Bennett Valley residents address BOS's Cannabis Framework

The proposed cannabis framework is generally a reasonable approach. The following are the comments of Bennett Valley Residents for Safe Development, submitted to the Board of Supervisors earlier this week.

Item 5. General Plan Update.

‍The county will again consider including cannabis within the meaning of “agriculture” and “agricultural use” as used in the General Plan. The county is being increasingly criticized for its lack of transparency and should be transparent on this issue. County Counsel opined during the Planning Commission hearings that it lacks legal authority to make this change under current California law. The supervisors will raise false expectations and waste the time and energies of residents if they devote resources to considering an illegal policy. You should clarify that you cannot implement this general plan amendment unless California law changes.  If you think you can implement this policy contrary to state law, you should provide a written justification for the public to evaluate.

Item 7. Neighborhood Compatibility.

We generally support the proposed approach. If properly implemented, it will reduce the angst and simmering hostility between growers and rural neighborhood residents. After five years, it is evident to all but the terminally obtuse that the needs and desires of these groups are incompatible.

Exclusion zones (technically, “combining district overlay zones”) have wide popular support—74% approved of them in PRMD’s August 2021 survey. Allowing communities to chart their own destinies is especially compelling given that commercial cannabis was legalized directly by voters. Many who voted for Proposition 64 do not want commercial cannabis activities nearby, and should decide this issue for their own communities. The Planning Commission approved the creation of exclusion zones in 2018, but the supervisors ill-advisably declined to establish them in October 2018.

There are many easily-identifiable areas where there is strong resistance to cultivation, and eliminating them from the permitting system would result in fewer complaints and fewer permit appeals. Staff has been provided a list of such areas. It is important that the EIR study not only the concept of exclusion, but also specific areas. Following the example of the vacation rental ordinance, including specific exclusion zones in the ordinance, supported by an EIR, would provide the necessary environmental review to allow designation of specific parcels in the revised ordinance without additional Board of Zoning Adjustment or board of supervisor hearings. The ordinance should also allow areas to become exclusion or inclusion zones as a zoning change by petition.

Item 8. Permit Streamlining.

The county should survey other jurisdictions to ascertain the extent to which ministerial permitting exists elsewhere.  We understand that this is rare, and may now occur in no other county. Devoting resources to ministerial permitting raises problems and false expectations.  The Department of Cannabis Control is now the lead agency for CEQA compliance for ministerial permitting as part of its licensing process. This has implications that limit fast-track permitting that should be acknowledged and addressed.

We agree with creating inclusion zones where permitting can be expedited. This would direct cultivation projects to appropriate locations and help alleviate neighborhood compatibility issues.

Item 10. Environmental Analysis.  

Air quality analysis is a key issue and all policies and decisions should be based on science. Larger grows or areas where there are several grows in relatively close proximity should be analyzed with air quality modeling. This is especially important in valleys and other areas where thermal inversions are known to occur and where odors will not readily dissipate.

The environmental analysis needs to include compatibility with area plans and specific plans.

Item 16. Economic Analysis.  

We strongly support a credible economic analysis of this industry. Over and over supervisors are asked to make decisions that require knowledge of the economics of this industry. Tomorrow you will consider providing tax relief in abject ignorance of economic facts. I have been involved professionally with regulatory issues for decades, and the public interest is never well-served when decision makers are ignorant of the facts concerning the industry that they regulate. A credible economics study will likely show that most outdoor cannabis projects are uneconomic in Sonoma County. This type of information is crucial to policymakers. But any economic study must be credible. The analysis that the county used during the initial ordinance exemplifies the use of the phrase “the dismal science” to economics. Most inputs and outputs were outrageously incorrect. Many of the mistakes in the cannabis program can be attributed to the extremely poor economics information that supported the ordinance.

Thank you for your consideration.

‍