‍Cannabis Fact of the Day # 13 - Sonoma County has no policy assuring cannabis events won't impact your safety

Staff is silent regarding the possibility that additional code enforcement personnel might need to be hired to enforce the regulations they propose for events. Will the BOS knowingly pass an ordinance if they suspect it cannot be enforced?  How many people will Sonoma County have to hire to enforce California law at these events?  How many sheriff’s officers will be necessary to ensure road are safety?  Will taxes from these events pay for these extra employees and security personnel, or will the rest of us have to pay to ensure that all of us are safe?  Does the Board of Supervisors have a plan to enforce safety for guests, neighbors, visitors and all the rest of us sharing the roadways? Where is the plan to pay for cannabis events?  

Events, by any size or name, are prohibited in Marin, Yolo, Mendocino, Santa Barbara, and Napa counties.  

‍

Cannabis Fact of the Day # 14 - Will the Sonoma County Ordinance proposals allow an unlimited number of pot events?

 
How is smoking cannabis at a cultivation location the same as sipping wine in a tasting room? It isn’t, but Sonoma County staff wants you to think they’re exactly alike. A tasting room is a building. A cannabis cultivation location won’t be required to have a building to smoke cannabis in; instead they will be able to hold “small visitor serving activities” outside, apparently with no requirements for noise control, for bathroom facilities (including enough septic capacity), or for adequate parking. These newly invented “small visitor serving activities” are EVENTS, and should be controlled and regulated. Will the Board of Supervisors require that these new “small visitor serving activities” be considered the events that they are, require permits to ensure neighborhood compatibility, require compliance with State law, and carefully consider the safety of everyone driving our narrow rural roads?

It is still unclear whether the venues for the large - 100+ person events to be held on any AG or RRD parcel will need a Use Permit or just a Zoning Permit for a Special Event. Regardless, the event provisions in the draft Ordinance do not comply with the Department of Cannabis Control State regulations stating that if there is cannabis consumption and retail sales - it is an EVENT. Also, every event must be licensed by the state, and the licensed event coordinator must provide on-site SECURITY personnel, that are licensed by the Bureau of Security and Investigative Services.

‍

Cannabis Fact of the Day # 15 - Losing your health and safety to commercial pot forever

Why are expiration dates meaningless to Sonoma County staff? For some unadmitted and unexplained reason, staff is proposing that all existing cannabis permits with expiration dates shouldn’t expire but should instead be able to continue forever. Forever! And, even worse, those cannabis operations won’t be required to meet any of the conditions of the new proposed County cannabis ordinance. This means that anyone living next to a currently permitted outdoor cannabis growing operation only 100’ from their home will have to smell the stench forever. Forever! Will the Board of Supervisors allow this to happen, or will they instead do the right thing and require all cannabis operations with a permit expiration date to meet all new operating requirements to continue operating or be terminated?

The grandfathering/pipeline proposal creates a new “go around” for existing permitted grows and for those in the pipeline. Currently such uses would be deemed “legal non-conforming” and would terminate if the use were abandoned for one year. Under the current code “legal non-conforming” uses are allowed one 10% expansion and nothing more. But Staff is now proposing these permits would “run with the Land” and exist in perpetuity.

‍

Cannabis Fact of the Day # 16 - No protection from negative impacts of cannabis operations!

Why does Sonoma County staff seem to think it’s a good idea to subject residents and neighbors to negative effects of commercial cannabis operations?  Currently, Sonoma County’s code protects help neighbors and residents from negative impacts of cannabis operations with a health and safety clause:

"Commercial cannabis activity shall not create a public nuisance or adversely affect the health or safety of the nearby residents or businesses by creating dust, light, glare, heat, noise, noxious gasses, odor, smoke, traffic, vibration, unsafe conditions or other impacts, or be hazardous due to the use or storage of materials, processes, products, runoff or wastes.”

But that protection is now completely gone. Why? Will the Board of Supervisors admit that commercial cannabis operations can have negative impacts on the residents of the County and require the health and safety clause be put back into the proposed cannabis ordinance? Will the Board of Supervisors do the right thing and protect the health and safety of its residents?

Staffhas confirmed that this level of protection, including from odors and other volatile organic compounds (VOCs), does NOT appear elsewhere in county code.The Health and Safety clause gives county regulators much better control when issuing permits, so they do not harm neighbors or cause public nuisance. The Health and Safety clause should be retained in the new cannabis ordinance as currently written. This is an evolving industry and new issues may arise. The clause is much more transparent to the public.

Cannabis Fact of the Day # 17 - Score: Cannabis industry 1,  Public 0.   Sonoma County forgetting the public in their "balanced" approach.

Sonoma County staff has thrown all County residents under the proverbial bus and then backed over them. Twice. Despite the goal of achieving balance between cannabis operations and neighborhoods, including establishment of exclusion and inclusion zones, the cannabis Environmental Impact Report and proposed cannabis ordinance are almost entirely about increasing the cannabis industry’s opportunities for making money at the expense of everyone else. We searched for the sections where alleged “balance” occurs, but they don’t exist. Will the Board of Supervisors demand to see a complete list of everything done to protect neighbors of cannabis operations, or are they just clinging to the hope that cannabis might make money some day and pay more taxes than they cost the general fund? Will the Board of Supervisors demand that staff follow their original direction and protect neighbors, potential neighbors, and all residents of Sonoma County?

In the Program Update, staff acknowledged the purpose of the EIR was to increase compatibility between cannabis land uses and the nearby neighborhoods. Doing its “due diligence,” staff invited input from neighbors who, in good faith, contributed practical, intelligent, educated and well researched suggestions. Sadly, staff dismissed, minimized or ignored those thoughtful responses. Instead, staff seemed to treat the process as a competition, wanting to “win,” rather than to collaborate to identify the best outcome for all county residents. With staff’s attitude, predictably, the results were imbalanced and heavily weighted in favor of the cannabis interests. Residents and neighborhoods remain vulnerable, and their health, safety, welfare and peaceful existence remain unprotected

Cannabis Fact of the Day # 18 - Sonoma County ignores the science when they don't like the answer

Ignoring scientific facts when you don’t like them – does Sonoma County aspire to be just like our current Federal Government? Sonoma County staff has ignored extensive rigorous scientific evidence proving that cannabis emissions have respiratory irritants, including Beta-Myrcene, which can cause cancer in animals, instead preferring to pretend that humans aren’t going to affected by cannabis emissions.

Instead of ignoring reports showing that up to 70% of cannabis workers DO have respiratory irritation, and 38% have asthma, Sonoma County should protect not only cannabis workers, but residents near cannabis cultivation who will also be breathing those same cannabis emissions. Even worse, it will be decades until we know whether this exposure to Beta-Myrcene will cause cancer in those who breath it regularly breathed it decades earlier.

Cannabis operators can responsibly protect their employees, and maybe they will even if Sonoma County doesn’t require such protection, but they won’t be protecting neighbors of cannabis cultivation. Those neighbors will be breathing cannabis emissions 24/7, multiplying the negative effects – and possible future cancer – four fold. The only way to protect neighbors of cannabis cultivation emissions is distance – cannabis cultivation must be far enough away from residential locations that there will be no significant negative health effects.

Will the Board of Supervisors take appropriate and necessary action to ensure our residents won’t suffer negative health effects? Or do they just not care about either science or the people who live here?

Cannabis Fact of the Day # 19 - Sonoma County policy that will increase the number of stoned drivers on our roads

Why does Sonoma County staff want to increase the number of stoned drivers on our roads?  A recent scientific study discovered that 42% of traffic deaths in Ohio are attributed to drivers being high on cannabis.  How many of Sonoma County’s traffic accidents are a result of this type of impaired driver?

The proposed cannabis ordinance will actively encourage cannabis consumption at thousands of annual events in our rural areas.  Why does staff want to make it more dangerous to drive and bike on our roads?

 Will the Board of Supervisors vote to eliminate these dangerous cannabis consumption events and protect everyone who drives or rides a bike on our rura lroads? 

‍

Got this email from a friend or neighbor and want to sign up?
Click here to sign up.
 

And for more up to date Sonoma County cannabis news and the overview of key issues, take a look at our website, get added to our mailing list.