Huge industrial cannabis proposal near Graton

[Shepherd]

“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...c-8a867bee1dc8

Additionally, new cannabis regulations are being considered at theBoard of Supervisors meeting next Tuesday, 10/16 at 9:15 am 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]
[email protected]

and cc it to:
[email protected]
[email protected]
[email protected]
[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]

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.]

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]

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

[O.W.]

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.

1. 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

1. 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.

1. 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.

1. 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.

1. 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.
2. 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?
3. Amend other zoning code language for consistency and clarification. Be careful what is “simplified”.

[Dorothy Friberg]

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]

I prefer green to grape, but this sounds awful!

[rossmen]

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]

Sonoma County supervisors OK recreational cannabis sales but limit pot growing

JULIE JOHNSON
THE PRESS DEMOCRAT | October 16, 2018, 7:45PM

Expand

Sonoma County supervisors Tuesday voted to allow recreational sales to begin at marijuana dispensaries as early as mid-November and limited most pot-growing farms to properties at least 10 acres or larger.

The size requirement eliminates more than 5,100 properties previously eligible for cannabis cultivation, county staff said.

This action and other rules for the newly regulated cannabis industry are the latest in a series of amendments to the ordinance governing marijuana cultivation, sales, production and other commercial activities outside city limits. This process began nearly two years ago to establish local regulations for a cannabis industry that previously operated either in the black market or under the state’s loosely defined medical marijuana laws.

But the most pressing issue that emerged during Tuesday’s meeting was not on the agenda for county supervisors to consider: A newly proposed cannabis cultivation project near a portion of the West County Regional Trail in Graton. The proposal drew about two dozen residents from the unincorporated community north of Sebastopol who expressed outrage by the prospect of a large marijuana farm in the bucolic community and adjacent to the regional park bicycle thoroughfare.

“It’s the scale and location of the operation I’m opposed to,” said Joe Howard, a resident on Railroad Street, a dead-end lane where the project is proposed. “I voted for cultivation in Sonoma County where appropriate.”

Sonoma County Supervisor Lynda Hopkins said she was surprised to learn setbacks required between cannabis operations and parks don’t apply to the county’s trail system for bicyclists and pedestrians.

“Sometimes applications bring up policy concerns and we can address that through policy solutions,” Hopkins said.

The outcry echoed complaints from other areas of the county where people establishing cannabis farms — in the open for the first time — are met with neighbors balking at the smell and public safety considerations that come with the plant, still illegal under federal law.

Continues here

[Shepherd]

"...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]

"...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]

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]

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]

Here's an article from the Washington Post about Cannabis taking root in Santa Ynez Valley. I think land values, and neighborhood concerns will push legal cannabis farming south of here.




Marijuana is emerging among California’s vineyards, offering promise and concern

By Scott Wilson
October 14

Excerpt:

Expand

"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.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 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

[O.W.]

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.]

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]

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]

[O.W.]

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]

[...]

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]

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.]

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/zdd09xvq3...jTDhmzVCa?dl=0

[Goat Rock Ukulele]

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]

[...]

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]

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]

Cannabis cares more about you then your government does.

[sqb]

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]

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

[rossmen]

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]

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]

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.