Huge industrial cannabis proposal near Graton [Archive]

View Full Version : Huge industrial cannabis proposal near Graton

Pages : [1] 2

Shepherd

10-14-2018, 09:14 AM

“This kind of development belongs in commercial areas along transportation corridors where security gates, lights and kiosks are a regular occurrence, not on the edge of a village adjacent to wetlands, a creek and a walking/biking trail.”

Forwarded from Joe Howard, Graton resident and retired Golden Gate Park Arborist.
Merrilyn

On Oct 14, 2018, at 6:58 AM, Joe Howard [email protected] wrote:

Friends and Neighbors:
Please open the link below for drawings of a proposed cannabis growing and processing facility planned for the west side of the "pumpkin patch" along the West County Trail just south of Graton. This mammoth project calls for 18 greenhouses, 30 parking spaces, 8' high perimeter fencing, 12 water tanks, 2 buildings (5050 sq. ft.), a security station, camera surveillance, outdoor grow, nighttime lighting - all accessed by narrow Railroad St.

https://documentcloud.adobe.com/link/track?uri=urn%3Aaaid%3Ascds%3AUS%3A24ee04ba-59a1-4c19-b2bc-8a867bee1dc8
(https://documentcloud.adobe.com/link/track?uri=urn%3Aaaid%3Ascds%3AUS%3A24ee04ba-59a1-4c19-b2bc-8a867bee1dc8)
Additionally, new cannabis regulations are being considered at theBoard of Supervisors meeting next Tuesday, 10/16 at 9:15 am (https://www.waccobb.net/forums/x-apple-data-detectors://1) at 575 Administration Drive, Santa Rosa. Although this meeting does not address this project specifically, you can still voice your concerns about it, since the agenda lists the item as pertaining to neighborhood compatibility with cannabis operations. We encourage you to go if you can, or to send an email to the Supervisors (see below). The subject should be: UPC18-0044/2595 Railroad St.

address it to:
[email protected]
(https://www.waccobb.net/forums/x-webdoc://177A5B65-2F2D-4A51-9ACD-DCFC90E77519/[email protected],[email protected])[email protected]

and cc it to:
[email protected]
(https://www.waccobb.net/forums/x-webdoc://177A5B65-2F2D-4A51-9ACD-DCFC90E77519/[email protected],[email protected],[email protected])[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected] (https://www.waccobb.net/forums/x-webdoc://177A5B65-2F2D-4A51-9ACD-DCFC90E77519/[email protected])

The point is to show the human cost of their cannabis policies on neighborhoods. There are impacts of putting a manufacturing facility on an ag zoned parcel. If you are a neighbor, or if you are concerned about your quality of life being downgraded, or your property values plummeting, speak up. This kind of development belongs in commercial areas along transportation corridors where security gates, lights and kiosks are a regular occurrence, not on the edge of a village adjacent to wetlands, a creek and a walking/biking trail. Don't threaten, but be sincere about how concerned you are. If you want to stop or reduce this, then this is very important to contact the Supervisors before they make an irreversible decision about policy pertaining to cannabis operations.

Lilith Rogers

10-14-2018, 11:29 AM

Yes, I agree. Horrible idea to put this massive mess in little Graton. Let's let the supervisors know we don't want it there.

Lilith

O.W.

10-15-2018, 09:07 AM

I have found out that the company applying for this industrial cannabis project is from Chicago and they are planning on using recycled water from the winery processors. Also the planner who is working on this for the County is a hired contractor and here is his corrected email address (flyer wrong): [email protected]

What about the chemicals? The wine industry already douses us with over 2 million pounds of chemicals a year. The PD has had numerous articles about the residues from pesticides in cannabis samples.

More out of towner investors. Doing this project on a wetlands area is really horrible for this fragile area. Impact in Santa Rosa industrial business park would not have such significant injuries to the environment and rural town.

What were these guys thinking? Supervisors, Graton is rural with a little strip of apple/grape processors. The regulations should be keeping these type of projects where infrastructure can handle all the unintended consequences to a rural neighborhoods property values etc. Doesn't sound like they plan on working with the community, just here to reap profit.

Shepherd

10-15-2018, 12:46 PM

Following is a link to what the neighborhood groups plan to say at the hearing Tuesday about the cannabis proposal near Graton. This is a link to the Wine & Water Watch website, which also has other good reading on such matters.

https://winewaterwatch.org/2018/10/board-of-supervi…omorrow-oct-13th (https://winewaterwatch.org/2018/10/board-of-supervisors-and-cannabis-regulations-hearing-tomorrow-oct-13th/)

O.W.

10-15-2018, 05:33 PM

Just wanted to let everyone know who is going to the Supervisors meeting on cannabis regulations tomorrow that a neighborhood group has done alot of work analyzing what is being proposed and has come up with some regulations they oppose and others they support. I support some of their points. You make up your own opinion, I just want to help get the information out as this will have huge impacts in this county. Had the wine industry had this much oversight we might not have over pumped aquifers, high childhood cancer rates due to chemicals used in vineyards, horrible traffic from winery events on steroids, lower rental/housing rates (out of town investors and vacation rentals), more forests, more wildlife etc.

Just an FYI cannabis cultivation is not part of the county's "Right to Farm" ordinance and there are set backs proposed for public areas like the West County Trail. Those set backs would have to mitigated.

If you want to speak get there early to sign up and make sure a copy of what you are stating is given to clerk if you want your remarks on the record. They are limiting the speakers to 2 minutes as they expect a packed house.

NEIGHBORHOOD Groups remarks:
EVALUATION OF CANNABIS LAND USE ORDINANCE AMENDMENTS – 10/16/18

Hold a public hearing and at the conclusion of the hearing:
1. Adopt an Ordinance amending Chapter 26 of the Sonoma County Code to allow adult use cannabis businesses, enhance neighborhood compatibility(addressing this issue is noticeably absent in the Staff document), harmonize with State cannabis laws where appropriate, and make other minor amendments.
2. Adopt a Resolution finding the Ordinance is consistent with the General Plan and Area Plans and determining exemption from the California Environmental Quality Act. The redline document is very flawed. Please refer to Debby Eppstein’s analysis for details. There are glaring omissions. For example, the definition of “sensitive spots” which neighborhood groups had asked to be clarified and expanded to “places where children gather” so as to include school bus stops and the like has been truncated. Pre-schools have been dropped from the definition altogether.

As directed by the Board of Supervisors and recommended by the Cannabis Ad Hoc Committee and the Planning Commission, the County proposes to amend the Cannabis Land Use Ordinance to accomplish the following:

1. Require a minimum lot size of 10 acres for all commercial cannabis cultivation operations in agricultural and resource zones (LIA, LEA, DA, and RRD);
Support. No ministerial permits should be entertained for cannabis cultivation. ZP’s should not appear in the table/chart. Certainly, no-one will be applying for a ministerial permit to only grow medical marijuana. It does not pencil out. Will this flaw in the application process be a method for growers to pretend they are growing for medical and in the chaos of this transition period successfully sell product to the adult use market? How will it be determined that all the product goes only to medical? Effectively monitoring and enforcing this process will measurably impact the County’s workload.

2. Add new setback of 600 feet from schools for indoor cultivation in agricultural and resource zones;Support, and add language to include all areas where children are present.

Allow reduction to the setback from public parks with a use permit (discretionary permit) under certain circumstances; No change should be made to the current ordinance re: setbacks from public parks. Retain the measurements from property line of the park to the property line of the parcel. Oppose the addition of an optional means to reduce the setback through a use permit. The use permit process would require additional analysis and time of a department that already has a 40% vacancy. The project planner, presumably, would make a judgement when asked to ascertain an “equivalent physical separation” …surely a subjective, ill-defined and time-consuming task. Moreover, the final decision could vary from planner to planner.

It would be more appropriate for the Regional Parks Director to examine the application beforehand and do a pre-evaluation before the grower is deep into the permit process. It is inappropriate for Regional Parks to have input only at the end during the referral process. It is also unfair to the applicant. Everyone knows that the grower and Staff will devise “mitigations” that correct and support the project after it has reached that stage. Please note two glaring omissions: The issue of odor is not listed as one of the items to be considered nor is the issue of who will speak for the State parks addressed. Furthermore, many of our parks are accessed by roads that do not meet the fire safe requirements; thus postponing a more thorough analysis of this setback reduction option should be in Phase 2 where the issue of fire safe roads will be studied.

This proposed amendment is not of immediate concern and could easily be moved into Phase 2 giving time for more study and refinement of the flaws in this amendment.

4. Allow adult use/recreational cannabis operations with a use permit (discretionary permit), including dispensaries; No opinion

Extend the term of new cannabis permits to 5 years with a use permit (discretionary permit); Oppose. Until the Ordinance is revised to an acceptable manner and all controls in place to manage cultivating operations, permit terms should not be extended. This proposal will only lead to confusion as the ordinance evolves and is revised. Having long term permits right now will lead to permits with varying requirements. Early permits very well could be based on soon to be defunct code and law. County Staff may end up with different code applied to different permits. Once the Ordinance is revised there may very well be changes in setbacks, adjacency, and concentration parameters. A multi-year permit would either prevent implementation of neighborhood compatibility issues or would cause revocation of such a multi-year permit, being unfair to growers.

The current renewal process is not at all onerous. The Cannabis Program Director estimates it takes as little as three months and only requires filling out a form, a visit from a planner and modest fees. Only if there is a change in the project, would additional reports need to be done.

What is important and would be lost if the five year permit is adopted, is the ability of the County to ensure there is tax compliance and code compliance. Do we really want to put such considerations off for a five year period? The State has a one year license term. Currently 50% of Sonoma County growers do not have a State License and cannot sell product legally. Do not make a bad situation worse. Align with State.

Allow changes to the permit holder and/or operator for all cannabis land use permits (similar to other land use permits) and require notification in the event of a change; Revision No. 20170501-1 Oppose. Continue 1-year permits with easy administrative renewal for cultivators who do not have neighborhood or code enforcement issues, allowing an easy path for good growers and easy removal of problem growers. Transfer of permits is forbidden in the State regulations. This is analogous to liquor or medical licenses, which clearly and rightly are not able to be transferred with the premises. How will the transfer take place if there has been a change in the Ordinance? Will all transfers be considered “grandfathered” to the earlier ordinance or will the new ordinance revision be applied? This will just lead to selling permits, no matter how the County words it. Again, it will require further oversight that will stretch County Staff.

Allow 25% additional area for propagation to support onsite cultivation with a use permit; Oppose. The additional 25% allowance should be put on hold. The County will eventually move to tax by dry weight or sales and the end result of a decision now will be that the grower has 25% more cultivation space. Recommend no additional change at this time and revisit when taxes are accessed differently.

NOTE: Expanding growing by allowing 25% more for propagation is a significant expansion of the scope of the program. The prior CEQA exemption was based on the theory that permitting of commercial cannabis in the County would not increase impacts because the County would merely be transitioning existing grows. That is not what has occurred. There has been an expansion and the environmental benefit of reducing impacts from illegal grows has not occurred. Allowing a categorical exemption for the amendment at hand may be a violation of CEQA because increased growing will have a significant impact on the environment. The current discretionary permit process is already inadequate to examine cumulative and regional impacts. Increasing the impacts by 25% is irresponsible.

8. Harmonize definitions and ordinance language to align with state law and emergency state regulations including adding new license types, which will not be taxed, and amending definitions; Oppose. Wait for state law to become permanent before addressing alignment. Since State is still revising their own laws and regulations, any changes made now may have to be readdressed again. Staff uses a “pick and choose” method for what should or should not align with the State. We need to harmonize with State regs on felony convictions and the wording on when inspections can occur. County regs can always be stricter than State.

Allow up to nine centralized processing facilities on agricultural land with a use permit (discretionary permit); How did the modest proposal from Supervisor Gorin to create ONE pilot project morph into a monster? Even Staff did not recommend County wide pilot projects and limited it to Planning Area 9. Planning Commissioners in a burst of enthusiasm and because of a dislike of having the project limited to a certain area, changed the dimensions arbitrarily and capriciously came up with the number “9” as the recommended amount. Check the minutes or video of that meeting or ask an observer.
Eliminate the 24 hour notification requirement for inspections and monitoring of permitted operations. No qualifying language should be inserted here. State regs allow inspections at any time. County wants Code Enforcement to be able to notify before a visit for safety reasons; everyone wants these workers to be safe. Yet, neighbors live next to these properties. What about their ongoing safety concerns?
Amend other zoning code language for consistency and clarification. Be careful what is “simplified”.

Dorothy Friberg

10-15-2018, 06:09 PM

I can't even see what the boundaries are but I think the creeks should be protected from this proposal. Also the trails need a proper setback.

american dream

10-16-2018, 05:12 PM

I prefer green to grape, but this sounds awful!

rossmen

10-16-2018, 07:47 PM

My understanding is that growing pot in soco is coming to an end. First and Foremost is the climate reality for outdoor, just too cool and humid, the buds rot right before harvest. Then there is the reality than indoor, and litedep, have too much overhead for the pricepoint. Land cost is a factor too. Sure talent and knowledge and money are still a legacy here. But pot as medicine and high is an incredibly productive plant. The acerage needed for demand is less than Jerusalem artichokes! Evidence, housing market. If you really want to grow, you have moved. Unless it's six plants on the sunny side of your house.

Barry

10-16-2018, 11:32 PM

Shepherd

10-17-2018, 05:43 AM

"...growing pot in soco is coming to and end." You have to be kidding. Sonoma County remains a premier place to grow cannabis. Struggles around it are likely to continue for a long time. As an elder, I use cannabis, particularly to sleep through the night. However, few people, except the rich, can afford to grow food plants in this county. I support the county making appropriate laws to limit where it can be planted.

My understanding is that growing pot in soco is coming to an end. First and Foremost is the climate reality for outdoor, just too cool and humid, the buds rot right before harvest. Then there is the reality than indoor, and litedep, have too much overhead for the pricepoint. Land cost is a factor too. ...

ChefJayTay

10-17-2018, 08:25 AM

"...growing pot in soco is coming to and end." You have to be kidding. Sonoma County remains a premier place to grow cannabis....

Wrong. Sonoma County remains a premier place to market it as coming from, but not to actually produce it.
It's just too expensive for land, labor, water, & electricity when you can just move operations.
It's going to be like olive oil. Italy's the largest importer/exporter, but Spain MAKES twice as much.

Shepherd

10-17-2018, 08:40 AM

As a food farmer for the last 25 years here in SoCo, I am concerned that we are no longer a food farming county. According to GoLocal, only 4% of the veggies & fruits sold in SoCo are grown here. Given the high prices of ag. land, due to the bloated wine and cannabis operations, only the rich can afford moving here, which leaves out most young people.

Wrong. Sonoma County remains a premier place to market it as coming from, but not to actually produce it.
It's just too expensive for land, labor, water, & electricity when you can just move operations.
It's going to be like olive oil. Italy's the largest importer/exporter, but Spain MAKES twice as much.

rossmen

10-17-2018, 10:36 PM

Not kidding at all shepherd. You're a farmer, you know how important the relationship between plant, soil and climate is. Then there is the market. Supposedly a 10,000 acre farm could provide all the buds the us demands. Within a few years real farms will grow all commercial cannabis outside. There might be a few high end commercial plots in eastern soco, but this heat loving plant so sensitive to humidity and rain when ripening will mostly be grown east and south of here. Think tomatoes, sure greenthumbers will grow awesome buds around here. All the concern and effort about commercial cannabis in sonoma county is a waste of time.

Btw, I joined waccobb 10 years ago to express my outrage at pot law and the insane distortion of the market resulting in the environmental crime of indoor growing. Yes the changes will be painful with legalization.

"...growing pot in soco is coming to and end." You have to be kidding. Sonoma County remains a premier place to grow cannabis. Struggles around it are likely to continue for a long time. As an elder, I use cannabis, particularly to sleep through the night. However, few people, except the rich, can afford to grow food plants in this county. I support the county making appropriate laws to limit where it can be planted.

Barry

10-18-2018, 12:58 PM

Here's an article from the Washington Post (https://www.washingtonpost.com/national/marijuana-is-emerging-among-californias-vineyards-offering-promise-and-concern/2018/10/14/800e32aa-ccab-11e8-a3e6-44daa3d35ede_story.html?utm_term=.2cda5e4b1890) about Cannabis taking root in Santa Ynez Valley. I think land values, and neighborhood concerns will push legal cannabis farming south of here.

45151

Marijuana is emerging among California’s vineyards, offering promise and concern
(https://www.washingtonpost.com/national/marijuana-is-emerging-among-californias-vineyards-offering-promise-and-concern/2018/10/14/800e32aa-ccab-11e8-a3e6-44daa3d35ede_story.html?utm_term=.2cda5e4b1890)
By Scott Wilson
October 14

Excerpt:

45152"Cannabis has been fully legal in California for less than a year, and no place is generating more interest in it than the stretch of coast from Monterey to here in Santa Barbara County, where farmers now hold more marijuana cultivation licenses than in any other county.<wp-ad aria-hidden="true" id="slug_inline_bb" class="wp-inline-bb pb-centered-bb" data-slot="national" data-json="{"targeting":{"pos":"inline_bb","ctr":["zeus","zeus_inline_bb"]},"categoryExclusions":[]}" data-size="[[300,250],"fluid",[620,250]]" data-refresh="on" style="box-sizing: border-box; display: block; color: rgb(17, 17, 17); font-family: FranklinPro, FranklinITCProLight, "Franklin Gothic Medium", "Franklin Gothic", "ITC Franklin Gothic", "Apple SD Gothic Neo", "Myriad Set Pro", "Helvetica Neue", "Helvetica Neue Light", Helvetica, Arial, "Lucida Grande", sans-serif; font-size: 18.8587px; margin: 15px auto;"></wp-ad>The shift in legal cultivation patterns is coming at the expense of the remote Emerald Triangle, the trio of far-northern California counties where an illegal marijuana industry has thrived for decades. The Central Coast is not growing more marijuana than the Emerald Triangle, but it could be on track to grow more legally, if trends hold.

“We’re nearly right in between Los Angeles and San Francisco, the two big consumer hubs,” said John De Friel, whose 17-acre Raw Garden Farm (https://rawgarden.farm/) and seed lab sit among cabbage patches and wineries. “We really didn’t foresee how advantageous that would turn out to be.”"

Full article here (https://www.washingtonpost.com/national/marijuana-is-emerging-among-californias-vineyards-offering-promise-and-concern/2018/10/14/800e32aa-ccab-11e8-a3e6-44daa3d35ede_story.html?utm_term=.2cda5e4b1890)

O.W.

10-19-2018, 10:03 AM

Shepherd, I hate to say this but SOS Save our Sono0ma Neighborhoods has published on their website a break down of county's and what regulations if any are allowed for cannabis grows. It was done by ABAG, (Assoc. of Bay Area Governments) Our county has thrown the doors open so expect more out of town folks coming here to grow industrially.

Barry's article from the Washington Post shows that the wine industry and the cannabis industries are melding. More water use, more pesticides....wow, tied for number 3 in childhood cancers now.

Here is the site to see the ABAG chart on county regulations, scroll down: https://www.sosneighborhoods.com/ They also have an Google Earth map of all the grows.

As a food farmer for the last 25 years here in SoCo, I am concerned that we are no longer a food farming county. According to GoLocal, only 4% of the veggies & fruits sold in SoCo are grown here. Given the high prices of ag. land, due to the bloated wine and cannabis operations, only the rich can afford moving here, which leaves out most young people.

O.W.

10-19-2018, 10:08 AM

See my post to Shepherd. There is no accident that we are getting out of towners here buying properties for huge grows .....we are one of the few counties in the state that has opened the doors to industrial cannabis. Our local government has done this. Check out the ABAG chart at: https://www.sosneighborhoods.com/ and you'll see we are encouraging this.

Wrong. Sonoma County remains a premier place to market it as coming from, but not to actually produce it.
It's just too expensive for land, labor, water, & electricity when you can just move operations.
It's going to be like olive oil. Italy's the largest importer/exporter, but Spain MAKES twice as much.

lrd

10-20-2018, 10:41 AM

Regarding the Graton Proposal, there was a planned meeting with the owners of the property today (Sat. Oct. 20). The owners cancelled and left a note. Attached is the note, which invites feedback at [email protected]
([email protected])

O.W.

10-21-2018, 12:31 PM

I was just notified that the Saturday Graton meeting was called off as neighbors opposed don't appreciate what the out of town applicants are doing. On top of that the county has just said that our trail system is not part of the park system setting up conflict with neighbors for many years to come. What were they thinking? Where does that funding come from to keep the trails in shape? Parks are for recreation as are the trails used by many people for either health benefits, getting out in nature or transportation by bicycle.

Should the supervisors allow this Permit Sonoma ruling, they need to be voted out. If you saw the chart from Bay Area ordinances you will see Sonoma County has given this industry a green light for industrial sized projects. We're not against this, just keep it out of our neighborhoods. Sensible regulations please!

People fought the wine industry for spraying toxic pesticides next to schools for years. Finally the state (not our county) made better set backs mandatory but our children are still number 3 in statewide childhood cancers. The supervisors are not thinking this through just seeing money signs. Please write them a letter and tell them this is NOT acceptable.

ChefJayTay

10-21-2018, 05:17 PM

[...]

Including trails in restrictions is an idiotic idea.
If you restrict businesses from being near trails, it means none of these businesses can be near railroads.
You just wiped out most of the industrial zones you're trying to force them into.

tommy

10-22-2018, 07:47 AM

The trail is in a residential neighborhood. All zoning protections, such as limiting industrial uses, need to apply to the west of the trail... where this pot farm is proposed... as apply to the east side of the trail, where people live. This pot farm is a vastly different use than a vineyard. It has 30 parking places, high security fencing, security issues, lighting, water tanks... that a vineyard would not have.

Including trails in restrictions is an idiotic idea. ...

O.W.

10-22-2018, 10:14 AM

A lawsuit has just been filed against the Purvine Pot operation. Like the wine industry, they are pushing the envelope without sensible regulations in place that do not pit neighbors against this new industry. Maybe we need a pause in the applications until the County can get the regulations done. Supervisors were hoping to just kick the can down the road like what they did to let the wine industry run rampant in our neighborhoods. Here is the press release.

Court Issues Temporary Restraining Order protecting Sonoma County neighborhood against illegal Cannabis tourism

Petaluma, CA, October 20, 2018---
PETALUMA, California, October 19, 2018 –

A group of Sonoma County residents has filed a lawsuit to shut down an illegal pot grow and cannabis tourism operation in the Purvine Road neighborhood. The suit alleges that the unlicensed grower is transforming a peaceful stretch of the Petaluma Dairy Belt into an unlawful cannabis event venue, corporate retreat and cannabis tourism destination. operating without a permit since 2017. According to neighbors, tourists regularly visit the property on “cannabis experience tours, ” arriving on buses to view the cannabis operation and eat and relax at picnic tables in the cannabis field.

Neighbors also object to steps by the owners to turn the property into a cannabis event venue and retreat. Group dinners, featuring cannabis-infused food and cocktails, are hosted in a barn which the owners renovated for that purpose. The property is advertised online, for a minimum fee of $8,000, as a “private retreat” for up to 250 guests, with overnight accommodations and event -related offerings, such as furniture rental, staff and catering.

Neighbors are asking the court to halt these activities as illegal under both state and local law. Named as defendants in the lawsuit are the San Francisco -based property owner and cannabis operator, Petaluma Hills Farm, LLC and Sonoma Hills Farm, LLC; their owners and officers; and the cannabis tour operator, The Sonoma County Experience, LLC. Yesterday, October 18, the court issued a temporary restraining order prohibiting the defendants from cultivating cannabis without a license and permit; hosting cannabis events or engaging in cannabis promotional activities; sponsoring non-cannabis events without an event permit; and operating the property as a vacation rental or bed and breakfast. A further hearing in the case is set for November.

The plaintiffs in the lawsuit are residents of Purvine Road and a neighborhood advocacy group, No Pot on Purvine. Phoebe Lang, one of the plaintiffs, said the neighbors took legal action when it became clear that their once -quiet neighborhood was under attack. “We cherish the beauty and tranquility of rural Sonoma,” she said, “and will fight to preserve our peaceful way of life. Purvine Road is no place for tour buses full of party-goers.” Britt Christiansen, another plaintiff, added, “I want to raise my family in the country, not next to an event center and tourist stop. I love the fresh air and quiet evenings. I love knowing all my neighbors. All that will be lost if the cannabis tourism operation at 334 Purvine Road continues.”

Attorney Kevin Block of Block & Block LLP is representing the neighbors. “None of my clients is against legal cannabis,” he said. “But illegal cannabis, and cannabis tourism, are a different kettle of fish. Illegal operators must be shut down in order for legal operators to succeed. And the ban on cannabis tourism should be kept in place until the County can thoroughly study its detrimental neighborhood and environmental impacts.”

“We will be filing a code enforcement complaint with Sonoma County shortly,” Block continued. “The County has tools and resources that are not available to my clients as private citizens. We want and expect the County to be our full partner in ending the illegal activity on Purvine Road.”

Contact Information
Block & Block LLP
Kevin Block
707 246 9013
Contact
[email protected]
https://www.winelawyers.com
Link to complaint, press release and photographs:https://www.dropbox.com/sh/zdd09xvq3rebuom/AACcuE5B1Vh98UPkjTDhmzVCa?dl=0

Goat Rock Ukulele

10-22-2018, 05:27 PM

When I first moved to Graton in 1973 the town was known as the "armpit of Sonoma County." because it stunk so bad. They used to take the apple waste water and trim and throw it in a pile. It stunk so bad for two reasons.

1 because if you throw that much fruit waste in a pile the anaerobic bacteria goes wild. It was so bad on some days it almost made you puke. One of the guys I was in the fire department was an engineer and for no charge designed waste disposal systems for the canneries for free. It completely cured the problem.

The second reason it stunk so bad is because Graton is in a unique bowl. It is the coldest place in Sonoma County on many clear cold nights. The apple waste would just hang in that bowl if there wasn't any wind. The same thing is going to happen with the pot smell. I sure hope we don't go back to being the armpit of Sonoma County.

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.

ChefJayTay

10-23-2018, 05:38 AM

[...]

The reasons you fear Graton will stink, are the same reasons why it won't work for them long term.
Let them try and fail.

Jeff Snook

10-23-2018, 06:39 AM

I read in an earlier post that we should not allow drug farms near public trails. Heck that is not far enough with the crazy. I think that we should require 1000 foot setbacks from sidewalks. Anybody can travel on a sidewalk, which means children, and I don't think children should be allowed to know that cannabis exists.

1000' is a good number to require as a setback:

.At 1000' you can't hear the screams from the children being held captive as part of a global pedophiia ring that is at the heart of everl cannabis operations.

At 1000' you can't see very well the flares burning 24 hours a day to burn off the toxic cannabis gasses or hear the constantly barking gangs of ravenous pitbulls that are always very close to escaping and attacking the nearby village.

At a 1000' the huge 24 hour lights won't glint so brightly off the razor wire.

At a 1000' the security guard has enough time to recognize you before he shoots and kills you.

I have other good ideas but as a state licensed cannabis cultivator I have duties that you all don't know about.

For instance:

As a licenced cannabis cultivator the State requires me to feed the captive children in the pedo ring every 3 days and today is that day, I think.

I need to pull all of the dead bodies down from the barbed wire and a couple deer as well.

Tuesday is the day to check the moat.

At 11 am on the last Tuesday of the month all licenced cultivators are required to tune into the State run Anti-neighborhood channel to get the latest updates on how to piss off your neighbors. I am eager to find out what wisdom our regulatory overlords have for us today. Last weeks message to most effectively piss off you neighbors was 'Be nice'. and it is working beautifully.

Off to the drug factory...Have a great day

HarvestMoonCBD

10-23-2018, 12:24 PM

Cannabis cares more about you then your government does.

sqb

10-23-2018, 06:11 PM

thank you for your wonderful satire.... there is so much fake news about these issues we have to fight back.

I read in an earlier post that we should not allow drug farms near public trails. Heck that is not far enough with the crazy. ...

sqb

10-23-2018, 06:17 PM

Isn't that fence the owner's right to have a fence? I don't get your squabble.

rossmen

10-23-2018, 07:27 PM

My understanding of county code is that an eight foot fence requires a permit, unlike a six foot fence. This is primarily do to wind load. So the posts need to be 3` down, maybe even 6by6.

rossmen

10-23-2018, 07:34 PM

Good fences make good neighbors". Wasn't that frost? But he was writing when stone from the land was the fence strategy to limit livestock. In the 21th century fences are getting higher. Is that a good thing?

Isn't that fence the owner's right to have a fence? I don't get your squabble.

podfish

10-23-2018, 07:37 PM

My understanding of county code is that an eight foot fence requires a permit, unlike a six foot fence. This is primarily do to wind load. So the posts need to be 3` down, maybe even 6by6.yep, that fence may not be there in the spring.

spam1

10-25-2018, 08:35 AM

... 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

10-25-2018, 05:57 PM

https://www.waccobb.net/forums/waccobb/keep90days/2018-08-24_17-48-38.png (https://www.sonomawest.com/)

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 45186looking 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 (https://www.sonomawest.com/sonoma_west_times_and_news/news/on-the-cannabis-trail-in-graton/article_bf521444-d7c4-11e8-989c-9b5cf1a14ae3.html#utm_source=sonomawest.com&utm_campaign=%2Fnewsletters%2Fheadlines-sonomawest%2F%3F-dc%3D1540509301&utm_medium=email&utm_content=read%20more)

Barry

11-02-2018, 07:31 PM

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

https://www.waccobb.net/forums/waccobb/keep90days/2018-11-02_19-42-44.png"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

11-30-2018, 05:38 AM

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:

https://www.waccobb.net/forums/waccobb/keep90days/2018-11-02_19-42-44.png"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.

11-30-2018, 11:36 AM

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

11-30-2018, 12:07 PM

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

11-30-2018, 02:02 PM

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

11-30-2018, 03:42 PM

Dorothy Friberg

11-30-2018, 05:34 PM

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

11-30-2018, 07:22 PM

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

12-01-2018, 07:26 AM

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

12-01-2018, 07:30 AM

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

12-01-2018, 03:46 PM

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

12-02-2018, 09:13 PM

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

12-02-2018, 09:24 PM

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

12-03-2018, 08:47 PM

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

12-05-2018, 05:11 PM

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

12-05-2018, 05:48 PM

...

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

12-05-2018, 06:36 PM

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

https://img442.imageshack.us/img442/9463/201206151647.png

Grow-Site Pain
(https://www.bohemian.com/northbay/grow-site-pain/Content?oid=7824150&showFullText=true)
https://www.bohemian.com/northbay/grow-site-pain/Content?oid=7824150&showFullText=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

12-05-2018, 07:18 PM

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

12-07-2018, 11:11 AM

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

12-09-2018, 08:22 AM

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 (https://www.bohemian.com/northbay/grow-site-pain/Content?oid=7824150&showFullText=true) 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

12-09-2018, 03:58 PM

Trying to understand - who is "us?

...I read the comments on the Gogola article (https://www.bohemian.com/northbay/grow-site-pain/Content?oid=7824150&showFullText=true) 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

12-10-2018, 12:14 PM

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

12-10-2018, 12:26 PM

Yaaaaay!!!

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

Goat Rock Ukulele

12-10-2018, 05:02 PM

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

12-10-2018, 05:29 PM

...

...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

12-10-2018, 05:36 PM

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

12-10-2018, 06:50 PM

...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

12-10-2018, 10:44 PM

So it's on the board's agenda for tomorrow https://sonoma-county.granicus.com/MetaViewer.php?view_id=&event_id=971&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/call-to-arms-the-truth?source=s.em.cp&r_hash=CTdasFioq

Jeff Snook

12-11-2018, 07:17 AM

'Us' are doctors, lawyers, teachers, and law enforcement.

We are accountants, farmers, students, parents, plumbers, baristas, merchants, vintners and musicians.

We are the majority of Sonoma County residents.

We understand cannabis and are thankful for it.

We understand many of our neighbors are living in the good ol' days when cannabis was 'devil weed' and could be blamed for all manner of social malaise.

Opponents of cannabis have been trying to eliminate cannabis for decades and have consistently failed.

This is no different and we understand that. We are playing the long game, and we always win.

We shall fight in the cafes, we shall fight in the council chambers, we shall fight on the ag fields and on the bike paths, we shall fight in the editorials, we shall never surrender.

Trying to understand - who is "us?

O.W.

12-11-2018, 09:32 AM

Doghairnancy, you are totally correct that our local government has sold us out. When Permit Sonoma planners working on the cannabis regulations openly call themselves TEAM 420, you know the fix is in. When the supervisors appointed cannabis committee is 17 industrial cannabis members to 3 community members, you know the fix is in. When the same group changes the regulation from 1 acre to 10 acres minimum to make sure cannabis is corporatized (screw the little guys), you know the fix is in. When the county makes cannabis cultivation not part of the "right to farm" ordinance and allows wine (the other legal drug) to be ag protected, you know the fix is in.

Has anyone seen the big Hwy 101 billboard advertising cannabis delivery in Petaluma? Phase 2 is cannabis tourism so get ready for even more tourism.

These same people are working on the Local Coastal Plan right now. Last time our local government worked on the plan (LCP), they wanted to open up the coasts to event centers, wineries, tasting rooms and massive tourism. Silly us for thinking these guys have your best interests in mind. As the saying goes, "if you're not at the table, you are on the menu". Big cannabis took all the seats.....after the wine industry ate all the food.

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.

ChefJayTay

12-11-2018, 10:42 AM

I really don't think people on this forum have a clue what "big cannabis" is.
Do you people even know that Canopy Growth (CGC), Cronos Group (CRON), Tilray (TLRY), Aurora Cannabis (ACB) and Aphria (APHA) exist? How about MedMen or Green Thumb Industries?
Did you know, for the most part, they AREN'T HERE?

Shepherd

12-11-2018, 11:46 AM

I received the following yesterday:
On Dec 10, 2018, at 9:21 AM, Chris Gramly [email protected] [graton_neighborhood_news] <[email protected]> wrote:

Hi Everyone,
I am responding to multiple people here for efficiency and also in one thread to keep things simple (I hope). I’ve had a hard time getting this message to post for some reason.

Joseph - Thank you. I think that productive dialogue is the most important thing, regardless of what happens or doesn’t happen. I appreciate your comment.

Barbara - Thanks for your thoughtful comments. I really appreciated what you shared and the way you communicated your thoughts - well received! I would love nothing more than to have the trails be part of the parks if the parks were protected from toxic spray on agricultural land. I wish I were optimistic about such a move, but I think that would be a battle that we would lose as this is strongly defended under the federal law and the right to farm and the amount of acreage effected would be much more than the small parcel at the end of Railroad/Edison St. I’ve not heard of anyone being able to overcome this hurdle.

Bess/Kip - I am sure that some people have reactions to smells from cannabis, just as many people are allergic or have reactions to molds, dust, pollen, etc. What I don’t get is how this outweighs the fact that all humans (and animals) have detrimental health effects from the pesticides, fungicides and herbacides being sprayed on non-organic agricultural land, including the parcel at the end of Railroad/Edison when it was a pumpkin farm. Should we to knowingly harm everyone to avoid causing reactions for a small minority? Anna highlighted the issue to this list a few months ago about what the pumpkin farmer was spraying on the fields, her note is below for more info:

> 1a Pesticide and fungicide use article with local references
> Fri Sep 14, 2018 7:47 am (PDT) . Posted by: "Anna Ransome"
> https://winecountrygeographic.blogspot.com/2018/09/the-dark-side-of-sonomas-sustainability.html?m=1
> This article has a link to a list of who is using a deadly carcinogenic fungicide called Mancozeb. To quote, “Pesticide Action Network classifies Mancozeb as a Bad Actor - i.e. seriously bad stuff - and a carcinogen, developmental and reproductive toxin, and a probable endocrine disruptor. It's highly toxic to fish. The National Academy of Sciences urged the EPA to ban it starting in 1987, calling it one of the most potent carcinogens in agriculture.)”
> https://drive.google.com/file/d/1NrkrVSscBwRczwzp9eQZ6vwUtVRnrV7g/view?usp=sharing
> Scroll down in above link to find our local pumpkin grower, Michael Gutzman, at #s 108-119. In 2017, 126 pounds were applied on the parcels along the West County Trail between Grey St. and Occidental Rd. I witnessed the spraying myself. Have you or your family members eaten or handled these pumpkins and winter squash?
> The reports aren’t in for 2018, but they were spraying again this year.
> We are surrounded by Dutton vineyards that were sprayed in 2017, but the article indicates that they stopped using it that year. The 2018 records should reveal any local usage whenever they are available.
> Anna

It is a serious concern to me what has been and will be sprayed on those fields because my house is a few hundred feet from the edge of the parcel, many of you are even closer. Shouldn't we be talking about this? I agree that there are folks who have negative reactions to the smell of cannabis, but there is little question that we all have health consequences to the use of harmful pesticides, fungicides and herbicides being used, whether we are aware of it or not - even the ones that are perfectly legal to use under the right to farm.

Chris Getchell - You mention that Graton would be better without this proposed development. Can you elaborate on this? Do you have any opinions or concerns on the use of toxic herbicides, fungicides and pesticides on this parcel and how that impacts the trail? Regarding the traffic, buildings, etc. - I will say again that my understanding of the CUP process involves public feedback and input and we as a community have a right to address our concerns and ask for what we want. These issues can be addressed in the CUP process (if we ever get back to it). If you don’t want buildings, tell the owners you don’t want buildings. If you don’t want 30 parking spaces then how many are acceptable? "None" is not a fair answer, but there can be compromise and dialogue. In my opinion I believe it is better to try to negotiate this project to become something that is acceptable rather than take the risk of returning to some commercial agriculture farm that is in fact harming all of us legally.

Change can be difficult, I often find myself resistant to it in different areas of my life but I do try to embrace it and try to keep an open mind whenever possible. My belief is that many years from now we will be looking at open fields of cannabis with no fencing and no issues just as we see vines everywhere. Right now that is tough to picture or imagine, but I believe that is where we are headed - and I could be wrong. I would really love to hear from people what their feelings are about the use of harmful chemicals bordering our community and the trail. Maybe the majority of people are not concerned about this issue, but I’d love to hear what people think..

The reality remains, we have a say in what evolves in this cannabis project, but for commercial agriculture we have no say. Why not take advantage of the opportunity in front of us and see if the owners are willing to negotiate on the sticking points that people have? I have talked to numerous people and I keep hearing, “I have no issues with the cannabis, that doesn’t bother me. What bothers me is …..”

What bothers me is the use of toxic chemicals on the edge of our neighborhood that negatively effect the health of everyone living here and every single person that uses the trail. Does this bother anyone else?

Thanks, Chris, Posted by: Chris Gramly <[email protected]>

.

Dorothy Friberg

12-11-2018, 04:54 PM

None of the proponents of this project has addressed the possibility of crimes committed in and against the mary jane industry. How many people need to be killed or ripped off to know that CAREFUL PLANNING needs to be implemented for the protection of all citizens, not just pot heads.

doghairnancy

12-11-2018, 06:28 PM

What a puerile pile of overwrought rubbish to suggest that people in this county are naive about cannabis. This isn't 1920. Most of us are well acquainted with the substance and the issues. We voted to legalize cannabis so that it could be regulated, monitored and taxed. But few of us want to live or recreate next door to a big grow operation, legal or illegal. We've seen the negative impacts the wine industry has had on the land and the water and the roads. We've seen it buying off our supervisors to quietly issue permit after permit. So don't tell us we don't understand what's going on.

Jeff Snook

12-12-2018, 07:52 AM

Everybody has talked and talked about cannabis and crime. You just don't hear what you want to hear and so think that there is no discussion.

Please outline for everybody exactly what CAREFUL PLANNING would you like to see.

Also try to do it without the demeaning characterization of cannabis. It is called cannabis sativa! Not mary jane, or pot or dope or any of the other insulting terms your wizened brain can remember.

None of the proponents of this project has addressed the possibility of crimes committed in and against the mary jane industry. How many people need to be killed or ripped off to know that CAREFUL PLANNING needs to be implemented for the protection of all citizens, not just pot heads.

Barry

12-12-2018, 09:00 AM

<br><br>https://www.waccobb.net/forums/waccobb/keep90days/2015-10-04_15-56-29.png

Sonoma County restricts cannabis operations near bike, pedestrian trails amid opposition

HANNAH BEAUSANG
THE PRESS DEMOCRAT | December 11, 2018,8:31PM

The Sonoma County Board of Supervisors on Tuesday approved a setback requirement governing cannabis operations near county bike and pedestrian trails, further limiting areas where marijuana can be cultivated.

The move came before an overflow crowd amid opposition from a proposed west county cannabis business and advocates who say it creates additional confusion and excessive regulation for marijuana proprietors.

Some residents who live near the trails or use them described the move as one that protects those public spaces as parks.

Supervisors’ unanimous vote made that policy official when it comes to buffers between county trails and pot businesses. The county now will require 1,000-foot setbacks from such trails. Exceptions are granted on a case-by-case basis.

Supervisors set the rules about public parks in October, when it became clear that setbacks required between cannabis operations and parks didn’t apply to the county’s trail system for bicyclists and pedestrians.

“This is not an actual change to the ordinance, if it were it would go through a much longer process,” Supervisor Lynda Hopkins said. “This is the first time we’ve had an opportunity to affirm that we do in fact have a majority of the board supporting that parks are trails.”

Lawyers representing Jack Buck, who applied for a cannabis farm near a portion of the West County Regional Trail in Graton, made a public call for Hopkins to recuse herself. They accused her of bias based on her family’s ties to a wine company and of previous coordination with opponents to the project, claims that Hopkins has rejected.

Caryl Hart, a longtime parks advocate and the former director of Sonoma County Regional Parks, said those bike paths are “linear parks.”

“Every single use is consistent with the use of all the other regional parks,” she said.

Continues here
(https://www.pressdemocrat.com/news/9059126-181/sonoma-county-restricts-cannabis-operations)

Dorothy Friberg

12-12-2018, 11:37 AM

Who is 'everybody'?

Better planning than you have taken in consulting the neighborhood where you propose your project

Everybody has talked and talked about cannabis and crime. You just don't hear what you want to hear and so think that there is no discussion.

Please outline for everybody exactly what CAREFUL PLANNING would you like to see....

Dorothy Friberg

12-12-2018, 11:48 AM

...Also try to do it without the demeaning characterization of cannabis. It is called cannabis sativa! Not mary jane, or pot or dope or any of the other insulting terms your wizened brain can remember.My experience of "the product" relates back to the late '60s and '70s when Thai sticks and Panama Red were the 'bees knees' and pot was what we smoked. What was demeaning was when I was convicted of a felony in Wyoming for possession of ONE JOINT (oops is joint out of your range of intelligence?) which felony still exists on my record. The result is I have trouble finding reasonable employment. Maybe I should go into the 'pot' business.

Shepherd

12-16-2018, 08:30 AM

This cannabis operation is at the north entrance to Graton. This info was posted by Patricia Dines. Merrilyn
On Dec 15, 2018, at 10:07 PM, 'P. Dines' [email protected]

Hi all -

The next five days are our LAST CHANCE to express our concerns about the "proposed" commercial cannabis facility at Green Valley and Ross Roads! This proposal is DIFFERENT than the pumpkin patch site and is NOT solved by the recent Supervisors ruling about bike trails. It's in an area surrounded by neighborhoods -- where folks (including children!) live, play outside, and walk and bike on and to bike trail. If it's allowed, it would also set a precedent that would allow more of these intensive facilities in our area and next to other neighborhoods.

The fate of this proposal will likely be decided AT THE HEARING this Thurs. 12/20. This is our ONLY chance to be heard. This is a critical moment! The permit itself would be for five years, and the County has been doing a horrible job of notifying people of what's going on and how they can participate.

WHAT YOU CAN DO:
1) SEND A LETTER EXPRESSING YOUR CONCERNS. Ideally do this by Monday, or at least BEFORE 12/20. Send it to [email protected]. Refer to: 9100 Green Valley Road, Sebastopol; UPC17-0017. It's great if you can please also send a separate or bcc copy to me at [email protected], so that I can see what other people's priority concerns are. Also, feel free to forward this to others who are concerned.

2) ATTEND THE HEARING, to visibly show your concerns. It’s Thurs. Dec. 20, 1:05pm, at the PRMD, 2550 Ventura Avenue, Santa Rosa. County staff and the applicant will present their views, and the public can make brief comments if desired (2 to 3 minutes each). The BZA panel will likely make a decision then.

3) CONTACT ME if you have any questions or want to participate more. [email protected]

They call this facility "proposed," although it's already operating and already impacting those of us nearby, with pungent penetrating resinous odors causing health effects such as a rash on my face (!) -- 24/7 noise and vibration from motoers and fans -- and attraction to crime (with a break-in already here, and neighbor break-ins elsewhere inthe county). It's also a clear risk to property values and salability, and a precedent that would allow more of these impacts in our neighborhood, and neighborhoods like this. This is not just a little pot. It's an intensive commercial grow facility.

And any of this could easily get worse, if there are not sufficient controls on this permit. I make the argument that this facility shouldn't be here at all,because the Supervisors decided they don't go in neighborhoods because of their known impacts. This is in a little light industry zone, but surrounded by residential. And I don't think that these issues can be solved here. But at the very least we need strong conditions on the permit.

Each letter they get makes a big difference. It shows that people are concerned. The recent victory at the Board of Supervisors regarding intensive cannabis production facilities and bike path shows the difference the people in action can make. I hope that we can do the same here! (In case you're wondering, that recent ruling doesn't apply to this facility.)

Many of us aren’t against cannabis. It just needs to be produced in appropriate ways and locations. The remedy here is what the Supervisors already concluded: These facilities shouldn’t be in residential areas, to protect people in their homes. We hope that the BZA panel will apply that principle here.

> I've enclosed information about my concerns below, if that can help you with talking points.

I welcome your thoughts! Thanks for your consideration of this - Patricia

==== ACTION ALERT ====
URGENT ACTION: “PROPOSED” COMMERCIAL CANNABIS FACTORY at Green Valley & Ross Roads. Please Help Protect Our Homes & Neighborhood!

Dear Our Neighbors ~
Now is a critical time for us to act regarding the “proposed” commercial cannabis facility in our neighborhood— and influence the rules for this one and future ones that might be proposed in this area.

Numerous neighbors are concerned about the facility that’s currently “proposed” at 9100 Green Valley Road, on the corner of Ross Road. It’s actually been operating for quite a while — before any public hearing and approval of its plans — or even public notice that it was operating!

We get our only chance to address this now — by writing letters stating our concerns — and/or by going to its first and only hearing on Dec. 20. At the very least, please send a letter, ideally by this Monday, or at least BEFORE this Thurs. 12/20!

OUR CONCERNS

• COMMERCIAL CANNABIS FACILITIES DON’T BELONG IN NEIGHBORHOODS
* The Supervisors decided not to allow them in residential zones (per the cannabis ordinance)
* This facility is in a tiny light-industrial zone surrounded by residential areas
* A key purpose of land use regulations is to protect people from incompatible uses
* But the line on the zoning map doesn’t protect our homes from this use!

• THE KNOWN IMPACTS OF COMMERCIAL CANNABIS FACILITIES INCLUDE
* 24/7 motor and fan noise and vibration (in a zone that used to only have it during business hours)
* Safety/security risks to neighbors (because the cash and portable pricey product attract criminals)
* Security measures with their own impacts (such as high fences, bright lights, and secrecy)
* A penetrating ongoing resinous odor that can get stuck in clothes and impact our health
* Reduction in property values and salability. (We’d have to disclose these negatives to buyers!)

• WE’RE ALREADY EXPERIENCING THESE IMPACTS HERE. And they could easily get worse!

• THESE CONCERNS LIKELY CAN’T BE REMEDIED AT THIS SITE.
A discussion of permit conditions and what’s possible should’ve been required before the facility started operating. Instead, they’ve been operating without telling us, and now are pressuring us to just accept it.

• IT’D BE A PRECEDENT BRINGING MORE FACILITIES & IMPACTS, HERE & BEYOND
Allowing this intensive production facility in our neighborhood sets a precedent that would allow (even encourage) more cannabis and 24/7 noise on this small strip, multiplying the impacts on our everyday lives.

>> CONCLUSION: Many of us aren’t against cannabis. It just needs to be produced in appropriate ways and locations. The remedy here is what the Supervisors already concluded: These facilities shouldn’t be in residential areas, to protect people in their homes. We hope that the BZA panel will apply that principle here.
==========================================

ADDITIONAL INFORMATION

1) CRIMINAL ACTIVITY. Commercial cannabis cultivation sites are known to attract criminal activity, because they tend to have lots of cash (because of banking laws) and an easily portable and valuable product. There was already one break-in at this facility (in August), with a well-lit midnight chase of the perpetrator down the bike trail. What if that person had tried to hide in a neighbor’s home? Elsewhere in the county, criminals have gone to neighbors’ houses in error, and been violent with those residents. Contrary to claims, this risk still exists if a facility goes legal —and might be increased, because its location is public (to support our right to know). The neighbors are still at risk from this type of facility. We have a right to object to this.

2) 24/7 NOISE. This facility is already generating 24/7 motor and fan noise and vibration, taking from us the refuge of peace and quiet in our homes. This issue isn’t even mentioned in their application. They also would be allowed to have staff working 24/7. This little light-industry strip used to have noise only during business hours, which was a way to balance the needs of the two zones. This change would throw off that balance, imposing on residents’ lives to benefit this business. It would also set a precedent for more noisy businesses to follow.

3) PUNGENT RESIN IN THE AIR. People are smelling a strong penetrating smell coming from this facility. We’ve experienced it getting into our clothes and homes, and being linked to notable health impacts (to eyes, sinuses, and face). What are the long-term effects? Why are we being forced to be the experiment? The owners in their application claimed that their “sealed rooms [are] containing the odor.” But, when asked, they offered no evidence for that (such as filters rated to block all cannabis particles, or sensors able to detect it). They claim without evidence that smells must be from elsewhere. But the smell peaks at their place from both directions!

4) UNKNOWN BUILDING MODIFICATIONS. The operators haven’t even created their new building plans. What if they create more capacity, noise, and smell? How can this be approved with these unknowns?

OTHER KEY POINTS

1) THE OPERATORS’ CHOICE TO OPERATE BEFORE HAVING A PUBLIC HEARING SHOULD NOT PUSH US TO OK THEIR PROPOSAL. Unfortunately, they’ve been pressuring us to allow this installation because they are already operating. But actually that’s part of the problem — they chose to start operating without informing us, with no prior public process that included our needs. This is still a “proposed” project. We’re finally getting to have our say.. This needs to be decided as if it weren’t already operating.

2) IT’S NICE THAT THE OPERATORS SAY THEY’LL “WORK DILIGENTLY TO ELIMINATE OR REDUCE ANY NOISE OR ODORS” (10/19/18 letter). But it doesn’t prove they can or will eliminate them.

3) THIS FACILITY DOESN’T BELONG IN THIS LOCATION AND SHOULD BE REJECTED. The operators seem affable. But that’s not a reason to give them this permit. Also, unfortunately, they’ve deflected rather than addressed issues such as smell and noise. Plus, while their eco-principles are positive, most of these are actually already required by the state and County anyway and/or were likely chosen because they provide them significant economic savings in an intensive operation. (They mentioned both factors in their choices.)

Of greater concern is their extreme secrecy about this project with us neighbors. They operated for many months without informing us. And, when the PRMD sent its 10/10/18 Notice of Hearing Waiver, the operators actually wrote to ask us NOT to request a hearing. This would’ve taken away our right to finally have our needs included. Also, the business’ owners can change — and already have since the application was submitted.

>> So we can’t base this decision on whether these individuals seem pleasant, or because they ask us to care about their needs at our expense. We have a right to object to this facility’s impacts on us. And, even if you’re OK with this facility here, we have a right to request conditions on the permit.

Please feel free to contact me to share your letters and experiences! You’re also invited
to help with these efforts. Just email [email protected]. Together, we are stronger!
This document was created to pull together various neighbor concerns and offer
information to support neighbors’ participation in this process.

karenm97

12-16-2018, 12:11 PM

omg, "children!!!" "Not in my backyard!" "Let them grow people's medicine somewhere else!" Maybe you folks should advocate for a monoculture vineyard instead. Or just spray it all down with pesticides yourselves.

...The next five days are our LAST CHANCE to express our concerns about the "proposed" commercial cannabis facility at Green Valley and Ross Roads! This proposal is DIFFERENT than the pumpkin patch site and is NOT solved by the recent Supervisors ruling about bike trails. It's in an area surrounded by neighborhoods -- where folks (including children!) ...

Barry

12-16-2018, 12:29 PM

How about a bit of transparency?

For those of you who support the Graton cannabis proposal:

Do you have a financial interest in the cannabis business (this project or otherwise)?

doghairnancy

12-16-2018, 02:46 PM

The real question is should the current ordinance be scrapped; and if so replaced by what? ...I think most of us don't want the character of West County to be whipsawed by whatever the big money is in. We are fed up to our eyeballs with wine and all its bullshit. And we can see that, unless there are a very limited no. of cannabis permits (unlike what our supes have allowed with wine), that will become a second monoculture with all the attendant environmental and social problems.

Pretending that this is about 'medicine' and that we meanies are depriving sick people of their 'medicine' by wanting to control where and how much is grown is a real crock. People can call cannabis anything they want and drag in all the convenient anecdotes, but it's still mostly about MONEY, 'recreation' and bringing in more 'tourists'.

I, for one, want any and all 'ag' to have to as little negative impact on the land and on those of us who have lives we've worked hard for here as possible. Besides limiting permits, there should be requirements for planting meaningful native hedgerows, limiting chemicals, limiting fencing for wildlife access, limiting parking spaces and buildings and 'events' for starters. All the things we should have demanded before the grapists took over.

ChefJayTay

12-16-2018, 02:57 PM

...Do you have a financial interest in the cannabis business (this project or otherwise)?
None whatsoever.
I'm just tired of the nimby crying. There are bigger fish to fry.
The major players in the industry are at most using Sonoma for marketing. It just doesn't make financial sense to be producing somewhere with such high costs of real estate and operation. So I doubt the majority of these concerns will even be an issue in 5 years.

Edit: Additionally, I HATE unnecessary laws. They lead to bureaucracy & unnecessary restrictions.

Jeff Snook

12-17-2018, 08:47 AM

Boo hoo!

You and about a million other citizens of this United State have been punished for using cannabis.

You don't express empathy for the people who have been wronged, you attack cannabis.

Boo Fucking Hoo to you!

... I was convicted of a felony in Wyoming for possession of ONE JOINT ...

Jeff Snook

12-17-2018, 08:54 AM

Wrong in so many ways.

Cannabis is almost 40 acres and wine is 60,000+ acres.

If you are not aware of the restrictions on cannabis you should find out because you are just perpetuating the bullshit that has become common language for the no-cannabis cabal.

Where do you get your info?

I think most of us don't want the character of West County to be whipsawed by whatever the big money is in. We are fed up to our eyeballs with wine and all its bullshit. And we can see that, unless there are a very limited no. of cannabis permits (unlike what our supes have allowed with wine), that will become a second monoculture with all the attendant environmental and social problems. ...

kane

12-17-2018, 02:58 PM

is there a link to a Map?
Proposal?

Dorothy Friberg

12-17-2018, 03:27 PM

It's more greed than medicine.

omg, "children!!!" "Not in my backyard!" "Let them grow people's medicine somewhere else!" Maybe you folks should advocate for a monoculture vineyard instead. Or just spray it all down with pesticides yourselves.

Dorothy Friberg

12-17-2018, 03:31 PM

No sweat, Big Tobacco will soon be taking over the industry and all this bickering will just be tinkling bells on the back porch.

The real question is should the current ordinance be scrapped; and if so replaced by what?...

Shepherd

12-19-2018, 12:15 PM

The following article from the NY Times is about the skunk smell of cannabis farms. Perhaps this might reduce the rampant tourism, which is taking over our county.

‘Dead Skunk’ Stench From Marijuana Farms Outrages Californians https://nyti.ms/2R1nUhh
(https://nyti.ms/2R1nUhh)

is there a link to a Map?
Proposal?

ChefJayTay

12-21-2018, 11:33 PM

No sweat, Big Tobacco will soon be taking over the industry and all this bickering will just be tinkling bells on the back porch.
Wow... You really are ignorant on this subject. Big tobacco is interested in tobacco. Phillip Morris is on record as uninterested in due to international politics.

Barry

12-22-2018, 11:20 AM

https://www.waccobb.net/forums/waccobb/keep90days/2018-12-22_11-18-13.png

Dec 19, 2018

Cannabis Attracts Big Tobacco, Alcohol, and Pharma. Which Big Industries Will Join Next?

https://www.waccobb.net/forums/waccobb/keep90days/2018-12-22_11-19-11a.png (https://www.forbes.com/sites/kriskrane/2018/12/19/cannabis-attracts-big-tobacco-alcohol-and-pharma-which-big-industries-will-join-next/#4c236ee98daf)

Dorothy Friberg

12-22-2018, 12:34 PM

Well, I'm thinking, the wine industry will find a way to liquify it and sell it bottled. After all, they've already done it with apples.

Dorothy Friberg

12-22-2018, 12:38 PM

Thank you, my ignorance is exceeded only by your own .

Wow... You really are ignorant on this subject. Big tobacco is interested in tobacco. Phillip Morris is on record as uninterested in due to international politics.

ChefJayTay

12-22-2018, 02:09 PM

Altria... Sold PM years ago.
The cigarette industry makes their money in the middle East and Asia. They can't take the political hit.
Juul is a TOBACCO vape company.

ChefJayTay

12-22-2018, 02:45 PM

https://www.altria.com/About-Altria/our-companies/philipmorrisusa/Pages/default.aspx

About Philip Morris USA.

Note that USA at the end? It's not PM International.

ChefJayTay

12-22-2018, 03:00 PM

Philip Morris [...] The overseas Big Tobacco firm said it "has no plans to develop or commercialize cannabis products." Similarly, Altria, which owns Philip Morris USA and spun off Philip Morris International a decade ago, said "Marijuana remains illegal under federal law and Altria's companies have no plans to sell marijuana-based products."
https://www.investors.com/news/marijuana-business-soars-big-tobacco-opportunities-vaping-cannabis-inhaler/

doghairnancy

12-23-2018, 04:52 PM

Have you wondered why the PD has virtually ignored the pushback against Cannabis production in the county? For those who don't know Darius Anderson's and his brother Kirk's stories, the following link explains it all. As usual, just follow the money.

SOS is a Bennett Valley group that is fighting the massive number of grows taking over burned lots.

https://www.sosneighborhoods.com/news/uncategorized/did-you-know-how-the-dominant-north-bay-media-company-was-connected-to-the-cannabis-lobby-read/

(https://www.sosneighborhoods.com/news/uncategorized/did-you-know-how-the-dominant-north-bay-media-company-was-connected-to-the-cannabis-lobby-read/)

karenm97

12-24-2018, 11:20 PM

I'm confused about this. I skimmed and it's sort of too long to find a quick answer to my questions: Isn't there a thing where outdoor cannabis farms have to be on land that's zoned as agricultural (and indoors on industrial properties?). Are there a lot of burned lots in Bennett Valley? Or where are the burned lots that are zoned ag that are getting (how many) permits for these operations?

I guess that I do know of one farm that seems to have gone out of produce and into a "different direction," but that's just one and it's not in BV and is zoned for ag...

Cannacraft is the owner of Care by Design and Absolute Extracts, right? Their products are medicinal. Where should their products be grown? Extracted? I have a friend who worked at one of the places that does extraction and handled their products somewhere between 1 and 3 years ago and it was not in this county, so I'm curious how much of the stuff that's in this article still happens in-county and how much of a problem that is now.

Thanks for anyone's help answering these questions.

Meanwhile, let's get some more monoculture vineyards and spray them down with toxic chemicals, shall we? Maybe some more event venues on secluded country roads... those folks are clearly seen as much better neighbors to have in one's expensive backyard that for what it's worth should have only the "right" kind of neighbors even though if one wants the right kind of neighbors it seems more sensible for one to find a compatible cohousing community to live in and try to mind their own business. Really.

Have you wondered why the PD has virtually ignored the pushback against Cannabis production in the county?...

Jeff Snook

01-01-2019, 08:01 AM

...

Thank you, my ignorance is exceeded only by your own .

luke32

01-01-2019, 01:00 PM

Interesting piece from The Atlantic https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2019/01/california-marijuana-crime/576391/

"Legalizing pot was supposed to reduce crime, or so advocates argued. The theory was simple: As cannabis buyers beat a path to the nearest dispensary, the black market would dry up (https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2011/06/legalizing-marijuana-could-save-thousands-of-lives/240905/), and with it the industry’s criminal element. Indeed, a study recently published in The Economic Journalfound that after medical marijuana was legalized in California, violent crime fell 15 percent (https://www.theguardian.com/world/2018/jan/14/legal-marijuana-medical-use-crime-rate-plummets-us-study).

Talk to authorities in California’s Emerald Triangle, though, and a different story emerges. This 10,000-square-mile area (which includes Humboldt, Mendocino, and Trinity Counties) by some estimates grows 60 percent of the country’s marijuana (https://grist.org/article/california-emerald-triangle-cheap-marijuana-economics-prop-64/). Ben Filippini, a deputy sheriff in Humboldt, told me that ever since California’s 1996 medical-marijuana initiative, violent crime in his jurisdiction has increased: “People are getting shot over this plant. All legalization did here was create a safe haven for criminals.” When I asked Trinity County’s undersheriff, Christopher Compton, what’s happened since a 2016 initiative legalized pot in the state, he said: “We haven’t seen any drop in crime whatsoever. In fact, we’ve seen a pretty steady increase.” Compton’s counterpart in Mendocino, Matthew Kendall, agreed: “We’re seeing more robberies and more gun violence.”

What’s going on? One factor is that legalization has led to a boom in the weed business (https://www.businessinsider.com/californias-recreational-cannabis-industry-is-booming-but-regulations-are-posing-a-unique-threat-2018-8), thereby increasing the supply of two things that tempt would-be thieves: the crop, and the cash it generates. The latter is particularly abundant, because while some credit unions and regional banks have begun accepting marijuana money, the big ones don’t. Cannabis is still illegal under federal law, and executives fear being charged with money laundering.

A second factor: California may have legalized pot, but not all growers want to be legal (https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/national/wp/2018/03/16/feature/californias-outlaw-marijuana-culture-faces-a-harsh-reckoning-legal-weed/?utm_term=.ee6b0d8b36c4). Out of some 32,000 farmers in the region, only about 3,500 had applied for a license by the end of 2017. Some insist that complying with regulations is too costly. Others are evading taxes. Running an illegal “grow,” however, leaves them especially vulnerable to “dope rips” (theft of processed marijuana), precisely because thieves know such farmers will be unwilling to file a police report. Criminal syndicates, which are involved in many of these thefts, resell much of the plunder out of state.

Which brings us to a third factor: The post-legalization boom has led pot prices in California to plummet, and increased the incentive to sell the product out of state. A pound of marijuana that in 2015 went for $1,200 in-state sells today for just $300. In New York City, though, California weed fetches up to $3,000 a pound. Until marijuana is legalized nationally, such price discrepancies will surely remain, and criminal gangs will find their way to the Emerald Triangle.

For now, as thefts grow more brazen, many farmers are employing new security measures. Some use a company called Hardcar Distribution (https://www.businessfleet.com/279665/a-fleet-grows-with-the-cannabis-industry) to carry their cash—and their harvest—in armored vehicles operated by teams of armed military veterans. Others are converting dollars into bitcoin or precious metals. “I watch Breaking Bad and Ozark for tips,” one pot grower told me. “It’s like educational TV.”

Dorothy Friberg

01-05-2019, 02:53 PM

Today's New York Times has an editorial by Alex Berenson with the caption "Don't ignore the Risks of Pot". ('What advocates of legalizing marijuana don't want you to know') This article sheds light on previous studies and medical research into effects of causing and/or increasing risk of psychosis and schizophrenia, which studies were done by respected medical researchers. Further in his article, Berenson states "before recreational legalization began in 2014, advocates promised that it would reduce violent crime. But the first four states to legalize -Alaska, Colorado, Oregon and Washington - have seen sharp increases in murders and aggravated assaults since 2014, according to reports from the Federal Bureau of Investigation. Police reports and news articles show a clear link to cannabis in many cases." These are important considerations for our neighborhoods

Interesting piece from The Atlantic https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2019/01/california-marijuana-crime/576391/
...

karenm97

01-05-2019, 10:54 PM

(I haven't read the whole text of the piece Dorothy posted) I think it's important to point out that state-level
"legalization" and the incumbent "regulation" such as California's - which requires all those expensive permits that not everyone has a trust fund or extensive network to crowdfund from - is not the same as federal decriminalization, which would lead to solutions such as lowered prices=less incentive to steal or commit other crimes against growers, and more importantly, more funding and approval of studies that would address a lot of different components to cannabis and their effects. This piece seems to focus on few studies that are only about THC. Sure, some people can't handle THC and that's terrible, but there are many benefits to cannabidiol that I don't see mentioned, and CBD consumption is a huge part of the cannabis/hemp markets.

The stats about hospitalizations due to mental health crises allegedly brought on by cannabis use are ridiculous because nothing is mentioned about all the health, mental health, and social problems caused by alcohol users. Those problems affect millions. I volunteered as a medical interpreter at a hospital and interpreted for a guy who had alcohol poisoning. It was so gross. It's pretty rare for someone to OD on cannabis, and, sure, for some even using a small amount once (or regularly) can lead to psychosis (including in people who have had that condition previously). This happened to a friend of mine who was already pretty paranoid due to his hobby of hanging protest posters at night in San Francisco and it was very sad for all of us to not be able to help him to get better.

I didn't see any clear stats about the violent crime in the Emerald Triangle being linked to cannabis. I have seen articles about how crime decreased in Colorado in the years after legalization there.

This quote is ridiculous because it does not address the decreases in opioid use that have been observed in states that have legalized cannabis (you can google "decreased opioid use and cannabis" for some article about that) : "As Americans consider making marijuana a legal drug, it would be wise to remember the choices that fueled the devastating opioid epidemic. Decades ago, many of the same people pressing for marijuana legalization argued that the risks of opioid addiction could be easily managed."

There's also no citation of the advocacy by the pro-cannabis people for opioid use. One must be aware that there are groups that advocate decriminalization of all drugs, but that's not what we're talking about here.

In sum,WHATEVER.

Start a cohousing community in a more rural area if you're so worried about your neighborhood.

ChefJayTay

01-06-2019, 05:53 AM

Note MO = Altria.

Yes Mike. Altria WAS Phillip Morris. Now, It's a mish mash of crap worth a fraction of what it was. It's owned and spun off Kraft. It's got a 10% stake in ABInBev. It even owns Chateau Ste. Michelle Wine. It's stock price likely moves more on cheap alcohol trends than tobacco or pot. Now perhaps it's made it's shareholders money by spinning off companies and products to their benefit (I gotta doubt that considering), but the fact that PM is worth more than Altria has to sting a bit.

Philip Morris Intl (PM), the "spin-off", market cap of 108Billion.

Altria (MO) market cap of 94.5B.

tommy

01-06-2019, 05:47 PM

This may not be PC... but speaking as a former pothead... it's unfortunate it was legalized. I smoked it daily for 10 years. It was something I looked forward to every day... and then was stoned as soon as I did it! What a way to waste this precious life. It's addictive, and robs you of your zest and resourcefulness. With it's current legalization, its use has spread, so that now even more people are stoned out. Psychologically, frequent use is a symptom of someone who has no purpose or direction.

Shandi

01-07-2019, 03:27 PM

Thank you for writing some of what I was thinking. Alcohol is the accepted drug of choice, and although I don't have statistics to back it up, I believe it's been the cause of more violence, domestic abuse, child/animal neglect, and mental illness than any other ingested substance in our culture.

Thieves will steal anything of value, so cannabis gets stolen, especially if it's grown outdoors, without proper security, which could mean dogs and guns or both.

Wealthy people who have valuables also have high levels of security to protect their precious possessions, including their "wine cellar".

"Wine is fine, but pot is not"?

..."legalization" and the incumbent "regulation" such as California's - which requires all those expensive permits that not everyone has a trust fund ...

geomancer

01-07-2019, 04:45 PM

.. it's unfortunate it was legalized. I smoked it daily for 10 years. It was something I looked forward to every day... and then was stoned as soon as I did it! What a way to waste this precious life. It's addictive, and robs you of your zest and resourcefulness .... Psychologically, frequent use is a symptom of someone who has no purpose or direction.

OTOH, i've been smoking weed since JFK was president. Never have had a problem although nowadays it does not get me off the way it used to. Sad that. I didn't smoke every day back when because it didn't work as well if I did. Preferred to smoke in the evening every 2 or 3 days, when hiking or at Dead shows. I found weed to be a creative stimulant in my work as geologist. Nothing like getting ripped and studying a geologic map to gain new insights.

People vary in their predilections to addiction. I quit smoking tobacco without much stress after being a daily smoker for 5 years. No problems at all quitting morphine after 2 major surgeries; hated that drug - made me stupid, constipated and impotent. Bringing the law down on folks who have no problem with weed because others can't handle it is bullshit and creates more problems than it solves. Speaking of harmful, addictive substances, what about alcohol? If your going to ban any drug, that should be the one. But we know how well that worked out, don't we?

wisewomn

01-08-2019, 06:18 PM

Well said, Geo. Tobacco belongs right up there with alcohol, IMO.

OTOH, i've been smoking weed since JFK was president. Never have had a problem ....
Speaking of harmful, addictive substances, what about alcohol? If your going to ban any drug, that should be the one. But we know how well that worked out, don't we?

occihoff

01-09-2019, 03:43 PM

Well said, Karen, but it must be noted that there is another problem that arises in regard to edible cannabis products. When you smoke cannabis you feel the effects quickly, and can stop when it's too much, but when you eat it you have no idea what will happen, unless you've prepared it yourself and know the dosage. Eating too much and overdosing is a real bummer, as I know from my own experience! I have no idea how the edible cannabis products market can deal with this problem, especially when the products taste really good and may be consumed by people who do not realize what they are eating!

Cannabis certainly has its dangers, but this is no reason to keep it illegal.

...It's pretty rare for someone to OD on cannabis, ....