I attended the Planning Commission meeting discussing the proposed new cannabis ordinance chapter 38, the SMND and proposed changes to chapter 26. I was appalled that staff did not know what was in their documents, including the proposed chapter 38 and modifications to chapter 26. A few examples include
1) not knowing that the 10% of parcel limitation was specified only for outdoor and hoop houses (38.12.030), whereas indoor cultivation in existing permanent structures was unlimited, and the limit on new structures was again additive.
2) Not knowing what the definition of hoop houses was, or what permits would be required for the electrical, plumbing and mechanical that would now be allowed. Mr. Smith first stated only a fire operational permit but no building permits, yet then also stated a building permit would be required, then said that was only for a greenhouse. Which is it?
3) Not understanding the big differences between the amended chapter 26, effective March 11, and the prior chapter 26 where the staff comments were shown. Are you aware that the definition of hoop houses was eliminated in the amended chapter 26? Thus the current cannabis ordinance now has no definition of hoop houses. Or was the intent that the new definition in chapter 38, allowing electrical, plumbing, mechanical, and where light deprivation is no longer prohibited now apply to chapter 26 even before chapter 38 is adopted? This would be a major change to the current cannabis ordinance.
I and others have pointed out numerous other errors and inconsistencies in chapter 38 and the SMND- eg how setbacks are measured, missing mitigation measures, what criteria apply to manufacture of cannabis product (extracted THC oil and edibles) under the allowed activities of a ministerial permit (38.14.020) and was it intended that this can indeed be done on site with no use permit, no longer required to be in an industrial zone as in chapter 26, and many more.
I sincerely hope that prior to the next hearing on March 25, staff will carefully read chapter 38 and the SMND so that the Planning Commissioners questions can be correctly answered. The public is very well informed on these matters; it seems very wrong that when we hear staff make misstatements, we cannot provide a correction.
Thank you for your attention to this critical matter.
With best regards,
(name withheld for privacy)