We don't just cover the North Bay. We live here.
Did You Know? In the first 10 days of the North Bay fire, nearly 1.5 million people used their mobile devices to visit our sites.
Already a subscriber?
Wow! You read a lot!
Reading enhances confidence, empathy, decision-making, and overall life satisfaction. Keep it up! Subscribe.
Already a subscriber?
Oops, you're out of free articles.
Until next month, you can always look over someone's shoulder at the coffee shop.
Already a subscriber?
We don't just cover the North Bay. We live here.
Did You Know? In the first 10 days of the North Bay fire, we posted 390 stories about the fire. And they were shared nearly 137,000 times.
Already a subscriber?
Supporting the community that supports us.
Obviously you value quality local journalism. Thank you.
Already a subscriber?
Oops, you're out of free articles.
We miss you already! (Subscriptions start at just 99 cents.)
Already a subscriber?

Read all of the PD's fire coverage here

A plan to build as many as 237 new homes in an area of Santa Rosa decimated by the October wildfires was unexpectedly upended Tuesday after City Council members said they worried about putting future residents in harm’s way.

In a rare 3-3 deadlock, the council refused to change the zoning on a 40-acre Fountaingrove commercial property that has remained undeveloped for decades.

While half of the council members present praised the idea as a needed step toward expanding the city’s housing stock, the other half said they couldn’t sign off on the change without greater assurances that the people living in those homes would be safe.

“This particular area just went through the worst wildfire in California history ten weeks ago,” Mayor Chris Coursey said. “It’s a good bet that if 237 homes had been on that property 10 weeks ago that there would be 237 piles of ash there right now.”

The October wildfires killed 24 people in Sonoma County and destroyed 5,130 homes, about 2,800 of which were in Santa Rosa. The city estimates that 5 percent of its housing stock was lost.

Councilwoman Julie Combs said the city clearly needed housing, but she worried that the city wasn’t learning the lessons from the fires. She has previously questioned the wisdom of allowing people to rebuild in the burn areas before new building codes informed by the fire can go into effect.

“I am unwilling to increase the number of people who are sleeping in a fire hazard area,” Combs said. “I don’t consider it viable.”

Coursey, Combs and Vice Mayor Chris Rogers voted against the rezoning. Ernesto Olivares, Tom Schwedhelm and Jack Tibbetts voted in favor. John Sawyer was absent.

Tibbetts noted that the entire city is in an earthquake danger zone, but that doesn’t mean building should come to a halt. “Disasters are a fact of life,” he said.

The rezoning was proposed by San Francisco-based developer City Ventures for the Round Barn Boulevard property owned by medical device maker Medtronic. The developer sought to have the zoning changed from business park to medium-low density residential. That would allow it to build up to 237 homes on 18.3 acres of the site, the balance being left as open space. The project would be called Round Barn Village.

A portion of the property is an unused parking lot, while another section is the site of the historic Fountain Grove Winery, the ruins of which were torn down two years ago.

A number of nearby properties were directly affected by the October fires, which destroyed the landmark Fountaingrove Round Barn, the Fountaingrove Inn, and Hilton Sonoma Wine Country, along with more than 1,500 Fountaingrove homes.

One of the issues that had been raised about the project was whether the city should be taking land out of business park zoning when there is such a demand for it, particularly by the fast-growing cannabis industry.

But economic analysis performed in support of the rezoning found that it would take 30 years at the current growth rate for the city to use up all 4.1 million square feet of vacant or potential industrial and office space.

California pot: Smoke it (or eat it) if you can get it

OAKLAND — It wasn’t exactly reefer madness Monday as California launched the first legal sales of recreational marijuana, but those who could find the drug celebrated the historic day, lining up early for ribbon cuttings, freebies and offerings ranging from cookies to gummy bears to weed with names like heaven mountain.

Jeff Deakin, 66, his wife Mary and their dog waited in the cold all night to be first in a line of 100 people when Harborside dispensary, a longtime medical pot shop in Oakland, opened at 6 a.m. and offered early customers joints for a penny and free T-shirts that read “Flower to the People — Cannabis for All.”

“It’s been so long since others and myself could walk into a place where you could feel safe and secure and be able to get something that was good without having to go to the back alley,” Deakin said. “This is kind of a big deal for everybody.”

Harborside founder Steve DeAngelo used a giant pair of scissors to cut a green ribbon, declaring, “With these scissors I dub thee free,” before ringing up the first customer at a cash register.

Sales were brisk in the shops lucky to score one of the roughly 100 state licenses issued so far, but customers in some of the state’s largest cities were out of luck. Los Angeles and San Francisco hadn’t authorized shops in time to get state licenses and other cities, such as Riverside and Fresno, blocked sales altogether.

Licensed shops are concentrated in the San Francisco Bay Area, San Diego, around Palm Springs, San Jose and Santa Cruz, where the KindPeoples shop tacked up a banner Monday declaring, “Prohibition is Over!”

The state banned what it called “loco-weed” in 1913, though it has eased criminal penalties for use of the drug since the 1970s and was the first state to legalize marijuana for medicinal purposes in 1996.

California voters in 2016 made it legal for adults 21 and older to grow, possess and use limited quantities of marijuana, but it wasn’t legal to sell it for recreational purposes until Monday.

The nation’s most populous state now joins a growing list of states, and the nation’s capital, where so-called recreational marijuana is permitted even though the federal government continues to classify pot as a controlled substance, like heroin and LSD.

The signs that California was tripping toward legal pot sales were evident well before the stroke of midnight. California highways flashed signs before New Year’s Eve that said “Drive high, Get a DUI,” reflecting law enforcement concerns about stoned drivers. Weedmaps, the phone app that allows customers to rate shops, delivery services and shows their locations, ran a full-page ad Sunday in the Los Angeles Times that said, “Smile California. It’s Legal.”

Travis Lund, 34, said he’d been looking forward while working the graveyard shift to buy weed legally for the first time since he began smoking pot as a teen.

“I’m just stoked that it’s finally legal,” he said after purchasing an eighth of an ounce of “Mount Zion” and another type of loose leaf marijuana at Northstar Holistic Collective in Sacramento, where the fragrance of pot was strong. “I’m going to go home and get high — and enjoy it.”

—Associated Press


Find more in-depth cannabis news, culture and politics at EmeraldReport.com, authoritative marijuana coverage from the PD.

That issue barely came up, however. Fire safety was clearly driving Tuesday’s debate. Another was the lack of details about the residential project envisioned on the site. The developer asked for the property to be rezoned first, with the project approval to come later.

That made it difficult for some council members to trust, for example, the developer’s assurance that there would be some affordable housing in the project. Without those details, council members were skeptical.

“There could be 237 million-dollar homes on that property,” Coursey said.

Most council members didn’t want to kill the prospect of housing on the site entirely. Coursey said he would be open to rezoning the property if the project details were submitted at the same time.

Ultimately, Rogers and Tibbets negotiated a way for the issue to come back at the first meeting in February, when Sawyer, a likely vote in favor, would be able to participate in the decision. Rogers said he hoped that by then the council could get some more information to help it decide how to treat new housing requests in burn areas so applicants didn’t run into the same “buzzsaw.”

City Manager Sean McGlynn said that was highly unlikely to happen.

You can reach Staff Writer Kevin McCallum at 707-521-5207 or kevin.mccallum@pressdemocrat.com.

Show Comment