Neighborhood Coalition: Final Environmental Impact Report should not be certified

Sept 15th, 2025

The Planning Commission Should Not Recommend Certifying the Final Environmental Impact Report

The Neighborhood Coalition advocates for sustainable, environmentally sound, and neighborhood-compatible cannabis policies in Sonoma County. We incorporate by reference the comments filed by Shute Mihaly & Weinberger on behalf of Save Our Sonoma Neighborhoods.

The Planning Commission Should Not Recommend Certifying the Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR). It does not fully and adequately respond to most comments, especially those filed by the Neighborhood Coalition (O1, O5-O10, O18, and O19), Shute Mihaly & Weinberger on behalf of Save Our Sonoma Neighborhoods (O24), Friends of the Mark West Watershed (O4), the League of Women Voters (O12, O13), Neighbors of West County (O14), Preserve Rural Sonoma County (O16), the Bennett Valley Community Association (O17), Friends of Franz Valley (O25), Bennett Valley Residents for Safe Development (O2, O11), and the California Department of Fish and Wildlife (A4). The FEIR does not and cannot support the findings required by CEQA.

The FEIR is written to obfuscate instead of fully disclose the environmental impacts of the cannabis ordinance. The County has not shown a good faith effort to consider public input, much less modify the DEIR as a result. The County must provide a reasoned analysis supported by factual information. CEQA Guidelines § 15088(c). Comments must be “addressed in detail giving reasons why specific comments and suggestions were not accepted.” Id. The County’s approach, to put it mildly, does not achieve the goals of CEQA.

The arrogance of the drafters of the responses to comments is exemplified by this statement (p. 3-12):

None of the comment letters on health effects from exposure to cannabis odors provide resources of similar expertise or a comparable health effect analysis as provided by Trinity and SafeBridge.

The County is misusing a false claim about the experts’ qualifications to justify ignoring or dismissing many valid comments and data that contradict its chosen approach. Many so-called “responses” are either non-responses or rely on inaccuracies, omissions, and misrepresentations. Even when commenters pointed out obvious calculation mistakes, the FEIR consultants refused to make any corrections. “Conclusory statements unsupported by factual information” are never an adequate response. Guidelines § 15088(c); City of Maywood v. Los Angeles Unified Sch. Dist. (2012) 208 Cal.App.4th 362, 391.

Details on the failings of the FEIR to address comments are found in Critique of FEIR Analysis of Health Impacts in Master Response 1 (“Health Critique,” Attachment 1) and Critique of FEIR Analysis of Odor Detection, Setbacks, and Dispersion Modeling in Master Response 1 (“Emissions Critique,” Attachment 2).

These comments may be incomplete due to the FEIR’s 628-page length and the limited time the Neighborhood Coalition had to review it. The Neighborhood Coalition reserves the right to raise other issues as this process continues.

I. Summary and Overall Pattern of Failures in Responses to Comments.

The failures and inadequacies of the responses to comments is summarized below:

a. Licensed physicians and medical specialists with decades of experience are ignored or trivialized.

b. Even documented life-threatening medical emergencies are minimized or not addressed.

c. Scientific evidence is cherry-picked - multiple peer-reviewed studies are dismissed in favor of single “supportive” studies which even then are misrepresented; this makes a mockery of CEQA’s goal of disclosing to the public a project’s significant environmental effects.

d. Carcinogen risks downplayed - known cancer-causing compounds are minimized using irrelevant and discredited arguments.

e. Worsening impacts ignored - the reduction in existing health and safety protections is not acknowledged.

f. Pretending to respond using generic references to "Master Response 1" instead of addressing specific evidence.

g. Minimizing odor impacts as "annoyances" despite abundant evidence reports of their negative health effects.

h. Ignoring contradicting data from their odor analysis and myrcene dispersion models.

i. Ignoring contradictory evidence when residents provide maps, studies, or real-world data.

j. Failure to address technical solutions proposed by residents.

k. Failure to explain how proposed setbacks align with documented odor travel distances.

l. Violation of primary program objective of “protection of public health and safety and racial and socio-economic equity.”

‍

II. Ten Fallacies in Sonoma County's Master Responses on Cannabis Odor, Health Impacts, and Setbacks.

a. False Equivalency Between Cannabis and Agricultural Odors.

FEIR Statement: "It is important to also note that an unfamiliar odor is more easily detected and is more likely to cause complaints than a familiar one. Land uses typically associated with odor complaints include wastewater treatment plants, sanitary landfills, composting facilities." (p. 3-8).

Fallacy: The county deliberately conflates cannabis odors with wastewater treatment plants and typical agricultural odors, ignoring that cannabis odors contain carcinogenic compounds like beta-myrcene not found in traditional farm and wastewater odors. See Letter O9 “Unlike Typical Agricultural Odors, Cannabis Odors Pose Health Risks.”

b. Circular Logic on "Significant and Unavoidable" Impact.

FEIR Statement: "Given these circumstances and the inability to establish setbacks that would completely eliminate cannabis odors, this impact was identified as significant and unavoidable." (p. 3-11).

Fallacy: The acknowledgement that odor is a "significant and unavoidable impact" is used to justify the inadequate setbacks that Permit Sonoma has proposed and circumvent discussing the simple well-known mitigation of implementing larger setbacks.

c. Dismissing Health Concerns Through False Authority.

FEIR Statement: "Key personnel involved in the Draft EIR at Ascent, Trinity, and SafeBridge have specific, extensive and unique experience. None of the comment letters on health effects from exposure to cannabis odors provide resources of similar expertise." (p. 3-12).

Fallacy: Appeal to authority fallacy - dismissing citizen health concerns and expert critiques by claiming their consultants are uniquely qualified, while ignoring the extensive qualification of experts, documented resident experiences, and scientific evidence contradictory to their claims

d. Misrepresenting Beta-Myrcene Cancer Risk.

FEIR Statement: "Beta-myrcene causes a type of cancer in rats by a mechanism that is specific to rats and impossible to achieve in humans." (p. 3-192).

Fallacy: The county selectively interprets cancer studies to belittle risk to humans, ignoring that regulatory agencies classify beta-myrcene as a potential carcinogen for humans and that no safe exposure threshold has been established for humans. The county ignores the detailed response and analysis by regulatory authorities in California showing that assertion that these rat cancers are irrelevant in humans are erroneous and do not meet even one of 7 required criteria for challenge. The attached Health Critique (p. 24) provides more information. It is unscientific to cite a study that was later refuted by a state environmental regulatory body.

e. False Precision in Modeling vs. Reality.

FEIR Statement: "The modeling identifies that setbacks provide substantial decreases in odor concentrations... approximately 50 percent reduction in odor concentration" at 100 feet (p. 3-376).

Fallacy: The FEIR presents precise percentages from theoretical modeling while ignoring empirical emissions data showing odors detected at 2 miles distance and resident reports of odors traveling 8,000 feet. The county acknowledges relevant parameters required for correct modeling (e.g., topography, air inversions, wind patterns) that are especially prominent during fall harvest time yet states that such parameters would not change modeling results. They ignore its consultants' own data from 2020 that showed about 100 times higher odor levels from an identical size grow site and only 25% odor reduction at 100 ft, thus half the percentage reduction they claim from their current modeling. The attached Emissions Critique (pp. 29-31) provides further explanation of this glaring error that should embarrass Trinity Consulting.

f. Inconsistent Protection Standards for Children.

FEIR Statement: Proposes "1000 ft setbacks from schools and daycare centers" but "only 100 ft setbacks for Ag and RRD parcels and 600 ft for residential zoned parcels, where children live" (p. 3-344).

Fallacy: Logical inconsistency. If 1,000 feet is needed to protect children at schools, the same distance should apply to homes in all zoning where children spend much more time than at school.

g. Deflection Through Averaging Periods.

FEIR Statement: "The modeling reflects an annual averaging period and should not be expected to reflect an instantaneous reading at any given time or location" (p. 3-198).

Fallacy: Red herring fallacy - using annual averaging to dismiss peak exposure periods when cannabis odors are strongest during flowering season, affecting residents' daily lives for months. Obviously, it is the peak exposures that present the health risks. Annual averages are irrelevant.

h. False Assumption About Indoor Exposure.

FEIR Statement: "People tend not to stay outdoors on their property around the clock, instead spending time indoors" to minimize exposure concerns. (p. 3-262).

Fallacy: False premise - assumes homes provide protection from odors when residents report being unable to open windows for weeks and odors penetrating homes. This ignores the reported experience by numerous residents and protections against nuisance on one’s property (thus including their land outside the home) provided by law in California (CCC § 3479). Moreover, people tend to spend most of their time outdoors during harvest, which is peak odor season.

i. Vague Language Masquerading as Scientific Fact

FEIR Statement: "Odors would decrease substantially by 600 feet and further at 1,000 feet" without quantifying what "substantially" means (p. 3-261).

Fallacy: Using imprecise language ("substantially,” “further") to create an impression of scientific certainty while avoiding specific measurements that could be verified. The FEIR obfuscates because it has no measured emissions data, unlike the Neighborhood Coalition. The FEIR even states “the Draft EIR does not state or imply that odors for individual receptors would decrease,” contradicting their statement that "Odors would decrease substantially by 600 feet and further at 1,000 feet." The FEIR is designed to obfuscate instead of fully disclose the environmental impacts of the cannabis ordinance, in violation of CEQA.

j. Ignoring Cumulative Effects.

FEIR Statement: The EIR fails to analyze residents living near multiple cultivation sites, stating only that analysis assumes single operations.

Fallacy: Composition fallacy - analyzing single operations while ignoring that residents may be exposed to multiple sites simultaneously, potentially doubling or tripling exposure levels beyond what their models predict as "safe."

‍

III. The FEIR Fails to Disclose the Adverse Health Effects of Cannabis Emissions.

The adverse health effects of cannabis emissions is a central environmental issue of the proposed cannabis ordinance. It is key to meeting one of the primary objectives of the proposed cannabis ordinance (DEIR, ES-2):

• Consider the protection of public health and safety and racial and socio-economic equity when implementing the above objectives.

Nowhere in the DEIR or FEIR does Permit Sonoma mention that many of those most affected by the county’s cavalier approach to public health and safety are agricultural workers and their children. Many agricultural workers live on Ag- and RRD-zoned lands and will be among the most impacted by inadequate (as little as 100 feet) setbacks from residences as well as the County’s decrease of the minimum parcel size. The families and children of ag workers will inhale very high levels of unhealthy cannabis emissions in their homes and be exposed to carcinogens. Even if the parents or children escape developing cancers years later, their lives will be impaired by suffering from nausea, headaches, vomiting, difficulty breathing, asthma, coughing, eye irritation, sore throat, respiratory irritation, and sleep disruption. Many if not most ag workers in Sonoma County today are Hispanic or other minorities who occupy the lower rungs of the socio-economic scale.

In Environmental Justice: Addressing the Burden of Air Pollution, the American Lung Association supports relieving the disproportionate burden on communities of color and achieving environmental justice by formulating health and environmental laws and policies to address the factors contributing to the disproportionate levels of exposure in these communities. Surely exposing ag workers and their families to unhealthy air in their homes is such a policy.

Many ag workers have poor command of English and are relatively new to this culture. It is evident that few attend hearings and none filed comments on the proposed ordinance (if they are even aware of it; few supervisors announce the cannabis ordinance process in their newsletters, perhaps fearing how an informed citizenry might react). While the voices of ag workers are not heard during the EIR process, equity demands that their health and safety be greater priority than increasing business opportunities for affluent cultivators who rarely live at or near the cultivation sites that are the source of their income and air pollution.

Inadequate Responses to Cannabis Emissions Concerns.

This section provides eleven examples of the FEIR’s inadequate responses to concerns raised about unhealthy cannabis emissions.

a. Bennett Valley Odor Map Evidence.

Comment (I76-2, O11-2, O19-3): Residents provided a detailed map showing odor complaints from a one-acre cultivation site at 2274 Wellspring Road in Bennett Valley, with documented complaints extending over 2,500 feet away. One family could not open the windows for weeks and could not use natural air conditioning.

Response: The county refers readers to "Master Response 1" without directly addressing the specific evidence presented or explaining how 100-foot setbacks could possibly protect residents when documented odors travel 2,500+ feet.

Inadequacy: The response ignores and belittles concrete evidence and fails to explain the contradiction between the proposed setbacks and documented odor travel distances. The attached Emissions Critique shows that unhealthy emissions, as verified by measurements in the field, often extend as far as 2,500 feet.

b.Health Impact Dismissal.

Comment (I117-10): A resident cited multiple scientific publications documenting adverse health effects from cannabis VOC emissions, including formation of carcinogens such as formaldehyde and ground-level ozone, with references to peer-reviewed studies.

Response: The county dismisses this comment by incorrectly claiming cannabis VOC emission rates are "low" based on a single 2019 Colorado study, without addressing the specific health evidence or the formation of secondary pollutants.

Inadequacy: The response cherry-picks and distorts findings from a single study while ignoring multiple peer-reviewed publications the resident referenced. It fails to address secondary pollutant formation. This obfuscates this issue and fails to fully disclose the environmental impacts of the cannabis ordinance.

c. Real-World Odor Experiences.

Comments (Multiple): Residents described being "confined in their homes for days or weeks," children with breathing problems exacerbated by cannabis emissions, and odors detected 6-8 miles away from cultivation sites

Response: The county consistently refers to odors as mere "annoyances" and directs readers to Master Response 1, rather than acknowledging the severity of reported health impacts. The county has not done a scientific odor analysis but rather relies on theoretical models.

Inadequacy: The response minimizes and dismisses lived experiences without providing substantive technical analysis of why these impacts occur or how to prevent them. The attached Emissions Critique provides empirical field measurements confirming the experience of the commenters. The attached Health Critique explains the many errors the FEIR consultants made in calculating human safe myrcene exposure levels, including (1) assuming protecting a 154-pound worker equally protects children, developing fetuses, the infirm and the elderly (ignoring that small children are then exposed to much higher emissions levels); (2) a failure to acknowledge that inhalation provides much higher levels than oral consumption; (3) a failure to understand that a higher OEL is less protective than a lower OEL; (4) a failure to understand that fat-soluble molecules such a myrcene accumulate in humans but not in rats, skewing the safety analysis; and (5) a failure to understand that inhalation provides a direct route to the brain.

d. Setback Inadequacy.

Comment (O19-3): Residents pointed out the "illogical" nature of protecting children at school with 1,000-foot setbacks while the same children at home have only 100-foot protection, citing documented odor impacts at 2,500+ feet.

Response: The county acknowledges the difference in setbacks but does not address the logical inconsistency raised or explain why residential setbacks are so much smaller (as little as 100 feet) than school setbacks.

Inadequacy: The response fails to address and explain the core logic of the concern about inconsistent health standards. There is no factual or policy explanation of the differences.

e. Gas Chromatography Testing Demand.

Comment (O11-2): Residents requested that cultivation permits require growers to demonstrate with quantitative Gas Chromatography that no terpenes, carcinogens, or odors at human detection limits leave the property.

Response: No substantive response to this specific technical mitigation suggestion - only generic references to Master Response 1 which does not address this issue.

Inadequacy: The county completely ignores a specific, technically feasible monitoring solution. The attached Emissions Critique shows that unhealthy emissions, as verified by measurements in the field, travel far and often invade neighboring properties.

f. Paraplegic Child's Life-Threatening Breathing Problems.

Comment (O2-1, O18-1): Residents cited a federal lawsuit filed in August 2018 where neighbors in Petaluma reported that "strong skunky smell of cannabis cloaked the neighborhood" causing "significant breathing problems" for a young paraplegic who relied on a breathing tube and was at risk of suffocation.

Response: The county provides no direct response to this life-threatening medical emergency case. It only refers to generic Master Response 1, without acknowledging the regulatory failure to protect a disabled child being at risk of suffocation.

Inadequacy: The response completely ignores a documented case where cannabis odors created a life-threatening medical emergency for a vulnerable child, showing callous disregard for disability rights and public health. It highlights the failure of the FEIR to fully disclose the impacts of unhealthy cannabis emissions. The attached Health Critique explains the many errors the FEIR consultants use to conclude there is no health risk from beta-myrcene, and notes it refused to modify any calculations based on its clearly-demonstratable errors apparently because it thinks its “guns for hire” consultants have more experience that the Neighborhood Coalition’s volunteer experts who collectively have over 150 years combined experience, hundreds of peer-reviewed publications, and expertise in pharmaceutical toxicology, regulatory development, inhalation technology and public health. The “Master Response 1 Health Critique” contains a comparison of the consultants on both sides of this issue.

g.Medical Professional's Expert Concerns Dismissed.

Comment (I114-4): A practicing physician expressed "serious concerns about the health hazards posed by the molecular debris in the air associated with cannabis operations" and stated that "adequate safety measures are not included in the proposed regulations."

Response: The county only refers the medical professional to Master Response 1 without addressing the physician's specific medical expertise or concerns about molecular debris.

Inadequacy: The response dismisses a licensed physician's professional medical opinion without any substantive technical rebuttal or explanation of why the medical concerns are unfounded. The attached Health Critique explains why the physician is correct. Apparently, those who wrote the response for the FEIR think that pretending their experts have superior credentials is an excuse for ignoring germane comments and information, in violation of CEQA.

h. Pediatric Pulmonologist's Expertise Trivialized.

Comment (O18-37, O18-38): Dr. Alan H. Cohen, a board-certified pediatric pulmonologist with over 35 years of experience at Stanford University and other leading medical centers, provided detailed medical analysis about inhalation risks to children, pregnant women, and vulnerable populations from cannabis emissions.

Response: The county dismissed the pulmonologist's concerns by claiming that "pulmonary drug administration in pediatric populations" is "fundamentally different from incidental community exposure," completely missing the doctor's point about inhalation exposure risks.

Inadequacy: The response mischaracterizes the expert's concerns and fails to address his specific warnings about vulnerable populations being exposed to carcinogens through inhalation. The attached Health Critique explains why Dr. Cohen is correct. This is another example of the FEIR’s arrogance in claiming their experts have superior credentials as an excuse for ignoring germane comments and information. This violates CEQA.

i. Beta-Myrcene Carcinogen Risk Minimized.

Comments (Multiple): Residents extensively documented that beta-myrcene is a known carcinogen listed by California's OEHHA, comprises 50-70% of cannabis VOCs, and that "no safe limit for ingestion or inhalation has been determined." They noted that cannabis workers wear protective "moon suits" to avoid exposure.

Response: The county minimized these concerns by claiming that beta-myrcene "does not accumulate in the body" due to its 4.75-hour half-life in rats, completely missing the point about continuous 24/7 exposure to a carcinogen and failing to understand that lipophilic (fat-soluble) molecules such as myrcene have substantially longer half-lives in humans who have much more fat tissue where the molecules accumulate than rats. This results in much higher exposure levels in humans.

Inadequacy: The response ignores that continuous exposure to a carcinogen (even with a short half-life) can cause cumulative DNA damage and cancer risk. The half-life argument is incorrect as compounds have much longer half lives in humans than rats, especially lipophilic compounds such as myrcene, and they can accumulate for two or more weeks. The attached Health Critique (p. 26) explains in detail why the FEIR’s opinion about half-life is wrong. It also explains (p. 24) why the FEIR is wrong in rejecting the National Toxicology Lab’s 2-year carcinogenicity study citing data that was definitively refuted in 2015 by California’s OEHHA when listing beta-myrcene for Proposition 65. It is unscientific to rely on a study that was later refuted by a state environmental regulatory body.

j. Secondary Pollutant Formation Ignored.

Comment (117-10, O18-2): Residents provided multiple peer-reviewed scientific references showing that cannabis terpenes react with air to form secondary pollutants including formaldehyde (a Proposition 65 carcinogen), formic acid, and ground-level ozone, causing "nausea, burning of eyes and throat, cough, and respiratory distress."

Response: The county dismissed these concerns by referencing a single 2019 Colorado study about indoor facilities and claiming that outdoor cultivation would have "lower" ozone formation because "precursors would more readily dissipate into open air."

Inadequacy: The response ignores multiple peer-reviewed studies about secondary pollutant formation and provides no scientific evidence to support their claim that outdoor cultivation reduces these chemical reactions. The "dissipation" argument does not address the formation of harmful secondary compounds. The attached Health Critique” (pp. 23-24) explains in detail why the FEIR’s opinion about ozone formation is wrong.

k. Reduced Setback Impacts Ignored.

Comment (O18-1): Residents pointed out that the ordinance eliminates the current 300-foot setbacks and reduces them to only 100 feet, meaning residents who "currently have an inadequate buffer of 300 feet from their residences could see that buffer cut by two-thirds."

Response: The county provided no response to this specific concern about reducing existing protections and making unhealthy odor impacts worse for current residents.

Inadequacy: The response completely ignores that the ordinance would worsen conditions for existing residents by reducing already inadequate setbacks, violating CEQA's requirement to analyze increased impacts. The attached Emissions Critique shows that unhealthy emissions, verified by measurements in the field, will often invade neighboring properties, especially with a mere 100-foot setback. The response fails to address equity concerns for ag workers and their families being exposed to unhealthy air pollution.

‍

IV. Responses to Comments that 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.

The County is legally required to mitigate or avoid the significant impacts of the projects it approves whenever it is feasible to do so. Pub. Resources Code § 21002.1(b). This includes much greater setbacks that Permit Sonoma has proposed.

Comment O19-3 stated the setbacks are inadequate, and it is illogical to protect children at school more than at home or to have to send them to school so they can be more protected during harvest. Zoning has no bearing on whether to protect a residence. A map depicting odor complaints for a one-acre cultivation operation was provided showing widespread problems including a home 2,500 feet from the cultivation site where the residents could not open their windows for weeks.

Response O19-3 cites Master Response 1 and response to Comment O18-2 which fail to respond to this comment. They belittle the odor map, deeming it to be mere “lay evidence” that cannot be verified. They claim the comment provides “no evidence” that a 2,500-foot setback from all residences provides enhanced mitigation. If 2,500 feet were effective, it claims that parcels would have to be so large and remote that they could not be used for cannabis cultivation. There is no support in the record for such a claim. As explained in the attached Emissions Critique, the FEIR relies on unverified theoretical modeling to assess the dispersion of cannabis emissions and ignores abundant empirical measured data that show 2,500-foot setbacks are needed. It is unscientific and illogical to rely on theoretical models when empirical data show the models produce wrong results.

Comment O19-4 stated the minimum lot size for cultivation should be retained at 10 acres, if not increased to 20 acres.

Response O19-4 cites only Master Response 1, which does not respond to the comment. As explained in the attached Emissions Critique, the FEIR relies on inaccurate and theoretical dispersion modeling instead of empirical measurements of the carcinogen beta-myrcene to assess the health effects of cannabis emissions. The FEIR’s reliance on unscientific methods to disclose the environmental impacts of the proposed cannabis ordinance has led to erroneous conclusions about minimum lot sizes. The County Supervisors increased minimum parcel size to 10 acres in 2018 to improve neighborhood compatibility. The FEIR now proposes to reduce this to 5 acres, which is only possible with setbacks of only 100 feet. The FEIR provides no reason that greater setbacks than Permit Sonoma has proposed are not feasible with larger parcel sizes. Therefore, they are required under CEQA. Further, the FEIR is incomplete because it did not study any option to increase parcel size, which based on the county’s economic modeling could have easily accommodated such growth and provided adequate setbacks.

‍

V. Responses to Comments that Crop Swaps Do Not Qualify for Ministerial Permits are Inadequate.

Comment 019-7 stated the crop swap proposal “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.”

Response 019-7 cites Master Response 4: Crop Swap Approval, about 80% of which discusses the approval process for individual cannabis projects in the DEIR (which is non-germane) and a reiteration of the fact that crop swaps are ministerial. None of Master Response 4 responds to the comment. It also states that if there are cumulative impacts they can be imposed as part of a ministerial process without public participation. This is Kafkaesque and violates Protecting Our Water & Envtl. Resources v. County of Stanislaus (“POWER”) (2020) 10 Cal.5th 479, 501.

Comment 019-8 objects to the proposed “no net increase in groundwater” requirement because almost no water monitoring data exists in Sonoma County for agricultural crops, so the standard relies on a County official exercising judgment as to the baseline. This is forbidden by POWER.

Response 019-8 cites Master Response 2: Legality of Cannabis which explains how the county justifies a preferred alternative that violates the California Supreme Court’s POWER ruling. It also cites Master Response 5: Water Supply. About 80% of Water Supply discusses groundwater pumping in specific watersheds, together with Mitigation Measure 3.10-2a (protect groundwater resources) which deals with use permits, not ministerial crop swaps. It is irrelevant. Water Supply does discuss Mitigation Measure 3.10-2b (ZPC), which applies to ministerial permits. This policy requires “net zero” during the dry season (April to October) and groundwater metering. It does not address the problem that there is no baseline monitoring. It does not address the violation of POWER when county officials exercise judgment in determining what the baseline may be and their use of judgment in determining adaptive management measures if the grower fails to achieve no net zero.

Comment O19-9 challenges the assumption that achieving no net increase on an annual basis protects the environment. It notes that a gallon of water consumed in spring is not identical to a gallon of water consumed in late summer, and that cannabis (unlike other crops) consumes water voraciously during late summer when stream flows and watersheds are most stressed. It also notes that Sonoma County’s procedures are insufficient to establish a baseline for historic water use.

Response O19-9 cites only Comment O24-18 regarding differing rates of cannabis water demands and Master Response 5: Water Supply. These provide no responses or information regarding the stress on watersheds or the threats to the creatures that live in riparian habitats during late summer. It provides no response about the lack of valid baselines for water use.

Comment O19-10 notes that crop swaps would stress neighboring wells, riparian habitats, and the watershed during late summer and autumn, which impacts amphibians in riparian zones and salmonids. For this reason, water use needs to be evaluated on a case-by-case basis. A program EIR cannot make such a determination. Response A2-1 admits that programmatic EIRs lack the “site-specific and project-specific information” that is needed for most projects.

Response O19-10 cites Master Response 5: Water Supply and Responses to Comments O24-18 to -O21 and O24-46 to -61. While these have general information, none address the issues raised in this comment. Once again this response is intended to obfuscate rather than disclose information. Certain comments refer to yet other comments, so the reader must look for a needle in a haystack while vainly searching for a germane response. Some responses refer to Mitigation Measures 3.10-2a and 3.10-2b which, as discussed above, do not address the late summer water issues. Response O24-20 is particularly disingenuous. It asserts there is no discretion in issuing a crop swap permit, yet states the county must exercise its discretion to determine if a project qualifies for a non-discretionary permit in the first place. This response is Kafkaesque.

The FEIR assumes that the effects of water use on endangered amphibians and on other flora and fauna that require healthy riparian habitats to survive is only the footprint of the cultivation site (Letter O17 notes that the Matanzas Creek watershed in Bennett Valley has good riparian habitat and the presence of at least four endangered, threatened, or sensitive species: California giant salamander, red-bellied newt, red-legged frog, and yellow-legged frog). Cannabis water use during the driest months can drain the watershed and destroy riparian habitat, thereby killing the flora and fauna that need it to live. The FEIR fails to disclose the environmental effects and instead obfuscates it.

Comment O19-11 notes that cannabis fields, unlike other crops in Sonoma County, emit large amounts of noxious and unhealthy compounds including carcinogens that harm neighbors. The proposed setbacks do not account for site-specific issues due to topography, winds, and inversions that trap air for days (see DEIR, p. 3-3-7). These must be addressed in a conditional use permit, and ministerial crop swap permits violate CEQA.

Response O19-11 cites Master Response 1: Evaluation of Cannabis Odor Impacts. As discussed in the attached Health Critique, it utterly fails to address these issues.

Comment O19-12 notes that cannabis cultivation generates much more traffic than vineyard or orchard operations, especially during the autumn harvest. This is a serious problem on the County’s narrow, rural roads, particularly during emergency evacuations. The crop swap proposal assumes this problem away by selecting an arbitrary number of employees, much lower than those reported in Sonoma County.

Response O19-12 fails to address how cannabis operations can credibly operate with traffic volumes anywhere near the levels for orchards or vineyards. Perhaps Permit Sonoma is encouraging applicants to grossly under-report their actual traffic, after which Permit Sonoma will allow them to operate with excess traffic. What is important is peak traffic during harvest, not “average” traffic over an entire year that includes many months without traffic. There is no explanation of how to address evacuations, and the use of “average” traffic masks the serious problems because peak fire season and harvest occur simultaneously.

Comment O19-13 notes that ministerial permits have no mechanism to analyze and consider cumulative impacts resulting from a concentration of cannabis cultivation sites. It depicts a portion of Bennett Valley where merely 10 parcels could engage in crop swaps to allow 58 acres of cannabis cultivation. The proposal authorizes this example, and thousands of others, which raises all issues discussed in Comment O19-10 to Comment O19-12 in the cumulative impact context. Examples include odor, traffic and the destruction of riparian habit needed for survival by endangered and threatened amphibians because of excessive groundwater pumping. The programmatic DEIR does not (and cannot) assess these issues with the degree of granularity that in needed.

Response O19-13 is a non-sequitur. It discusses the six alternatives studied and generally refers to a discussion of cumulative impacts in the DEIR, the certification process, and statement of overriding considerations. It does not address the issues raised here and states instead “there are no specific issues pertaining to the adequate or accuracy of the Draft EIR for which further response can be provided.” However, the FEIR (p. 3-11) concedes that unhealthy cannabis emissions “can accumulate in low land areas such as valleys that exist in the county under certain topographic and climate conditions during various time periods of the year (e.g., temperature inversions where dispersion of pollutants is suppressed), especially during outdoor cannabis harvest periods that primarily occur in the fall months.” Yet the FEIR states that including these conditions would not change the results of their modeling. The FEIR does not and cannot study the health problems created by a concentration of cultivation sites because with ministerial permits under crop swaps there is no mechanism to consider cumulative effects. The FEIR cannot conclude that crop swaps will not contribute to cumulative impacts simply because a single project might have a less than significant impact. See Kings County Farm Bureau v. City of Hanford (1990) 221 Cal.App.3d at 720-21 (“Cumulative impacts can result from individually minor but collectively significant projects”). Under the proposal, permits must be issued even if catastrophic environmental consequences are known to ensure.

Comment O24-5 noted that cannabis production is substantially different from traditional agricultural crops, such that an “apples to apples” comparison of it to other crops’ water usage—and for that matter, these crops’ uses of and impacts to many other environmental resources—is unjustified. Moreover, as the experiences of other jurisdictions show, crop insurance for traditional agriculture can become unaffordable when adjacent fields convert to growing a higher value product like cannabis, and dust and chemicals from traditional agriculture can trigger complaints or even legal action from cannabis operators.

Response 024-5 states the comment addresses financial issues and implies that adjacent cannabis uses would harm existing agricultural pursuits, and it is not clear how the Cannabis Program Update could affect other agriculture. This response fails to acknowledge that ministerial permits would never review the viability of a neighboring agricultural operation from a new potentially incompatible cannabis operation.

VI. Responses to Comments that Rural Farm Stands and Cannabis Events Invite Crime and DUIs.

Comment O19-16. Allowing farm stands, cannabis tasting, and sales at events at rural cultivation sites invites crime. The Neighborhood Coalition submitted a detailed crime report with facts from Bay Area law enforcement agencies showing that cannabis operations are linked to a rise in violent crime. It noted that because Napa and Marin do not allow cannabis grows Sonoma County is an inviting target. The DEIR’s crime statistics are incredibly low, failed to include information from Santa Rosa or other Bay Area counties, assume that criminals restrict their activities to their own neighborhoods, and fail to acknowledge that the proposal could increase existing outdoor cannabis cultivation by 14 times. The Sonoma County Sheriff’s Office has emphasized the dangers of rural crime. The California Highway Patrol emphasized the dangers of violent crime related to rural cannabis operations. Cannabis consumption in rural areas encourages stoned driving on narrow roads, and the proposal lacks DUI safeguards.

Response O19-16 refers to Section 3.2.3, “Master Response 3: Law Enforcement and Crime,” and response to Comment O24-41. The responses fail to address the concerns of the Sheriff or the Highway Patrol, or concede that most cannabis crime is undertaken by non-residents of Sonoma County. They fail to explain the vast discrepancies between their data (10 crimes) and our verified crime report (1,972 crimes), or update the DEIR’s crime statistics with those from Santa Rosa where much of the county’s dispensaries and associated crime are located. They fail to discuss cannabis murder statistics. They fail to acknowledge that decreasing security requirements would likely invite more crime. They state that they expect cultivation sites to be fenced because current operators have fences without acknowledging that current sites are fenced because the ordinance requires fencing! They fail to acknowledge that the DEIR’s projected 14-fold increase in cultivation would increase crime correspondingly. The responses fail to address DUI concerns. While Response 08-1 notes it is illegal to drive under the influence of drugs, it assumes that drivers will obey the law. It does not acknowledge that 20% of traffic deaths now involve marijuana use or that, unlike alcohol, there are no methods to field test for marijuana use for suspected DUIs.

‍

VII. Posting Cleanup Bonds to Protect the Environment.

Comment O5-5. The Neighborhood Coalition suggested requiring growers to post bonds to remediate damage when they abandon their grows. This is a feasible mitigation requirement.

Response O5-5 cites an SWRCB Order that requires cultivation sites to implement a Site Closure Plan for cultivation to stabilize the site as well as filing a Site Closure Report and the Notice of Termination. These requirements seem to only apply to water discharges and are often not enforceable. The response fails to acknowledge that many growers that have terminated in Sonoma County have filed for bankruptcy, have no assets, simply disappear, and leave the cultivation site with great environmental damage that no one (e.g., the County) cleans up.

‍

VIII. Alternative 2 Reduces Energy Consumption Impacts and is the Environmentally Superior Alternative.

Comment O6-1. The Neighborhood Coalition asked the County to analyze an "indoor cultivation only” option. The DEIR (Table 5-2) wrongly concludes that Alternative 5, which assumes fossil fuel use can be mitigated by energy efficiency standards alone, would eliminate more significant and unavoidable impacts than Alternative 2, which relies on renewables. This false premise is based on the finding that Alternative 2 invariably increases energy impacts. Correcting this error, through substantial analyses, would make Alternative 2 the environmentally superior alternative.

Response O6-1. Alternative 2 increases energy impacts. The Neighborhood Coalition proposed scenarios where warehouse-grown cannabis energy can be supplied with 100% renewable energy using solar power generated in Sonoma County or green energy provided by Sonoma Clean Power. The unsubstantiated and false conclusion that fossil fuel impacts for operations, groundwater pumping and worker commutes to remote locations can be mitigated by EV chargers at the site, energy efficient building standards and Energy Star appliances is not supported.

Alternative 2 appears to be the environmentally superior alternative (DEIR, 5-33). The DEIR acknowledges that Alternative 2, limiting commercial cannabis cultivation to indoor,

would eliminate significant and unavoidable odor impacts and lessen related impacts to aesthetics, agricultural and forestry resources, greenhouse gas emissions and climate change, hydrology and water quality and wildlife.

Comment O6-2. The DEIR Table 5-2 asserts that indoor cultivation increases impacts related to energy. The Neighborhood Coalition suggested the energy issue can be resolved by having Sonoma Clean Power build a 5-acre solar plant in the airport area which could supply full power requirements for 4-5 cannabis cultivation warehouses.

Response O6-2 concedes this would reduce environmental impacts and implies that this could make Alternative 2 the environmental preferred alternative. Alternative 2 meets the CEQA Guidelines as well as the majority of Program Objectives. “The State CEQA guidelines Section 15126.6 (a) requires EIRs to describe “a range of reasonable alternatives to the project or location of the project, which would feasibly attain most of the basic objectives of the project but would avoid or substantially lessen any of the significant effects of the project and evaluate the comparative merits of the alternatives.” (emphasis added).

The response then states, “this scenario would not attain most of the project objectives” because it “would not regulate cannabis more similarly to other agricultural uses” and “would not increase business opportunities.” And the one objective relied on to make this determination - Objective 4 - identifies the wide range of policy and environmental impacts associated with deeming cannabis as “Controlled Agriculture,” a definition and proposed practice which do not comply with Federal or State regulations:

Objective 4. Regulate cannabis located on agricultural lands more similarly to other agricultural uses, while recognizing its Federal classification, legal history, crop value, transaction security, distinct odor, and energy and water requirements.

(Emphasis added).

Renewable energy and affordable/profitable business opportunities were set aside by citing only one of nine objectives, even though Alternative 2 performed better than other Alternatives relative to the other eight objectives. As to business opportunities, cannabis grown indoors has a significantly higher market value, produces more product while disturbing less land, and provides business opportunities for solar-power installers, maintenance personnel, and cannabis workers. Furthermore, Alternative 2 would remove the gross inequity proposed for all outdoor cultivation of only requiring a 100 ft setback to all Ag- and RRD-zoned land, where disproportionate numbers of low income, ag workers, and people of color and their children live.

Comment O6-3. The Neighborhood Coalition requested that the County provide incentives for cultivators to rent space in warehouses and allow only indoor cultivation on industrial-zoned lands while providing solar energy to power the indoor facilities.

Response O6-3 mostly discusses the various alternatives in the DEIR and wrongly suggests this comment proposed a cannabis ban. The comment proposed locating cultivation, production, and distribution facilities in areas with the lowest impacts, including cannabis lounges in commercial areas. These facilities and zoning codes have adequate infrastructure – roads, water, sewer, and police protection.

Comment O6-4. The Neighborhood Coalition provided analyses for total warehouse energy demand based on two sets of conservative assumptions and analyses for energy supply using various scenarios and information sources.

Response O6-4 states the DEIR does not evaluate energy impacts of specific commercial cannabis cultivation site construction and operation but focuses on the worst-case energy-related impacts that could occur from the implementation of the program. While the values presented in this comment may differ from those in the DEIR, the comment does not address the adequacy or accuracy of the information provided in the DEIR. The reader is referred to response to Comments O6-1 and O6-3.

Impact 3.6.1 is clear, the Cannabis Program’s Preferred Alternative will “result in a potentially significant environmental impact due to wasteful, inefficient, or unnecessary consumption of energy resources.” The findings and justification of reliance on fossil fuels as “significant and unavoidable” are not backed up by substantive evidence or analyses of various scenarios even though data and methodologies are readily available to calculate GHG emissions and impacts, and the relative effectiveness of different energy efficiency measures. The FEIR found that the program did not comply with the County’s Climate Action Resolution’s energy goals, yet, it did not provide adequate mitigations for energy and other land use impacts.

‍

Because of the many failures detailed above, the Neighborhood Coalition urges the Planning Commission to not recommend certifying the FEIR.

Sincerely,

Neighborhood Coalition

Nancy and Brantly Richardson, Communications Directors

SonomaNeighborhoodCoalition@gmail.com

Attachment 1. Critique of FEIR Analysis of Health Impacts in Master Response 1

Attachment 2. Critique of FEIR Analysis of Odor Detection, Setbacks, and Dispersion Modeling in Master Response 1