July 29 2025 Newsletter: Questions for Planning Commission Aug 7th meeting

Originally printed in:
Link to original article
By

July 29, 2025

July 29th, 2025

PLEASE PLAN TO ATTEND THIS ALL-IMPORTANT MEETING on Thursday, August 7th at 1:00 PM, when the Planning Commission meets again to consider the cannabis ordinance. It is the only agenda item.

The purpose of the meeting is to “deliberate and provide direction to staff on the Cannabis ProgramUpdate.”  We believe this will be the most important meeting so far on the cannabis ordinance. The Planning Commission needs to hear from concerned community members to better understand your concerns, experiences, and objections.  Even If you do not speak, your physical presence will help the Commission gauge your views. You can avoid repetition of the same points with a silent show of hands if you agree with the speaker. The hearing will be held in the Board of Supervisors Meeting Room 102-A, Sonoma County Administration Building, 575 Administration Drive, Santa Rosa.

We expect and would ask the Commissioners to deliberate on the following issues and give direction to staff accordingly:

  1. Adverse Health Effects of Outdoor Cannabis Emissions: The scientific data on the adverse health effects of cannabis emissions has been validated by top tier experts in public health, pulmonary medicine and pharmaceutical science. Their reports clearly show the level of carcinogens neighbors are exposed to from outdoor cannabis emissions is at toxic levels, especially for children. Does the Planning Commission agree that residents should not be exposed to these dangerous emissions in levels that are known to cause toxicity in the immediate time as well as being carcinogenic in the long-term?
  2. Eliminating Outdoor Cannabis Cultivation: Indoor cannabis cultivation avoids the toxic adverse impacts on residents emanating from outdoor cultivation and, unlike outdoor cultivation, is profitable for the County. Further, it eliminates the issues which gave rise to neighborhood incompatibility surrounding outdoor cannabis cultivation. Given those facts, why shouldn’t outdoor cultivation be eliminated entirely and cannabis cultivation be limited to indoor cultivation in industrial zones?
  3. Crop-Swaps: The DEIR proposes a ministerial crop-swap for outdoor cultivation of cannabis, thereby side-stepping the protections to the environment and the public involved in a straight- forward cannabis permit application. These environmental factors include: timing of water usage; road use; cumulative impacts; and compliance with necessary setbacks to prevent noxious air-borne emissions from leaving the cultivation parcel?  How can this backdoor crop-swap notion be justified and why is the concept being introduced in the proposed cannabis ordinance?
  4. Mitigation Requirements from Outdoor Cannabis Emissions: If outdoor cultivation is allowed, the only mitigation from those emissions is large distances, namely a minimum 2,500 feet for a 1 acre grow, more if down wind or for larger grows.
    1. Will the Commission require this setback and impose the same setback for all parcels in AG, RRD and RR and schools and parks?
    2. “Sensitive Uses” such as schools, parks, and day care centers require greater setbacks under the current ordinance which at present is less than 2,500 feet. Will the Commission expand that setback requirement to 2,500 feet for these “sensitive uses” and include residences in that setback requirement, regardless of zoning, to protect families and children who spend most of their time at home?
    3. Will the Commission require quantitative testing to confirm no cannabis emissions leave those cultivation parcels?
  5. DEIR’s Omission of Exclusion Zones: Why did the County fail to propose Exclusion Zones from outdoor cannabis cultivation for designated neighborhoods when the Supervisors specified consideration of Exclusion Zones in the Notice of Preparation?  Doesn’t this change in the project description violate CEQA?
  6. Reduction of Minimum Parcel Size: After years of public outcry, the Board of Supervisors adopted Ordinance No. 6245, amending the Cannabis Land Use Ordinance and increasing minimum parcel size to 10 acres to improve neighborhood compatibility through increased parcel size and distance to offsite uses. The 10-acre minimum was recognized as a short-term initial step in addressing neighborhood compatibility. The second, final step was to improve on this and provide permanent protection, via the ordinance update. In total contradiction to these objectives, the DEIR proposes reducing the minimum parcel size to 5 acres and eliminating the 300 ft setback rule. Does the Commission agree this proposed reduction is contrary to the Board’s prior orders and undermines the stated goals of the update, namely: (a) to improve/achieve neighborhood compatibility; (b) to reduce conflicts with neighboring homeowners; and (c) to improve protections and safety for both the growers and neighbors?  
  7. Permitting Cannabis Events in Rural Areas: The DEIR proposes allowing hundreds of cannabis events in rural areas where traffic can be overwhelming for rural roads, impaired driving is an issue, legality of selling cannabis is questionable under State law, and law enforcement is scarce. How can that proposal be supported as appropriate or safe in rural areas? Does the Commission agree that if allowed at all, those events should not be allowed in rural areas? Further, does the Commission agree the frequency of any such events should be limited and allowed only at commercial venues such as at the fairgrounds with appropriate roads and safety controls?
  8. Grandfathering Permits: The County proposes allowing prior permits to be ‘grandfathered’ in with a new ‘forever’ permit and even allows them to increase in size. This appears to be yet another end-run around necessary safety precautions. How can this expansion and creation of never-ending antique permits be justified, particularly when the old setbacks are woefully inadequate and fail to protect neighbors, thereby subjecting neighbors including children, babies, and unborn fetuses to toxic emissions forever?
  9. What Is “Controlled” Agriculture?  The County is proposing to classify cannabis as “controlled” agriculture. The County acknowledged at the June 19th hearing that this term is not recognized by other governmental entities and has no precedent or other official meaning. In other words, the County has created it out of whole cloth. Why is the County proposing use of this category except as a verbal ruse in violation of the State’s classification of cannabis as an Agricultural Product and not an Agricultural Crop, and thus not subject to the State Right to Farm laws?
  10. Cannabis Rules Should All Be in a Single Ordinance. The current cannabis ordinance is a stand-alone ordinance, yet the proposed new ordinance is scattered throughout the County code. Why is the County proposing this fragmented approach which will lead to continual confusion, rather than having all the regulations in one ordinance?

SUPPORTING THE PUBLIC GOOD

Your family’s health, home and neighborhood are more important than catering to a failing and harmful commercial industry. Please consider the following:

  1. Become fully aware of the cannabis ordinance changes at the County’s website that impact your property;
  2. Visit Neighborhood Coalition Sonoma County to learn more ways you can get involved and help protect your neighborhood
  3. Make a donation You can donate online , or you can mail a check to:

    Sonoma Neighborhood Coalition
    PO Box 1229
    Sebastopol, CA 95473

Our campaign to preserve what we all hold near and dear needs your support. Your tax-deductible donation will fund technical experts and our legal team that are critical to our effort to require the County to protect our environment, children, and the health and safety of our neighborhoods.The Neighborhood Coalition is a 501(c)(3) nonprofit organization, volunteer-based, dedicated to advocating for proper cannabis and land-use policies that benefit the community. All donations support these efforts.

Thank you for your support and donation.

The Neighborhood Coalition team

‍