Dear Neighbors,
On November 29, Permit Sonoma released information on the cannabis program update. This is background for two public informational meetings on Wednesday, December 13, to inform the public of its plan for residential enclaves/exclusion zones and proposed changes to key provisions.
The first meeting will be in person at the Board of Supervisors Chambers from 5:30 PM to 6:30 PM. The second meeting will be conducted via Zoom from 7:00 PM to 8:00 PM. The same information will be presented at both meetings.
Register for the Zoom webinar here. The documentation of the proposed updates is on the County website.
Stated Goals are not being met:
Permit Sonoma represents the primary goals of the cannabis program update are to enhance neighborhood compatibility and environmental protections. However, the proposal provides much less protection than the current ordinance. It would encourage and allow commercial cannabis to be grown on many more parcels, thus allowing commercial grows to be more prevalent in neighborhoods. This contradicts any purported enhancement of neighborhood compatibility and environmental protections, the stated reason and goal of the ordinance update. To the contrary, increased numbers of commercial grows magnify the incompatibility and environmental offenses. Furthermore, there is no offsetting financial benefit to the County given the industry’s failure to generate tax revenue.
The following are some initial reactions.
Proposed General Program Changes:
- 5-acre minimum parcel size, reduced from the current 10 acres. (Very Bad!)
- Minor change in setback rules: 300 feet from the property line; 1,000 feet from “sensitive uses” (schools, parks, day care, enclaves) (Bad to reduce acre size, and not increase setbacks to offset impacts; they should go hand in hand)
- Allow at cultivation sites: retail, educational tours, special events (Very Bad!)
- Cannabis redefined as an agricultural use, in violation of state law.
Residential Enclave/Exclusion Zone Proposal:
- The criteria are 2-acre maximum parcel size and at least 50 contiguous parcels. A 2-acre criterion is nonsensical because it is much smaller than the current 10-acre minimum or the proposed 5-acre minimum.
- Most of the parcels in the 43 proposed enclaves are already protected under the current ordinance, so the proposal provides little additional protection.
- The proposal continues to allow cannabis cultivation scattered throughout the county in incompatible areas where there is strong local resistance. It ignores neighborhood requests to be non-cannabis enclaves. The proposal will prolong and accentuate the current program’s obvious failures and neighborhood conflicts.
- The County has provided an interactive map in which the public can enter their home address to see if included. Find the Link to interactive Cannabis Ordinance Update GIS map. We suggest using this link to see how your address and neighborhood are treated. You will find in most cases some parts of your neighborhood included while the majority excluded for no logical reason.
Comments and Feedback for County Staff:
- Provide the public with a comparison where cannabis cultivation is currently allowed and where it would be allowed on under this proposal. Provide maps, acreage, number of parcels, etc. so the public fully understands the proposal and impacts.
- Residential enclaves as proposed protect few areas not already protected under the current ordinance. This is a cynical and useless effort.
- Residential enclave criteria of 2 acres maximum and a minimum of 50 contiguous parcels do not address the neighborhood compatibility problem the public has been raising for years. It will make it worse.
- Neighborhoods of 10 homes deserve protection.
- Analyses of additional residential enclave options using the criteria of 5-acre lot size and a minimum of 10 homes should be the baseline for the environmental impact report. The 2 acre/50 parcel criteria would best be included as a project alternative (Alternatives are required in every EIR).
- Reducing minimum lot size from 10 acres to 5 acres aggravates neighborhood compatibility problems.
- 1,000-foot setbacks for “sensitive uses” should apply everywhere. People who are protected by 1,000-foot setbacks at “sensitive uses” areas spend much more time in their homes (where only the 300 foot setback is proposed).
- The proposal fails to require or address protections to the public from the carcinogen, beta myrcene, which is produced by cannabis cultivation.
- Educational tours and periodic special events are ripe for abuse, impossible to monitor, and will create the same conflicts as winery events.
- Retail at rural cultivation sites is a horrible idea. Urban retail sites are frequent targets of armed robberies. Rural retail sites will be more inviting for crime because there is essentially no effective law enforcement. Furthermore, consumption at grow sites is prohibited by State law.
Call to Action and Supporting the Public Good
Please make your voices heard at the December 13th hearings. Even more important, we know from Public Request Act responses that the County often listens to the cannabis industry more than to ordinary citizens. For this reason, it is important that a legal team, including technical experts, represent our interests throughout the entire revision process. Protecting our neighborhoods from poorly planned cannabis operations comes at a cost to all of us. Please donate today to support this effort.
You can also mail a check to:
Sonoma Neighborhood Coalition
PO Box 1229
Sebastopol, CA 95472
Let’s celebrate this incredible engagement from the citizens and fund the legal support for our positions.
Thank you, the Neighborhood Coalition team