Part 2 Neighborhood Coalition: Comments on Draft Environmental Impact Report and Cannabis Ordinance Amendments

July 14th, 2025

PART 2 Neighborhood Coalition submission entitled "Comments on Draft Environmental Impact Report and Cannabis Ordinance Amendments."

Comments on Draft Environmental Impact Report and Cannabis Ordinance Amendments

The Neighborhood Coalition advocates for sustainable, environmentally sound, and neighborhood-compatible cannabis policies in Sonoma County in conjunction with education of the public on the health impacts of cannabis use. We separately filed comments entitled “The Draft Environmental Impact Report to Disclose the Adverse Health Effects of Cannabis Emissions.” These comments address other issues. In addition, the Neighborhood Coalition is part of the county-wide coalition with Save Our Sonoma Neighborhoods. We endorse and incorporate by reference the comments filed by Shute Mihaly & Weinberger on behalf of Save Our Sonoma Neighborhoods.

Overall, the proposed cannabis ordinance fails miserably in its stated goal to “Ensure cannabis uses are compatible with areas of concentrated residential uses.” DEIR, p. 5-2. Instead, it would have negative effects on the character of rural ommunities and their residents’ personal health and safety. We are also concerned about the irreversible impact of the proposal on the character of the County’s rural communities and the physical safety of the people who live there. Sonoma County is widely recognized for its rural character, bucolic countryside vistas, and small-town charm. For example, as discussed in more detail below, the proposal’s inclusion of ministerial approval of crop swap operations would allow literally indiscriminate approval and expansion of industrial-scale, commercial developments in rural neighborhoods. Similarly, the proposal’s attempt to treat cannabis as agriculture and its suggestion that cannabis be sold at rural farm stands would permanently alter the character of these rural neighborhoods. These and many other aspects of the proposal, detailed below, would dramatically erode the beauty and character unique to Sonoma County while importing significant health risks to residents, all in the name of recreational cannabis use and financial gain by cannabis entrepreneurs.

The proposed ordinance seems to have been written by the cannabis industry to try to reinvigorate cultivation in Sonoma County because Sonoma County cannot compete with more economically efficient operations elsewhere in California. Cultivation acreage in Sonoma County has dropped from almost 50 acres to less than 14 acres from 2017 to 2024. The Board of Supervisors is now using property taxes from rural communities to subsidize cannabis cultivation, thereby diminishing the quality of lives of those who paid the taxes. This is wrong at every conceivable level.

The DEIR (p. 5-33) states that only Alternative 2 (commercial and industrial zones only) and Alternative 5 (crop swaps) would eliminate significant and unavoidable environmental impacts. The DEIR (Table 5-2) wrongly concludes that Alternative 5 would eliminate more significant and unavoidable impacts than Alternative 2 because the DEIR fails to adequately address unhealthy air emissions, water consumption, traffic, and cumulative impacts in Alternative 5. The Neighborhood Coalition endorses Alternative 2, which is not only the environmentally superior alternative but also represents the only method (indoors) which has proven to be economically viable for both growers and county government. The County must choose an alternative that can avoid or substantially lessen the significant effects of the Project, even if this alternative would impede to some degree the attainment of the project objectives, or would be more costly. CEQA Guidelines §15126.6(b). What project objective would Alternative 2 impede?

I. The Proposed Setbacks and Parcel Sizes Do Not Protect Public Health or Achieve the Stated Goal of Neighborhood Compatibility; Greatly Increasing Setbacks and Parcel Sizes Are a Feasible Means of Mitigation.

It is evident from the discussion of air quality that the proposed setbacks for outdoor cultivation are woefully inadequate. It is illogical to attempt to protect a child at school 8 hours per day with a 1,000-foot setback while the same child at home might have only a 100-foot setback 16 hours per day (24 hours per day during weekends, holidays, and vacations) depending on how the parcel is zoned. Similarly, the elderly or infirm require sufficient setbacks to protect their health from cannabis emissions that include carcinogens. Whether a parcel is residential-, agricultural-, or RRD-zoned has no bearing on whether all the people who live in those homes should be protected, including children, the aged, the ill, or anyone otherwise compromised. Such people have heightened sensitivity to these impacts.

The proposed setbacks of 600 feet and 1,000 feet fail to account for the realities that Sonoma County residents experience. The map depicts odor complaints for a one-acre cultivation operation during autumn 2023 at 2274 Wellspring Road, Santa Rosa, in Bennett Valley. The cultivation site is the red square and the complaints are black dots. Each concentric circle is 1,000 feet. A home on Matanzas Creek Lane, about 2,500 feet from the cultivation site, suffered from such awful cannabis emissions that the residents could not open their windows for weeks and thus could not use natural air conditioning to cool their home at night. They were embarrassed to have friends visit. The Penngrove neighborhood suffered so badly from unhealthy cannabis emissions that Permit Sonoma tried to shut down the cultivation in late 2023 (Attachment 1), but the Planning Commission refused to do so. There are many such examples. The County cannot approve a project with significant environmental impacts if any feasible mitigation measure or alternative is available that will substantially lessen the severity of any impact. Pub. Resources Code § 21002; CEQA Guidelines § 15126(a).We support Alternative 2 (commercial and industrial zones only) as this achieves the CEQA requirement of least impact. If outdoor cultivation is to continue at all, the ordinance should require minimum 2,500-foot setbacks from all residences regardless of zoning, and more if a residence is located downwind or for cultivation sites larger than 1 acre.

The minimum lot size for cultivation should be retained at 10 acres, if not increased to 20 acres. There are over 2,000 parcels of over 100 acres to accommodate the growth forecasted in the DEIR. No valid or conscientious justification exists to allow cannabis emissions to invade residences where this is unnecessary from a program perspective. Why is forbidding cannabis emissions from invading residences not a feasible mitigation?

Under Alternative 2, greenhouses should be required to install and properly operate air filters to achieve cannabis emissions below 10 ppb threshold levels at parcel line.

One alleged “mitigation” measure that has proven a failure is the effort to mask noxious outdoor cannabis emissions by saturating the air with seemingly pleasant odors, such as flowers or lavender. Some have suggested bushes as a physical barrier. These approaches do not remove the dangerous and noxious emissions. Furthermore, they defy the simple physics of odor emissions flow from a cannabis field. Others have tried to “trap” noxious terpenes with mixtures of other plant terpenes, by spraying these other compounds around the perimeters of cultivation fields or the exhaust fans from greenhouse grows (e.g., EcoSorb). These practices fail twice–they neither mask noxious cannabis emissions nor do they remove carcinogens. In addition, the practice of spraying so-called “odor-absorbing compounds” adds another unnatural chemical into the air generating additional complaints. Supervisors banned their use in Santa Barbara County and instead required all indoor grows to have proper carbon filters to effectively remove the cannabis emissions. See NC Beta-Myrcene Report; Santa Barbara Independent (March 20, 2025).

Finally, the DEIR acknowledges the cannabis emissions problem for indoor and outdoor cultivation in Impact 3.3-4, concluding “This impact would be significant.” It provides a viable solution for indoor cultivation in Mitigation Measure 3.3-4a-- “A structure containing cannabis must be equipped with a filtration and ventilation system to control odors.” Yet the DEIR fails to provide sufficient mitigation for outdoor cultivations where most problems occur. The DEIR can’t not be considered creditable and legally defensible without mitigating the problem for outdoor cultivations.

II. Crop Swaps Do Not Qualify for Ministerial Permits

The proposal would allow “crop swaps,” whereby a vineyard, apple orchard, walnut orchard, or other existing crop can be replaced with cannabis merely by way of a ministerial permit process, a permit that would exist in perpetuity. Proposed Section 26.18.115(C)(4)(h). This proposal requiring the County to issue a permit for 10 or more acres of cannabis is fundamentally misguided. It also violates CEQA. It assumes that there are no new or different environmental impacts to be analyzed when marijuana replaces an existing crop, and that no site-specific review or input from neighboring property owners or residents is warranted. It wrongly assumes that the setbacks would be sufficient with the new cannabis requirements to avoid harm to the public from cannabis emissions. Furthermore, it creates a backdoor whereby agricultural crops are eliminated and supplanted by cannabis, which is not recognized as an agricultural crop. This violates Policy AR-1e in the Agricultural Element of the General Plan that prioritizes food crop agriculture. The public should have the right to raise water usage, unhealthy cannabis emissions, traffic, and cumulative effects issues whenever a new marijuana crop is being proposed.

A. Water Supply Impacts

Central to the crop swap proposal is the notion that if the on-site water supply relies on groundwater wells the proponent of the cannabis operation can show there is “no net increase in groundwater use for all agricultural operations on the parcel.” Proposed Section 26.18.115(C)(4)(h)(8)(b). This proposal relies on a fundamental error by subsuming cannabis in the term “agricultural operations.” As noted above, legally cannabis does not qualify as “agriculture.” Setting aside that fundamental defect, almost no water monitoring data exists in Sonoma County for agricultural crops, so the “no net increase’ exercise must rely on evaluating a “study prepared by a qualified professional” to make the showing, including whether the watershed is affected and whether a study of whole watershed is needed. This is not a “check the box” exercise that qualifies for a ministerial permit under CEQA. The “no net increase” determination inherently involves judgment and the exercise of discretion by a County official. The use of discretion is forbidden under Protecting Our Water & Envtl. Resources v. County of Stanislaus (“POWER”) (2020) 10 Cal.5th 479, 501. Even if the water availability criteria in the proposal require the exercise of judgment only in some circumstances, the County may not make a determination of consistency with these criteria a matter of ministerial approval in all circumstances.

Underlying the proposal is the assumption that achieving no net increase on an annual basis is sufficient to protect the environment. This is false. See cbec Report, pp. 2-3 (submitted with Shute Mihaly Weinberger comments). The “studies completed for the County quantify water use on an annual basis and to comply with the requirement, the study only needs to demonstrate that the annual water use of cannabis will be equal to the annual water use of the pre-crop swap agricultural use.” cbec Report, p. 2. A gallon of water consumed in April or May is not identical to a gallon of water consumed in late August, September, or October. Apples and wine grapes use much less water in late summer and fall, unlike cannabis which consumes water voraciously during those months when stream flows are most stressed. Napa County found that cannabis consumes 3.38 acre-feet per year, while vineyards use 0.2 to 0.5 acre-feet per year–between 7 and 17 times as much! See Shute Mihaly Weinberger letter. The California Department of Fish and Wildlife has raised this issue in comments to Sonoma County. Sonoma County’s guidelines concede that there are “specific times of the year when groundwater pumping is more likely to lead to environmental impacts (e.g., depletion of stream base flows during the dry season).” 8-2- 2 Guidelines for Net Zero Groundwater Use. The current procedures in Sonoma County are insufficient to establish a baseline for historic water use conditions.

A crop swap from apples or grapes to cannabis would likely increase the stress on neighboring wells, riparian habitat, and the watershed during late summer and autumn. Existing groundwater use already impacts many species during late summer, including amphibians in the riparian zones and salmonids. Perpetuating the same level of use does not mitigate the continued or increased impacts. Water use needs to be evaluated on a case-by-case basis. A program EIR cannot make such a determination, and this DEIR certainly does not. Finally, as a policy matter the County should not perpetuate and encourage gluttonous outdoor cannabis grows in the face of the harm this policy inflicts on endangered and sensitive species, resulting in incalculable environmental damage for the future.

Hydrologist Greg Kamman states the following:

It is my professional opinion that the stated water source requirements under the Program are prone to masking potential impacts and they should be modified to require water supply studies that address a higher frequency (e.g., monthly) interval of seasonal groundwater withdrawals. Given such studies are more detailed and nuanced with regard to identifying potential impacts, it is also my opinion they warrant discretionary review by the County.  

B. Impacts From Exposure to Unhealthy Air

As discussed in our companion comments filed separately, “The Draft Environmental Impact Report to Disclose the Adverse Health Effects of Cannabis Emissions,” cannabis fields emit large amounts of noxious and unhealthy compounds, including carcinogens and secondary pollutants such as ozone and formaldehyde. They can cause neighbors to experience harms such as nausea, headaches, vomiting, difficulty breathing, coughing, eye irritation, sore throat, and respiratory irritation. No one notices emissions from other crops grown in Sonoma County, other than perhaps to enjoy the scent of apple blossoms during spring.

Even if setbacks were to be increased substantially, cannabis emissions can be detected up to two miles away from the cultivation site. DEIR, p. 3.3-12. Unless setbacks are two miles, they would not account for all site-specific issues due to local topography, winds, local thermal inversions that trap air for days (see DEIR, p. 3-3-7), and similar issues. Impacts from exposure to unhealthy air need to be addressed in a conditional use permit. Any determination by a County official concerning the significance of residential exposure to unhealthy cannabis emissions would be an exercise in judgment that is forbidden under POWER.

C. Traffic and Evacuation Impacts

Cannabis cultivation generates much more traffic than vineyard or orchard operations. Cannabis traffic can result in significant adverse impacts on the County’s narrow, rural roads, particularly during emergency evacuations. The crop swap proposal assumes this problem away. The DEIR failed to study this issue, and took a single number from Trinity County for outdoor cultivation instead of analyzing the hundreds of permit applications that Sonoma County has processed since 2017. It randomly selected 8.5 employees per acre of outdoor cultivation and did not mention the number of employees can be highly variable both by site and seasonally. DEIR 3-6

The 2016 Negative Declaration for the Medical Cannabis Ordinance (p. 44) indicates that a oneacre cultivation site requires 12-15 employees during peak periods. A 2020 permit application for a 1-acre cannabis operation for the Gordenker Ranch in Glen Ellen employs 12 full-time and five part-time staff during peak season. A one-acre cultivation at 1400 Valley Ford in Sonoma County employs 4 full time employees year-round plus 40 staff during the two-month harvest. Processing requires 20 other staff.

A vineyard owner in the Russian River appellation notes that her 5-acre vineyard employs 2 workers per acre for a few days in winter and spring for pruning and canopy control and 4 workers per acre for half a day in the fall (Judith Olney, pers. comm.). Two employees per acre during harvest for half a day contrasts, to put it mildly, with 44 employees per acre for a twomonth harvest at the 1400 Valley Ford cannabis operation. Traffic impacts need to be assessed on a case-by-case basis and greatly exceed the “baseline” traffic that other agricultural activities in Sonoma County generate.

Moreover, cannabis harvest lasts months during peak fire season, and the DEIR pays insufficient attention to evacuation risks. This is particularly serious for large cultivation operations or clustered operations that rely on a single access road for evacuation. An evacuation plan is needed on a site-specific basis, and cannot be accomplished in a ministerial permit.

Mitigation Measure, 3.17-1c, DEIR 3-17.44, requires that all roadways comply with the Board of Forestry State Minimum Fire Safe Regulations. Many of the roads that access potential cultivation sites are too narrow to meet the 20-foot road width requirements and lack the required two separate ingress/egress roads. The regulations allow exceptions to be granted, § 1270.07, approval of which inherently involves discretion by an official. This is yet another reason why a ministerial permit process violates CEQA. Even if compliance with the State Minimum Fire Safe Regulations requires the exercise of judgment only in some circumstances, the County may not make a determination of consistency with its criteria as a matter of ministerial approval in all circumstances.

D. Cumulative Impacts

CEQA defines cumulative impacts as “two or more individual effects which, when considered together, are considerable or which compound or increase other environmental impacts.” CEQA Guidelines §§ 15355, 15130(a). A project-specific mitigated negative declaration or a EIR must be prepared if its possible impacts, though “individually limited,” prove “cumulatively considerable.” Pub. Resources Code § 21083(b); CEQA Guidelines § 15064(i). Ministerial permits have no mechanism to analyze and consider cumulative impacts resulting from an undue concentration of cannabis cultivation sites. For that reason, issuing ministerial permits for crop swaps violates CEQA.

Attachment 2 depicts a portion of Bennett Valley where merely 10 parcels could engage in crop swaps to allow 58 acres of cannabis cultivation. This situation, which the proposal would allow, raises all issues discussed above, including cumulative impacts.

If a proposal meets the Ordinance’s criteria for ministerial approval, consistency with the EIR will be “assumed.” DEIR at 3-7. The permits never expire, so there is never an opportunity to revisit permits that cause grievous environmental harm. For this reason, any environmental impacts of these future ministerial approvals must be analyzed at the programmatic level before adoption of the Proposed Ordinance. But the DEIR does not (and cannot) programmatically assess the issues raised here with the degree of granularity that would be necessitated in such situations.

Crop swap permit applications must evaluate and mitigate cumulative impacts of water use, exposure of residents to unhealthy cannabis emissions, traffic, and evacuation impacts. Ministerial permits do not allow such evaluations and would violate CEQA. Approval of any crop swap proposal should be subject to a CEQA initial study and either a mitigated negative declaration or an EIR.

III. General Water Supply Impacts

Besides the water issues we have discussed concerning crop swaps, there are other countywide water issues that the DEIR fails to address adequately. The California epartment of Fish & Wildlife has repeatedly asked the County to map the locations of endangered and sensitive species that should be protected, many of which dwell in riparian zones. These include officially impaired watersheds such as Mark West Creek, Mill Creek, Green Valley Creek, and Dutch Bill Creek. If the County did its homework and accurately mapped the location of sensitive species, it would include other watersheds such as Matanzas Creek in Bennett Valley. The best means of mitigating the significant adverse impacts of proposed cannabis cultivation on priority watersheds is to exclude all commercial cannabis activities from those areas. Hydrologist Greg Kamman agrees that Mark West Creek, Mill Creek, Green Valley Creek, Dutch Bill Creek, Bennett Valley, and Joy Road should be excluded from cannabis cultivation (cbec Report). The County’s "net zero" water use policy is faulty throughout the county, not just in “crop swap” situations. The policy perpetuates the already impaired hydrologic conditions that threaten the reproduction of rare and endangered species and prevent the restoration of habitat for endangered salmonids. cbec Report In addition, the “net zero” policy is inconsistent with the Adopted Sonoma County General Plan Water Resources Element, as the EIR fails to adequately analyze the impacts directed by the Goals and Objectives (under GP 3.2 Groundwater). The League of Women Voters of Sonoma County comment letter (July 12, 2025) discusses this issue in depth.

IV. Rural Farm Stands and Cannabis Events Are an Invitation to Crime and DUIs

The proposal to allow mini-dispensaries and cannabis tasting and sales at events at rural cultivation sites invites an increase in crime to Sonoma County’s pastoral and peaceful countryside. Our report “Selling Cannabis is a Magnet for Crime” (Crime Report, Attachment 3) shows that cannabis operations, have been linked to a rise in violent crime, including armed robberies of processing facilities. The fact our neighboring counties of Napa and Marin do not allow cannabis grows renders Sonoma County a focal point for these crimes. Criminals are attracted to a product that is highly valuable, compact, easy to confiscate and transport, and readily sold on the black market. The fact that transactions are in cash adds to the allure. Furthermore, all cannabis products would need to be provided by licensed distributors and be tested and inspected pursuant to state regulations

The DEIR asserts that crime reports on cannabis operations make up only 0.02 percent of all incident reports. DEIR at 3.13-18. This is at odds with the attached Crime Report, probably because it failed to obtain information from Santa Rosa or other Bay Area counties. The DEIR assumes that criminals restrict their activities to their own eighborhoods. It also fails to consider the fact that the Ordinance could increase existing outdoor cannabis cultivation by over 14 times.

The proposed canna-tourism program caters to the failing local cannabis industry. Cultivation in Sonoma County cannot compete economically with more efficient operations elsewhere in California, and cannabis entrepreneurs hope that direct sales at farm stands and rural events will provide otherwise unattainable revenue and profits. Such activities would transform quiet neighborhoods into hotspots for crime and DUIs. Information from Public Records Act requests indicate there were 3,188 cannabis-related public safety incidents reported from five Bay Area counties and three cities during a recent four-year period. Crime Report, p. 4. Sonoma County alone accounted for 904 of the incidents, approximately 1.2 incidents per day.

Most reported crimes occurred in cities, where law enforcement tends to be prompt. The risks rise dramatically in rural areas because response times can range from 30 to 45 minutes. For that reason, rural mini-dispensaries would be easy prey to criminals who seek vulnerable targets where the risk of being identified, unsuccessful, or arrested is low. Such activities would subject neighborhoods to the types of urban crime in our Crime Report.

The Sonoma County Sherriff’s Office emphasized the dangers of rural crime in its mail newsletter entitled “Update” on May 5, 2025. It included an article entitled “Theft Prevention on Farms and Ranches” that included in pertinent part the following (emphasis added): We’re sometimes lulled into complacency living in beautiful rural areas, thinking “crime doesn’t happen here.” But theft can happen anywhere, especially in rural areas where criminals often look for easy targets.

Despite security measures required by local and state laws, cannabis dispensaries are magnets for crime. Recent articles that chronicle the crimes including a burglary ring that targeted cannabis dispensaries. For example:

• 5 arrested after dispensary robbery, 2 separate chases in Cotati, Santa Rosa (August 2024)

• Multiple items stolen during second Santa Rosa dispensary break-in this week (December 2022)

• Brazen thieves target Sonoma County cannabis dispensaries (Jan. 2023)

• Owner Of New Oakland Cannabis Dispensary Shot Sunday Morning (April 2022).

The presence of cannabis dispensaries not only endangers public safety but also strains local law enforcement resources. The California Highway Patrol's Santa Rosa Commander emphasized the danger (Attachment 4):

"We have certainly seen an increase in violent crime in and around more rural cannabis operations. Violent crime would include armed robberies of the processing facilities which obviously puts public safety at risk as well as expends local law enforcement resources."

Cannabis also fosters homicides. Since 2012 there have been 43 homicides in Sonoma County, 10 of which were directly due to cannabis, or 23%! Crime Report, p. 4. Assuming the homicide rate mirrors the growth projected in the Cannabis DEIR, 188 cannabis-related murders will occur in the next 20 years

There is substantial evidence that increasing participation in the cannabis industry would requireexpanding the existing ability of law enforcement to provide services related to potential criminal activity at cannabis sites. The DEIR fails to analyze the need for greatly increased expenditures on law enforcement and additional substations in rural parts of the county.

The proposal allows 104 cannabis events with consumption annually at rural locations near residential neighborhoods. They could occur at each site every day from Memorial Day to Labor Day and every weekend day all year. Cannabis consumption at the events and “farm stands” will encourage stoned driving, and the proposal contains no DUI safeguards. These risks are unacceptable on Sonoma County narrow rural roads, especially when 20% of traffic deaths now involve marijuana use.

A responsible County would, and our County should, limit all cannabis events and on-site retail to fairgrounds and industrial or commercial zones.

Napa County, a peer in agricultural prestige, recognized these very dangers and chose to ban all forms of commercial cannabis activity in its unincorporated areas to protect its core agricultural identity.

V. The Proposal Reduces Safety Standards Which Will Invite More Crime and Put the Public at Risk.

The proposed Ordinance would remove the existingrequirements that outdoor cultivation areas be “screened from public view” and“not be visible from a public right of way.” Proposed County Code §26-88-254(f)(6). It would also remove the County’s existing requirements for asite security plan, motion-sensor security cameras, security lighting andalarms, fencing locked with a Knox lock, and the prohibition on weapons andfirearms at cultivation sites. Proposed § 26-88-254(f)(21).

None of the Department of Cannabis Control’s (“DCC”)regulations cited in the DEIR would apply to cannabis cultivation, but ratheronly to cannabis manufacturing, which occurs after cannabis is harvested. TheOrdinance also does not propose any security measures to replace those it isremoving; instead, the County would rely on DCC’s security regulations toensure there would be no impact to public safety that could result in anenvironmental impact due to expansion of safety infrastructure.

Thus, there is a significant decrease in security measuresapplicable to cannabis operations under the Ordinance that the DEIR fails toanalyze. Local public safety services must expand to fill the security gap,which in an era of budgetary cutbacks is unlikely to occur. For example, theDCC regulations have no restriction on visibility of outdoor cannabiscultivation from public roadways, nor do they prohibit firearms at grow sites.

The following elements individually and collectivelydemonstrate how the proposal puts the public very much at risk: (1) thesubstantial growth projected for the industry over the next 20 years; (2) allowingcannabis sales at remote cultivation sites; (3) allowing 104 events per year atpotentially thousands of locations; (4) the elimination of site security plans;and (5) allowing commercial cannabis on smaller parcels with virtually nosetbacks. There is no possible justification to support this aspect of theproposed Ordinance. The unavoidable conclusion is that the impact issignificant and would be put the public at risk.

I.                  Exclusion Zones Should Be Used forMitigation.

For almost a decade, the County has invited neighborhoods tosubmit requests to be deemed Exclusion Zones, prohibiting commercial cannabiscultivation, sales, and any related activities in specified neighborhoods.Against that backdrop as well as the County’s stated objective of achievingneighborhood compatibility, we cannot understand why neither the draftEnvironmental Impact Report nor the proposed Cannabis Ordinance contains thephrase “exclusion zone,” except to observe it is anarea of controversy. Exclusion zones would reduce the hostility betweengrowers and rural residents whose needs and desires are obviously incompatible.Given the background to developing the revised cannabis ordinance, this seemsto be insubordination and a violation of the public trust. It is also likelycontrary to law because in refusing to study exclusion zones called for in theMarch 2022 Framework document approved by the Board of Supervisors staff apparentlyunilaterally revised the project proposal in the Notice of Preparation.

Permit Sonoma conducted public outreach during summer 2021, includingan online survey of a variety of issues. The results indicate that 74% of residentsfavored creating exclusion zones. The Board of Supervisors explicitly directedPermit Sonoma to study exclusion zones and rural neighborhood enclaves in itsCannabis Program Update Framework in 2022. This was included in Notice ofPreparation for the Environmental Impact Report in 2023.

During the scoping process and in response to the directionof the Board of Supervisors, the Neighborhood Coalition and several individual neighborhoodsprovided detailed proposals as to what areas should be studied as exclusionzones or neighborhood enclaves. Many individuals devoted countless hours topropose credible, viable areas for consideration.

Permit Sonoma was asked during the first Planning Commissionhearing why exclusion zones had vanished despite the clear direction of theBoard of Supervisors to study them. Staff responded that setbacks constituteexclusion zones. This makes no sense at all. It would mean that the currentordinance already has exclusion zones, and that past efforts to consider themwere misguided and a waste of time. This includes Commissioner and Supervisordiscussions about exclusion zones in 2016 when the original Cannabis Ordnancewas adopted, as well as work by Ad Hoc committees of the Board of Supervisorsin 2017 and 2018.

The Planning Commission and the Board of Supervisors canstill salvage this deeply flawed process. They can follow the project proposalin the Notice of Preparation and require the establishment of exclusion zonesto mitigate the health effects of cannabis emissions and protect sensitivehabitats and resources. Widely employing exclusion zones will help mitigatemany of the environmental impacts of the proposed ordinance, and, among otherremedies such as requiring increased setbacks for all parcels is clearly areasonable mitigation option.

I.                  The Project Description and EnvironmentalSetting are Incomplete

The project description should better describe how cannabisis grown, harvested, processed, and transported. Geo pots are the typical meansof growing cannabis outdoors in Sonoma County, and the DEIR fails to describe thechemicals and additives that are used, and whether any local soils are used.Where are the materials in the geo pots disposed, and how frequently? What isthe traffic impact? How many crops are harvested annually for different typesof grows? What labor is needed for each phase of cultivation and harvesting foreach type of grow on a per-acre basis? The DEIR cannot legally assess all ofthe environmental impacts without accessing, detailing, and considering thisinformation.

The project description should analyze the amount of cannabisthat is anticipated to meet State requirements for appellation of origin. UnderBus. & Prof Code § 26063(c), an appellation of origin “requires thepractice of planting in the ground in the canopy area and excludes thepractices of using structures, including a greenhouse, hoophouse, glasshouse,conservatory, hothouse, and any similar structure, and any artificial light inthe canopy area.” The appellation issue is rendered further suspect given the wideuse of geo pots for growing plants, rendering the soil provenance and anyappellation irrelevant. Growers often contend that consumers prefer cannabisgrown in Sonoma County, and the proposals concerning farm stand sales andevents suggest that an appellation designation will improve prices. Mostgrowers seem to use hoophouses, artificial light, and geo pots which do notqualify. A comprehensive DEIR should provide specific and detailed informationto decision makers on these issues. Thus, the project description is incomplete.

Thank you for considering and hopefully implementing ourcomments.

Neighborhood Coalition

Nancy and Brantly Richardson,Communications Directors

SonomaNeighborhoodCoalition@gmail.com

See link to original article above for attachments:

Attachment 1.  Permit Sonoma, Staff Report Penngrove (December14, 2023)

Attachment 2.  Map of Bennett Valley

Attachment 3.  Neighborhood Coalition, Selling Cannabis is aMagnet for Crime (July 8, 2025)

Attachment 4.  Letter from David Hoff, California HighwayPatrol, to Permit Sonoma (May 14, 2024)

‍