Item 7a “Presentation of Cannabis Regulation Update” on your agenda for 9 October 2025 raises questions. As currently structured and presented, I respectfully request that you
• Urge Community Development Department (CDD) to seek to understand public concerns about the County’s cannabis program and ordinance and
• Address these concerns before proposing changes to or revision of the cannabis ordinance.
Reduced Setback From Watercourses
Please do not endorse the
• Proposed change to the setback from watercourses from 100 to 50 feet.
• Programmatic Environmental Impact Report (PEIR) scope and proposal.
Reducing setbacks from watercourses can be detrimental
• to the conservation of hitch and other special status species and
• efforts to rehabilitate Clear Lake and its tributaries with creek restoration and erosion control.
The direction to change some aspects of the current cannabis ordinance is confusing; this is not the same as the effort to completely revise the ordinance. Is the effort to rewrite the cannabis ordinance suspended? If not, how does it fit into the timeline for the PEIR?
Programmatic Environmental Impact Report (PEIR) - Cannabis Odor
A PEIR can serve Lake County well. CDD proposes a PEIR to focus on odor issues associated with commercial cannabis cultivation.
The vendor’s proposal for the PEIR is problematic:
o Scope. There are other factors that should be studied by the PEIR: wildfire hazard and risk, water availability, traffic/road safety, cumulative impacts. CEQA (California Environmental Quality Act) has an interest in these factors and others.
o Project design: limited public input. The vendor assumes that public comments on draft and final PEIR will be limited to grammar, format and typos.
The vendor will have a response for public comments. Revision of the draft and final PEIR due to public comment will occur “as required”. Evaluating public input for revising the PEIR looks like a subjective process, not one truly open to public input.
o Vendor selected—objectionable. CDD chose PlaceWorks to produce the PEIR. PlaceWorks is the consultant working on the County s General Plan update and other plans developed by the County. PlaceWorks’ performance on General Plan support is lacking. More detail can be provided upon request.
o Budget. What is the funding source for the PEIR? County budget planning for FY2026 did not include the PEIR. The narrative for the recommended county budget presented in June 2025 did not cover a PEIR. Estimated cost provided by a vendor is $227,879 to $250,000.
o Governance and Transparency. Will the PEIR got out for bid? If no, why not? CDD has a cost estimate and proposal for the PEIR dated September 2025. When did the Board of Supervisors approve this action?
Thank you for your consideration. As always, your service and openness to public comment are appreciated.
Public Comment on Proposed Programmatic EIR for Cannabis Ordinance Update
I urge the Board not to adopt the Programmatic EIR (PEIR) as currently written. Spending roughly $250,000 for a study that focuses almost exclusively on odor is not a wise or defensible use of limited County funds. Odor is one legitimate issue, but it is not the only one—and addressing it in isolation will leave the County vulnerable to future litigation and require another costly CEQA process later.
The staff report itself acknowledges that both odor and water have been persistent issues since the cannabis program began. Yet the current PEIR scope does not analyze water availability, water use, or cumulative watershed impacts—issues that continue to generate public concern and regulatory scrutiny. If we invest this amount of money now on an odor-only EIR, we will almost certainly pay again to study water and cumulative impacts later. The County should instead direct its consultant to prepare a combined Programmatic EIR that evaluates odor and water together and establishes clear, enforceable thresholds for both.
Additionally, the PEIR should not merely “study” odor—it should develop practical mitigation standards that can be built into the ordinance and applied consistently to outdoor cultivation. There are proven measures that can reduce nuisance odor and community conflicts, including:
Requiring indoor or enclosed drying, curing, and processing with carbon filtration.
Adopting setback buffers based on receptor distance and local topography.
Implementing an Odor Impact Minimization Plan with complaint response protocols.
Using vegetative windbreaks or staggered harvest schedules to minimize plume concentration.
Restricting outdoor processing or open-air trimming during inversion conditions.
By incorporating these mitigation tools, the County can make its ordinance more enforceable and defensible—without needing repetitive, project-by-project analysis.
In short, an odor-only PEIR is too narrow, too expensive, and too short-sighted. A combined odor-and-water PEIR will give the County the scientific and legal foundation it needs for consistent permitting and environmental protection, while saving taxpayers from paying twice for overlapping research.
Please direct staff to expand the PEIR scope before committing public funds and to ensure it addresses both odor and water comprehensively.
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the Cannabis Regulation Update. I respectfully request that the Commission strengthen riparian protections by increasing—not reducing—the setback from watercourses. The current 100-foot standard is already a minimum; on our steep, highly erodible slopes with confined channels and sensitive species, 100 feet is often insufficient to protect water quality, riparian function, and hitch habitat. A uniform reduction to 50 feet would move in the wrong direction.
Please adopt a protective standard of at least 150–200 feet from the top of bank, with site-specific expansion where slopes exceed 20 percent, soils are highly erodible, or where channels, wetlands, or springs support sensitive species or groundwater-dependent ecosystems. At a minimum, the ordinance should: define “top of bank,” require a no-disturbance inner buffer for vegetation and equipment, prohibit grading and chemical use within the setback, and require independent biologist verification and post-storm inspections. Any variance should require written findings based on hydrology, soils, and biology, demonstrating equal or greater protection than the expanded baseline.
I also ask that the program-level EIR explicitly analyze: (1) water demand and groundwater sustainability (including cumulative drawdown across approved and pending sites), (2) wildfire hazard, evacuation, and corridor-level traffic on single-egress rural roads, (3) enforceability and feasibility of field standards, and (4) odor thresholds, monitoring, and enforcement suited to local terrain and wind patterns. Public participation must be substantive: comments should receive written, reasoned responses, and the draft must be revised where warranted, not treated as a formality.
Finally, please provide transparency regarding the PEIR consultant and budget, including the funding source, whether the work will go to competitive bid, and the rationale for the selected firm. For any ordinance edits noticed as CEQA-exempt, identify the specific statutory or categorical exemption and explain how decisions will tier to the PEIR without segmenting impacts.
Families here share narrow grades and blind curves with heavy trucks when it matters most. Strengthening setbacks beyond 100 feet, and committing to a comprehensive PEIR, are practical steps to protect water, habitat, and public safety. Please put health, safety, and enforceability first.
short version 1. Reducing the riparian setback for cannabis cultivation from 100 feet to 50 feet is a serious environmental and regulatory concern.
2. State Water Resources Control Board’s Cannabis Cultivation Policy—Principles and Guidelines for Cannabis Cultivation (2019) establishes statewide minimum riparian setbacks measured from the bankfull stage: 150 feet for Class I waters (perennial, fish-bearing streams, lakes, or springs); 100 feet for Class II waters (intermittent streams or wetlands); and 50 feet for Class III ephemeral drainages. Pumps, tanks, waste storage, and chemical handling are prohibited within these setbacks, and any diversion must include a CDFW-approved fish screen to prevent entrainment (Cannabis Policy §2.3.3; Appendix A, Table 1).
If Lake County were to align to only the minimum 50-foot buffer, it would effectively treat all watercourses as non-fish-bearing Class III streams—an inaccurate assumption for the Schindler Creek watershed and similar tributaries known to support Clear Lake hitch spawning runs. CEQA requires that local policies not weaken environmental baselines when site-specific biological data are absent.
3. According to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Species Status Assessment, 2024) and CDFW observations, Clear Lake hitch migrate multiple miles upstream from Clear Lake into tributary creeks. CEQA Guidelines §15065(a)(1) and §15125(a).
4. CEQA Compliance and Recommendation Reducing the setback in the absence of site-specific biological assessments or professional wetland delineations violates CEQA’s requirement for a complete and accurate environmental baseline (CEQA Guidelines §15125) and its mandate to avoid or mitigate impacts to federally protected species (§15065(a)(1)).
The County should retain or increase the current 100-foot setback and require:
• A qualified professional wetland delineation verified by CDFW or the Regional Water Board;
• Site-specific classification of watercourses (Class I, II, III) before approving reduced setbacks; and
• Demonstration that no impact will occur to Clear Lake hitch or its spawning habitat, supported by agency consultation under Fish and Game Code §§1600–1616 and Public Resources Code §21080.3.1 (AB 52).
5. Summary
In summary, aligning Lake County’s standard to a universal 50-foot setback would reduce environmental safeguards, disregard site-specific biological data, and conflict with both state and federal conservation mandates protecting Clear Lake hitch. We urge the County to maintain the current 100-foot buffer minimum—or preferably adopt the State Water Board’s 150-foot standard for Class I watercourses—until hydrologic and biological studies verify otherwise.
Chair Chavez and Commissioners,
Item 7a “Presentation of Cannabis Regulation Update” on your agenda for 9 October 2025 raises questions. As currently structured and presented, I respectfully request that you
• Urge Community Development Department (CDD) to seek to understand public concerns about the County’s cannabis program and ordinance and
• Address these concerns before proposing changes to or revision of the cannabis ordinance.
Reduced Setback From Watercourses
Please do not endorse the
• Proposed change to the setback from watercourses from 100 to 50 feet.
• Programmatic Environmental Impact Report (PEIR) scope and proposal.
Reducing setbacks from watercourses can be detrimental
• to the conservation of hitch and other special status species and
• efforts to rehabilitate Clear Lake and its tributaries with creek restoration and erosion control.
The direction to change some aspects of the current cannabis ordinance is confusing; this is not the same as the effort to completely revise the ordinance. Is the effort to rewrite the cannabis ordinance suspended? If not, how does it fit into the timeline for the PEIR?
Programmatic Environmental Impact Report (PEIR) - Cannabis Odor
A PEIR can serve Lake County well. CDD proposes a PEIR to focus on odor issues associated with commercial cannabis cultivation.
The vendor’s proposal for the PEIR is problematic:
o Scope. There are other factors that should be studied by the PEIR: wildfire hazard and risk, water availability, traffic/road safety, cumulative impacts. CEQA (California Environmental Quality Act) has an interest in these factors and others.
o Project design: limited public input. The vendor assumes that public comments on draft and final PEIR will be limited to grammar, format and typos.
The vendor will have a response for public comments. Revision of the draft and final PEIR due to public comment will occur “as required”. Evaluating public input for revising the PEIR looks like a subjective process, not one truly open to public input.
o Vendor selected—objectionable. CDD chose PlaceWorks to produce the PEIR. PlaceWorks is the consultant working on the County s General Plan update and other plans developed by the County. PlaceWorks’ performance on General Plan support is lacking. More detail can be provided upon request.
o Budget. What is the funding source for the PEIR? County budget planning for FY2026 did not include the PEIR. The narrative for the recommended county budget presented in June 2025 did not cover a PEIR. Estimated cost provided by a vendor is $227,879 to $250,000.
o Governance and Transparency. Will the PEIR got out for bid? If no, why not? CDD has a cost estimate and proposal for the PEIR dated September 2025. When did the Board of Supervisors approve this action?
Thank you for your consideration. As always, your service and openness to public comment are appreciated.
Best wishes,
Margaux Kambara
Lake County Resident
Public Comment on Proposed Programmatic EIR for Cannabis Ordinance Update
I urge the Board not to adopt the Programmatic EIR (PEIR) as currently written. Spending roughly $250,000 for a study that focuses almost exclusively on odor is not a wise or defensible use of limited County funds. Odor is one legitimate issue, but it is not the only one—and addressing it in isolation will leave the County vulnerable to future litigation and require another costly CEQA process later.
The staff report itself acknowledges that both odor and water have been persistent issues since the cannabis program began. Yet the current PEIR scope does not analyze water availability, water use, or cumulative watershed impacts—issues that continue to generate public concern and regulatory scrutiny. If we invest this amount of money now on an odor-only EIR, we will almost certainly pay again to study water and cumulative impacts later. The County should instead direct its consultant to prepare a combined Programmatic EIR that evaluates odor and water together and establishes clear, enforceable thresholds for both.
Additionally, the PEIR should not merely “study” odor—it should develop practical mitigation standards that can be built into the ordinance and applied consistently to outdoor cultivation. There are proven measures that can reduce nuisance odor and community conflicts, including:
Requiring indoor or enclosed drying, curing, and processing with carbon filtration.
Adopting setback buffers based on receptor distance and local topography.
Implementing an Odor Impact Minimization Plan with complaint response protocols.
Using vegetative windbreaks or staggered harvest schedules to minimize plume concentration.
Restricting outdoor processing or open-air trimming during inversion conditions.
By incorporating these mitigation tools, the County can make its ordinance more enforceable and defensible—without needing repetitive, project-by-project analysis.
In short, an odor-only PEIR is too narrow, too expensive, and too short-sighted. A combined odor-and-water PEIR will give the County the scientific and legal foundation it needs for consistent permitting and environmental protection, while saving taxpayers from paying twice for overlapping research.
Please direct staff to expand the PEIR scope before committing public funds and to ensure it addresses both odor and water comprehensively.
Dear Chair and Commissioners,
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the Cannabis Regulation Update. I respectfully request that the Commission strengthen riparian protections by increasing—not reducing—the setback from watercourses. The current 100-foot standard is already a minimum; on our steep, highly erodible slopes with confined channels and sensitive species, 100 feet is often insufficient to protect water quality, riparian function, and hitch habitat. A uniform reduction to 50 feet would move in the wrong direction.
Please adopt a protective standard of at least 150–200 feet from the top of bank, with site-specific expansion where slopes exceed 20 percent, soils are highly erodible, or where channels, wetlands, or springs support sensitive species or groundwater-dependent ecosystems. At a minimum, the ordinance should: define “top of bank,” require a no-disturbance inner buffer for vegetation and equipment, prohibit grading and chemical use within the setback, and require independent biologist verification and post-storm inspections. Any variance should require written findings based on hydrology, soils, and biology, demonstrating equal or greater protection than the expanded baseline.
I also ask that the program-level EIR explicitly analyze: (1) water demand and groundwater sustainability (including cumulative drawdown across approved and pending sites), (2) wildfire hazard, evacuation, and corridor-level traffic on single-egress rural roads, (3) enforceability and feasibility of field standards, and (4) odor thresholds, monitoring, and enforcement suited to local terrain and wind patterns. Public participation must be substantive: comments should receive written, reasoned responses, and the draft must be revised where warranted, not treated as a formality.
Finally, please provide transparency regarding the PEIR consultant and budget, including the funding source, whether the work will go to competitive bid, and the rationale for the selected firm. For any ordinance edits noticed as CEQA-exempt, identify the specific statutory or categorical exemption and explain how decisions will tier to the PEIR without segmenting impacts.
Families here share narrow grades and blind curves with heavy trucks when it matters most. Strengthening setbacks beyond 100 feet, and committing to a comprehensive PEIR, are practical steps to protect water, habitat, and public safety. Please put health, safety, and enforceability first.
short version 1. Reducing the riparian setback for cannabis cultivation from 100 feet to 50 feet is a serious environmental and regulatory concern.
2. State Water Resources Control Board’s Cannabis Cultivation Policy—Principles and Guidelines for Cannabis Cultivation (2019) establishes statewide minimum riparian setbacks measured from the bankfull stage: 150 feet for Class I waters (perennial, fish-bearing streams, lakes, or springs); 100 feet for Class II waters (intermittent streams or wetlands); and 50 feet for Class III ephemeral drainages. Pumps, tanks, waste storage, and chemical handling are prohibited within these setbacks, and any diversion must include a CDFW-approved fish screen to prevent entrainment (Cannabis Policy §2.3.3; Appendix A, Table 1).
If Lake County were to align to only the minimum 50-foot buffer, it would effectively treat all watercourses as non-fish-bearing Class III streams—an inaccurate assumption for the Schindler Creek watershed and similar tributaries known to support Clear Lake hitch spawning runs. CEQA requires that local policies not weaken environmental baselines when site-specific biological data are absent.
3. According to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Species Status Assessment, 2024) and CDFW observations, Clear Lake hitch migrate multiple miles upstream from Clear Lake into tributary creeks. CEQA Guidelines §15065(a)(1) and §15125(a).
4. CEQA Compliance and Recommendation Reducing the setback in the absence of site-specific biological assessments or professional wetland delineations violates CEQA’s requirement for a complete and accurate environmental baseline (CEQA Guidelines §15125) and its mandate to avoid or mitigate impacts to federally protected species (§15065(a)(1)).
The County should retain or increase the current 100-foot setback and require:
• A qualified professional wetland delineation verified by CDFW or the Regional Water Board;
• Site-specific classification of watercourses (Class I, II, III) before approving reduced setbacks; and
• Demonstration that no impact will occur to Clear Lake hitch or its spawning habitat, supported by agency consultation under Fish and Game Code §§1600–1616 and Public Resources Code §21080.3.1 (AB 52).
5. Summary
In summary, aligning Lake County’s standard to a universal 50-foot setback would reduce environmental safeguards, disregard site-specific biological data, and conflict with both state and federal conservation mandates protecting Clear Lake hitch. We urge the County to maintain the current 100-foot buffer minimum—or preferably adopt the State Water Board’s 150-foot standard for Class I watercourses—until hydrologic and biological studies verify otherwise.