Comments on 100 Main Street Proposed Marijuana Cultivation
The proposed commercial marijuana cultivation permit at 100 Main Street Grange Road should be denied for the reasons discussed below. The summary of the Bennett Valley Area Plan (“BV Plan”) states an overall goals is to “retain[] the rural character in Bennett Valley.” This activity is incompatible with the rural residential character of our area. It also depreciates the value of nearby residential properties.
Residents of Bennett Valley strongly believe that all of the lands within the BV Plan should be designated an exclusion zone where commercial cannabis cultivation is banned. Bennett Valley comprises about 1.3 percent of the land in Sonoma County, yet has eleven known grows that may constitute six or more percent of the proposed cultivation permits. It is difficult to obtain timely and accurate information concerning the number of proposed grows in Sonoma County.
Penalty Relief Program.
As an initial matter, PRMD must verify that the grow had actually begun by July 5, 2017. The Penalty Relief Application states that the grow began on Friday, June 30, 2017 and implies that all 5,000 square feet were planted by Wednesday, July 5. Under the terms of the penalty relief program, the grow had to completed by July 5, 2017 and could not expand beyond whatever may have been planted on that date. The statements in the Penalty Relief Application, filed on October 4, 2017, seem suspicious because the grow is barely under the deadline to be eligible. The October filing made it impossible for a PRMD site inspection to verify the grower’s assertions.
More puzzling and suspicious, the property wasn’t conveyed to the Bennett Rosa LLC, the partner with the operator CL5 LLC, until August 30, 2017. According to California Secretary of State records, CL5 LLC. Bennett Rosa, LLC, and Sonoma Grange LLC were not registered until July 17, July 18, and July 31, 2017, respectively. Prior to the conveyance, the property was owned by Marlice Gardner, an 80-year-old longtime resident who does not fit the profile of a marijuana grower. CL5 LLC filed the Use Permit application on August 31, 2017. CL5 LLC bears the burden of proof that it qualifies for the Penalty Relief Program and should be required to produce the contract with Bennett Rosa LLC, checks for funds dispersed, proof of purchase of plants, supplies, work orders, labor contracts, and similar ordinary business records.
If CL5 LLC provided false or misleading information in the Penalty Relief Application, by its terms PRMD must “reject … the application and/or nullif[y] or revo[ke] any issued permit. This is not discretionary. PRMD lacks authority to allow the permit process to proceed.
Required Findings Under Zoning Code.
Before the county can approve any conditional use permit under [citation needed] the Zoning Code, it must find that
The design, location, size, and operating characteristics of the use is considered compatible with the existing and future land uses within the vicinity. The use would not be detrimental to the health, safety, peace, comfort and general welfare of persons residing or working in the neighborhood of such use, nor be detrimental or injurious to property and improvements in the neighborhood or the general welfare of the area.
No reasonable decision maker could make this finding about a cannabis cultivation project here. The county population is about 500,000, and county officials estimate there are about 5,000 growers (99 to one). There is little or no history of commercial marijuana cultivation in Bennett Valley, and here the discrepancy between the number of growers and non-growers is even more skewed. In this case, the owner and operator have had no connection with Bennett Valley until the property was purchased on August 30, 2017. They seem to live in San Mateo and Tiburon. It should be easy to balance the interests of Bennett Valley residents and their health, safety, peace, comfort and general welfare against the interests of nonresidents whose sole interest in our peaceful community is to maximize their profit in lucrative and disruptive commercial activities and to use our neighborhood as a shield to hide from criminals. The interests of the community are surely paramount.
Bennett Valley Area Plan Issues.
The board of supervisors adopted the BV Plan in 1979, with an overall goal of preserving and protect the traditional rural character and natural environment of Bennett Valley. It’s area-specific policy requirements were adopted to avoid significant environmental impacts within Bennett Valley. Policy LU-1a of the General Plan states:
A Specific or Area Plan may establish more detailed policies affecting proposed development, but may not include policies that are in conflict with the General Plan. In any case where there appears to be a conflict between the General Plan and any Specific or Area Plan, the more restrictive policy or standard shall apply.
The pertinent unique features of the BV Plan are the following.
The Proposed Commercial Marijuana Development Violates the BV Area Plan.
U.S. Attorney McGregor Scott in Sacramento describes marijuana grows as “industrial agriculture.” The activity intensely uses water, fertilizers, and pesticides. The Cannabis Ordinance, section 26-02-140, explicitly states that cannabis is not an agricultural crop because, unlike other crops, marijuana poses unique risks to the health, safety, and welfare of residents. A grower on Matanzas Creek Lane has told the supervisors his grow requires fifteen employees, which entails a huge increase in road traffic, together with deliveries, waste removal and other activities. Permitting a medium size business to operate in Bennett Valley is out of character for our quiet, rural community.
This proposal is for an outdoor grow that is well-known to emit a stench. Supervisor Hopkins Lynda recently remarked that “she was surprised by ‘how pungent’ the plants were.” Marijuana is not like growing grapes. We have dozens of vineyards in Bennett Valley, and they do have a constant high level of activity that requires fifteen employees working daily, often around the clock. This proposed commercial development violates Land Use Policy 2 in the BV Plan, which bans commercial development here (“Commercial development is not considered appropriate to the rural character of Bennett Valley.”) On this basis alone, the permit should be denied.
Marijuana Cultivation Cannot Be Approved Without Enhanced Law Enforcement.
Home invasions related to marijuana grows have unfortunately become increasingly common in Sonoma County, and are a major concern to Bennett Valley residents. There are already insufficient sheriffs on duty, especially at night when home invasions tend to occur. It can take thirty to forty-five minutes for a sheriff to respond to a call for help. Permitting commercial cannabis operations would introduce into our community a previously unknown and dangerous activity that attracts criminals and violence. Under Land Use Policy 3 (“Development shall be coordinated with the public's ability to provide schools, fire, police and other needed services”), permitting an activity such as commercial marijuana must be preceded by a great increase in the presence of law enforcement. That has not occurred. For example, the county might establish a sheriff’s substation in Bennett Valley, possibly at the fire station, or otherwise find a means to reduce the response time. Until this issue is resolved, no commercial cannabis permits should be issued in Bennett Valley.
CEQA Cumulative Impact Issues.
The county’s Negative Declaration to support the Cannabis Ordinance analyzed CEQA issues in the General Plan but did not analyze issues raised by the BV Plan. Under section 15355 of the CEQA regulations, "cumulative impacts" refers to two or more individual effects which, when considered together, are considerable or which compound or increase other environmental impacts.
Eleven commercial cultivation permits have been proposed in Bennett Valley. Unless the ordinance is substantially revised, we anticipate many more. An adequate CEQA analysis must address the cumulative impacts of such a high concentration of commercial cannabis grows in a confined area. Before the proposed permit can be granted, the applicant or the county should address the cumulative impacts of this and all other foreseeable projects on: (1) the Matanzas Creek watershed; (2) residential water wells in a marginal (class 3) water availability zone; (3) ground and water quality degradation from the use of fertilizers, pesticides, and other industrial chemicals; (4) the effects of marijuana odors on wine grapes in the Bennett Valley appellation; (5) traffic in an area with marginal roads; (6) home values; and (7) residential safety.
V. Setbacks from Residences and Property Lines.
The proposed grow is located much too close to at least one and possibly several homes. Any grow should be located at least 1,000 feet from adjacent structures and property lines. The close proximity to neighbors who are not engaged in the commercial marijuana industry is incompatible with the existing land uses within the vicinity and is detrimental to the health, safety, peace, comfort and general welfare of persons residing nearby, as well as being detrimental or injurious to property and improvements in the neighborhood and the general welfare of Bennett Valley.
A recent Santa Rosa Press Democrat poll revealed that 77 percent of county residents would not be comfortable with a marijuana grow adjacent to their home. Only 19 percent would feel comfortable with an adjacent grow, and 46 percent “would not feel safe with a cannabis farm within any proximity to my residence.” Because this grow is too close to neighboring residences, the required findings under the Zoning Code cannot be made and the permit must be denied..
VI. Setbacks from Parks and Other Sensitive Areas.
While the 4.9-acre Resources and Rural Development (RRD) property is set back over 1,000 feet from Taylor Mountain Regional Park, we believe the setback from parks should be at least 2,000 feet. Moreover, the setback should also apply to sensitive uses. Here the property is adjacent to Matanzas Creek (a riparian corridor and sensitive watershed) and Matanzas Creek Reservoir. Matanzas Creek’s headwaters are in Sonoma Mountain, and the creek runs the length of Bennett Valley to the reservoir. It then enters the City of Santa Rosa where it joins Santa Rosa Creek. The Sonoma County Water Agency manages Matanzas Reservoir for flood protection. The reservoir is dry much of the time, but seasonally it is a wetland that should be protected if Matanzas Creek is ever to be restored to its former biological condition. This is particularly problematic because cannabis needs water during summer when it is least abundant.
Marijuana cultivation is inappropriate near this sensitive watershed. Under Section 26-10-005 of the zoning code, RRD lands are, among other things, intended to protect watersheds, fish and wildlife habitat, and biotic resources. Marijuana cultivation, which uses a great amount of water, is contrary to this goal. In addition, the proposal seeks to engage in onsite processing in a 1,200 square foot barn. Under Sec. 26-10-010(f) of the zoning code, agricultural processing is not permitted in land zoned RRD.
VII. Road Easement Issues.
The 4.9-acre parcel is accessed using a dead-end road on an easement that goes through a neighboring property whose longtime residents do not cultivate cannabis. The board of supervisors has heard innumerable stories of how grows in similar situations cause problems for neighbors. In this case, no permit should be granted unless the applicant can provide the written consent of all property owners that share the easement.
The road to the grow does not seem to meet the current county fire/emergency code standards, which is needed because of increased fire risk from this new commercial activity. An assessment needs to be made as to road width, condition, turnouts, minimum turning radius, and any other county road standard. The road be at least wide enough to accommodate a vehicle fleeing from a fire while passing a fire truck headed to the emergency location. The pertinent ordinance seems to be Ordinance 6184 (December 15, 2016). Because this issue affects the safety of third parties, the grow should stop immediately until it is addressed, and if the road is not upgraded the permit should be denied.
VIII. The Identical Landowner Cannot Own Two Contiguous Marijuana Parcels.
Bennett Rosa LLC owns two contiguous RRD parcels and different operators are applying for permits—4050 Grange Road (049-150-005; 4.9 acres) and 4065 Grange Road (APN 049-130-005; 14.6 acres). Both permit applications should be considered together because they will have cumulative effects on the community and the environment. The projects are clearly connected and permitting is proceeding in a piecemeal fashion.
Section 26-88-254 (f)(1) of the Cannabis Ordinance provides that “[n]o more than one cultivation use/operator may be approved per contiguous parcel ownership, except in the agricultural and industrial zones.” The owner of Bennett Rosa LLC is John Chen who is also the operator on 4065 Grange Road (as Sonoma Grange LLC). Thus both properties have the identical owner, who is also the operator of the 14.6 acre site. It would put form over substance to conclude that these operations do not have identical ownership. The properties are zoned RRD, not agriculture or industrial. It would violate the Cannabis Ordinance to issue permits for both properties. Because both are ongoing grows under the Permit Relief Program, at least one of them should be ordered to cease immediately.
IX. Water Issues.
The hydrology study is based on regional mapping and historical driller’s logs. The geologists and hydrogeologists generated no data on site. They merely visited the site and looked at the surface. They failed to dig trenches or make borings and accordingly are merely guessing about what is beneath the surface. Regional maps are not suitable replacements for site-specific data, a point emphasized by the authors of the publications that provide the information for the maps. For example, driller’s logs that provide water levels when the wells were drilled often decades ago. They provide no useful information on current water levels and therefore tell us little or nothing. Without current site-specific data the report is meaningless number crunching because it provides no data, only assumptions.
To its credit, the consultant concedes this point. The introduction states:
Groundwater systems of Sonoma County and the Coast Range are typically complex, and available data rarely allows for more than general assessment of groundwater conditions and delineation of aquifers. Hydrogeologic interpretations are based on the drillers' reports made available to us through the California Department of Water Resources, available geologic maps and hydrogeologic studies and professional judgment. This analysis is based on limited available data and relies significantly on interpretation of data from disparate sources of disparate quality.
As discussed above under CEQA, the report is generated in a vacuum and fails to assess cumulative impacts on the Matanzas Creek watershed. For example, the watershed may be in overdraft and some areas may have curtailments or failed wells. The report fails to provide the information needed for the county to approve the permit.
X. Proposed Permit Conditions.
Water Monitoring and Permit Limit.
It is common in many permit applications to underestimate water usage. To protect against this possibility, the 70,000-gallon estimated water use should be an enforceable permit limit. The water usage should made available to the public in a timely manner. This is not a new concept, and off-the-shelf technology exists to accomplish the needed transparency. Electric utilities have made their air emissions data available to EPA and the public since 1995, and most everyone in Sonoma County now has electric meters that report electricity use to the cloud. Real-time data on water usage data should be provided on a website maintained by PRMD and available to the public. Water usage should cease after 70,000 gallons during any calendar year, and PRMD should establish a large (e.g., $100 per gallon) automatic fine for exceedances. To protect against gross offenses, PRMD should set a usage level at which point the permit would automatically terminate.
During any officially declared drought, the permitted annual water limit should be reduced by half. If, for any reason, the water usage data fails to transmit to PRMD, a daily water usage amount should be assigned for purposes of calculating the annual water usage limit. Missing data procedures have been required for air pollution emissions monitors at powerplants for decades. The assigned missing data amount should for each 24-hour period should be the highest 24-hour water usage during the past two calendar years. This permit condition will encourage the operator to keep the monitor in good condition, swiftly repair it if there is a malfunction, and discourage intentionally disabling a monitor. If the water monitor consistently fails to operate properly, the permit should automatically terminate.
Chemical Monitoring.
The cultivation of marijuana often involves the discharge into water and soil of pesticides (including the illegal carbofuran), anticoagulant rodenticides, herbicides, petroleum fuels, nitrates, phosphates, and chlorinated hydrocarbons. PRMD should insure that the grower is properly using any chemicals and does not use illegal substances. The marijuana industry, to put it mildly, has flouted most laws for decades. It would be naive to believe that all operators will faithfully comply with environmental standards. PRMD should employ the approach of “trust but verify.” PRMD should designate a qualified laboratory to monitor the soil and ground water for the chemicals listed above at least twice each year at the expense of the operator. The information from the tests should be posted to a web site accessible to the public within ten days of its receipt and reported to appropriate state and federal environmental agencies.
Waiver of 24-Hour Notice to Inspect.
The Cannabis Ordinance, Section 26-88-250(k), inexplicably requires PRMD to provide at least 24-hours’ notice before conducting an inspection of a cannabis grow. PRMD provides no such advance notice to inspect residential septic systems, and the Sonoma County Department of Health provides no advance notice when it inspects restaurants. The permitting authorities have authority to include permit conditions that go beyond the requirements of the ordinance. A condition of this permit should allow unannounced inspections of the property at any time.
Ordinance No. 6189, Findings Section I, Subsection O.
D.L. Capone, et al. 2012. Vineyard and Fermentation Studies to Elucidate the Origin of 1,8-Cineole in Australian Red Wine, J. Agric. Food Chem. 60: 2281–2287 (wine grapes influenced by odors from eucalyptus trees).
Guy Kovner, Press Democrat Poll finds sharp division in Sonoma County over cannabis cultivation (June 3, 2018), http://www.pressdemocrat.com/news/8366486-181/press-democrat-poll-finds-sharp
|
PRMD Director, Deputy Director, Deputy Council for Cannabis, County Administrator |
1 | P a g e
Date: June 14, 2018
To:_____________________, Sonoma County Project Planner #3
Permit and Resource Management Department, County of Sonoma, California
2550 Ventura Avenue, Santa Rosa, CA 95403-2859 (707) 565-1900
Cc: Tennis Wick, Sonoma County Planning Director
_________________, Sonoma County Supervisor - Healdsburg District __
Tim Ricard, Cannabis Program Director
From: ________________________________
RE: Cannabis Land Use Permit Application File #UPC_______________
Assessor’s Parcel Number - _____________
_______________________________________
____________________:
We wish to dispute the Cannabis Land Use application #UPC___________being deemed as complete on
June 1, 2018 by Sonoma County Planning for the reasons detailed in this document:
1. The Applicant failed to submit all the documentation requested by the Sonoma County Project
Planner and the Natural Resources Geologist in regards to projected water use.
2. The Applicant failed to provide legal documentation of road access rights as requested by the
Sonoma County Project Planner.
3. The Biotic Assessment was not done for the current Project scope and description.
4. The Applicant failed to provide a correctly filled out Cannabis Trip Generation PJR-126 form.
5. The Fire Prevention Plan summary is not reflective of the actual site conditions.
COMMENTS:
1. The Applicant failed to submit all the documentation requested by the Sonoma County Project
Planner and the Natural Resources Geologist in regards to projected water use.
The Notice of Project Status from the Sonoma County Project Planner dated December 8, 2017 requests
the following documentation be submitted by June 1, 2018 by the Applicant:
· “Hydrogeological Report – As required by Sonoma County Code Section 26-88-254(10) and
Permit Sonoma’s Procedures for Groundwater Analysis and Hydrogeologic Reports:
http://ww.sonoma-county.org/prmd/docs/policies/8-1-14-Procedures-Groundwater-
Hydrogeologic-Reports.pdf”
2 | P a g e
In addition, the review letter from Robert Pennington, P.G., Natural Resource Geologist dated January 2,
2017 (assumed actual date of letter is January 2, 2018) of the initial project application states:
“The project description indicates a mix of surface water and groundwater will be used, with a total
estimated annual water use of about 1 million gallons. This water use rate is in line with industry
standards for cannabis irrigation. However, the water use estimate does not include domestic water
use for employees, or other possible onsite waters uses. The hydrogeologic report should provide a
detailed water use budget on a monthly interval that includes irrigation and domestic water use. If
rainwater or surface water is planned, then the analysis should include projections of available water
in storage at the end of each month given average year and drought year conditions.”
Mr. Pennington goes on to request:
“Further information is needed:
1) A Hydrogeologic report prepared by a Registered Geologist, addressing Water
Availability shall be submitted to the Project Review - Geologist prior to the
discretionary decision. The report shall meet specification in PRMD policy #8-1-14.”
As stated in the application documents, due to two failed well attempts, the Applicant is now proposing
to get potable/domestic water from an onsite spring head. A water use rights application has been
submitted to the California State Water Resource Board, #__________, with flowrate and potable
verification to be obtained sometime after July 15, 2018. In response to the Applicant’s inquiry of May
28, 2018 if a hydrogeologic report was needed, Mr. Pennington on May 29, 2018 replied in an email that
“If a project is using spring water then should not need a hydrogeologic report”.
As such, no hydrogeologic report was provided. In fact, although given an additional 9 months through
the Penalty Relief Program specifically to procure a hydrogeologic report, the Applicant appears to have
waited until May 28, 2018, just 4 days before the June 1, 2018 deadline, to inquire if one was needed.
Even if told one was required on May 29, it is extremely doubtful one could have been contracted,
researched, and completed in the remaining 3 days.
As the proposed project is in a Class 4 groundwater zone which specifically requires a hydrogeologic
report, we strongly disagree with the County’s decision that no hydrogeologic report is needed. It
should be noted that one was required not just for domestic water or groundwater source but for the
entire project water use, regardless of source, as clearly stated: “The hydrogeologic report should
provide a detailed water use budget on a monthly interval that includes irrigation and domestic water
use. If rainwater or surface water is planned, then the analysis should include projections of available
water in storage at the end of each month given average year and drought year conditions”.
Rather than the requested detailed monthly analysis for all of the project’s proposed water uses for
both average year and drought year conditions as prepared by a qualified hydrogeologist, all that is
submitted is the following from the application’s Water Supply and Management Plan 2, in entirety:
“The Sonoma County Recycled Water Program and the use of a 2,000 gallon water truck will be the
source of our agricultural water for irrigation. Irrigation systems, equipped with back flow
prevention valves, will be in place to ensure closely monitored water usage and wastewater
prevention. Monthly inspections will also be scheduled to maintain a properly functioning system,
free of any leaks, back flows, or contaminants. The outdoor watering schedule will vary in
3 | P a g e
duration and frequency as climatic differences and or varying plant uptake dictates accordingly.
The routine utilization of moisture meters will also aid in this determination. An average for daily
water consumption for the
For full term cultivation (120 days), water use per plant is estimated and 5 gallons per day. Using
approximately 1,000,000 gallons per year.
Through the incorporation of our 3ft acre agricultural pond. The Runoff of 100,000 sq ft of the
mountainside above the pond with 50 inches of rainfall per year will generate 3,124,000 million
gallons of water. Adequately filling our pond every year for use. With an estimated evaporation of
40-50% of water every year our water available to cultivation will be over the required amount.”
The following Basic Analysis is based strictly on the data provided in the application regardless of its
accuracy or merit and is based on historic average rainfall, deficits shown will be greater during recent
average years and drought years.
BASIC ANALYSIS
The numbers provided for an average rainfall year show that not only will neither trucked recycled
water or pond water by themselves provide sufficient water as implied, combined they still fail to meet
the proposed project’s water demands.
Truck Recycled Water – Under Miscellaneous Deliveries, page 2, of the Cannabis Trip Generation PJR-
126 form, total water truck loads are noted as 510 per year. As a 2,000 gallon water truck is declared for
use, this implies that 1,020,000 gallons of recycled water will be provided per season (510 Loads x 2,000
gallons each). However, as stated in the submitted permit application for self-hauling from the
Healdsburg Recycled Water Fill Station dated May 30, 2018, “The maximum volume for self-haulers is
300 gallons per visit and 3,000 gallons per day. The maximum volume for commercial deliveries is 3,000
per day per site.” As cultivation water use is stated as 120 days, that only yields 360,000 gallons (120
Days x 3,000 Gallons), far short of the approximately 1,000,000 gallons stated as required for cultivation
per year. It should be noted that it will take 10 truck deliveries per day (10 x 300 gallons = 3,000 gallons)
throughout the cultivation season. In addition, each delivery will require a round trip duration of some
1 ½ hours resulting in 15 hours per day non-stop deliveries to the site for the one water truck noted.
3 Acre Feet Agricultural Water Pond - The application also states that 3,124,000 gallons of run-off will
be generated for use and that after evaporation (40-50%) giving the impression that 1,562,00 -
1,874,400 gallons would be available for irrigation, thereby over the required amount. This is misleading
as the 3 Acre Feet pond capacity is only 977,553 gallons (3 x 325,851 gallons). Regardless of the
assumed 3,124,000 run-off gallons, only a maximum of 977,553 gallons can be stored in the pond and
used per season. Applying the noted estimated evaporation rate of 40-50% (using the average of 45%)
would leave 537,654 gallons available for irrigation needs. Although the application states that after
evaporation the agricultural pond water available to cultivation will be over the required amount, this is
proven false as the actual pond water available, 537,654 gallons, is just barely over one half of the
required 1,000,000 gallons. See Table 1
Combined Water Source - Combining the two water sources, recycled water and pond water, yields a
yearly irrigation water supply of 897,654 gallons (360,000 recycled + 537,654 pond water), which still
leaves the project 102,345 gallons short of the 1,000,000 gallons required. See Table 2
4 | P a g e
The project application also gives conflicting information regarding the actual cultivation period.
Although the Water Supply and Management Plan 2 states a 120 day cultivation season the Cannabis
Trip Generation PJR-126 form on page 2 under Miscellaneous Deliveries states the dates of activity for
trucked water as from March 15 – September 29, a period of 199 days which aligns with the typical
outdoor growing season of 180 – 210 days. Using the 199 day cultivation season, the water deficit is far
greater. Daily water use of 8,333 gallons is derived from the 1,000,000 divided by 120 days as provided
in the application. For a 199 day season, project water use would be 1,658,333 gallons. Combined
water sources of recycled water and agricultural pond water for 199 days is 1,134,654 gallons leaving
the project 523,679 gallons short of the required amount. See Table 3
DETAILED ANALYSIS
5 | P a g e
“Through the incorporation of our 3ft acre agricultural pond. The Runoff of 100,000 sq ft of the
mountainside above the pond with 50 inches of rainfall per year will generate 3,124,000 million
gallons of water.”
The 3,124,000 gallons of run-off generated from 100,000 sq ft of forested mountainside is misleading as
that is the run-off amount for an impermeable surface with no loss to environmental factors. Rain
catchment calculations for hard surface rooftops with built-in collection systems is vastly different than
calculating the run-off in a forest canopy covered mountainside with a pervious surface and no defined
collection system. The actual site conditions result in significantly less run-off as a major portion of
rainfall is absorbed into the soil, by the forest canopy and lost to actual evapotranspiration. The project
application acknowledges this in the Runoff and Stormwater Control for Sonoma County CUP Submittal:
“The property is located south of Palmer Creek with several drainage areas located near the proposed
cultivation areas. The most prominent drainage course is located on the west side of the property in
heavily wooded and sloped terrain with additional drainage courses alongside or within access roads
on the property. The area receives an annual average of 40 to 50 inches of rain per year. Due to the
mostly pervious surfaces of the property, most rainfall will infiltrate. However, some stormwater
runoff will generally flow to the drainage courses, which flow north to Palmer Creek.”
The actual Historical average rainfall season for Healdsburg as provided by U.S. Climate Data is 42.13
inches. Table 4 shows the seasonal rainfall totals for the past 10 years.
Table 5 illustrates the impacts of the project site’s environmental conditions on the actual rainwater
run-off that can be expected to be captured for three seasonal rainfall scenarios: Rainfall for Historical
Average Year, Average Rainfall over the past 10 Years, and the Average for the Drought Years of 2011-
2016. Also included is the direct rain catchment for the pond surface area itself. Percentages used for
run-off is from a project with similar conditions in Guerneville, actual percentage and site condition
impacts must to be verified by the hydrogeologist.
6 | P a g e
Table 6 shows the combined water sources, recycled water and pond water, for both 120 and 199 Day
cultivations seasons, across the same three rainfall season scenarios: Rainfall for Historical Average Year,
Average Rainfall over the past 10 Years, and the Average for the Drought Years of 2011-2016.
As Table 5 shows, the actual run-off from the 100,000 sq ft of mountainside, 524,940 gallons, fails to fill
the proposed 3 acre feet water pond in an average rainfall season and even with the addition of direct
rain catchment the pond still fails to reach maximum capacity. The 10 Year average is lower still
whereas the average for the Drought Years of 2011-2016 is significantly lower. This analysis is merely
meant to illustrate what is required to accurately quantify the project’s anticipated water sources across
average rainfall and drought seasons and why a qualified hydrogeologic report and analysis is required.
7 | P a g e
Table 7 provides a graph chart to better illustrate the Table 6 Summary of irrigation water availability
totals in comparative relation to the project’s required irrigation water needs.
Since the project is located in a forested setting on steep terrain, the suitable area available for a water
storage pond is limited both in location and size (see Attachment #1). A geotechnical report is required
to show that the existing soil conditions can not only provide a suitable soil type for water containment
but is also structurally stable enough to prevent failure that would result in extreme water discharge
endangering residents below and resulting in damage to homes and property.
Excessive use of recycled water also has its own limitations. Large quantities of recycled water over a
concentrated period can lead to possible infiltration of recycled water into the area’s aquifers and
possible contamination of nearby wells, springs, surface drainage courses, and eventually Palmer Creek.
8 | P a g e
It is clear that the proposed irrigation water sources are inadequate for the proposed project making the
required hydrogeologic report per the Cannabis Land Use Ordinance No. 6189 even more critical. It
should also be noted that the submitted Service Order No. 1, as contracted between Atterbury &
Associates, Inc. and the Applicant dated March 15, 2018, states under the description of service: “The
scope of consulting civil engineering services may involve water development via sub-surface collection
to irrigate the grow”. Barring clarification, any sub-surface water source must be confirmed by a
hydrogeologist report for adequacy of source and supply along with potential impacts to adjacent
aquifers and wells.
Additionally, an onsite domestic potable water source has yet to be secured. As noted previously, after
two failed well attempts, the Applicant is now proposing to get potable/domestic water from an onsite
spring head. A hydrogeologic report should be required to confirm this source as well. The Palmer
Creek watershed has many seasonal streams, drainage courses and surface springs that go dry in early
summer, July – August, and do not replenish and flow again until a month or so into the rainy season in
late October -November, which would leave the project without potable water when it is needed most,
during the cultivation season with the highest worker activity. The validity of the proposed spring head
as a perennial potable water source must be confirmed prior to designation as the site’s domestic water
supply.
To repeat what the Natural Resource Geologist requested in reference to domestic water use:
“However, the water use estimate does not include domestic water use for employees, or other possible
onsite waters uses. The hydrogeologic report should provide a detailed water use budget on a monthly
interval that includes irrigation and domestic water use. If rainwater or surface water is planned, then
the analysis should include projections of available water in storage at the end of each month given
average year and drought year conditions”.
Yet this is all that was submitted in the Water Supply and Management Plan 2 regarding employee
domestic water use:
“Cultivation: 7 sub contractors will use approximately 2 gallons of domestic water use a day. To meet
this demand please refer to water management plan submitted by Tom Atterbury.”
Again, an accurate description or calculation is not provided. It is assumed that it is meant to say that 7
workers will use 2 gallons each per day, not 2 gallons in total of the 7 workers. This is substantially
lower than most standard usage rates for full time workers which is generally in the daily 15 - 25 gallon
range. While no mention of domestic water use quantities is found in the water management plan
submitted by Atterbury & Associates, Inc. dated June 1, 2018, an email from Atterbury & Associates, Inc.
dated May 31, 2018 notes that the 7 workers will generate 15 gallons each in wastewater. It is unclear
how 2 gallons of domestic water use will result in 15 gallons of wastewater.
Considering the contradictory descriptions along with the sparsity of details, verified data and
calculations, a hydrogeologic report is critical, as specifically required by Sonoma County, considering
the project’s location in a Class 4 – Low/Highly Variable water yield groundwater zone and inside the
Mill Creek watershed, designated a critical habitat area in the Sonoma County Groundwater Availability
map. Notification to California Department of Fish and Wildlife should also be required for a Lake and
Streambed alteration agreement as the Mill Creek watershed is a designated habitat for the endangered
Coho salmon and native Steelhead trout.
9 | P a g e
2. The Applicant failed to provide legal documentation of road access rights as requested by the
Sonoma County Project Planner.
As requested by the Sonoma County Project Planner in the Notice of Project Status of December 8,
2017:
“Based upon the information submitted, we have determined that your application is incomplete for
additional reasons. The following information is required in order to process the permit:
Title report and legal document (if required) that shows that you have the rights to use a private
road through the Coopersmith property from Palmer Creek Road if the road easement is not included
in the legal description of the property in the Title Report. The Record of Survey, 594 Maps 23, shows
the centerline of the 50-foot easement through the Coopersmith, Imbimbo/Anderson and Larson
parcels known as Palmer Creek Road. However, there is no roadway easement from Palmer Creek
Road through the Coopersmith property to the California West Coast Ventures LLC property shown
on the map. A road easement is also not shown on any project plans.”
The applicant now claims deeded easement rights through the top of their property in the Proposal
Statement: “We have a deeded easement across Ridge Road that we will use”, yet they continue to use
the private access road which has disputed easement issues from Palmer Creek on a daily basis.
Applicant has failed to provide legal documentation of easement rights from Palmer Creek as
requested or address the property owner’s legal notification of January 2, 2018.
In reference to the proposed new access route, it is assumed that the road the Applicant refers to as
“Ridge Road” in the Proposal Statement is the old 4WD Jeep access road that connects to private
McCray Ridge Road. The name “Ridge Road”, as referred to in the Grant of Easement, Book 2810 Page
484, is actually what is now called McCray Ridge Road. The Site Map by Curtis & Associates included in
the application incorrectly shows the location of this private access road as well as the non-applicable
name designation. The access road does not run inside the project parcel 069-030-025 boundary as
shown but runs through parcel 069-030-024 to the south. Attachment #2 shows the correct location of
this access road. Map overlays are from three sources, the 1955 & 1997 SW/4 Healdsburg 15’
Quadrangle map from the United States Geological Survey and a Google Earth image from 2017.
Although a grant of easement is provided for parcels 069-030-006 and 069-030-009, there is no known
deeded easement right of way for the access road on parcel 069-030-024. Barring proof of easement
right of way on parcel 069-030-024, Applicant has no deeded legal right to use this section of road. The
property owner of parcels 069-030-009 and 069-030-024 has retained legal consul and will provide
legal notification of this fact to the Applicant and Sonoma County.
The private access road in question is an unnamed dirt road, simply referred to as "4WD" by the USGS.
It is overgrown over a large portion from disuse and was only just recently cleared and graded without
the owner's knowledge or consent from the Applicant’s property across parcels 069-030-024 and 069-
030-009 to parcel 069-030-006. It is implied by the application’s Fire Prevention Summary that this
work was performed by the Applicant: “Through our CUP process we have provided fire access to our
subject property and the Palmer Creek Association (PCA) from a completely different direction through
McCray Ridge Road”. The Applicant is in no legal position or authority to provide or grant access rights
over and through property they do not own. In grading and clearing the road the Applicant has
10 | P a g e
removed the dirt road water bars the owner had in place to control erosion and simply pushed excess
soil and forest detritus off the road, leaving these spoil piles in the brush. Any and all unauthorized
work done on Parcel 069-030-024 is considered a direct admission of trespass and damage to that
property and the Applicant will be liable for all damages resultant.
For further clarification, “Big Springs Road" as called out is also incorrect and is actually one-half mile
east of the location shown. This access road is also an unnamed single lane dirt road referred to as
"4WD" by USGS.
3. The Biotic Assessment was not done for the current Project scope and description.
As noted in the introduction of the Biotic Assessment performed by Synthesis Planning:
“Synthesis Planning conducted a biological survey of the proposed project site and buffer area to
identify known or potential habitat for special-status wildlife and plant species on May 26 and June
21, 2017. This report presents the results of our biological survey and includes recommendations for
avoidance, minimization, and mitigation measures to be implemented during the proposed project to
avoid or minimize potential impacts to sensitive wildlife and plant species.”
The Biotic Assessment was performed on May 26 and June 21, 2017, just before and right after the
property sale close date of June 2, 2017. This is even before the initial project design was developed,
which is vastly different than the one now proposed, and therefore is not representative of either the
initial project design or the latest project design and should render it invalid (see Attachment #3).
The Biotic assessment provided does not take into account key components of the current revised
project scope:
· Introduction of a Water Pond – The pond installation will result in extensive excavation, roughly
4,840 cubic years neat, along with invasive grading and off-hauling which will alter the native
habitat. Recommended precautions need to be developed and put in place to protect the
surrounding sensitive habitat and wildlife not only during construction but beyond when in use.
The introduction of a water pond in a remote forested hillside setting has numerous impacts on
the native species specifically in that it will draw many to the pond as well as larger predators.
The pond design must incorporate safety features to prevent animals from being trapped when
water levels are low and prevent amphibian species that breed in water ponds such as the
special status Giant Salamander and the more common Rough-Skinned Newt from being
harmed from pumping and overflow discharge. As this will introduce a water feature not
naturally found in Palmer Creek it will draw in more of the very sensitive species noted in the
report as well as species normally not found here, specifically migrating water fowl and increase
the presence of avian predators. The pond should be off limits to the introduction of non-native
fish species as well to prevent their invasion into Palmer Creek and impacts to Coho and
Steelhead populations.
· Road access through the top of the property – Original access was from the property line
directly below the cultivation site limiting activity to the northern portion of the property. Road
access is now to be from the top southern boundary of the property on a winding access road
that will now result in activity virtually across the entire parcel. The access road will require
extensive work and enlargement to bring it up to County standards. Along with extensive water
11 | P a g e
truck deliveries as well as employee travel, this will result in further and expanded intrusion and
impacts on the surrounding sensitive native habitat and wildlife. The use of the old 4WD Jeep
trail in particular over the two adjacent large parcels that have been left native will create even
further impacts and disruption to wildlife. This trail is used by many animals as a path of travel
above the Pocket Opening area. A neighboring parcel has a wildlife cam on this trail that has
captured mountain lions, bears, and wild pigs.
· Extensive use of recycled water in a sensitive habitat watershed – As noted earlier, excessive use
of recycled water also has its own limitations. Large quantities of recycled water over a
concentrated period can lead to possible infiltration of recycled water into the area’s aquifers
and possible contamination of nearby wells, springs, surface drainage courses, and eventually
Palmer Creek. Proper levels of recycled water use both in quantity and regularity must be
determined to prevent contamination of the watershed. As Palmer Creek is part of, and a
tributary to, Mill Creek, it is critical to the endangered Coho salmon habitat. The section of
Palmer Creek directly below the project is a “reach of interest” to the California Department of
Fish and Wildlife (CDFW) and USFWS/NMFS, where stocking of Coho salmon has been done by
the Russian River Coho Salmon Broodstock Program over the past several years.
The Mill Creek watershed, which contains Palmer Creek, is designated a critical habitat by Sonoma
County in its Groundwater Availability Map. Palmer Creek itself is an area with limited human activity
and is home to many sensitive animal and plant species. In such a sensitive area, disruptions and
increased human activity have a far greater impactful range than just the immediate vicinity of the
project. No mention is made of the fact that Palmer Creek itself is part of the endangered Coho salmon
and steelhead trout ecosystem, both of which have juveniles directly stocked into Palmer Creek. It is
monitored year-round by many fish conservation groups under California Department of Fish and
Wildlife. Also, there is no reference to the extensive 500 page Mill Creek Watershed Management Plan,
Sonoma Resource Conservation District, of 2015. This report is specific to Mill Creek and its Subwatersheds
of which Palmer Creek is one. CDFW has provided grant funds to improve Palmer Creek
Road for drainage and install culverts to increase the run-off from drainage courses to Palmer Creek.
Considering the added scope and enlarged project site impact, a Biotic assessment that matches the
project’s current scope must be provided to fully protect this critical habitat area to the fullest extent.
4. Cannabis Trip Generation PJR-126 Form
The Cannabis Trip Generation form submitted is incorrectly filled out and does not provide the
necessary required information. The intent of the form is to document the Average Daily Trips, ADT, for
the proposed project. As filled out, only on page 1 under CANNABIS OPERATIONS, Cannabis Production,
are ADT provided. It would seem the rest of the form provides yearly totals of ADT or some variation of
(see Attachment #4).
Although the proposed operation is strictly for cultivation, data for CULTIVATION OPERATIONS on page 2
is noted as “NA”, non-applicable. It is assumed this data is what is provided under Cannabis Production
on page 1.
Under Cannabis Operations, Truck Traffic, Miscellaneous Deliveries, page 2, total water truck loads are
noted as 510 per year over the dates of activity from March 15 to September 29, a span of 199 days. As
has been shown in the water use analysis, the project will need to haul in the maximum allowed 3,000
12 | P a g e
gallons per day. This would require 10 self-haul water truck deliveries each day (10 deliveries x 300 gals)
to provide the daily 3,000 gallons per the Healdsburg Recycle Fill Station permit application. The ADT for
water truck deliveries alone should then be 20 (10 x 2 for back and forth trips). As previously noted,
each delivery will require a round trip time of some 1 ½ hours resulting in 15 hours per day non-stop
deliveries to the site for one water truck.
The Summary on page 3 gives a proposed total of 810 Average Daily Trips which would seem is meant to
represent a yearly total. This figure should represent the proposed Average Daily Trips (ADT) during the
non-harvest season, not the yearly total.
The Variation in ADT during the course of a typical full production year on page 3 appears to contain ADT
but there is no supporting data that matches the months April – November, noted as 89 each, which is a
large increase over the months December – March, noted as 25. This would equate to a yearly total of
24,630 ADT, far above the 810 in the Summary so it is unclear what any of the numbers provided on the
form represent.
Considering the substandard access road conditions and immediate impacts to easement property
owners, a correctly filled out form with accurate and realistic data is critical to document the daily traffic
associated with the proposed project and as required for CEQA review.
5. The Fire Prevention Plan is not reflective of the actual site conditions
The Fire Prevention Summary of the Fire Prevention Plan states a number of important discrepancies:
“Fire Prevention Summary- As we all know, Fire Prevention is on the forefront of everyone’s mind in
Sonoma County. That is no exception for us. We are in a High Severity Fire Zone according to CalFire.
Through our CUP process we have provided fire access to our subject property and the Palmer Creek
Association (PCA) from a completely different direction through McCray Ridge Road. Giving CalFire
and the PCA a second option for emergency access. Along side the use of preexisting water storage
and transport vehicles for fire prevention, we are also planning on creating a 3ft acre storage pond
that would serve as a refueling station for CalFire water trucks in the event of an emergency. We
have provided a two-part fire prevention plan. The first correlates to exhibit A1.1 of the site plan and
secondly, a Sonoma Reserve Inc. employee fire prevention plan and training guide.”
As noted previously, the Applicant is in no legal position or authority to provide or grant access rights
over and through property they do not own. The work that was done on the private access road to
McCray Ridge Road was unauthorized and done without the knowledge or consent of the property
owner. It should be noted that as a result of the work done, piles of cut brush and slash were left along
the side of the road where it has dried out and is now sitting fuel in what the Applicant acknowledges is
a High Severity Fire Zone. Any and all unauthorized work done on Parcel 069-030-024 is a direct
admission of trespass and damage to that property and the Applicant will be liable for all damages
resultant.
Mention is made of “preexisting water storage” but there is no known permitted or approved water
storage system onsite. In addition, as has been shown, the 3 Acre Feet pond will be dry some 90 days
into the cultivation season for average year rainfall and will not be available throughout the fire season,
rendering it inadequate and unreliable as a “refueling” (refilling) station for Cal Fire.
13 | P a g e
It should be noted that the Palmer Creek Association is a non-profit entity that solely manages the
maintenance of Palmer Creek Road and therefore it is unclear its reference or why it would want fire or
emergency access through McCray Ridge Road to the Applicant’s property.
Under Section IV. PLAN IMPLEMENTATION, B. Maintenance, D. Water Dispensing Options Available the
following vehicles are listed as onsite:
· 4,000 gallon water truck w/ 200’ of water hoses
· 300 gallon portable water truck tank with a Honda Predator Water Pump
· 50 gallon portable 4 wheel ATV water tank w/ATV
Project plans, specifically sheet A1.1, shows no maintenance yard or fuel storage facilities for these
vehicles. As the Applicant has noted, this project is in a High Severity Fire Zone, fuel storage and
equipment storage is especially critical considering personnel is only scheduled to be onsite during work
hours.
Under Section IV. PLAN IMPLEMENTATION, B. Maintenance, E. Emergency Action Plan the following is
presented:
“E. Emergency Action Plan-1. Employees shall immediately find and pull the fire alarm and
notify all employees and Supervisors. 2. Call 911 3. Verify Location 4. Engage property water
dispensing options listed above. 5. Evacuate”
As there is no full time 24-hour presence on the project site or automated alarm system, who will: 1. Pull
the fire alarm, 2. Call 911, 3. Verify the location, and 4. Engage property water dispensing options during
non-working hours? It would seem the safety of the residents of Palmer Creek is to be dependent on
the event of fire occurring during the working hours of the project. It should also be noted that the
project site has no utility services, including phone service. That leaves all communication, including
contacting 911, to cell service that is erratic at best and non-existent throughout much of Palmer Creek.
FINAL COMMENT
It would seem the Applicant has not made a good faith effort in developing their complete application
proposal either in documentation, detail, analysis or actual facts. Much of the data and documentation
is strictly reverse engineered to support the application’s conclusions and needs (Recycled water
availability, Runoff collection, Road easement, etc.) in direct contradiction to actual facts as well as the
other application documentation and statements. The presented data is often contradictory, and in
some cases, totally unclear of intended purpose.
The most critical reports required, the Biotic Assessment and Hydrogeologic report are, in the former
case, prematurely done and does not address or cover the current project impacts as now proposed,
and in the case of the latter, missing altogether. As noted, the project’s location in a Class 4 water
scarce area and the critical habitat Mill Creek watershed requires additional and qualified analysis for
proper peer review to determine the project’s legitimacy.
The Applicant’s apparent disregard for adjacent property owners’ rights, and the actual property itself, is
an indication of willful disregard of rules and boundaries that does not bode well going forward.
14 | P a g e
The easement and property rights issues will remain outstanding until the Applicant has responded to
the legal notifications sent.
Although the Applicant had an additional 9 months through the Penalty Relief Program for the sole
purpose of obtaining the required reports, permits, and assessments needed (as well as to further
develop their final design), it would seem from the dates of many of these documents the Applicant
waited until virtually the last minute to obtain or address them. The fact that seemingly no effort was
made to procure the required hydrogeologic report and the Applicant waited until 4 days before the
June 1, 2018 deadline to even inquire if one was needed is indicative of a lack of effort or intention in
being compliant. Although there are many other deficiencies in the application, the one’s addressed
here are the most egregious.
Overall the application has the appearance of a “Cut and Paste” effort in which the Applicant either
didn’t actually read what was being submitted, or didn’t care, in an effort to just be deemed “complete”
by submitting the required forms themselves, regardless of merit, accuracy or factual basis. Declaring
this application complete is unfair to the other Applicants that took the Cannabis Land use permit
process seriously, procured and submitted professional and coherent applications, and respected the
process.
As detailed here, it is clearly evident that application UPC___________ does not meet the requirements
for a complete application based on the critical missing documentation and the clear and obvious
misrepresentation of facts and assumptions. We strongly object to its designation as complete and
request the County take a more detailed look at it in conjunction with the information we have provided
here and rescind its declaration of “complete”.
As we stated in our first project response letter of October 30, 2017: “We believe the Project is not
suitable for the parcel in question due to the many significant and unmitigable environmental and safety
impacts of the Project. We believe the applicants have not conducted the necessary scientific studies of
local resources, and they arrive at unsubstantiated and unjustified conclusions of no effect on these
natural resources.” Seven months later and our initial concerns have been proven more than valid and
further reinforced by the Applicant’s latest attempt.
We look forward to your review and determination.
Thank you. |
|