Sept 5th 2025 letter: Aug 7th presentation to Planning Commission has errors and omissions
September 5, 2025
Letter on many errors and omissions in Permit Sonoma's August 7 presentation to the Planning Commission.
From: Neighborhood Coalition<sonomaneighborhoodcoalition@gmail.com>
Sent: Friday, September 5, 2025 12:32 PM
To: cannabis@sonomacounty.gov
Cc: Tim.Freeman@sonomacounty.gov; Tom.Bahning@sonomacounty.gov; Shaun.McCaffery@sonomacounty.gov; larry.reed@sonomacounty.gov; Webster.Marquez@sonomacounty.gov; PlanningAgency@sonomacounty.gov
Subject: Aug 7th presentation to Planning Commission has errors and omissions
September 5, 2025
To: Permit Sonoma and Planning Commissioners
Permit Sonoma’s August 7th presentation was to provide: (a) a broad background on the program; and (b) a range of policy options from which the Planning Commissioners were to provide direction and recommendations to be incorporated going forward.
In reviewing staffs’ presentation and the attachments, we discovered a few significant errors and omissions. Without an accurate portrayal (presentations and in the maps), the Commissioners will have a difficult time assessing the consequences of what staff is proposing, and its effect on the community and on the stated goal of neighborhood compatibility. Two items in particular underscore our concerns:
1) Minimum Parcel size policy options (Page 29 of Staff Power Point Aug 7,2025 Planning Commission, and the supporting ATT 4_Minimum Parcel Size MAP). Four options shown on slide page 29: Proposed Program for 5 acre minimum, A. 10 acre minimum (current rule), B. larger than 10 acres, and C. Eliminate parcel size requirement.
a. The graph on page 29 doesn’t provide any context of what acreage is needed for commercial pot. It only shows a couple category options of available acreage. Once it’s understood that only 188 acres are needed countywide, and that under the current rules (10 acres minimum) 641,824 acres are available, it’s clear the smaller parcels now being proposed aren’t necessary.
i. Why was no information and mapping presented on option B. Larger than 10 acres minimum? Common sense says the minimum parcel could be significantly increased (e.g., 20 acres or 40 acres) and there would still be plenty to accommodate cannabis.
b. The supporting maps have the following issues: (a) the maps only cover the option to reduce the parcel size. There are no maps of what 10 acres or larger than 10-acre parcels would look like; and (b) the map incorrectly color codes the parcels so the neighborhood impacts are not apparent. Specifically Ag parcels under 5 acres are not color coded at all and not listed on the map legend. Without this clarification, the reader has no way to visualize the impacts. Specifically, these 5-10 acre parcels are intermixed with < 5 acre parcels, all with family homes on. (see ATT 4_MinimumParcel Size MAP, copy attached below)
2) Compatibility Setbacks Policy Options (Page 28 of Staff Power Point Aug 7, 2025, copy attached below). A “proposed program” option and nine other options are presented.
a. The slide does not state what the current rules are, nor does it provide an option to maintain them.
b. The slide does not mention that the 300ft setback from homes is eliminated under staff’s proposal (only the 100ft setback from property line remains).
c. “Residential” zone setbacks are proposed, but nowhere does it clearly point out this “residential” rule doesn’t apply to the estimated 15,000 homes on Ag zoned lands.
d. Option H. Increase property line setbacks - This is a fine option to consider yet staff didn’t discuss it at the Aug 7th meeting and didn’t provide any supporting documentation or maps for the Commissioners to understand what this option could accomplish.
Summary: The Policy Options (see slides 25-38) presented generally have a “Proposed Program” option that appears to be the preferred option of staff. These are not the current provisions in the law, these are not preferred by the public, these are not options that would achieve neighborhood compatibility, nor are these options that the DEIR results indicate are the best environmental option. Let’s be clear, these “proposed program” options are the staff’s, alone, and do not provide the starting point for an honest and fair discussion.
Respectfully submitted,
Nancy and Brantly Richardson, Communication Directors
Neighborhood Coalition <sonomaneighborhoodcoalition@gmail.com
See attached for letter with supporting slides