Laserfiche WebLink
Throughout this process, we have consistently engaged with city officials, planning staff, and <br />council members, offering public feedback and expert consultation from industry <br />professionals to help bridge the knowledge gap regarding cannabis cultivation and its <br />relationship to agricultural land use. Despite this, the primary justification for restrictive <br />zoning continues to be based on fear, unfamiliarity, and a lack of understanding about the <br />cannabis industry—a sentiment openly acknowledged by council members and staff during <br />public meetings. <br />We have been patient and proactive in offering our expertise and resources, including <br />industry consultants, to help guide the city through this process. Unfortunately, these offers <br />have been ignored, and our attempts to provide accurate, informed perspectives have not been <br />reflected in the current draft of the ordinance. <br />A particularly concerning element of this process is the outsized influence of Associate <br />Planner Gort in shaping the ordinance. As demonstrated by Associate Planner Gort’s recent <br />email, it is clear that some planning commissioners expressed interest in allowing cannabis <br />cultivation in rural zoning districts, but rather than fostering a robust discussion or <br />considering public feedback, the commission defaulted to maintaining restrictive zoning based <br />on his guidance. The fact that Associate Planner Gort, with no formal background in cannabis <br />or agricultural industries, has taken the lead in coordinating these efforts raises serious <br />questions about procedural fairness and transparency. <br />Further compounding the issue is the understanding that adjustments have been made to the <br />ordinance since the Planning Commission meeting, none of which reflect public feedback. <br />This suggests that changes were made based on Associate Planner Gort’s individual <br />interpretation rather than through meaningful engagement with the community or elected <br />officials. <br />Efforts to Collaborate and Address Concerns: <br />To further facilitate a productive outcome, we went so far as to draft and submit an <br />addendum to the proposed ordinance, offering a reasonable Conditional Use Permit (CUP) <br />framework that aligns with both public and council feedback. This addendum represents a <br />middle ground, ensuring responsible cannabis cultivation without "opening the floodgates," as <br />some have feared. However, to date, this effort has not been meaningfully acknowledged or <br />integrated into the ordinance's development. <br />The Risk of Arbitrary and Capricious Zoning: <br />It is concerning that the planning commission and council have not provided a clear rebuttal or <br />justification for why cannabis cultivation cannot be zoned as agricultural, particularly when <br />comparable agricultural operations are permitted without similar restrictions. This selective <br />treatment risks arbitrary and capricious zoning, exposing the city to potential legal <br />challenges on the grounds of unequal treatment, regulatory overreach, and failure to adhere to <br />due process. <br />Additionally, some council members and commission members have publicly expressed <br />discomfort with the restrictive nature of the ordinance, acknowledging that cannabis <br />cultivation is fundamentally no different from other agricultural activities. These comments, <br />now part of the public record, highlight internal inconsistencies that further undermine the <br />credibility of the proposed zoning.