Approved Minutes for February 21, 2019
- Call to Order
Chairperson Vicky Farrow called to order the regular meeting of the Dry Creek Valley Citizens Advisory Council at 6:01 pm. - Introduction of Councilmembers and Roll Call
Present Councilmembers: Vicky Farrow, Bill Smith, Ruth Wilson, Jenny Gomez. Chairperson Vicky Farrow explained that Bengt Akerlind, who is our new council member chosen by the Winegrowers of Dry Creek Valley, was unable to attend tonight’s meeting.
- Special Training of Councilmembers
Tim Ricard, from the County of Sonoma, presented a PowerPoint presentation with an overview of the County’s Cannabis permit processes, with an emphasis on updates. He explained that there have been many changes since the 2015 approval of Medical Cannabis regulations. Things sped up when voters approved Prop 64, which went into effect on January 1st in 2018. Final State regulations were adopted in January 2019, so many of the changes to county regulations were to bring the county in line with state regulations.The county began developing land use ordinances in 2016, prior to the passage of both the medical and personal cannabis propositions. In 2017, the county started accepting applications for medical cannabis growing operations. They have gone back to the BOS and made some updates. He will cover those tonight.
Goal of these ordinances‐‐to create a pathway to permit existing underground industry. Taxes—were instituted and vary depending on the grow locations and the part of the industry in question.
Personal Cultivation—is now allowed for up to 100 sq. ft. per residenceThe Cannabis Ordinance covers Commercial Land Use, outdoor, indoor, and mixed light, processing, distribution, lab testing, manufacturing and dispensaries.
Indoor grows are defined as using no natural light.
Mixed light grows defines anything that uses artificial light or light depravation for grows. There is a 1 acre maximum per parcel and per operator.
Limits: 10,000 square feet limit for mixed light; 5,000 square feet limit on indoor; 28,600 sq. ft. limit for Outdoor.The Department of Agriculture allows Outdoor only cultivation permits up to 10,000 sq. ft. Permit Sonoma Zoning Permits are granted for indoor and mixed light operations and Minor and Conditional Use Permits. (He provided the Council with the departments Land Use Chart—there are some LIA areas on the chart). He encouraged the council and audience to check out their website.
He talked briefly about the County’s Penalty Relief Program—existing operators are allowed to operate while working towards permitting. Of 200 applications, only 67 are currently in this program. Some have already been approved and others have failed to meet requirements.
Code enforcement—Now it is a land use violation and is no longer referred to the Sherriff’s office for enforcement.
So far, the county has issued 32 permits. There are 67 in process, with Penalty Relief, and they are mostly outdoor or mixed light cultivation.
- Changes Highlighted
October this year, there were changes made to align with state law and adjust for things learned in the process over the previous year(s).
The biggest change was from allowing only Medical use to allowing both Medical and Adult use. Adult use is allowed only through the permitting process. 35% are for propagation (over the 1‐acre limit). State licenses are based on square footage, and only count areas with mature plants.He mentioned there are a couple of new permit types, including processing. Processing is only for plants grown in the immediate area. Processing off premises is allowed only in industrial areas. Now there are a few cluster processors. Permit used to be annual—time and expense made this untenable. Now permits are for 5 years.
Questions
Councilmember Vicky Farrow asked about licenses. Do they go with the operator? Tim the council that the permits are now actually for 5 years, but it does not transfer with the operator or the land. He also explained it is a two‐tiered process. They must also go through the state licensing after the county land‐use permitting.
Councilmember Bill Smith asked about crime in areas where grows have been approved. Time explained there have not been any incidents at permitted premises. Security plans are confidential and there is both active and passive security. No cash on site. Cash transactions will not typically happen at the farm. He spoke to cases with criminals from out of state—je believes those incidents were related to the end of previous regulations and the resulting unloading of product by illegal operators. He believes most criminals are looking for processed product or cash.
Councilmember Jenny Gomez asked about processing. Tim explained that processing can happen at the grow site, but it must be done in a building. Most are looking for offsite processing. Processing involves trimming and drying. Permits will indicate if processing is done onsite or offsite.
Councilmember Bill Smith asked about odors, explaining that he often hears complaints about that. Tim explained that is a difficult subject. Setbacks were meant to mitigate most problems related to odor. Indoor and mixed light grows control the odor. Outdoor grows may have an odor near harvest, when the plants are most odiferous, which is late summer and early fall.
The county is looking into further mitigation solutions. It is hard to measure the effects, so it may have to be looked at site by site. Most of the year odor is not an issue—only when plants mature. Tim further explained that security and odor are the two biggest issues, especially for outdoor permits. He also mentioned there are fewer CEQA issues. None of the outdoor permits have yet come before the BZA. The first one may be before the board in March. Councilmember Jenny Gomez asked specifically about referrals that we have already heard that had outdoor grows. Tim confirmed they are still in the pipeline for approval.
Councilmember Bill Smith mentioned that he had questions about a couple of other issues: LIA and RRD areas, he is concerned about access road traffic, especially on narrow roads. He asked if there are rules. Also, are the rules different for cannabis and grape growing? What about water use for the two crops? Tim Explained that the Fire Safe Road Standards apply in
all cases. The frequency of passing and the width of the road are taken into consideration. For water use, the permitting requires net zero in water sensitive areas. They have to offset water use by installing rainwater catchment, etc., to offset any water use. Also, well monitoring is required. Access easement must be allowed for the county to check wells.Tim was thanked for his presentation.
Approval of Minutes
On a motion by Councilmember Jenny Gomez, seconded by Councilmember Bill Smith, the December 20, 2018, Dry Creek Valley Citizens Advisory Council meeting minutes were approved. The motion carried on a voice vote, (4‐0).- Public Comments on Non‐Agenda Items ‐ None
- Correspondence‐
Secretary, Sharon Pillsbury, mentioned the letters received via email regarding our two referrals. - Councilmember Announcements and Disclosures:Information only ‐
Councilmember Bill Smith declared he had driven by both of the referral sites that are on our agenda for this meeting. He spoke with the consultant regarding Planson, and also spoke with Mr. Planson.
Councilmember Jenny Gomez said she drove by one of the sites.
Councilmember Ruth Wilson drove by the Dry Creek Road site and spoke with Mr. Planson. Councilmember Vicky Farrow did a “google drive‐by” of the sites and spoke with Mr. Planson.
Referrals from PRMD ‐
Referrals from Sonoma County PRMD
File Number: UPC18‐0046
Applicant Name: Evergreen Acres, LLC, ATTN: Thomas Planson Owner Name: Diana Planson, Peter Coopersmith, Thomas Planson Site Address: 6699 Palmer Creek Road, Healdsburg
APN: 069‐040‐026
Project Description: Request for a Use Permit for 33,560 square feet of outdoor cultivation and 10,000 square feet of mixed light cultivation to occur on a 34.04‐acre parcel zoned RRD 86 160 BH RC50/50. The applicant also proposes constructing a 1,710 square foot residence, a 747,948‐gallon pond for irrigation, and remodeling an existing 1,628 square foot barnThe written presentation for this project was done by Brian Elliott, the consultant who helped Mr. Thomas Planson with compliance. They first did fire compliance for this project in 2018.
Thomas did his own presentation with a Power Point presentation. His company is Evergreen Acres. It is a multi‐generational family property. He has been working with medical cannabis since 1999, and has been part of this community for many years. I 2007 after a few years of preparing property on Palmer Creek, their permit to build a home was approved. The project was put on hold when his mother was diagnosed and treated for cancer. The medicinal cannabis helped her through the process and sparked his interest in medical cannabis. The plans to build a home morphed into a desire to grow cannabis. They have done extensive research and have done neighbor outreach. He has addressed all their concerns and did a meet and greet in December 2018.They developed an agri‐business model to address concerns. It minimizes traffic—no additional traffic. No trimming, no processing, no storage, contract cultivator, minimal odor, minimal or low noise, zero visual impact, low number of employees, etc. They are using new technology to flash freeze the harvest. It will be trucked offsite for processing.
This new process allows them to control timing in the grows and at harvest. Sustainability was addressed. They will utilize an electric shuttle for employees, and a pond for water catchment. They have also installed a fence and plantings for view screening and additional security.
Additional security measures were covered, as well.Fire concerns were addressed. They have native fire resistant redwoods or coast live oaks on the property. Security gates with Know boxes for Fire Department access. COPE meetings will be hosted in their barn. They would like to revitalize the barn. He showed photos and visuals of the barn, barn improvements, and how outbuildings and home will look on the property.
Questions from Council
Councilmember Jenny Gomez sked about grows: Will they be organic or will they be using pesticides? Thomas explained they plan to use pesticides only if they have to. Also, his partner mentioned that pesticide use for cannabis are very regulated.
Councilmember Vicky Farrow asked about increase of trips for employee shuttle. Thomas explained they are minimizing traffic by keeping to the amount normal for a residence.
Councilmember Bill Smith asked about the 1,700 square foot house for employee residence. It was explained it will initially be for family, and then for employees.Public Comments‐ None
Council Discussion
Councilmember Bill Smith commented on the completeness and thoroughness of the application. He liked that there is no onsite processing, and the use of a shuttle. He also appreciates their outreach to neighbors.
Councilmember Jenny Gomez also appreciated their neighbor outreach. She commented on the clarity of the presentation and its thoroughness.
Councilmember Ruth Wilson agreed.
Councilmember Vicky Farrow also agreed that community outreach is really important. The council’s job is to allow input from neighbors.- Statement of Motion
On a motion by Councilmember Bill Smith, seconded by Councilmember Jenny Gomez, the council recommends approval of this Use Permit. The motion carried on a voice vote (4‐0).
2nd Referral from Sonoma County PRMD
File Number: UPC18‐0053
Applicant Name: Steven Sommer
Owner Name: Steven and Candace Sommer Site Address: 6029 Dry Creek Road, Healdsburg APN: 090‐240‐022
Project Description: Request for a Use Permit a medium outdoor cannabis cultivation operation (10,001‐ 43,560 square feet) to occur on a 59.55‐acre parcel zoned LIA B6 20Z RC50/50 SR. There are 3 existing single‐family homes on the parcel and 16‐acres of vineyards. - Questions from Council
Councilmember Vicky Farrow asked about mitigation measures and if they are spelled out in the application. Jake explained that there will be continual site visits by the county during the permit process. The county will measure canopy for tax purposes as well as health and wellness or crop loss visits can also happen. The Water Board will also visit and water use has to be reported. Fish and Wildlife can also stop by to check on them. Monitoring will be handled by four different jurisdictions. Also, phone calls from each of the jurisdictions are expected. He explained that requirements are much more rigid than for typical agriculture. He added there is a full CEQA process for permitting. There are the same standards for a 10,000 sq. ft. grow, no CEQA is required.
Councilmember Jenny Gomez asked about water and easement to the water and well. Jake explained that there is a shared well across Dry Creek Road. The well is shared and produces about 500 to 700 gallons per minute. The riparian corridor is far away from the grow site and there are setbacks. Another one‐acre piece has a shared well with a neighboring property.
The spring is on the other property, but the pond is on their property. There is an easement. The well is not on property they own. He believes it is shared with his three properties. He explained that cannabis water restrictions are extremely strict. Each parcel is considered differently.
Councilmember Bill Smith asked about the water issue raised by their neighbors the Mannings. Is the water easement for the pond? Jake explained they have not met with the Mannings or the owners of Chateau Diana. He stressed the importance of reaching out to neighbors. Bill addressed the easement for the one‐acre parcel and that it had required arbitration.
Councilmember Jenny Gomez commented that it is helpful for applicants to do the outreach before coming before our council. Jake explained they were waiting to find out that their application was complete.
Councilmember Ruth Wilson asked if the grow was completely outdoors, referencing a “mixed‐light” reference on page 10 of the referral. Jake confirmed that it will be entirely outdoors, and that the mixed light reference was an error. Owner Steve Sommers commented that he had talked with neighbors in from and to the side of their property. - Public Comments
Teresa Manning, a neighbor adjacent to the Sommer property on Dry Creek Road, expressed her concern about their house and her brother’s house on their neighboring property. They live right next door to the property proposed as the cultivation site. The one‐acre parcel within the Somers property is owned by the Manning family. The spring water is owned by them and they have access for maintenance. She mentioned there have been previous disputes over the water that resulted in the creation of a Prescriptive Easement. The spring lie feeds the pond and is used for fire protection and wildlife. She showed pictures of muddy run off. They are concerned about chemicals and pesticides that will run off into their pond. They are also concerned about control over the pond water and its potential use for this application. She is also concerned about security, especially at harvest time, and the potential for crime.
She mentioned that there have also been several crimes in our valley related to cannabis. There is further concern about the odor. She mentioned that Dry Creek Valley has a lot of tourists. She asked the council how prominent they want cannabis grows to be in our area. She believes her concerns and objections may be the reason why they were not previously contacted.
Mark Adams, a partner in the project, introduced himself as a retired police officer that worked in drug enforcement. He commented that the site is not visible to the public, and that there would be onside guards during harvest, as well as fencing.
Cody Leck, a Palmer Creek Neighbor, asked about murders in Dry Creek. Teresa mentioned a 2011 murder on West Dry Creek during a cannabis exchange. She also mentioned someone recently, who was growing in Cloverdale, met a man West Dry Creek. The man was shot by customers that did not want to pay. Mark Adams offered to meet with the Manning’s. They do not want neighbors to be uncomfortable or unhappy. He mentioned the surplus of grapes, and that profitability has declined, so he believes some growers are turning to cannabis for financial reasons.
Teresa Manning expressed that she is upset outreach had not been handled before this meeting. She does not see that an outdoor grow can be mitigated. She is also concerned that the 1‐acre may turn out be larger, due to the propagation allowance.
Steve Sommer mentioned that they have had water issues with the Manning’s in the past. It cost them a lot and it was legally mitigated.
Councilmember Jenny Gomez asked about previous water issues. It was clarified that there has been compliance with the easement for 15 years. Jake also clarified that the water would not be used for the cannabis cultivation and that there are strict guidelines for pesticide usage. - Council Discussion
Councilmember Jenny Gomez thanked all of the applicants and neighbors. She shared that all previous referrals heard by our council have been in much more remote areas. She wanted to clarify our process. Talking to neighbors is so important. We are your neighbors. We are here to ask questions and share opinions. She wants it to be legal and believes it will make things safer. But, the Black Market is coming into the light and it is difficult.
Councilmember Bill Smith agreed with Jenny. He believes the water issue has been resolved. The run off issue should not be an issue if they do not use pesticides. He believes there has been not criminal activity so far. He wishes there had been more outreach prior to this meeting. He suggested continuing this decision to the next meeting so that the applicants can get together with their neighbors.
Councilmember Jenny Gomez agreed that on most of our previous referrals there are some neighbors for and some against. It is helpful to know all of this ahead of time.
Councilmember Ruth Wilson would also like to see the parties meet and discuss before our council makes a recommendation.
Councilmember Vicky Farrow agreed and mentioned that she would also like to continue until they have been able to meet with all of the their neighbors.
Councilmember Jenny Gomez explained that she would be uncomfortable voting tonight because this is so different from our previous applications. Jake agreed that they understand, and while they do not want to drag it out, they would agree to this. Statement of Motion
On a motion by Councilmember Jenny Gomez, seconded by Councilmember Bill Smith, the council agreed to continue UPC18‐0053 until our next meeting. The motion carried on a voice vote (4‐0).Discussion Items
Vicky asked Secretary, Sharon Pillsbury, to add Teresa Manning to our Agenda contact list for the next meeting. Teresa Manning mentioned that she will not be available on March 21st, and was assured they can ask for a time extension if needed.Vicky mentioned that our Blue Book Update with the addition of our Guidelines Document had been approved by the Board of Supervisors and posted on the county website on our Dry Creek Valley Citizens Advisory Council page.
Election of Chair and Vice Chair:
On a motion by Bill Smith, and a 2nd by Ruth Wilson, the council agreed to elect Jenny Gomez to the council Chair position. Passed on a voice vote (4‐0).On a motion by Jenny Gomez, and a 2nd by Vicky Farrow, the council agreed to elect Bill Smith to the position of Vice Chair. Passed on a voice vote (4‐0).
Bill Smith commended our past Chair and Vice Chair, Vicky Farrow and Ruth Wilson, for their last two years of service.
Agenda Items for future meetings
Any new referrals
Discussion of potential Westside CAC Swearing in of new Councilmember Brown Act Training
Jenny asked if emails could be streamlined to eliminate confusionAdjournment
There being no other Council business to discuss, the meeting was adjourned at
7:53 pm; on a motion by Councilmember Vicky Farrow, seconded by Councilmember Ruth Wilson. The motion carried on a voice vote, (4‐0).
The presentation on this referral was done by consultant Jake McKee. He had some boards with visuals for the audience that showed the lot and placement of features of the property. He also handed out a condensed version of the referral packet. The first page has the summary including size of the area and parcel. He introduced property owners Steve and Candy Sommer as long‐time residents and farmers in Dry Creek. He explained they have 60 acres total. He also introduced John Carlos, who is another resident on the property. He explained there is a natural tree line that surrounds the proposed grow site. Their application is for up to an acre of outdoor cultivation. (The application states 10,000 sq. ft. to 1 acre.) Security was addressed. He explained that cameras are required for every part of the canopy. There will be on on‐site processing. The must keep 30 days of video footage as a requirement. The area is fenced and has a Knox box for access for emergency responders. Everything related to the grow is inside those perimeters, with the exception of fertilizer, which is kept in the barn, and pesticides. He addressed water use: He explained the water needs for the cultivation will be similar to that water needs of grapes. When the plants are planted in the ground, they use less water. They are currently wrestling with this issue.
He explained that all the roads on the property are gravel and there will be a gravel parking area for employees. The chosen grow site used to have grapevines, but they had been pulled out previously. The cultivation type they have chosen will look similar to grapes, as they will be in trellised rows. There is no outside visibility with the possible exception of the higher ground of the neighboring Chateau Diana. He believes it may be visible from their higher ground. They are working on odor mitigation. There will be no buildings, no structures, no onsite processing. Buildings for the cultivation on this site would require full commercial permitting. Farming practices are similar to other crops. He addressed run off by stating they will use best farming practices. Run off would not be desirable because of erosion and damage it might cause to the roads. They will be mitigating run off into the creek.