Proposed Cannabis Ordinance Violates State Laws Part 2
December 3, 2025
From: Neighborhood Coalition <sonomaneighborhoodcoalition@gmail.com>
Sent: Wed 12/3/2025 9:12 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>; jim.sweeney@pressdemocrat.com; Endicott, Marisa <marisa.endicott@pressdemocrat.com>; assemblymember.connolly@assembly.ca.gov
Subject: MORE STATE LAWS VIOLATED IN PROPOSED CANNABIS ORDINANCE, PART 2
To: Supervisors, Staff, Press,State reps.
CLARIFICATION FACTS – RIGHT TO FARM
Staff Proposal: Include Cannabis under Right to Farm
Straw Vote: Passed 3-2. NO: Hermosillo, Rabbitt. YES: Coursey, Gore, Hopkins
QUESTION:
- Do you want to pass local laws that knowingly violate State laws, subject neighbors to known health hazards, and deliberately confuse residents and growers as to their rights?
FACTS:
- Proposal: Staff proposes adding cannabis to the local Right to Farm (RTF) so that cannabis, including its overwhelming odor, would not be considered a nuisance.
- This proposal violates State nuisance and safety laws because cannabis is not agriculture under State RTF law. (CCC § 3479; HSC 41700*).
- The proposal is even illegal under the local RTF ordinance, which requires compliance with both State and federal laws. State law prevails over local law.
- County Counsel confirmed that including cannabis under local RTF would mean that a neighbor could only sue under State laws.*
- Although State law controls, many neighbors will not understand their rights; this contradiction creates confusion and necessitates unnecessary litigation for both neighbors and growers.
- Cannabis odors are not harmless like farm odors:
- They cause respiratory irritation, asthma, nausea and headaches;
- Children and infants are especially vulnerable;
- Beta-Myrcene, a known irritant and Prop 65 carcinogen, in high levels in odors;
- All this is in addition to the odor stench which negatively impacts quality of life.
- Without any explicit acknowledgment or explanation, the County also proposes deletion of the Health and Safety Clause which currently supports nuisance claims due to cannabis grows and odors. In combination with the proposed inclusion of cannabis in the local RTF, Permit Sonoma is doing everything it can to protect cannabis growers from responsibility for the harms they inflict on their neighbors.
- PLEASE UPHOLD STATE LAW and VOTE “NO” ON THE RTF PROPOSAL
*Above references, below.
California Code, Civil Code - CIV § 3479
Current as of January 01, 2023 | Updated by Findlaw Staff
California nuisance code protections include anything offensive to the senses or that interferes with comfortable enjoyment of life or property.
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 the customary manner, of any navigable lake, or river, bay, stream, canal, or basin, or any public park, square, street, or highway, is a nuisance.
California Code, Health and Safety Code - HSC § 41700
Current as of January 01, 2023 | Updated by Findlaw Staff
California Health and Safety Code § 41700 protects against anyone discharging air emissions that “that cause injury, detriment, nuisance or annoyance”.
(a) Except as otherwise provided in Section 41705, a person shall not discharge from any source whatsoever quantities of air contaminants or other material that cause injury, detriment, nuisance, or annoyance to any considerable number of persons or to the public, or that endanger the comfort, repose, health, or safety of any of those persons or the public, or that cause, or have a natural tendency to cause, injury or damage to business or property.
(b) This section shall become operative on January 1, 2014.
The exclusions in HSC § 41705 do not apply to cannabis, as cannabis is not included as an agricultural crop by the State.
************************************************************************
Transcript from the October 28 BOS meeting, where County Counsel states what including cannabis under local Right to Farm laws does (notifies prospective buyers, prevents nuisance lawsuits under local law but not under state laws) and does not (does not override state nuisance and RTF laws) (emphasis added.)
8:15-16. Sita Kuteira. To clarify, the local Right to Farm Ordinance one of the primary purposes is disclosure. Our local Right to Farm Ordinance requires disclosure for real estate transactions in ag land and within 300 feet of ag land as well as disclosures for discretionary development applications. Those disclosures have to be recorded on the parcel. So the idea being if you live within 300 feet or if you live within ag land or if you’re developing you’re recognizing that there might be agricultural nuisances. The idea being that that itself will avoid conflict because people already know what they’re getting themselves into. Most nuisance litigation will be through state statute and there’s a state Right to Farm statute. Our local ordinance will not impact what qualifies as agriculture under the state statute or what constitutes a nuisance under state law. So this will be for our disclosure purposes as well as what constitutes a nuisance under just our local ordinance.