YOUR Input Matters!

Cannabis Ordinance

Public Comments due July 15

Cannabis grow site in Santa Barbara County—hoop houses galore

Many members of the Bennett Valley Community have already submitted persuasive letters to the SoCo Planning Commission regarding the gutting of the  Sonoma County cannabis ordinance, written by the marijuana industry.  We need as many concerned residents as possible to submit letters of opposition.

The draft cannabis ordinance allows vineyards to be “swapped” for marijuana plantations without any consideration of water, unhealthy odors, or other environmental issues. You might wake up one morning and discover that ministerial permits have been issued behind your back. They never expire. No one evaluates cumulative impacts even when permit after permit could be issued for up to 470 acres in Bennett Valley.

The county deems hoop houses to be “temporary” if they stand for 6 months or less, and are not subject to siting or aesthetic reviews. Our beloved Bennett Valley may look like this Santa Barbara County grow site, above.

The marijuana industry has financial problems today, but that could change. Sonoma County is playing Russian roulette with the future of Bennett Valley, with a pistol is squarely pointed at our collective heads.

Other major problems include:

·      Forcing neighbors to breath noxious and unhealthy odors, including the carcinogen Beta-Myrcene, in their homes.

·      Despite the prohibition on commercial activities in our area plan, the ordinance allows weekly events, including sales and consumption, as well as retail sales and consumption at “farm stands.” If you don’t want to live around stoned drivers on our narrow rural roads you can move, perhaps to another state.

WHAT YOU CAN DO NOW:

·      Email your concerns by July 15^th to:

           PlanningAgency@sonoma-county.org    and cc:

Cannabis@sonoma-county.org

Also cc: Supervisor Rebecca Hermosillo and ask her to protect Bennett Valley.

During her campaign, Supervisor Hermosillo promised “I do not believe either a farmer’s cannabis farm or a consumer’s cannabis smoke should ever affect the public and our neighborhoods.” 

The full comment period ends July 15th, after which there will be additional hearings (with the Planning Commission and Board of Supervisors). Eventually Permit Sonoma will release a final Environmental Impact Report which the Board of Supervisors will consider approving on October 28th.

The 830-pagedraft Environmental Impact Report includes an Executive Summary plus a wordsearch feature and can be found here. Its appendices include:  A (comments received), B (proposed draft ordinance), C (air quality, energy, greenhouse, and odor studies), D (noise study), E (economics study).

Please voice your objections to the Planning Commission.

Pick a few of these topics below to include in your comments:

1.   Crop Swaps allowed: A field of grapes or an apple orchard can be “swapped” to 10 acres of cannabis without any environmental review of water, odor, or other issues. In other words, neighbors living in a peaceful, traditional agricultural area where grapes and apples are grown suddenly are living next to acres of cannabis. Neighbors would have no prior notice or opportunity to object.
2.         Air/Odor Pollution: Forcing neighbors to breath noxious and unhealthy odors including the carcinogen, Beta-Myrcene, in their homes because of inadequate setbacks and lot sizes.
3.         Neighborhood Compatibility Not Achieved: While claiming improving neighborhood compatibility is the priority, the proposal for a 600-foot setback quickly reveals that representation as a sham as it only applies to small subset of properties (Homes on Ag zoned properties aren’t included).  Though the current ordinance is inadequate, even it provides better setback protection than the DEIR for many residents.
4.         Parcel Size Reduced: The minimum lot size for cultivation is reduced from 10 to 5 acres, inflicting nuisances on more neighbors and more exposure to the noxious and unhealthy odors. In other words, more cannabis grows can be shoe-horned into unsuspecting neighborhoods often with no opportunity to object.
5.         Setbacks Reduced: The minimum setback of a cultivation site from your home and property is reduced from 300feet to 100 feet. Your new next-door neighbor might be a field of huge, stinky cannabis plants with noisy workers. Your only recourse may be to move away.
6.         Unlimited Events and Retail allowed most everywhere: The DEIR would permit weekly events, including sales and consumption in rural areas as well as retail sales and consumption at “farmstands.” Imagine the behavior of drivers after purchasing and imbibing cannabis as they drive stoned on narrow rural roads. In addition to the dangers on the roads, these rural events and sales of cannabis will attract crime with scant law enforcement to protect the innocent.
7.          Redefining Cannabis in order to eliminate your right to object: Contrary to State law, the County is trying to treat cannabis as a “controlled agricultural crop.” The similarities are non-existent. Agriculture promotes food, not drugs. This effort by the County is stunning and unprecedented.

A sample letter to the Planning Commission, from a Bennett Valley resident:

Re: Preliminary Comments on Draft Cannabis Environmental Impact Report

The Draft EIR on cannabis in Sonoma County has been so manipulated by the cannabis industry that it now bears little resemblance to the ordinance proposals of years past. We in Bennett Valley are very concerned about the changes, and wish to reinforce our opposition to cannabis operations in our area.

Our Bennett Valley 'constitution' is the Bennett Valley Area Plan (BVAP), a 50-year-old document which lays out stringent land use guidelines to maintain and protect the natural beauty and health of our environment, and to prevent commercial development. Because we have this protection in place, we find many of the DEIR points to be in conflict with the BVAP. Commercial development is expressly forbidden within the 25 square mile zone of the BVAP.

Parcel Size and Setbacks Reduced:
Setbacks reduced from 300 to 100 feet:  Marijuana stench needs to stop at the property line--100 feet is not nearly enough. We propose a 1000’ minimum.

Parcel size reduced from 10 acres to 5 acres: Unacceptable, and not neighborhood compatible. More nuisances, more exposures to odor, chemicals, noise, dust, light pollution. A checkerboard of small grow parcels jammed in to the fabric of Bennett Valley is not in compliance with the BVAP. Our sensitive riparian areas don’t need the toxic load that comes with the multiple chemical treatments cannabis requires.

Farmstands and Lounges:
Have you tried cannabis lately? It is massively potent. One hit is enough to render a user significantly impaired. We don't want more intoxicated drivers on our dangerous roads. Bennett Valley Road is notorious for accidents as it is currently; adding a new cohort of drivers under the influence is a lethal prospect.

Crop Swaps:
Neighbors would have no prior notice if a vineyard were to be converted to a marijuana operation, and no recourse after the fact.  Ask yourself--would you like to live next door to such an enterprise? There are numerous disturbing testimonials from people who live adjacent to pungent grow sites, and they are heart-breaking. Not only the disruption of a formerly peaceful lifestyle, but also negatively impacted property values. A grower neighbor is a liability. Crime follow cannabis.

Redefinition of Commercial Production:
A disingenuous semantic move--renaming a commercial product a "controlled agricultural crop" is contrary to State law. Agriculture promotes food, not intoxicating drugs.

Neighborhood Compatibility? :
What ever happened to the Exclusion Zone concept? That idea was in discussion four years ago, and it has evaporated. Why? Please explain why this piece has-been jettisoned from the DEIR?

Elephant in the Room:
Cannabis production is a moribund enterprise--it is failing to meet the rosy financial predictions. Wholesale prices for marijuana have plummeted, the market is saturated and the total acreage in outdoor cultivation has dropped significantly.  This 'program' that was touted to bring in abundant tax revenues is not performing, and the taxpayers of the county are now, and will be, subsidizing it.  The cost of administering the program is not being supported as planned. Time to cut your losses, and end it. No other Bay Area Counties allow commercial growing; they see the boondoggle that is happening in Sonoma County and are wisely keeping their hands off.