Cannabis Ordinance Draft Framework -- a good start but BOS needs to support critical sections

Last week, Sonoma County staff released their Cannabis Program Update Framework (Summary Report and Framework links), outlining the key elements that the revised Sonoma County Cannabis Ordinance might have. We commented on a few of these already, but below is a more in depth review of the sections, along with our kudos and concerns.

The staff has done a very nice job of capturing and incorporating the many comments, concerns and suggestions of the many diverse parties in their 16 point framework proposal.    There are points that we like very much and others that we’re not so sure of, so maybe that’s a sign of a good balanced approach.   It's now up to the Board of Supervisors to adopt this Framework on March 15th.

The following are our comments and suggestions how the Framework could be further improved:

• Item 4. Allowed Activities:   This section talks at a very high level of defining a range of activities that would be allowed or disallowed by “zoning district”.   First, Sonoma County’s current parcel zoning doesn’t necessarily represent the current uses on the ground -- there are many areas zoned Ag, which are primarily residential homes and would make no sense to allow a commercial cannabis operation there.   Second, the wording is at a very high theoretical level, such that no one could really understands the implications.   Staff would need to provide concrete examples for all parties to properly evaluate whether grouping activities by zoning district would make sense.
  ‍
• ‍Item 5. General Plan Amendment to redefine cannabis as “agricultural”:  This is problematic for a couple reasons.  First, County Council looked at this issue before and concluded the County didn’t have the authority to unilaterally redefine it as such.   Second, it must be acknowledged that the economic profile of Cannabis is unlike Ag products, so special rules are required.   Cannabis, which can gross $1-2m per acre, far exceeds any Ag product (grapes being the highest at $20/30K per acre), and accordingly will have much more significant impacts that must be specifically addressed.  Third, any effort to reclassify cannabis as some type of an Ag product must include provisions that protects a neighbors the right to defend and enjoy their property from the impacts caused by a nearby operator. ‍
  ‍
• Item 7 Neighborhood Compatibility:   Great criteria to be incorporated into the final ordinance!  We are very excited to see this explicitly included and wholeheartedly urge the supervisors to adopt this part of the framework. If we get this right, the program will be successful for the growers, county administrators, and the public.‍
  ‍
• Item 8 Permit Streamlining: Item A discusses ministerial permitting.   This is inconsistent with California State practices. No other county allows ministerial permitting; Item C discusses development of a CEQA streamlining checklist for discretionary permits.  A checklist makes sense to assure all impacts are covered, but there must be sufficient review of each specific site to assure all their unique factors are considered.‍
  ‍
• Item 9 Development Standards:  A must criteria to get right (e.g., parcel size, setback distances, cultivation size limits).   The text states “…. informed by factual analyses informed by EIR”.    This wording should be expanded to also incorporate a “quality of life” standard, consistent with criteria number 7.   A 1,000 ft. setback should be studied.‍
  ‍
• Item 10 Environmental Analysis:  covers the elements required of CEQA/EIR.  A couple suggested adds we would like to see:‍
• Item 10c. Air quality analysis:   Should be expanded to require mitigation, and incorporate the terms of the Santa Barbara Odor Agreement signed by both cultivators and neighbors. Both sides found it workable‍
• Item 10e. Energy analysis:  This should require net zero carbon, net zero GHG. This is a County-wide goal‍
• Item 10 f. Hydrology analysis: Great that the wording requires studying drought level conditions, our new normal.   This must include all the water needs of our region, not just cannabis.  The new home building requirements must be incorporated, as well as all Ag needs, and the biotic water needs spelled out by the NMFS and DFWS letters.  Finally no net water depletion should be allowed.

• AR/RR parcels:  Page 5 of the Staff presentation (PowerPoint) includes the Sept 28, 2021 discussion to included AR/RR parcels in the updated ordinance.  Like the many growers who voiced concern over opening back up the AR/RR parcels, I share their concerns. This created the mass public outcry that has dogged this ordinance.  There is plenty of land zoned Ag to accommodate our cannabis needs.