Sept 8 2025 Newsletter Planning Commission meeting Sept 17 18

Originally printed in:
Link to original article
By

September 8, 2025

PLEASE PLAN TO ATTEND AN IMPORTANT MEETING on Wednesday, September 17th, at 1:00 PM, when the Planning Commission will make key decisions on the Cannabis Ordinance.

The Planning Commission will make numerous recommendations to the Board of Supervisors, including whether:  (1) to certify the Final Environmental Impact Report; (2) to repeal the existing Cannabis Ordinance; (3) adopt the proposed General Plan Amendments to reclassify cannabis as “controlled agriculture;” (4) to adopt zoning amendments to allow most cannabis uses to proceed without planning permits (including dispensaries, lounges, distribution, manufacturing, and processing); and (5) to allow for larger cannabis grows in agricultural and resource zones with ministerial “crop swaps.” These decisions will include whether to allow events with consumption on narrow rural roads and sales at rural farm stands.This will be the most important meeting so far on the cannabis ordinance. The Planning Commission needs to hear 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, and may extend to Thursday, September 18.

We ask the Commissioners to consider the following issues in making their decisions:

  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, including farm workers and their families, 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, generates revenue for the County. It eliminates neighborhood compatibility problems. 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: Permit Sonoma proposes ministerial crop-swaps for outdoor cultivation, thereby side-stepping the protections to the environment and public participation in a straight-forward cannabis permit application. The environmental factors include: timing of water usage; excessive traffic; cumulative impacts; and compliance with setbacks to prevent noxious air-borne emissions from leaving the cultivation parcel.  How can this backdoor crop-swaps be justified?
  4. Mitigation Requirements from Outdoor Cannabis Emissions: If outdoor cultivation is allowed, the only mitigation from emissions is distance, 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 1,000 feet. Will the Commission expand the setback requirement to 2,500 feet for these “sensitive uses” and include residences in that setback requirement, regardless of zoning, to protect families, including children of farm workers, 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. Sales of Cannabis at Farm Stands:  Dispensaries in urban are magnets for crime. Why invite crime into rural areas where law enforcement is essentially non-existent?
  6. 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?
  7. Reduction of Minimum Parcel Size: After years of public outcry, the Board of Supervisors amended the Cannabis Land Use Ordinance in 2018 and increased minimum parcel size to 10 acres to improve neighborhood compatibility. The 10-acre minimum was recognized as a short-term initial step in addressing neighborhood compatibility. The second step was to improve on this and provide permanent protection, via the ordinance update. In contradiction to these objectives, Permit Sonoma proposes reducing the minimum parcel size to 5 acres and eliminating 300 ft setbacks. Do Commissioners agree this proposed reduction is contrary to the Board’s direction and undermines the stated goals of the update to: (a) improve/achieve neighborhood compatibility; (b) reduce conflicts with neighbors; and (c) improve protections and safety for both the growers and neighbors?  
  8. Permitting Cannabis Events and Consumption in Rural Areas: Permit Sonoma proposes allowing hundreds of cannabis events in rural areas where traffic can overwhelm rural roads, impaired driving is dangerous, and law enforcement is scarce. How can that proposal be supported as responsible policy? Does the Commission agree that such events should not be allowed in rural areas? 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?
  9. Grandfathering Permits: Permit Sonoma proposes allowing prior permits to be ‘grandfathered’ with a new ‘forever’ permit. How can this expansion and creation of never-ending antique permits be justified, particularly when the old setbacks are woefully inadequate and subject children, babies, and fetuses to toxic emissions forever? Why make previous permitting errors permanent?
  10. What Is “Controlled” Agriculture?  Permit Sonoma proposes to classify cannabis as “controlled” agriculture. The County has acknowledged that this term is not recognized by other governmental entities and has no precedent or other official meaning. In other words, the County has invented it. 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?
  11. 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 a fragmented approach which will lead to confusion, rather than locating all the regulations together?

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

‍