Comments on Comprehensive Cannabis Program Update – Residential Enclave Proposal

December 31, 2023

Tennis Wick, Director (Tennis.Wick@sonoma-county.org)

Scott Orr, Assistant Director (scott.Orr@sonoma-county.org)

Crystal Acker, Supervising Planner (crystal.acker@sonoma-county.org)

cannabis@sonoma-county.org

Re: Comments on Cannabis Program Update- Rural Residential Enclave Proposal

Dear Tennis, Scott, and Crystal:

The Neighborhood Coalition advocates for sustainable, environmentally sound, and neighborhood-compatible cannabis policies in Sonoma County. This submission on rural residential enclaves is part of a series of comments on the elements of the cannabis program update that Permit Sonoma released in support of its December 13 meetings on these issues.

Permit Sonoma has clearly stated the primary goals of updating the cannabis program were to enhance neighborhood compatibility and environmental protections. It stated

The primary goals of the cannabis program update are to consider cannabis land uses … and further enhance neighborhood compatibility and environmental protections. The analysis could result in proposals to expand, restrict, or eliminate cannabis land uses ... update the public on key program elements and the mapping of residential enclaves in an effort to improve compatibility between cannabis land uses and the neighborhoods they are located within or near.1

These goals are consistent with the directions from the Board of Supervisors (March 2022, Framework for Updating the Cannabis program) and were reiterated at the December 13th meeting. Included in the Board’s March 2022 directive to increase compatibility was development of “rural neighbor enclaves” (areas where commercial cannabis cultivation is not allowed) noting the general criteria, among other factors, should include density and community character. The objective is to produce specific maps of all enclaves. The question is how to achieve those goals.

_{1 Press Release, Permit Sonoma to host cannabis ordinance update information meetings Dec. 13 (Nov. 29, 2023) (emphasis added).}

‍

Defining Rural Residential Enclaves

In response to this directive, Permit Sonoma issued a discussion paper with recommendations. At the December 13 meeting, the presenter emphasized this was a first try, acknowledging some issues might not have been considered. She invited feedback on how to improve the modeling. We appreciate the open-minded approach toward improving the approach.

We agree in concept with Permit Sonoma’s goal to have a data-driven model that selects areas objectively, but submit this model provides only an outline which requires consideration of more facts, specific to the areas in question. The GIS model requires assumptions of parcel size and the number of contiguous parcels. With those inputs the model maps “enclaves” that match those criteria. The modeling is dependent upon valid assumptions which, as discussed below, are complex and not “one size fits all.”

The key is determining the correct criteria. The final proposal for a valid rural residential enclaves approach must employ the appropriate framework and criteria to achieve the stated goals.

The discussion paper suggests staff wrestled with the concepts of neighborhoods, community, enclave, rural, and density. None of these are neatly defined terms. Understandably, the draft did not include concrete approaches to this complex assessment. There is no obvious parcel size or number of parcels. Staff modeled various parcel sizes (e.g., 1, 2, 3, 5 acres), but presented results for only 2 acres and at least 50 contiguous parcels in the discussion paper. This yielded 43 enclaves. The result, of course, depends on the inputs. The variability underscores the need for a finessed approach to inputs.

We believe the enclave concept has merit, but the criteria need to be changed to “enhance neighborhood compatibility and environmental protections.” All residences deserve protection with minimum setbacks to ensure that no cannabis terpenes, including the carcinogenic beta-myrcene, enter a non-cannabis parcel.2 The result must protect many more residential clusters (enclaves) than are in the draft proposal.

The following exemplify some of the defects in the draft approach:

• Most (if not all) of the parcels in the 43 proposed enclaves are already protected under the current ordinance (and would be even under the proposed 5 acre minimum). The proposal provides no enhanced protection, and is a useless effort if the criteria are unchanged.

• The areas around some of the proposed enclaves have similar characteristics outside the enclave boundary as inside. A boots-on-the-ground look reveals the 2 acre/50 parcel model covers very few residential situations. See Attachment A, our study of one such area in West County.

• The 2-acre criterion is nonsensical because it is much smaller than the current 10-acre minimum or even the proposed 5-acre minimum.

_{2 Permit Sonoma understands that even seven residences require a buffer from a cultivation site. It recently denied a permit at 8105 Davis Lane, Penngrove, citing neighborhood incompatibility.}

The requirement for a minimum of 50 contiguous parcels does not address the neighborhood compatibility problem the public has been raising for years. Based on reviewing the maps, it makes it worse, as many residential areas are not protected. The discussion paper states, “to be more inclusive, staff selected 50 parcels.” That decision achieves the opposite result, namely resulting in fewer protected parcels and areas. It is true the more parcels, the bigger the area. But by setting the number so high, many small, predominately residential neighborhoods are excluded. Selecting 50 as the input is arbitrary and undermines the project’s goals.

Designating enclaves requires a realistic assessment of results to comply with the Board’s directive to “enhance neighborhood compatibility and environmental protections.” Permit Sonoma should study these areas with boots-on-the ground. As proposed, the GIS model does not achieve its goals. See Attachment A.

‍

Environmental Impact Report (EIR) Considerations

• Analyses of additional residential enclave options using a 5-acre lot size criterion and a minimum of 10 homes should be the baseline for the EIR. There are large acreage parcels with residences clustered on one end of the parcel, often dictated by terrain, water, access roads, fire safety, etc. The EIR must reflect these considerations. The two acre/50 parcel criteria could be included as a project alternative, but we submit it is not a useful analysis.

• Other alternatives encompassing larger parcel sizes and fewer parcel numbers would be appropriate for consideration in the EIR. There are 8,549 parcels over 10 acres in sized zoned Ag and RRD, theoretically allowing 159,000 acres of commercial cultivation (Staff report on Cannabis Ordinance Amendment to BOS, August 7, 2018).

• Permit Sonoma suggests it might apply a 1,000-foot setback from all residentially-zoned parcels, instead of just residential enclaves. We submit this approach is too narrowly focused on how parcels are zoned rather than how parcels are used. Many, if not most conflicts occur in agricultural-zoned land that now contain residences. Long ago the County permitted agricultural-zoned properties to be subdivided into 1-, 2-, 5-,10-acre parcels that allowed for residences to be built, effectively making those parcels unsuitable for true agricultural operations or cannabis cultivation. To “enhance neighborhood compatibility and environmental protections,” setbacks should apply to any residence and neighborhood regardless of its zoning designation.

• Permit Sonoma should study Santa Barbara County’s Existing Developed Residential Neighborhood (EDNR) zone and its impact on neighborhood compatibility with cannabis cultivation. Although Santa Barbara’s approach to commercial cannabis is imperfect, it has long dealt with compatibility issues and has resolved some of them. It established EDRN zones in 2016 to protect Ag lands from residential sprawl. The EDRN were created “to keep pockets of rural residential development from expanding onto adjacent agricultural lands,” and were codified in zoning maps. When commercial cannabis cultivation began inside these zones, neighborhood compatibility conflicts arose like Sonoma County. In 2022 Santa Barbara County amended its zoning to prohibit commercial cannabis activities WITHIN these zones.

• Permit Sonoma should consider Yolo County’s ordinance regarding neighborhood compatibility. Its Health and Safety Clause states “The proposed use, together with the applicable conditions, will not impair the integrity or character of the neighborhood nor be detrimental to the public health, safety, or general welfare.” This approach takes into consideration population, crime rate, record of nuisance abatements, community character, and community support.

‍

The Draft Proposal Does Not Achieve the Stated Goals for Rural Residential Enclaves

The Board of Supervisors has stated the primary goals of updating the cannabis program are to enhance neighborhood compatibility and environmental protections. The draft proposal for residential enclaves fails to achieve these goals. Rather, it would allow commercial cannabis to be cultivated on many more parcels, closer to homes, and allow more incompatible business activities in residential neighborhoods.

Consistent with the invitation for feedback on the modeling process, we hope and trust Permit Sonoma will incorporate the foregoing suggestions as it develops more valid criteria for residential enclaves consistent with the Board’s goals of enhancing neighborhood compatibility and environmental protections.

Thank you in advance for listening to and addressing our concerns.

Neighborhood Coalition

Nancy and Brantly Richardson, Communications Directors SonomaNeighborhoodCoalition@gmail.com

Attachment A: GIS Analysis of a Residential Neighborhood in West County

‍

Attachment A – GIS Analysis of a Residential Neighborhood in West County

Background: The Neighborhood Coalition performed a detailed analysis of an area southwest of the town of Sebastopol to fully understand the consequences of the rural residential enclave criteria utilized in the discussion paper, namely 2-acre max/50 contiguous parcels minimum. The area was not chosen because we want it protected (of course we do), but because some of our members know this area well. They have lived here over 30 years, have moved around this area, have resided in homes inside the proposed enclave boundaries and moved to homes right outside the lines. They have driven, walked, taken their children to schools, know their neighbors, taken care of their residential property, seen their neighbors do the same. They know what activities occur in their neighborhood and what do not.

Analysis and our GIS mapping: We have mapped this West County area (as well as most of West County), depicted Permit Sonoma proposed enclave areas (in yellow), shown each parcel, and color coded them by size (red= under 5 acres, blue= 5-10 acres, no color = over 10 acres). The attached map shows the smaller parcels (1-10 acres) are grouped tightly together. Equally important, the map show plenty of uncolored area, areas representing larger parcels over 10 acres, that nicely sit apart for the smaller parcels, likely away from homes and potentially suitable for cannabis.

The County long ago allowed large Ag properties to be subdivided into 1-, 2-, 5-, 10-acre parcels to accommodate rural residential homes and effectively making them unsuitable for true agricultural operations. Yet the County never changed the zoning. These smaller parcels are near towns, services, and major throughfares, all of which are key elements to support homelife and easily get to work.

In this example (which would likely apply to many similar areas), the smaller parcels (colored in yellow and blue) are primarily residential in nature. There are virtually no true agricultural operations and none are viable. The residents include a few hobby farmers with a few animals (horses, goats, llamas), some grape vines, and some fruit trees. None are commercial in nature, none are nuisances to their neighbors, none impact their neighbors or overutilize common resources (e.g., water). Most parcels have one family home, the family lives there, no commercial activity occurs.

Conclusion: Our position is the enclave criteria suggested (2 acres/50 parcels) is too narrowly set. Permit Sonoma should utilize this example to determine the criteria that would bring all these smaller parcels into an enclave (with the proper setbacks at its boundaries). Then apply these criteria to the County wide GIS enclave mapping. This alternative would most likely be the proper starting point for the EIR study of residential enclaves. And this alternative appears to allow more than enough parcels for commercial cannabis.

‍