Page 3 - Sonoma County Gazette July 2018

Cannabis Land Use
Ordinance UPDATES
Please help us get the word
out. These recommendations are not going to help us at all. We are very disappointed. We recognize the board has the final say and will take public comments on August 7. We still have hope that they will listen to all of their constituents. Right now, the voices of the cannabis industry are loudest.
Housing Our Families
“The Planning Commission held
a public hearing on June 7, 2018
to consider amendments to the Cannabis Land Use Ordinance. At the conclusion of the hearing the Commission requested staff to provide clarification and additional research on the proposal. The Board of Supervisors provided direction
to move quickly on amendments to alleviate neighborhood compatibility issues by requiring use permits on smaller rural properties and align with state law where appropriate. Part 2 will include a more thorough review of neighborhood compatibility and other implementation efforts and will include robust outreach, data and mapping analysis, and extensive research by staff”.
Many thanks for listening. Grace Guthrie
As you will see, there are no immediate changes to improve neighborhood compatibility issues with regard to setbacks, despite multiple neighborhood groups and concerned citizens voicing opinion
on the need for increased setbacks. The docs state this will be included
in phase 2. This is incredibly disappointing as it was one of the major concerns of all the supervisors and an easy fix. We requested to increase outdoor setbacks to 2,000 feet to a property line (from today’s 100 feet). We can smell our neighbor from 1,100 feet away. WAnd we requested to add an indoor setback for cannabis- use accessory structures (no setback rules exists today). This isn’t included either.
I’ve been watching the board of sups meetings and actually spoke
at one. I agree that adding lots of standard ADU’s does not necessarily make it easy for young people to own (except when they are children of us old back to the landers and can stay on the land if we build them cottages or convert garages barns etc.—the only way many of them can do it)
Affordable house ownership suggestion: LOCALLY FINANCED OWNER OCCUPIED TINY HOMES
You will see that the recommended changes to the ordinance really
fall short of what I recall the board requesting for neighborhood compatibility. Interestingly, it worsens compatibility in Sebastopol zones by reversing the ban in certain AR and RR parcels (Planning Areas 4 and
into equity on a monthly basis
2) a reasonable return on investment for people like us who need to
6 Sebastopol and environs).....and using the current setback regulations ?!?! This seems unfair to the neighborhoods to be singled out and also unfair to the previous growers who were shut down in AR and RR with the 2016 ordinance.
3) a sense off community—owners could provide shared use infrastructure like community kitchens, meeting spaces, guest rooms, gardens, tools, child care facilities etc (many of us are empty nesters and our houses would make great community spaces for people living in tiny homes.
But here’s an idea I and some of
my West County friends have been exploring: Owner Occupied Tiny Homes and Small Scale Rural Tiny Home Villages Where Young People can Rent to Own. I’ve got a number of friends who would invest in a project where they finance tiny homes or beautiful house style Park Models that are then made available as a lease option or rent to own basis, either on their own land or in small rural tiny home permaculture village parks. This allows:
1) young people to put their money
manage our retirement nest-
egg and would love to use it to support the next generation that is currently being driven out by high prices
LETTERS cont’d on page 4
7/18 - www.sonomacountygazette.com - 3
POST your own at sonomacountygazette.com FREE...CLICK Submit Article/Event