5 21-87 9:25 A.M. - PUBLIC HEARING to Discuss and Consider Approval of Text Amendments to Article 27SEC. 21-27 USES GENERALLY PERMITTED Commercial Cannabis Cultivation with a Resolution of Intention submitted to the Board of Supervisors: Proposed Amendments to Zoning Ordinance (AM 21-01) Categorical Exemption (CE 20-16)
Good day,
My name is Angelo Bellah and I'm the VP of Operations for PRO Farms.
In regards to visual screening language, I would suggest adopting generic language (similar to the regulations in WA State) and only require a "visual barrier" instead of requiring plants/trees. In consideration of visual blight concerns, I think it's appropriate for there to be a visual barrier, I just think that requiring plants/trees is overkill. In regards to the required plants/trees that would make up a barrier, if the concern is terpene drift onto grapes, I would argue that the terpenes from trees and plants would be equally detrimental as the cannabis plants. If the concern is pesticide drift onto the cannabis plants, the state regulations WILL catch up with reality and relax the regulations so that this isn't an issue. In the meantime, pesticide drift is still illegal and the burden of mitigating it should be on the operator applying it.
(Continued in next comment)
Can someone fully explain why this is being introduced now? Also, what happens if there is a cannabis cultivation (outdoor) and then someone starts a farm next door? Can this be more fully explored?
OPPOSE, UNLESS AMENDED. We are writing about the proposed increase to existing setbacks to ostensibly protect existing farmland. Setting aside our belief that different agricultural and farmland uses can coexist together, the proposal as written is discriminatory and unfair. We borrowed money and spent our life savings to purchase property and invest in Lake County. We moved our home to the county to fulfill this dream and now have two applications at the Planning Department. This proposal has created uncertainty for us and the future of our personal investment. For others who may be looking at investing in Lake County, it creates enormous regulatory unpredictability. At the very least, you should exempt anyone who has an existing application at Planning. Thank you, Michael Colbruno, Lower Lake
I'm glad to see the requirement that cultivation within 500 feet of our Highways be screened with vegetation. Our Highways are used heavily by visitors here, providing this visual buffer does not burden farmers excessively and will maintain the beauty along the routes. It does seem like the protection from fugitive spray goes too far though. Under 2d. "Vegetation screen shall be effective in preventing substantial drift..". Since the cannabis operator is already being burdened with the cost of a vegetative buffer, why are they also being punished by providing a 500 foot clearance from a neighboring crop? The protection for a neighboring residence is 200 feet, this seems like an adequate distance crop-to-crop if an effective vegetative buffer is also used. I recommend reducing the 500 foot barrier to 200 feet.
Good day,
My name is Angelo Bellah and I'm the VP of Operations for PRO Farms.
In regards to visual screening language, I would suggest adopting generic language (similar to the regulations in WA State) and only require a "visual barrier" instead of requiring plants/trees. In consideration of visual blight concerns, I think it's appropriate for there to be a visual barrier, I just think that requiring plants/trees is overkill. In regards to the required plants/trees that would make up a barrier, if the concern is terpene drift onto grapes, I would argue that the terpenes from trees and plants would be equally detrimental as the cannabis plants. If the concern is pesticide drift onto the cannabis plants, the state regulations WILL catch up with reality and relax the regulations so that this isn't an issue. In the meantime, pesticide drift is still illegal and the burden of mitigating it should be on the operator applying it.
(Continued in next comment)
Can someone fully explain why this is being introduced now? Also, what happens if there is a cannabis cultivation (outdoor) and then someone starts a farm next door? Can this be more fully explored?
Oppose unless amended. Please see attached letter on behalf of the Lake County Cannabis Alliance.
Please see attached item
OPPOSE, UNLESS AMENDED. We are writing about the proposed increase to existing setbacks to ostensibly protect existing farmland. Setting aside our belief that different agricultural and farmland uses can coexist together, the proposal as written is discriminatory and unfair. We borrowed money and spent our life savings to purchase property and invest in Lake County. We moved our home to the county to fulfill this dream and now have two applications at the Planning Department. This proposal has created uncertainty for us and the future of our personal investment. For others who may be looking at investing in Lake County, it creates enormous regulatory unpredictability. At the very least, you should exempt anyone who has an existing application at Planning. Thank you, Michael Colbruno, Lower Lake
I'm glad to see the requirement that cultivation within 500 feet of our Highways be screened with vegetation. Our Highways are used heavily by visitors here, providing this visual buffer does not burden farmers excessively and will maintain the beauty along the routes. It does seem like the protection from fugitive spray goes too far though. Under 2d. "Vegetation screen shall be effective in preventing substantial drift..". Since the cannabis operator is already being burdened with the cost of a vegetative buffer, why are they also being punished by providing a 500 foot clearance from a neighboring crop? The protection for a neighboring residence is 200 feet, this seems like an adequate distance crop-to-crop if an effective vegetative buffer is also used. I recommend reducing the 500 foot barrier to 200 feet.