County to hold public hearing this week on latest cannabis ordinance updates

With many complaints from rural neighbors, a lawsuit looks likely

The long and winding road to a legalized cannabis landscape in Sonoma County is about to encounter another crossroads when the county’s Planning Commission holds a public hearing on a major Cannabis Program Update and possible certification of a program EIR (Environmental Impact Report) on Aug. 7 at the county’s Santa Rosa Administration Center. Public testimony will be taken shortly after 1 pm.

The EIR and Updates, including General Plan amendments and two all-new concepts involving “crop swaps” and “controlled agriculture,” have taken more than three years to draft. When finally adopted by the county Board of Supervisors, the new set of commercial cultivation regulations will set zoning and size limits; require minimum setbacks from neighboring properties; regulate use of greenhouse and outdoor lighting; dictate odor abatement standards; regulate special events and on-farm sales; and attempt to answer numerous rural county residents’ concerns about “neighborhood compatibility.”

All previous Cannabis Ordinance drafts have met with organized opposition by pockets of rural property owners concerned about impacts from new cannabis cultivation operations in their various neighborhoods, including several in western Sonoma County, including Gold Ridge, Freestone, Montgomery Road, and Barlow Lane on the outskirts of Sebastopol.

At the same time, leading spokesmen for the local growers’ industry have lobbied for lower application fees, less paperwork and inspections, and the capability to compete with the illegal “black market” of pot growers.

“We support reasonable efforts to maintain local oversight and alignment with state law,” Julie Mercer-Ingram of Proof Operations wrote in recent public comments addressing the pending Aug. 7 hearing. She protested that the county’s proposals “impose a duplicative, costly and operationally burdensome process that adds no clear regulatory benefit.”

Another county cannabis grower, Alex Wall of Luma Farms, pleaded for the county to be “a leader in craft, high-quality cannabis — just as it is with wine.” Wall defended the local legal industry for “struggling to provide small-batch, thoughtfully produced products.” He disputed claims that the local legal industry is failing. “This isn’t a failed industry. It’s a neglected one.”

At the same time, Erich Pearson, a Sonoma County pot grower and cannabis producer, said, “Many small and medium farmers have left the industry due to over-taxation and over-regulation. Why subject cannabis to something that wineries are not subject to?”

Unhappy neighbors

A consortium of the neighborhood groups, Save Our Sonoma Neighborhoods (SOSN), has hired the San Francisco-based public law and EIR specialist firm Shute, Mihaly & Weinberger. The lawyers filed an 80-page protest on July 15 against the latest draft ordinance and DEIR. The law firm said the DEIR “fails to provide a complete analysis of the Project’s impacts” and fails to meet CEQA (California Environmental Quality Act) requirements.

Prior to the Shute, Mihaly & Weinberger filing, more than 100 individual comments were written to Permit Sonoma, totaling 2,226 pages of testimony following the public release of the Ordinance and DEIR updates in May, triggering a 60-day public comment period.

More testimony will be accepted at the Aug. 7 Planning Commission hearing, and more hearings are anticipated prior to a final Planning Commission vote and recommendation to the Board of Supervisors. The Cannabis Ordinance topic is tentatively scheduled for a late October Board of Supervisors meeting.

The revised Ordinance and DEIR include the following elements that have drawn the most attention to date:

• The designation of commercial cannabis cultivation as “controlled agriculture,” a new term that has never been applied to other agricultural activities or crops;

• The change of minimum required parcels from 10 to five acres for cannabis cultivation;

• The introduction of a new term, “crop swap,” which would allow a property owner to change from a previous crop to a cannabis operation without a public hearing;

• Allowance of cannabis-related events and limited sales by county-approved commercial cannabis growers;

• The omission of “Exclusion Zones,” previously advocated by rural property owners located in areas already impacted by other non-agricultural uses in ag-zoned neighborhoods; and,

• Disputes over control of marijuana crop odors, lighting and minimum property line setbacks from neighboring structures.

The first county Cannabis Ordinance was adopted in 2016, following the California voters’ approval of Proposition 64, which legalized adult use of marijuana. The county ordinance was updated in 2018, and a newer set of updates was proposed in 2021 but stalled when the Board of Supervisors unanimously rejected all Planning Commission recommendations and called for a full-blown Environmental Impact Report to be written. At the time, the 2021 updates were being threatened with a citizens’ lawsuit in the absence of a previously completed EIR.

That brings all the paperwork and long and winding paper trail to the Aug. 7 hearing. The Draft Environmental Impact Report is 833 pages and was prepared by 33 individual staff members and consultants at a cost of $2.5 million.

“Public sentiment around cannabis land uses and cannabis itself is complicated and evolving,” said McCall Miller, the county’s cannabis program coordinator. “The county aims to increase compatibility between cannabis uses and nearby neighborhoods.”

While a majority of Sonoma County cities have cannabis commissaries that sell a wide variety of cannabis products and there are currently 66 registered commercial cannabis cultivation sites, possession and sale of cannabis (marijuana) is still subject to a broad federal government prohibition.

The federal designation of all cannabis products as “dangerous controlled substances” makes formulating local laws and marketplace standards a very complicated task. Interstate commerce is prohibited, and federally insured banking institutions are banned from doing cannabis-related transactions.

With the passage of Prop. 64 in 2016, personal use of marijuana is now legal in California. In Sonoma County, individuals may grow six plants in less than 100 square feet of canopy space, hidden from direct public view. There is no plant limit for individuals with a medical permit, but the 100 square foot limit applies. All sales are prohibited.

Most current Cannabis Ordinance critics say they would support a properly regulated local cannabis industry, admitting it would be safer than past and current illegal “black markets” of pot growers. The law firm Shute, Mihaly & Weinberger is arguing for all commercial cannabis operations to be limited to parcels zoned as commercial and not Rural Reserve or agricultural.

Preserve Rural Sonoma County, a citizens group first organized to lobby for restrictions on winery tasting rooms and events, has forwarded several members’ concerns and expert analysis on the proposed Cannabis Ordinance, including impacts on water supplies, “viewsheds,” and increased traffic on rural roads from new cannabis-related events. The group also has raised attention about inadequate natural disaster evacuation planning.

“The county has thrown residences on LIA-LEA-RRD (rural zonings) under the bus,” said Judith Olney of Preserve Rural Sonoma County. “The ‘crop swap’ proposal on parcels as small as five acres would put a plant that uses six times more water than grapes on close proximity to neighbors’ wells.”

In its official evaluation of the county’s proposed ordinance, the California Department of Fish and Wildlife also raised several concerns about the “crop swap” mechanism. “The crop swap provision fails to account for the ecological differences between traditional agriculture and cannabis cultivation which involves materially different infrastructure, operating hours, chemical inputs and water use patterns,” the DFW document states. The state agency recommended all crop swaps be limited to the previous cultivation infrastructure with no new lighting and a “net-zero” change in water use.

Craig Harrison, of SOSN, the neighborhood coalition, also called new cannabis events “problematic” and said “allowing mini-dispensaries in rural areas will invite crime and DUIs.”

Neighbors of West County (NOW), a group also represented by Shute, Mihaly & Weinberger, is advocating for West County “exclusion zones” in Freestone, Gold Ridge and Ragle Ranch areas.

Nancy and Brantly Richardson, designated spokespeople for the SOSN Neighborhood Coalition have written that “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.” The Richardsons have stated that the newest Cannabis Ordinance updates do not meet these goals.

---