December 28, 2023

Tennis Wick, Director (Tennis.Wick@sonoma-county.org)

Scott Orr, Assistant Director (Scott.Orr@sonoma-county.org)

Crystal Acker, Supervising Planner (Crystal.Acker@sonoma-county.org)

Re: Comments on Comprehensive Cannabis Program Update: Odor Issues

‍

Dear Tennis, Scott, and Crystal:

The Neighborhood Coalition advocates for sustainable, environmentally sound, and neighborhood-compatible cannabis policies in Sonoma County. This submission on odor issues is part of a series of comments on the elements of the cannabis program update that Permit Sonoma released in support of its December 13 meetings on these issues. Odor is a vital component of Permit Sonoma’s “effort to improve compatibility between cannabis land uses and the neighborhoods they are located within or near.”1

The supervisors directed Permit Sonoma to, among other things, evaluate neighborhood compatibility options “informed by data, factual analyses, and results” that “ensure sufficient separation of a cannabis operation from a residential neighborhood” with respect to “at a minimum, odor.”2 The regulatory limits for parcel size, setback distances, and cultivation size limits must be “informed by factual analyses and results of the programmatic EIR.”3

Key Issues and Concerns:

     • Development standards are proposed in a total absence of data, factual analyses, or modeling. Establishing setbacks without considering odor is nonsensical.

    • No human in a modern society should suffer noxious, cancer-causing odors in their home from a commercial enterprise. The only mitigation to prevent terpene odors from outdoor cannabis grows from harming residential neighbors is distance. Large acreage parcels with at least 1,000-foot setbacks from the property line might ensure that the cannabis terpenes do not impact residents, but studies must assess setbacks of at least 3,000 feet.

1 Press Release, Permit Sonoma to host cannabis ordinance update information meetings Dec. 13 (Nov. 29, 2023).

2 Proposed Cannabis Program Update Framework (March 2022) (“Program Framework”), p. 2 (7 a).

3 Program Framework, p. 2 (9).

‍

I. Background

A. Cannabis odors do not discriminate. All people have “sensitive receptors” to cannabis terpenes, whether babies, children, young adults, mid-age adults, or the elderly. People with conditions such as asthma or other respiratory diseases, or any illness whether acute or chronic, can be even more adversely affected. Recently a cannabis worker died from exposure to cannabis. The County has previously recognized that children in schools should not be subjected to the harmful effects of cannabis cultivation. It currently requires a 1,000-foot setback from the parcel line of the parcel containing outdoor or mixed-light cannabis cultivation to the property line where a school is located. Yet children spend only 40 hours per week in school, and 128 hours per week at their homes and yards. All humans in Sonoma County, including residents, their guests, workers, and tourists should have the same protections from exposure to nuisance odors that contain carcinogens.

B. Cannabis emits many volatile organic compounds, primarily terpenes, which are responsible for the characteristic odor. These volatile terpenes have a very strong skunk-like smell and are noxious to most people. Residents living adjacent to cannabis cultivation sites who are exposed to noxious terpenes experience symptoms such as nausea, headaches, difficulty breathing, cough, eye irritation, and sore throat. Some people even develop asthma exacerbations. In Sonoma County, neighbors living adjacent to outdoor cultivation sites often cannot open windows or use their yards in the summer and fall due to the overpowering odor from the cannabis terpenes. This increases electric consumption and bills because natural air conditioning is impossible. Tourism can also be negatively impacted, e.g., with odors encroaching on winery grounds and tasting rooms. This has been documented in Santa Barbara County.

C. The odor from cannabis plants is not just a nuisance. It is dangerous to human health. In 2015, California’s Environmental Protection Agency’s Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment listed beta-myrcene as a chemical known to cause cancer. Cannabis terpenes contain large amounts of this carcinogen. Beta-myrcene is highly volatile and can travel up to 1,000 meters (3,281 feet) or more if down-wind. Ortech, Inc., PowerPoint Presentation to Permit Sonoma (Dec. 13, 2019), p. 3, attached. However, quantification is not needed. Sonoma County officials can simply ask neighbors living near a commercial cannabis grow how far the odor travels, and they will tell you at least 1,000 feet.

Proposition 65 requires employers to post warnings when there is exposure to any listed carcinogen, so the public and employees can choose to leave the premises to avoid the carcinogen. This type of warning can be achieved at indoor/greenhouse grows, and employees can choose to wear respirator masks to prevent them from inhaling these carcinogens.

‍

However, for outdoor grows impacting neighboring parcels with these carcinogens, it is not possible to post the warning on the neighbors’ land. Additionally, neighbors are subjected to the noxious and cancer-causing odors for months at a time. Carcinogen exposure is unavoidable. Neighbors are unwillingly forced to breathe this Proposition 65 carcinogen, day and night, 24/7, which violates Proposition 65 and is unconscionable as public policy.

D. Odor from indoor grows or greenhouses can be removed with properly installed and maintained filtration systems. These systems prevent volatile terpenes from exiting the immediate cultivation area. Fog or mist systems that spray chemicals into the air to destroy or neutralize the odor-causing terpenes from the exhaust can be effective along with filtration systems (e.g., charcoal, HEPA systems) as part of the odor-control for indoor/greenhouse grows. However, neighbors living adjacent to indoor cultivation sites rely on a cannabis business to maintain this system which is expensive and not in the financial interest of the business to comply. Indoor grows must have mandatory maintenance standards and required shutdowns enforceable by neighbors if they fail to meet those standards.

E. Odor from cannabis cultivated outdoors cannot be contained or destroyed. The fog or mist systems that are often used as part of the odor-control for indoor/greenhouse grows cannot be used for odor control from outdoor grows for several reasons: 1) Physical size: the chemical mist travels a few feet, not the thousands of square feet, or even acres, encompassing the outdoor grow; 2) the chemicals used would taint the cannabis and extensive toxicological and clinical testing would be required to ascertain if it would be safe to inhale or ingest; and 3) the chemicals would affect neighboring residents and cannabis employees, and

extensive clinical testing would needed to determine short and long-term safety or toxicity. Such testing is needed to develop new pharmaceuticals, and the average cost is $1-2 billion (Congressional Budget Office, 2021) and requiring 10 -15 years (Pharma.org). The cost and time prohibitive.

F. Large cannabis grows can blanket a sizable area in noxious odors, negatively impacting residents, food products, wine grapes, and tourism. Such problems are occurring in Santa Barbara County and are the subject of litigation.

G. All non-cannabis parcels should have the same minimum setback from their property line from outdoor cultivation sites. Residential enclaves (e.g., areas where 20 or more homes are in proximity or 200 feet apart) should have greater setback requirements from cultivation sites, and all residences should be free from cannabis nuisance odors.

II. Study Requests

A. The EIR should study all Bay Area (ABAG) counties and report on what each allows for outdoor and indoor cannabis cultivation, including odor and zoning requirements for indoor cultivation.

B. The EIR should quantitatively analyze the distance the cannabis terpenes travel in the air as a function of topography, weather, and size of cannabis grow site (e.g., Ortech, has developed programs to analyze these variables). It should also analyze at what concentration people can detect cannabis terpenes in the air. Quantitative techniques are available for both such measurements (GC/mass spectrometry to measure how far terpenes travel, and systems such as the Nasal Ranger to determine the limit of detection by the human nose). The EIR must analyze the terpene levels and ability of humans to detect them with 300-, 600-, 1,000-, 1,500-, and 2,000-foot setbacks from outdoor grow sites throughout the size range of grow sixes that Permit Sonoma may allow (e.g., various grow sizes between 10,000 square feet to 20+ acres or whatever maximum size the ordinance would allow).

C. The EIR must analyze systems that can prevent cannabis terpenes from leaving the footprint of the cultivation site for greenhouse and indoor cultivation. Such odor control systems must be mandatory for all greenhouse/indoor cultivation. Determination of setbacks for greenhouse/indoor cultivation also must evaluate traffic, noise, dust, and safety for Agricultural, RRD, and commercial/industrial zones. We suggest analyzing minimum setbacks of 300 and 600 feet for greenhouses in Agricultural and RRD, and propose that indoor cultivation be exclusively located in industrial/commercial zones analyzing setbacks of 100, 200, and 300 feet.

D. All setbacks should be minimum setbacks, subject to a health and safety clause. The EIR should analyze how topography, weather conditions, size, and geometry of the cultivation site affects distance that odors travel and hence may require a longer setback than the minimums listed. This analysis should be mandatory before approval of any new permit or renewal of any existing permit, to determine any increase in setback length over the minimum required to ensure sufficient setbacks to protect neighbors from being subjected to odors and carcinogens. All setbacks should be to the parcel line of the neighboring parcel, measured from the outermost boundary of anywhere cannabis or cannabis products or byproducts are located, including but not limited to cultivation, propagation, production, testing, processing, manufacturing, storing, or disposal.

E. Sonoma County and its residents have no experience with grows over one acre in size. If, as seems possible, grows of 6 to 20+ acres of outdoor cultivation are being considered on large parcels, the regional dispersion and effects of such projects must be studied using air quality modeling. The modeling should study various topographies, including valleys where air can be stagnant for days and windy areas with dynamic air circulation. “Cumulative analysis will consider, at minimum, potential impacts related to multiple cannabis operations in specific geographical areas (i.e., over-concentration).”4

Cultivations of various sizes should be studied, as well as the cumulative effects of all grows within at least a two-mile proximity. “Streamlining” of CEQA for discretionary permits5 cannot be allowed regarding odor impacts for outdoor cultivation unless these issues are exhaustively studied and modeled in the EIR in all specific areas where outdoor cultivation may be permitted. The Yolo County cannabis EIR, prepared by Ascent Environmental, is being litigated for “underestimating cannabis odor impacts on sensitive receptors by employing inaccurate and unsupported assumptions that fail to properly account for odor levels, minimum wind speeds, local terrain, time lag between reporting and inspection, and the sensitivity of human receptors.”6

Thank you in advance for addressing our concerns.

Neighborhood Coalition

Nancy and Brantly Richardson, Communications Directors SonomaNeighborhoodCoalition@gmail.com

cc: cannabis@sonoma-county.org

Attachment: Ortech, Inc., PowerPoint Presentation to Permit Sonoma (Dec. 13, 2019)

4 Program Framework, p. 3 (10 j).

5 Program Framework, p. 2 (8 c).

6 Writ of Mandate (Oct. 14 2021).