Three years after Sonoma County set out to overhaul its fraught cannabis rules, officials have rolled out a proposed fix — and the fight over what should change is already back at full boil.

The revised ordinance still needs Board of Supervisors approval, likely in October. But even at this stage, it’s drawing sharp criticism from rural residents who’ve long pressed for tighter limits near homes. Growers on the other hand say county red tape and taxes have throttled a legal industry.

“We’re trying to create something that Sonoma can be proud of,” Aaron Keefer, vice president of Sonoma Hills Farm, a local cannabis farm, told the Planning Commission at a recent meeting. “All we’re asking for is the same rights wineries have.”

Neighbors counter that the county’s approach continues to expose communities to odors, traffic and water-supply strain.

“We will smell it, we will hear it, there’s no way we won’t, we will see lights at night. It is not compatible with the county and with retiring in a rural area,” Bloomfield resident Iris Patten told the commission.

County officials began the environmental review and ordinance rewrite in 2021 after years of piecemeal tweaks failed to resolve the stalemate between the industry and residents. The final environmental report — released in early September — came with 2,105 pages of public and agency comments, underscoring the scrutiny. At an Aug. 17 Planning Commission hearing, public testimony stretched for hours, with little movement in sentiment on either side. Commissioners wrapped deliberations Sept. 18 and forwarded recommendations to the Board.

What would change

Staff’s proposed revisions — and the commission’s recommended tweaks — are sweeping. Early flashpoints include whether to:

• Redefine cannabis as “controlled agriculture.” Cannabis is currently treated as an agricultural product but regulated separately; the new label would carry its own standards.
• Allow cannabis events. They’re now prohibited. The draft would permit two categories: special events such as weddings where cannabis is incidental, with a zoning permit, and cannabis events where cannabis is the focus, requiring a use permit.
• Create exclusion zones. The commission recommends an exclusion combining zone to account for road access, existing residential uses, odor from over-concentration, fire hazard and low water supply.
• Increase residential buffers. Commissioners endorsed expanding setbacks from 600 feet to 1,000 feet.
• Apply (or not) the “Right to Farm” ordinance. The commission recommends against extending Right to Farm protections to cannabis, which would have shielded compliant farms from nuisance complaints.

Neighbors’ pushback

Neighbors who had anxiously awaited the environmental study’s release said the county still hasn’t done enough to shield communities from the impacts of nearby grows.

“We were promised neighborhood compatibility with this program, yet this (report) doubles down on neighborhood incompatibility,” Moira Jacobs, president of the Bennett Valley Community Association told the Planning Commission on Sept. 17.

Their concerns were echoed in formal filings this summer, including one from Shute, Mihaly and Weinberger, a San Francisco law firm that has led challenges to cannabis policies across the North Coast. The firm helped back a Humboldt County ballot measure last year that sought tighter limits on large-scale industrial cultivation and stronger environmental protections.

In a July 15 letter, the attorneys argued Sonoma County’s environmental study “fails to satisfy CEQA’s requirements” because it does not fully evaluate cumulative neighborhood and environmental impacts or propose feasible mitigation measures.

Neighborhood Coalition Sonoma County, a volunteer network of residents and one of the most vocal critics of county cannabis regulations, led the effort to commission the letter, seventeen neighborhood groups endorsed.

“The new draft ordinance is actually kind of worse than the current ordinance,” Bill Krawetz, a coalition member, told The Press Democrat in August. “It’s got less protections, and they’ve made some provisions to make it simpler for the industry, but nothing that really protects us neighborhood folks.”

The coalition’s preferred solution is to restrict cultivation to indoors in industrial zones, which the current ordinance does not do. If the county won’t restrict cultivation to industrial zones, neighbors say they want larger setbacks and exclusion zones to block grows in areas deemed inappropriate or already saturated.

Many residents have also raised fears about beta-myrcene, a compound in cannabis plants they worry could pose health risks. But in an Aug. 18 letter, Interim Health Officer Karen Smith wrote there is no evidence emissions from cannabis plants or grows present a risk to neighbors.

Policy flashpoints

In response to neighborhood concerns, the Planning Commission recommended expanding setbacks near homes from 600 feet to 1,000 feet and creating an option for cannabis exclusion zones to keep grows out of areas with high fire risk, limited water or dense residential uses.

Commissioners also recommended against applying the county’s Right to Farm ordinance, a protection residents feared would block their ability to challenge impacts from nearby operations.

Events remain another contentious issue. The proposed ordinance would, for the first time, allow both incidental cannabis use at weddings or other gatherings (with a zoning permit) and dedicated cannabis events (with a use permit).

Growers say those opportunities are long overdue.

“Cannabis is agriculture, I’ve grown pretty much every vegetable under the sun, it’s just another vegetable,” Keefer, from Sonoma Hills Farm, told the Planning Commission.

Opponents counter that the events would compound neighborhood conflicts, drawing parallels to the county’s long, divisive battle over winery events. After nearly a decade of debate, supervisors approved new winery rules in 2023 that set standards for parking, noise, hours of operation and more.

For smaller operators, the stakes are particularly high.

“I’m over the hypocrisy,” said Alex, distribution manager for Moon Valley Cannabis at the Planning Commission meeting. “I agree there should be regulations on the industry, but we’re talking about an environmental crop.”

You can reach Staff Writer Emma Murphy at 707-521-5228 or emma.murphy@pressdemocrat.com. On Twitter @MurphReports.