Proposed Cannabis Ordinance Violates State Laws
November 26, 2025
From: Neighborhood Coalition <sonomaneighborhoodcoalition@gmail.com>
Sent: Tuesday, November 25, 2025 9:45 AM
To: lynda.hopkins@sonomacounty.gov;david.rabbitt@sonomacounty.gov;chris.coursey@sonomacounty.gov;rebecca.hermosillo@sonomacounty.gov;james.gore@sonomacounty.gov; christina.rivera@sonomacounty.gov;robert.pittman@sonomacounty.gov
Cc: senator.McGuire@senate.ca.gov; planningAgency@sonomacounty.gov; Sean.Hamlin@sonomacounty.gov; katie.mason@sonomacounty.gov; Tracy.Lyons@sonomacounty.gov; bruce.castleberry@medianewsgroup.com; Jenny.Chamberlain@sonomacounty.gov; Tina.Thomas@sonomacounty.gov; Chris.grabill@sonomacounty.gov; Murphy,Emma<emma.murphy@pressdemocrat.com>; Barber,Phil<PBarber@pressdemocrat.com>; Assemblymember.Connolly@asm.gov; jim.sweeney@pressdemocrat.com; Endicott,Marisa<marisa.endicott@pressdemocrat.com>
Subject: PROPOSED CANNABIS ORDINANCE VIOLATES STATE LAWS
November 25, 2025
To: Board of Supervisors, PermitSonoma, County Counsel
Re: Proposed Sonoma County Cannabis Ordinance
The Neighborhood Coalition advocates for sustainable, environmentally sound, and neighborhood-compatible cannabis policies in Sonoma County.
Sonoma County’s proposed cannabis ordinance is misleading, to the detriment of all cannabis businesses. It gives false hope to cannabis businesses by implying that they can legally operate in similar ways to the wine industry, which is factually incorrect with respect to, at a minimum: (1) farm retail sales; (2) cannabis events; and (3)crop swaps. In most cases cannabis businesses will be unable to obtain a license for those operations from the Department of Cannabis Control (DCC), which is required in addition to a county zoning permit. If a cannabis business operates without a required DCC license, it will pay huge fines and likely be put out of business.
In our discussions with senior officials at the DCC since October 28, DCC has made clear that while the County can issue land use permits for anything it wants, the DCC will not issue a license for any cannabis activity that violates State law. Below we discuss why farm retail sales, many cannabis events, and crop swaps will likely not qualify for a DCC license.
The process for adopting this ordinance has been deeply disturbing. Permit Sonoma made no effort to educate supervisors or the public that its proposed policies do not comport with State law. We suspect that many supervisors do not know the information contained in this letter. Why did Permit Sonoma keep them ignorant? Shouldn’t supervisors and the public know that many of the policies being considered violate state law? Where were the Power Points explaining the problems with each of these policies before asking the supervisors to vote on them? Why weren’t they publicly discussed so residents can understand why the County is willing if not eager to adopt ordinances that violate state law?
- Farm Retail Sales at Cultivation Sites (Proposed Sec. 26-18-115(C)(4)(g)(2)).
Sonoma County’s proposed cannabis ordinance purports to allow “farm retail sales” such that cannabis will be treated like any other agricultural crop. It implies that a grower can harvest cannabis and sell it directly to the public at on-site farm stands. But what Sonoma County calls “farm retail sales” the DCC regulates as a “dispensary.” State law does NOT allow for a cannabis grower to harvest their plants and sell those plants directly to the public on-site.
State law requires all cannabis retail sales use a licensed retailer with a dispensary license and take plac ein a secure building with video surveillance and an alarm system. The product must comply with State packaging and labeling requirements for resale. The product must have been tested by an independent third-party lab prior to sale. The product must comply with track and trace requirements and the seller must receive the product from a licensed distributor.
Of course, a cannabis grower who complies with all State laws regarding sales of cannabis could apply for a DCC license, but the County’s promotion of “farm retail sales” with merely a County permit deceives all cannabis business owners. Far from being “easy,” it is unlikely to occur.
- Cannabis Events (Proposed Sec. 26-18-270).
Sonoma County’s proposed cannabis ordinance would allow cannabis events on any Agricultural- or RRD-zoned parcel, with up to 104 per year, by the issuance of one County permit. The County implies that cannabis events would be just like wine industry events.
Nothing could be further from the truth. Under State law the cannabis business must obtain a separate DCC license for each event. State law does not contemplate regular events such as every weekend as proposed by the County. DCC compliance and enforcement personnel typically attend each licensed cannabis event.
Obtaining a DCC license for a cannabis event requires that events be located at an event center, such as the county fairgrounds, and inside a permanent structure intended for events. State law requires a separate retail area for any sales, with licensed retailers holding a DCC dispensary license, and all State cannabis sale requirements discussed above regarding farm retail sales.
Once again, the County is misleading the cannabis industry, to the detriment of all concerned.
- Ministerial Crop Swaps (Proposed Sec. 26-18-115(C)(4)(h).
The County has proposed ministerial permitting for crop swaps on parcels where other crops previously had been cultivated. DCC takes over as lead agency for ministerial permits throughout the state. DCC specifically stated that a programmatic EIR is insufficient for site-specific CEQA review for cultivation. Permit Sonoma would have, at best, a secondary role. As lead agency, DCC may require additional fees and site-specific studies such as a hydrogeologic report, an environmental site assessment, a biotic resource assessment, a paleontological resource mitigation and monitoring program, and a noise analysis and study. It would take public comments and hold hearings on the proposed license.
Among the issues that DCC may demand the license applicant to address on a site-specific basis are the recommendations of the California Department of Fish & Wildlife in its July 15, 2025 letter. That letter states (page 3) that the draft cannabis ordinance “lacks safeguards to ensure biological resource impacts are not exacerbated by these changes, particularly for aquatic and riparian ecosystems” and violates CEQA by “allowing significant impacts to biological resources without mitigation.”
The California Department of Fish & Wildlife makes the following specific recommendations, that have been ignored by the County that DCC may require (pages 3-4):
• A monthly if not weekly “no net increase” metric for groundwater use during the driest months. The County’s semi-annual (May 1-October 31) metric (proposed sec. 26-18-115C(4)(h)(9)(b)(1)) fails to protect riparian habitats from fragmentation that threatens biodiversity.
• No imported soils for geo pots, which are a vector for sudden oak death or other pathogens. Proposed sec. 26-18-115C(4)(h) does not prohibit imported soils.
• No hoop houses. Proposed sec. 26-18-115C(4)(h)(3) expressly allows temporary hoop houses for 6 months each year.
• Grasslands such as hayfields or pastures should not be included in crop swaps. Proposed sec. 26-18-115C(4)(h) expressly allows grasslands. See FEIR 3-49.
• Cultivation may be banned where groundwater pumping has severely depleted stream flows or be capped based on hydrologic carrying capacity to avoid overconcentration (pp. 7-8). “Streamflow depletion due to groundwater pumping is well documented, and even modest pumping rates can reduce baseflow, especially in unconfined or shallow alluvial aquifers near streams (p. 6).”
• Site-specific hydrologic assessments are needed to “evaluate well-stream connectivity, potential well drawdown effects, and cumulative impacts on instream flows” particularly during the dry season (p. 7).
• Analysis of cumulative impacts, such as hydrological and evacuation impacts.
Conclusion.
We have discussed three major defects in the proposed cannabis ordinance, all of which mislead County cannabis businesses to believe something that is false. The proposed cannabis ordinance also violates State law in other ways, including its Right to Farm provision that purports to shield growers from nuisance litigation. State law allows such nuisance suits, and the County’s sole purpose is to mislead residents about their legal rights.
Because Permit Sonoma and County Counsel cannot be relied on to provide pertinent information such as this, we recommend that individual supervisors contact the DCC and discuss with their officials the issues raised in this letter. Before adopting the revised cannabis ordinance the public, including the cannabis industry, deserves a full public discussion of these issues. We doubt that an honest discussion of these issues can stand the light of day, and strongly recommend eliminating all provisions in the proposed ordinance that violate State law.
Sweeping these issues under the rugwould be irresponsible. It would waste cannabis businesses’ time and money, provide them with false hope, and ultimately create more unnecessary frustration and confusion surrounding cannabis regulation.
Please do not hesitate to contactus if you have any questions or require any additional information.
Sincerely,
Neighborhood Coalition
Nancy and Brantly Richardson, Communications Directors
SonomaNeighborhoodCoalition@gmail.com