Huge industrial cannabis proposal near Graton

[spam1]

... Graton is in a unique bowl. It is the coldest place in Sonoma County on many clear cold nights.
PS If you live in Graton and have a woodstove or a fireplace please consider using alternative heat if you have it on those cold winter nights. The air polution gets really bad for the above reason. My friend Bert said his neighbor was getting old telephone poles from PGE and burning them last winter.

I lived in Graton for 17 years (I used to take my 5 year old to Skips for french fries, and show him the bullet holes) before moving out of the big city to the hinterlands... And I remember the one night all the pipes froze enough to burst. On our little neighborhood well, the pressure switch would freeze closed on many nights; no water in the morning 'til I got a torch out to thaw it.

To Hijack the thread: We switched to a wood stove with a catalytic converter (EPA approved) and it almost completely eliminated any visible particulate smoke. It would re-burn the smoke on the catalyst and you didn't see any come out of the chimney. It would also damp down so low that the burn rate was maybe 1/5 of what a normal stove was, so you used a lot less wood, but got a lot more heat. We put it in a fireplace, and could not believe the difference. If you burn wood, consider putting one in. It paid for itself in lower wood costs in a few years. Back then it was about $2000. I guess no more wood fireplaces in most of Sonoma county now (unless you are outside the Bay-Area-Air-Resource area, like me).

[Barry]

On the cannabis trail in Graton
By E.I. Hillin, Staff Writer, [email protected] Oct 24, 2018

Cannabis biz along West County Trail stirs protest

A proposed cannabis project along West County Regional Trail has residents fired up and county supervisors

Expand

looking for answers to why bike lane trails are classified differently than regional parks.

Fifth District Supervisor Lynda Hopkins said she believes regional trails are part of the regional parks network.

“In my opinion it should be considered a linear park,” Hopkins said.

But as of now the county does not share that opinion. Although the regional parks department maintains regional trails, county staff told supervisors during the Oct. 16 meeting that the county’s general plan classifies trails as transportation corridors.

A land use permit for cannabis cultivation requires at least a 1,000-foot setback from a park’s property line to the cannabis operation site. Although the West County Regional Trail is listed as recreational and protected within the county’s Open Space and Conservation Element, the 13-acre cannabis site proposed for Graton would not fall under the setback requirement.

Tim Ricard, Sonoma County Cannabis Program Manager, said staff is looking at the issue. “We received direction from the board to explore options,” he said. Ricard and other county staff will present those options in the next cannabis ad hoc meeting.

Graton residents protest cannabis project

Graton residents, who found out about the cannabis application only days before the supervisor’s meeting, worked quickly to assemble a group to show up and voice their concerns. The public comments stirred supervisors to add the issue to the list of potential amendments to the updated cannabis ordinance.

Continues here

[Barry]

Here are our county supervisor, Lynda Hopkins, comments about the cannabis proposal in Graton:

---

"In the middle of October, our office learned of a use permit application for a proposed cannabis cultivation site on Railroad Street in Graton. It is important to note that the application is in the very early phase of the use permit application process.

While I cannot take a formal position for or against a project that might ultimately come before the Board of Supervisors — doing so is illegal and would demonstrate prejudice at a future hearing — please know that, as a matter of policy, I am personally concerned about any cannabis operation in such close proximity to the West County Trail, which is part of our Regional Parks network.

We currently have, in our cannabis ordinance, a 1,000-foot property line setback from parks. The spirit of this rule is designed to keep cannabis cultivation away from public uses, with the idea that families and residents of all ages have a right to enjoy public property without being exposed to cannabis cultivation and any offsite impacts that might arise from it.

Unfortunately, I have learned that county staff chose to interpret the West County Trail as not being part of the Regional Parks park system, but rather a “mode of transportation.” To me, this is completely counterintuitive and contrary to the intent of our ordinance, not to mention the public’s use of the trail.

At the Board of Supervisors meeting on Oct. 16, I requested that my colleagues on the board support me in directing staff to bring back an ordinance that would safeguard our precious trail network. The majority of the board supported my request. I also proposed a moratorium on cannabis cultivation applications adjacent to trails to allow us time to vet this issue and develop an ordinance to address our concerns. Finally, I will work as a member of the Cannabis Ad Hoc with county staff to figure out the best way to move an ordinance and possible moratorium forward.

For those who have questions or concerns about the use permit application, please contact the project planner, Steven Rosen at [email protected]. If you email Steven, your feedback and concerns will be considered by staff as they review the application, and your concerns must be addressed as the use permit process moves forward."

[Jeff Snook]

This is the usual blathering of our leaders. As reasonable as Supervisor Hopkins can sometimes be, she is drinking the NIMBY kool-aid.

Sorry for the delay in responding but my drug factory needed my attention.

1000' setbacks from the trail network is crazy...but not crazy enough!!

If we truly want to protect our most precious resource then we have to ramp up the crazy to a whole new level. Perhaps a level the NIMBY"S haven't thought of yet: so I want to to go on record as the instigator of this novel concept.

Rolling setbacks. Yeah!

How this would work is..the moment a child leaves his or her home a rolling 1000" setback would follow them, throughout the day, where ever they go, everywhere. While this seems like a great idea is does not go far enough.

A better idea would to establish a 'shame' zone where all the things we don't want to see ( or have the little darlings be aware of) would be grouped together in a clustered area of shame.

Tobacco, pornography, politics, booze , and cannabis could only be produced, sold or consumed in this special area of shame. This would give us a community free from offending actions and disgusting substances that are likely to concern someone, anyone, anywhere within the limits of Sonoma County. If we lobby hard enough we can have this utopian scenario

It will be a little tough to get all of the vineyards into such a small place because the area of shame could only go in areas zoned for industrial uses and inside warehouses so as to be out of site of everyone, but especially the children, our most precious resource..

I think that with their current state of misunderstanding, the Supervisors, with their head-in-the-sand, or more often head-up-the-ass understanding of what they are tasked to supervise, would see a rolling setback (for the children) and a exclusion zone of shame, as an expedient way to bring this contentious subject to an efficient close.

Thank you for reading and I would love to hear from other progressive minded people with good ideas about how we can tamp down on freedom until it becomes possible to squash it altogether.

Here are our county supervisor, Lynda Hopkins, comments about the cannabis proposal in Graton:

---

"In the middle of October, our office learned of a use permit application for a proposed cannabis cultivation site on Railroad Street in Graton. It is important to note that the application is in the very early phase of the use permit application process.

While I cannot take a formal position for or against a project that might ultimately come before the Board of Supervisors — doing so is illegal and would demonstrate prejudice at a future hearing — please know that, as a matter of policy, I am personally concerned about any cannabis operation in such close proximity to the West County Trail, which is part of our Regional Parks network.

We currently have, in our cannabis ordinance, a 1,000-foot property line setback from parks. The spirit of this rule is designed to keep cannabis cultivation away from public uses, with the idea that families and residents of all ages have a right to enjoy public property without being exposed to cannabis cultivation and any offsite impacts that might arise from it.

Unfortunately, I have learned that county staff chose to interpret the West County Trail as not being part of the Regional Parks park system, but rather a “mode of transportation.” To me, this is completely counterintuitive and contrary to the intent of our ordinance, not to mention the public’s use of the trail.

At the Board of Supervisors meeting on Oct. 16, I requested that my colleagues on the board support me in directing staff to bring back an ordinance that would safeguard our precious trail network. The majority of the board supported my request. I also proposed a moratorium on cannabis cultivation applications adjacent to trails to allow us time to vet this issue and develop an ordinance to address our concerns. Finally, I will work as a member of the Cannabis Ad Hoc with county staff to figure out the best way to move an ordinance and possible moratorium forward.

For those who have questions or concerns about the use permit application, please contact the project planner, Steven Rosen at [email protected]. If you email Steven, your feedback and concerns will be considered by staff as they review the application, and your concerns must be addressed as the use permit process moves forward."

[O.W.]

This project is still in the pipeline at Permit Sonoma. Maybe waiting on the trail/park ruling?

...As a result of this unforeseen circumstance, we have been forced to consider alternative plans for our property....

[Jeff Snook]

O (zero) permits have been issued through unPermit Sonoma. Everything is a permanent pipeline with no end.

This project is still in the pipeline at Permit Sonoma. Maybe waiting on the trail/park ruling?

[Goat Rock Ukulele]

The upper half of that property is ideal for desperately needed housing. Making it into a weed farm is really a waste of one of the only areas where development of a tiny house community or regular residential housing makes sense. It is within a stones throw of existing sewer and above a huge aquifer and right on a bike/walking trail.

[ChefJayTay]

The upper half of that property is ideal for desperately needed housing. Making it into a weed farm is really a waste of one of the only areas where development of a tiny house community or regular residential housing makes sense. It is within a stones throw of existing sewer and above a huge aquifer and right on a bike/walking trail.

Awesome... why don't you make an offer and do that.

[Dorothy Friberg]

I think you need to roll another one and breathe deep.

This is the usual blathering of our leaders. As reasonable as Supervisor Hopkins can sometimes be, she is drinking the NIMBY kool-aid...

[Jeff Snook]

I think your condescending attitude is typical of the fearful and ignorant.

I think you need to roll another one and breathe deep.

[Jeff Snook]

This is regurgitated 'news'. There is nothing there but NIMBY propaganda disguised as news.

Like all issues with ignorant fanatics on one side, they will prevail, for a while, but common sense will inevitably shut them down.

There is a saying in scientific fields that ' science advances one funeral at a time'. Old, misinformed beliefs need to die off and make room for progress. This will most certainly happen but it is frustrating to see my neighbors staggering around spewing nonsense and lies simply because of their ignorance of the facts and fear of what they don't understand.

There's a lot about this in the current Sonoma County Gazette. ...

[ChefJayTay]

I would think these people have a legal case against our county should they implement this ordinance.
After a legitimate business has spent considerable money to buy land and make modifications to fit current regulations.
Then again, people around here seem to like paying frivolous taxes.

[Dorothy Friberg]

My concern is not the structures as ling as there is a proper setback; I'm worried about the large trucks accessing that property by a narrow road adjoining the bike path.

[rossmen]

You are stretching imagination, wearing their shoes as wings. In my estimation the current owners of this property are clued in dolts, and plowed the land before rain to prepare for sale, after getting hammered for plans. So imaging the land for sale again, above and below the bike trail, for close to 1.7 mill, is a clear possibility. The 5th district sup has named this with the possibility of matching funds. That would be for open space. To build out with tiny homes? No public funds and a nimby linch mob bigger than the current jackalope posse.

My sense is the applicants will let their permit be denied then file suit. You need to get the denial in writing before having grounds for a lawsuit.

Moving the goal posts. Changing the rules specifically for the purpose of blocking this particular project because it happens to have a bike path nearby.

The applicants message above may have meant they will go ahead and build greenhouses for other agriculture, then sue to gain the right to transition those greenhouses for cannabis.

btw, I know the Sonoma County Gazette is not journalism. All the "articles" are written by volunteers who want to present their perspective on an issue. So the whole thing is really a collection of letters to the editor and opinion pieces really. No attempt at balance or ethical standards.

[rossmen]

The adjoining property owner had an interesting letter in the gazette. He pointed out the declining price for pot in Oregon and wondered about abandoned infrastructure. Legal cannabis is a reality we hold the tail on and wonder where it will whip us.

My concern is not the structures as ling as there is a proper setback; I'm worried about the large trucks accessing that property by a narrow road adjoining the bike path.

[rossmen]

Hey! I support the tiny home idea. I think the upper part is perfect for this. Hopkins would probably like it too. And the current owners would probably love to piss off neighbors even more after the grief they've gotten for their pot plantation plans.

So your hero Lynda is going to save you all by buying the property. Isn't that just lovely!

[Dorothy Friberg]

OK lets be honest here, the paranoia is as thick as the people who smoke it. Are the 'Jackalope' people local people or do they just want to impose their INDUSTRY on a local quiet neighborhood? Asking for setbacks is not unreasonable and consideration for neighbors does seem to be going where the President wishes to take it - down the toilet. I respect and admire Linda Hopkins as she represents ALL OF US, neighbors as well as pot heads.

The Jackalope people were at the county supervisor's meeting this morning. Three of them. Owner, a contractor, I think he said he was with Acre Construction and he would be building the project, and another fellow. They spoke publicly and also I spoke with them on their way out. As far as they are concerned their project is going forward.Told me they wanted to appear and speak to look directly at Hopkins. When I said it seems the 1,000 ft setback to the bike path was just brought up now to thwart their project the guy replied "yeah."

[ChefJayTay]

...

I am still unsure how these certain trails are *legally* different from the ones paralleling many train tracks (including through much of Santa Rosa's Industrial zoned land). This is in addition to my previous questioning as to how much of a legal case these people would have, especially if they're going to cherry pick trails to exclude.

[Barry]

There's a good article in the current Bohemian on the proposed Graton Cannabis development:



Grow-Site Pain

https://www.bohemian.com/northbay/gr...wFullText=true

---

My Comments:

1) The trail should clearly be considered "parkland". It is self-evident. It's been an oversight that it hasn't been considered as such vis-a-vis the new cannabis ordinance. Seem like it should apply to other zoning regulations as well, but that's a bigger topic.

2) If true, Lynda's objection to the applicant "bribing" Supervisor Zane with pumpkins is silly. Really?? Worthy of an apology from Lynda.

3) Regarding cannabis's odor: Seems like this is just another "note" in the "Sonoma Aroma", and a more pleasant one at that! Cannabis is just the next crop and should be covered by the (outdated?) right-to-farm protections.

[ChefJayTay]

The trail should clearly be considered "parkland". It is self-evident.

I don't agree. To the public, there's little difference. However, from the government perspective reclassifying this means a difference in who's paying for it. If it's parkland, will potential state & fed funds still apply? Who's in charge of repairs?

[Dorothy Friberg]

These trails are already maintained by Sonoma County Parks, from a government perspective. Probably state and fed funds would only be involved if grants were involved.

...However, from the government perspective reclassifying this means a difference in who's paying for it. If it's parkland, will potential state & fed funds still apply? Who's in charge of repairs?

[Jeff Snook]

The trails are in the Parks system because......there is nowhere else, administratively, for them to go.
The park/no park setback is just all smoke and mirrors to continue to confuse the real issue.

If the NIMBY's could work up enough hysteria about the color and placement of fire hydrants then they would insist that the county paint them another less offensive color because Cannabis needs to have the correct fire hydrate color and location to keep the community safe. Or some other nonsense that they will repeat ad nauseum They will inflate the community with lies and gross exaggerations for as long as their narrative profits them.

I read the comments on the Gogola article and I was impressed by the arrogance of the new Graton NIMBY group. It is the same hype and posturing as the other NIMBY groups that have been a plague to us.

In a FOG they are!

They are owned and maintained by Sonoma County Parks, but that doesn't make them actually "parks" unless you choose to define them as such.

[luke32]

Trying to understand - who is "us?

...I read the comments on the Gogola article and I was impressed by the arrogance of the new Graton NIMBY group. It is the same hype and posturing as the other NIMBY groups that have been a plague to us.

In a FOG they are!

[Dorothy Friberg]

The "hysteria" actually resides in the heads of the HEADS.

...If the NIMBY's could work up enough hysteria about the color and placement of fire hydrants ...

[Dorothy Friberg]

Yaaaaay!!!

bike trails are now going to be "parks" as of dec 11th; ...

[Goat Rock Ukulele]

There is nothing wrong with not wanting a very large scale marijuana operation in your back yard, most especially contiguous to dense residential. I'm not sure why that is hard for some to understand.

This county is 95 percent ag land. There are thousands of pieces of land where this could be done that won't impact a residential neighborhod. I find it strange that anyone would want to develop those lots in this way knowing full well most of the people living in Graton are against it. I think it's crappy to do something like that.

[ChefJayTay]

...

...and they bought county AG land... and started work on a project in a county not unfriendly to the subject, and THEN the community rallied together to write rules against you.
How would you feel?
Would you like to find new property (likely at considerable financial loss), and rebuild because some people are unhappy down the block?

[doghairnancy]

This is not business as usual. We don't know what this is going to become. But we do know this is not food and it's not grown outdoors. It's something 'recreational' with the potential to have a massive impact on our lives, possibly greater than the wine industry, with all its negatives. We've been sold out to big business by our federal government. We aren't going to take a sellout like this by our local government.

[Goat Rock Ukulele]

...and they bought county AG land... and started work on a project in a county not unfriendly to the subject, and THEN the community rallied together to write rules against you.
How would you feel?
Would you like to find new property (likely at considerable financial loss), and rebuild because some people are unhappy down the block?

I guess I would feel like an idioit for not having a clue as to how the community would feel and act.

[karenm97]

So it's on the board's agenda for tomorrow https://sonoma-county.granicus.com/M...meta_id=254457

and there's a kinda vague petition against the change. I signed it and also wrote a message to the Supes via their website.

https://petitions.moveon.org/sign/ca...hash=CTdasFioq