Cannabis dispensaries encounter obstacles to licensing in Sonoma Valley

Gorin opposes cannabis business along Sonoma Highway, but there’s little where else for the potrepreneur to set up shop.|

CANNABIS SITE MAP

Permit Sonoma has created an online GIS (Geographic Information Systems mapping technology) “Cannabis Site Evaluation” interactive map, at www.tinyurl.com/y98qht3n

Despite much local enthusiasm for a cannabis dispensary in the Sonoma Valley, applicants have had a hard time making headway against wary neighbors, inconsistent permit processes and regulations that limit the places a new business can grow.

Locally, a Sonoma City Council majority is standing fast in its refusal to allow a dispensary, medical or adult use, inside the 2.74-square mile city limits. Outside of city limits, however, finding a legal and likely site poses a different set of problems.

That challenge is complicated by opposition from 1st District Supervisor Susan Gorin to one prime commerical corridor in the Springs that seems otherwise appropriate to a cannabis business.

Sonoma County is authorized to license nine dispensaries in unincorporated areas (though there is some discussion of raising that cap). As yet there are only five in operation and three more applications pending – two of them in Sonoma Valley.

Among the Valley applicants is Apothevert, a medicinal cannabis dispensary which has successfully applied for a permit at 15499 Arnold Drive, at the corner of Madrone. It’s a potential site which drew a protest of neighbors on May 14, and failed to garner support last month from the Sonoma Valley Citizens Advisory Commission.

The other Valley dispensary application is at 105 Fremont Drive just east of the Bonneau intersection. That location comes with its own set of problems as well as an unusual controversy that may or may not prevent its certification.

Jani Friedman, who presented her proposal for Apothevert before the SVCAC on May 24, said she will continue the process to the Board of Zoning Adjustments and look for its support – which, unlike the SVCAC’s, is binding. The biggest hurdle she faces is that the corner location, though zoned LC (limited commercial) which is appropriate to a dispensary business, is within 100 feet of a residential zoning district.

Friedman proposes a 6-foot fence around the dispensary building, known as the Firehouse Center, which may satisfy county requirements for a “barrier” near residential neighborhoods. That would be up to the Board of Zoning to decide; that review has not yet been scheduled.

But some attendees at the Citizens Advisory Commission meeting who opposed the Firehouse Center location enthusiastically proposed a dispensary in the Jack London Village business complex at 14301 Arnold Drive, which does have empty storefronts.

However, that complex is ineligible due to its close proximity to Sonoma Valley Regional Park – there’s a required 1,000-foot exclusion zone around parks, and a 1,000-foot buffer around schools or other places of high use by youth. In fact, between the two parks – Sonoma Valley Regional and Jack London State – nearly the entire business district of Glen Ellen is ineligible for a dispensary.

Moving the Apothevert business model to another location doesn’t seem realistic to Friedman.

“We did an extensive search, and went neighborhood to neighborhood for months,” said Friedman. “Trust me when I tell you, there are very few locations.”

Part of the reason may not be just buffers and zoning, but political factors as well. When she presented to Citizens Advisory Commission, Friedman mentioned in passing she had been discouraged “by the supervisor’s office” from pursuing a location on Highway 12 in the Springs.

First District Supervisor Susan Gorin confirmed Friedman’s statement, telling the Index-Tribune she has been discouraging all dispensary applicants along the Highway 12 corridor in the Springs “because of the overconcentration of stores selling tobacco and alcohol and the many child (and) teen services and schools located along or adjacent to the corridor.”

Gorin also cited the pending Springs Specific Plan – a community vision for its future – that’s been in development the past few years. “It is premature to consider a cannabis dispensary along the corridor until the (Springs Specific) Plan is approved,” said Gorin.

But by excluding the Valley’s longest and most diverse business district, the county presents few options for aspiring cannabis entrepreneurs. Under the county’s cannabis plan, dispensaries are allowed with a Conditional Use Permit only in areas zoned Neighborhood Commercial, Retail Business and Servicers, as well as Limited Commercial.

Using the county’s new GIS mapping tool with park and school zones highlighted by color overlays, it’s evident that the Valley’s longest stretch of eligible dispensary properties run length of Highway 12 from Boyes Boulevards to the Sonoma city limits, escaping both park and school zone buffers and substantially lined with retail and limited-commercial lots.

The commercial area to the east of Sonoma, along Eighth Street East, is more solidly Neighborhood Commercial, though largely zoned Agricultural and more appropriate to cultivation.

Friedman was cautious but confident in questioning the Supervisor’s exclusion of the Highway 12 stretch. “When your chances are decreased by anything, you already have so many obstacles – it’s like passing through the eye of the needle getting a dispensary permit in Sonoma County. It’s darn near impossible.”

“Sonoma Valley is challenging for the permitting of dispensaries, manufacturing and cultivation (inside and outside) because of zoning restraints,” said Gorin. She pointed out that a pending dispensary application in her own neighborhood of Oakmont, a community that already “has a cannabis club with over 100 members,” is already encountering plenty of opposition.

“Sonoma Valley continues to share somewhat conservative long-held views on cannabis cultivation and dispensaries,” said Gorin. She added that she’s trying to educate residents on “how dispensaries operate, who may benefit from cannabis and develop educated opinions on the appropriateness for locating dispensaries and areas of cultivation in the County.”

Still, she remains opposed to a dispensary on the Highway 12 corridor and believes any application would be opposed by the neighbors. But she acknowledges that even her opposition goes only so far.

“But it is the decision of the applicants whether or not to move forward with a specific application and go through the public process,” she told the I-T in an email. “I remain neutral on all projects and applications because the Board of Supervisors is the last step in the approval process, if a BZA decision is appealed to the board.”

Contact Christian at christian.kallen@sonomanews.com.

CANNABIS SITE MAP

Permit Sonoma has created an online GIS (Geographic Information Systems mapping technology) “Cannabis Site Evaluation” interactive map, at www.tinyurl.com/y98qht3n

UPDATED: Please read and follow our commenting policy:
  • This is a family newspaper, please use a kind and respectful tone.
  • No profanity, hate speech or personal attacks. No off-topic remarks.
  • No disinformation about current events.
  • We will remove any comments — or commenters — that do not follow this commenting policy.