{"id":38112,"date":"2017-04-28T12:41:16","date_gmt":"2017-04-28T19:41:16","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/69.46.6.243\/?p=38112"},"modified":"2017-04-28T12:41:16","modified_gmt":"2017-04-28T19:41:16","slug":"cannabis-ban-ordinance-draft-environmental-impact-report-has-been-released","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/new.thepinetree.net\/?p=38112","title":{"rendered":"Cannabis Ban Ordinance Draft Environmental Impact Report Has Been Released"},"content":{"rendered":"

San Andreas, CA…The Draft Environmental Impact Report is now available for public review and comment.\u00a0 The formal 45-day public review period begins on Monday, May 1, 2017.\u00a0 Written comments may be sent to the Planning Department at 891 Mountain Ranch Road, San Andreas, CA\u00a0 95249 or by email to PlanningWeb@co.calaveras.ca.us<\/a>.<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/a><\/p>\n

Click Above For A Copy Of The DEIR<\/p>\n

When the EIR was first initiated, the intent was to adopt regulations in the form of a permanent ordinance, as staff was directed by the Board of Supervisors in February, 2016.\u00a0 The analysis of environmental impacts was therefore based on that draft regulatory ordinance.\u00a0 As such, the February 2016 ordinance remains the \u201cproject description\u201d in the EIR, and the ban ordinance was subsequently developed and discussed as an \u201calternative\u201d.\u00a0 All EIRs require development and discussion of various project alternatives that are less impactful than the project description so that these alternatives can become part of the public discussion under CEQA when discussing how to reduce environmental impacts.<\/p>\n

Whether the Board chose to ban cannabis or regulate it, the respective environmental impacts of \u201cstatus quo cannabis cultivation\u201d, \u201creduced cannabis cultivation\u201d, and \u201cno cannabis cultivation\u201d would all need to be analyzed and discussed as various alternatives in the EIR for the permanent ordinance.\u00a0 All were analyzed as \u201calternatives\u201d in the EIR for the 2016 draft ordinance.\u00a0 Because the originally proposed regulatory ordinance and the currently proposed ban ordinance are both ways of imposing a regulatory scheme on cannabis cultivation & commerce (albeit at opposite ends of the range of choices) it was unnecessary to start over with a new project description and a new EIR.<\/p>\n

The fact that the ban ordinance is discussed as an \u201calternative\u201d rather than the \u201cproject description\u201d does not in any way hinder the County\u2019s ability to proceed with a ban or to rely on the EIR to support a ban.\u00a0 Indeed, the prior regulatory ordinance from February 2016 is actually the \u201cworst case scenario\u201d from a CEQA standpoint; whereas the ban ordinance is a less impactful alternative.<\/p>\n

Other \u201calternatives\u201d discussed in the original EIR besides 2016 ordinance and the current ban ordinance include the \u201cno project\u201d alternative (meaning that the status quo remains in place) and a reduced impact version of the 2016 ordinance limiting parcels sizes or zones in which cannabis could be cultivated.\u00a0 All four potential methods of regulating cannabis cultivation remain in the current draft, although the ban alternative was further developed and analyzed after the Board determined that its preference was to adopt a ban ordinance and to utilize this EIR for that purpose. The EIR supports the clear intent and direction of the Board to adopt a ban of cannabis cultivation in the County.<\/p>\n