Sept 2nd 2025 letter to Planning Commissioners on Setbacks: MISINFORMATION BY OMISSION, CONFUSION, OR SPIN?

Letter to  Planning Commission on Permit Sonoma misleading presentation on setbacks. 

‍From: Neighborhood Coalition <sonomaneighborhoodcoalition@gmail.com>
Sent: Tuesday, September 2, 2025 9:15 AM
To:Tim.Freeman@sonomacounty.gov;Tom.Bahning@sonomacounty.gov;Shaun.McCaffery@sonomacounty.gov;larry.reed@sonomacounty.gov; Webster.Marquez@sonomacounty.gov;PlanningAgency@sonomacounty.gov
Subject: FACTS PRESENTED OBJECTIVELY? no - CANNABIS DEIR

September 2, 2025

To: Planning Commissioners

‍MISINFORMATION BY OMISSION, CONFUSION, OR SPIN?

When Permit Sonoma staff presents their proposals for setbacks, they frequently point to the proposed 600-foot setback as a significant improvement from the existing 300-foot setback…

but they don’t ever come out and say what it doesn’t do or what is missing. Their comparisons are the proverbial apples and oranges. They seem to depend on the listener being uninformed and trusting their nutshell summary which, as it turns out, is a shell game.

FACT:  The proposed 600-foot setbackdoes not apply to homes on Ag or RRD parcels 

FACT:  Only a 100-foot setback to the property line is proposed for homes on Ag and RRD parcels-a Reduction from current regs.

FACT:  Permit Sonoma proposes 1000-foot setbacks for special areas like schools. Why is Permit Sonoma proposing a greater setback for children’s safety during school and leaving them fully exposed at home with 100-foot setbacks at home where children spend most oftheir time?

FACT:  There are 18,534 Ag/RRD zoned parcels, many (if not most) with homes. They end up with less protection. We estimate that 15,000 have homes, many which house Ag workers.

FACT:  Cannabis emissions, including the carcinogen Beta-Myrcene, travel over 2500 ft.  Residents need to be protected from this and be able to enjoy their property indoors and outside.

FACT:  A class-action lawsuit was certified in Santa Barbara County, allowing neighbors within a one-mile radius of a cannabis farm, to collectively seek damages for the pervasive smell of pot invading their properties.

‍

Questions for Staff:

1.    Their assignment was to promote neighborhood compatibility. Why have they ignored that directive?

2.    If the objective is to protect people and neighbors from cannabis emissions, why don’t they propose setback protections that focus on where people reside, regardless of the zoning designation, and require setbacks that are consistent and effective rather than confounding the discussion with formulations that are impossible to decipher and fail to protect residents?

3.    The 100-foot setback proposal allows significant contamination of adjacent properties regardless of the location of the home on the parcel. How can they justify that proposal when it directly contravenes the rights of property owners to have full use of their property without threats to their health, as provided in California Civil Code § 3470 and 3480*?  

4.    How do their recommendations protect residents from the noxious cannabis emissions, including carcinogens? Given those threats to the public health, how can endorse any outdoor cannabis cultivation?

Staff should present all the facts objectively and keep their thumbs off the scale.  Neighborhood compatibility and the well-being of residents should be the guiding principles with standards that are logical, safe, and understandable. To make the best-informed recommendations, the Planning Commission deserves a complete and unbiased presentation from staff. 

Respectfully submitted, 

Nancy and Brantly Richardson, Communication Directors

 Neighborhood Coalition <sonomaneighborhoodcoalition@gmail.com 

* Anything which is injurious to health, including, but not limited to, the illegal sale of controlled substances, or is indecent or offensive to the senses, or an obstruction to the free use of property, so as to interfere with the comfortable enjoyment of life or property, or unlawfully obstructs the free passage or use, in a customary manner, of any navigable lake, or river, bay, stream, canal, or basin, or any public park, square, street, or highway, is a nuisance.”¹

‍