Letters to the Editor - Cannabis Proposal still flawed

‍Press Democrat -  recent Letters to the Editor.

The Public Thinks the County's Cannabis Ordinance Stinks

‍

Wednesday Dec 3rd::

County rules allow toxic cannabis emissions

Editor: The supervisors have a final vote on the cannabisenvironmental impact report and new ordinance scheduled on Dec. 9.The straw vote clearly discriminates against agricultural workers and theirfamilies by allowing multi-acre cannabis fields only 100 feet from theirproperty yet providing protection of 1,000 feet for those residing onnon-agricultural parcels. County health and outside medical experts urged forlong setbacks.

Cannabis emissions are toxic. Not only do they stink, theycontain intense irritants that cause respiratory harm and additionally containa potent Prop. 65 carcinogen. Why do our supervisors continue to disregardhealth and safety of farmworkers? They disregarded their health with the AgPass program authorizing working under conditions with thick smoke in mandatorywildfire evacuation areas, causing respiratory harm. Now, under the proposedcannabis rules, they and their children, whose developing lungs are mostsusceptible to air contaminants, would be living in areas with high levels oftoxic cannabis emissions.

As a county that prides itself for agriculture, our supervisorsshould not again throw these essential workers and their families under the busto solely benefit the “haves.” Will any supervisors reconsider their votes toinstead provide protection to all residents from toxic cannabis emissions?

— Deborah A Eppstein, Santa Rosa

‍

Sunday Nov 30th:

A critical flaw in county cannabis ordinance

Editor: Sonoma County’s proposed cannabis ordinanceupdate contains a critical flaw: it creates two classes ofresidents through unequal setback rules.

This disparity must be addressed before the Dec. 9 Board ofSupervisors vote. The updated ordinance requires a 1,000-foot setback forcannabis cultivation from homes on residentially zoned parcels. This willprotect children, farmworkers and family members from air, noise and lightpollution and will begin to address public safety.

However, the same ordinance grants a mere 100-foot setback — 10times less protection — to thousands of homes located on agriculturally zonedparcels.

This is no minor oversight. It affects an estimated 15,000existing homes. By failing to provide uniform setbacks, the county is declaringthat children, farmworkers and residences in those homes don’t deserve to beadequately protected.

Elected officials need to recognize that a home is a home,regardless of its location, and all residences deserve equal protections. Thehealth and safety concerns surrounding large-scale commercial cannabisoperations do not stop simply because a home is surrounded by agriculturalland.

— Grace Barresi, Sebastopol

‍

Submitted to PD Nov 25th: :

SonomaCounty’s proposed cannabis ordinance violates State law.

The County’s plans for cannabis events, farm-stand sales, ministerial cropswaps and calling it “Controlled Agriculture” simply aren’t legal. Under Statelaw, cannabis events must occur in licensed, permanent venues with strictsecurity, testing, and retail protocols. “Farm-stand” sales by growers areprohibited unless handled by a licensed retailer in a secure, monitoredfacility. And there is no such thing as a “ministerial” cannabis permit — everysite requires a full environmental and tribal review.Yet the County continues to promote policies that break these rules, puttingneighbors, workers, and taxpayers at risk while forcing state agencies to cleanup the mess later. Sonoma County has become one of the state’s worst offenders,according to regulators themselves.Supervisors should stop rushing a flawed ordinance that invites lawsuits anderodes public trust. The public deserves governance grounded in law, notlobbying — and leadership that protects Sonoma County’s reputation, not thecannabis industry’s profits.

‍---Bill Krawetz, Sebastopol

‍

Friday Nov 28th:

For fairness, apply setback rules evenly

Editor: Supervisor Lynda Hopkins wants the cannabis industry inSonoma County to be treated fairly. In other words, whatever is allowed for awinery, vineyard or any other type of traditional agriculture should be allowedfor cannabis — hoop houses, events, use of ethanol for processing, on-sitesales, etc.

On Oct. 28, at a public hearing on the cannabis ordinanceupdate, a straw vote by the supervisors approved a safer 1,000-footsetback from outdoor cannabis to residentially zoned parcels, due to the odornuisance.

If fairness and well-being of all residents is important, thenthe 1,000-foot setbacks should be implemented evenly to all parcels, regardlessof zoning.

This safer setback should apply to all outdoor cannabis projectswith an application in the pipeline. Grandfathering an inferior setback to anunvested project that is not built yet would undermine the promised intentionsof the new ordinance and would not provide the improved protection from thesickening odor.

I say yes on 1,000-foot setbacks for all parcels, no ongrandfathering for applications in the pipeline. All we the public are askingfor is fairness, consistency and the right to breathe fresh air.

— Pam Tichy, Sebastopol

‍

Thursday Nov 27st:

County should rethink cannabis ordinance changes

Editor: The Bennett Valley Grange urges our supervisors to delaytheir vote on the revised commercial cannabis ordinance tentativelyscheduled for Dec. 9. There are many provisions that would have harmful impactson rural residents, vineyards and the environment.

These large industrial-like drug manufacturing operationsviolate the Bennett Valley Area Plan. The ordinance also violates multiplestate laws, all of which are supposed to preserve and protect our area’s ruralcharacter and environment. The Farm Bureau, California Department of Fish andGame, Sierra Club, county health director and many vineyard and communitygroups support our position on this.
While the current price collapse of marijuana may prevent this scenario fromhappening overnight, this revised ordinance would provide large commercialcannabis industry operators a long-term path to large-scale development plansthroughout our last remaining open spaces.

Proposition 64 wasa mandate by voters to decriminalize marijuana, but it was not a mandate toplace large commercial cannabis operations next to our homes. They belong inindustrial areas. This vote should be delayed, and this revised ordinanceredrafted to remove the harms to rural communities and environment.

— Moira Jacobs, president Bennett Valley Grange

‍

Wednesday Nov 26th:

Cannabis events aren’tcompatible with road safety

Editor: On Nov. 13 and Nov. 21, there were serious injuryaccidents on Bennett Valley Road. The frequency of such incidents appears to berising, and it is expected that county supervisors will seek to improve roadsafety. However, current efforts are focused on passing a new cannabisordinance that would expand cultivation and permit tastingevents at cannabis sites — measures that are incompatible with rural roadconditions. A widely supported recommendation is to establish exclusion zones,including the Bennett Valley area. Supervisor Rebecca Hermosillo supports theexpanded ordinance. She needs to clarify how these changes will benefit thecommunity, given the concerns raised.

— Cathy Crowley, Santa Rosa

‍

‍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

‍