment

In Santa Barbara County, large-scale cannabis cultivation has generated years of odor complaints and regulatory challenges. More than 4,000 complaints have been filed in the Carpinteria Valley since 2018, with residents reporting persistent “skunky” odors, according to reports by the Santa Barbara News-Press.

“We’ve seen how devastating odor can be,” Delaney said. “Residents had to keep their windows closed and run to their cars because the smell was so intense.”

Santa Barbara County officials have since attempted to curb cannabis odors by requiring greenhouse operators to install carbon-based odor scrubbers, but compliance has been spotty, the Santa Barbara Independent reports. Even with mitigation measures in place, however, odors still escape when greenhouse vents are opened.

Delaney also questioned whether the county has enough staff to handle complaints and enforcement, citing thousands of unresolved odor complaints in Santa Barbara County and other jurisdictions.

“How are we going to manage that here with only two additional code compliance officers?” she said.

This has culminated in a class-action lawsuit against Santa Barbara County alleging that greenhouse cannabis cultivation at Valley Crest Farms in Carpinteria created persistent “nuisance odors” that affected nearby residents’ quality of life and property values. The lawsuit over cannabis odor is the first of its kind in California to receive class certification.

Additional legal disputes have emerged in the area, including a lawsuit filed by Pence Vineyards & Winery alleging cannabis odors interfered with its operations. Separately, Santa Barbara County prosecutors reached a $620,000 settlement with a cannabis operator over air pollution violations and illegal generators.

Pros and cons

Supporters argue that a regulated system will reduce illegal, “black market” operations and bring economic benefits to the region. The legal cannabis market employs hundreds of thousands of workers nationwide and is projected to generate tens of billions in revenue this year, according to county officials.

Numerous approved equity participants in the county’s program wrote in support, particularly for Alternative 2, citing the importance of “correcting” the past by providing opportunities for those unfairly ensnared in the criminal justice system.

“(The program) can reverse generational curses into generational wealth,” wrote Spring Valley resident Vincent Stalcup, an approved participant in the cannabis equity program. “Many victims of the failed War on Drugs are still damaged to this day. This is a small way to correct systematic oppression and racism.”

San Diego resident Raphyal Crawford, another equity participant, said the program offers a chance at long-term financial security.

“This program is an economic avenue for my family,” Crawford wrote. “This program rights a wrong for those who paid the price with their freedom; creating generational wealth and retirement; fulfilling the American dream.”

But opponents say unincorporated areas will bear the brunt of the costs of correcting past wrongs. Short-term rollout could bring immediate disruptions — including traffic, impaired driving tied to potential lounges and events, and changes to rural character — while long-term consequences remain uncertain.

“Lounges and events raise serious concerns about impaired driving, especially without ride-share options,” Domercq said, adding that existing rural infrastructure — roads, hospitals, law enforcement — may not be equipped to handle an influx in large-scale commercial operations.

“We don’t have the infrastructure in these rural areas to support this,” she said. “And we don’t receive the tax revenue to offset those impacts.”

Fallbrook resident Karen Estes submitted a letter in opposition to the program, noting that she lives near an area that would allow outdoor cannabis cultivation.

“Due to my health, if there was cannabis grown, I would have to sell my home and move,” Estes wrote.

Estes also voiced concerns about “buzzed driving” tied to cannabis lounges and the need for a greater law enforcement presence, specifically the California Highway Patrol in unincorporated areas, to help monitor the roads.

“I know Fallbrook and Bonsall are the ‘stepchildren’ of San Diego County, but I am hoping you take us into consideration on this proposed program,” Estes said.

Bonsall resident Ariane Freville cited concerns from a law enforcement perspective, noting that Bonsall “remains grossly underserved.”

Freville expressed frustration that tax revenue from this program would go into the county’s General Fund rather than fund improvements in unincorporated areas that host myriad cannabis ventures.

“We don’t want to lower our quality of life and get nothing in return,” Freville wrote. “We do not want this program in our town.”

‘The county isn’t really listening’

Greg Doud, vice chairman of the Rainbow Community Planning Group, said he has spent significant time reviewing county documents, attending meetings and conducting independent research related to the county’s proposed Socially Equitable Cannabis Program.

Doud and others have written letters to the county advocating for larger buffer zones, a phased rollout of the program and the adoption of mitigation measures proven effective in other jurisdictions.

Despite his efforts, Doud said the county appeared to give little weight to input from rural communities.

“It’s obvious the county isn’t really listening to the community,” Doud told The Coast News. “We’ve provided pages and pages of feedback, but it doesn’t seem like it’s being considered. There’s a frustration that the decisions have already been made.”

Rainbow is a small, rural community with roughly 1,500-1,800 residents, agricultural land and large parcels that could attract cannabis cultivation. The unincorporated area is known for its production of avocados, citrus and protea flowers.

But Doud warned that large-scale operations could strain the community’s rural network of narrow private roads and that cannabis farms near homes could significantly affect residents, especially in agricultural areas.

“Having a large (cannabis) operation next to your home is going to impact your quality of life,” Doud said.

Valley Center Community Planning Group Chair Dori Rattray echoed concerns that rural residents in the county’s unincorporated areas feel their voices are not being heard.

Rattray, who has served on the board since 2021, said the issue is primarily about land use and the concentration of impacts in communities with limited infrastructure and resources.

“Our biggest concern, as an elected official, is that our voice is heard by the Board of Supervisors,” Rattray said. “We have more than 500,000 people in the unincorporated area, and three supervisors making these decisions don’t represent us.”

Doud also questioned the so-called “boom” mentality when it comes to legal cannabis and the economic viability of the county’s program, arguing that projected tax revenues are likely inflated due to an oversaturated market.

“The idea that this will generate major tax revenue just isn’t realistic,” Doud said, pointing to ongoing competition from the illegal cannabis market and several jurisdictions, including the counties of Sonoma and San Luis Obispo, that have already reduced cannabis taxes to help struggling businesses remain viable.

In April 2025, the city of Desert Hot Springs cut its cannabis sales tax from 10% to 5% to support local retailers.

In October 2025, Gov. Gavin Newsom rolled back the statewide cannabis tax rate from 19% to 15% to help legal businesses compete with the tax-free, illicit cannabis market.

Hunter McDonald, land-use adviser to Desmond’s office, acknowledged the frustrations voiced by rural planning groups and residents, many of which center on the proximity of cannabis grows to schools and neighborhoods, as well as potential impacts on agriculture, particularly grape vineyards.

McDonald suggested that the rural planning groups band together to help ensure their voices are heard.

“They’ve got to show up in June and participate in public comment,” McDonald said. “However, if it gets passed, there is a legal path. That option always exists.”

The county Planning Commission will review the Socially Equitable Cannabis Program on April 10, with public comments accepted via the county’s website. A final vote by the Board of Supervisors is expected in June.