Planning commission recommends Estacada development-code changes to restrict new cannabis production and tighten rules for existing operators

The Estacada Planning Commission on June 18 recommended that City Council consider ordinance 2025-004, a package of amendments to Title 16 that would change how cannabis production and processing are regulated in the city. The commission voted to forward the ordinance to council by a 3–2 vote with one abstention; the matter will appear on the council agenda for July 14.

City planner Alan presented staff’s report explaining the background and the proposed changes. He said the city in 2016 had allowed marijuana production and processing as an outright use in the M-1 (light industrial) zone. Since then, staff and council had received recurring complaints—most often about nuisance odors—from industrial-area businesses and neighbors. According to staff, enforcement through education, equipment inspections and recommended management practices has not resolved the recurring odor problems; council directed staff in early 2025 to propose regulatory options, and staff drafted the ordinance under discussion.

Alan summarized staff’s recommendation: prohibit new cannabis production and processing businesses anywhere within city limits while revising operational and licensing rules for existing businesses. The draft retains existing nonconforming use protection for permitted operators, meaning an existing facility could continue operation provided it does not cease for longer than one year. Staff also proposed tightened operational and licensing requirements, including submission of odor-control plans, engineered filtration specifications, ongoing maintenance documentation, and authorization for inspections under the business-licensing code.

During public discussion and commission questions, participants raised several recurring themes. Commissioners asked about the number of local cannabis facilities, employment and tax revenue impacts; staff said there are roughly six active cannabis-related facilities in the industrial campus and two additional pending business-license applications linked to parcels in a recent subdivision, but staff did not provide a precise employment or tax-revenue figure. Staff told the commission that the city still allows retail cannabis uses in some commercial zones and that the ordinance targets production and processing uses in the industrial zone.

Commissioners and a council member who spoke at the hearing highlighted the long-running nature of complaints and the time city staff and police have spent managing compliance and illegal operations. Several commissioners and members of the public suggested alternatives or refinements: requiring third-party certification or periodic inspections by qualified HVAC/air-quality professionals (the commission discussed the National Air Filtration Association guidelines), clarifying whether inspections would be city-conducted or contracted, and ensuring consistency with other city inspection authorities so the code not be unnecessarily duplicative.

Alan and others noted that odor as a nuisance is also being addressed in separate proposed amendments to Title 8 (nuisance/health and safety), which will go directly to City Council. Staff said some enforcement and fee details (for example, third-party inspection fees) could be handled in the city’s fee schedule (a council resolution) rather than inside Title 16.

On legal and practical points, staff said the draft was reviewed by the city attorney prior to his recent death and that existing businesses would remain lawful as long as operations continue without a gap exceeding one year; transferability requires continuous operation. The draft also allows an applicant to propose alternative odor-control systems if certified by a licensed mechanical engineer demonstrating equal or better performance than activated-carbon filtration.

A motion to recommend approval of ordinance 2025-004 as presented passed on a 3–2 vote with one abstention; the record shows three commissioners in favor, two opposed, and one abstention (Commissioner Perkins). The commission’s recommendation and meeting record will be forwarded to City Council for its July 14 meeting. Council will consider the ordinance and any related Title 8 amendments.