Three Letter to the Editor - Cannabis Proposal still flawed

‍Press Democrat - Three recent Letters to the Editor.

The Public Thinks the County's Cannabis Ordinance Stinks

‍

‍Tuesday Nov 25th:

‍Cannabis setback rules should apply to everyone

Editor: Sonoma County residents deserve fairness and protection under the updated cannabis ordinance. The current proposal would allow existing cannabis applications to be “grandfathered” under outdated, weaker setback rules — and with the new ordinance eliminating term limits, these would become forever permits. This means projects approved under old standards could continue indefinitely, even if they don’t meet today’s health and safety requirements. If new setbacks are needed to protect our neighborhoods, they should apply to all pending applications — not just future ones. Our right to breathe clean air and enjoy our homes should not depend on when a permit application was filed. I urge the supervisors: require all cannabis operations to comply with the updated setbacks.

— Veva Edelson, Petaluma

Tuesday Nov 21st:

Supervisors should reject revised cannabis ordinance

Editor: With its development of a revised cannabis ordinance, the Board of Supervisors directed Permit Sonoma to focus on neighborhood compatibility and “protection of public health and safety and racial and socio-economic equity.” Permit Sonoma invited the public to submit their concerns and suggestions, then promptly went rogue, rejecting the suggestions and substituting its “Cannabis Project 2025” playbook. The resulting ordinance expands and creates new ways for cannabis to dominate and mar our beautiful county.

Instead of resolving neighborhood compatibility, Permit Sonoma started with the insupportable notion that cannabis cultivation is not a nuisance and has no health hazards. The pro-cannabis campaign continued with creating unrecognized terminology, extending cannabis cultivation and ignoring proven health hazards from cannabis emissions.

The proposed ordinance endorses consumption at hundreds of events and disregards public safety, placing impaired drivers on rural roads. Furthermore, it violates multiple state laws and elicited strenuous objections from the Sierra Club, Farm Bureau and California Department of Fish and Wildlife, a trustee agency with responsibility under CEQA. Permit Sonoma opted to ignore them all. The environmental impact report fails to comply with the board’s directives and sets the stage for another debacle like the Sonoma Development Center. The board should reject it.

— Libby Hutton, Santa Rosa

‍

Tuesday Nov 18th:

County cannabis rules ignore state, federal law

Editor: Sonoma County supervisors have tentatively given cannabis cultivators Right to Farm ordinance protection, shielding them from nuisance suits for unhealthy air emissions (“Supes OK new pot industry regulations,” Oct. 30). But there are pesky problems. This ordinance violates the California Right to Farm law, which requires compliance with federal law and cannabis to be classified as an agricultural crop. Cannabis may become classified as a Schedule III instead of a Schedule I drug, but cultivation would remain a violation of the federal Controlled Substances Act. The ordinance also violates California nuisance law and Health and Safety Code sections governing air contaminants.

County Counsel Robert Pittman was a potted plant during the hearing. He never mentioned the state law violations despite a duty to do so. When the Planning Commission considered this issue in 2021, one commissioner asked whether Sonoma County could adopt an ordinance that violates state law. The deputy county counsel replied “no.” Nothing has changed.

Newly appointed Permit Sonoma Director Scott Orr led the policy discussions and deftly sneaked this illegal provision through. Orr said “people’s faith in government is shaken and we can restore that” (“New Permit Sonoma chief gets to work,” Nov. 9). Misleading the public about their rights is an inauspicious and cynical means of restoring faith in county government.

— Craig S. Harrison, Santa Rosa

‍