Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Cannabis Policy topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Sonoma council unanimously defers second dispensary RFP, cites market timing and staff priorities
Summary
After extensive public comment from operators, advocates and residents, the Sonoma City Council voted unanimously to not issue an RFP for a second cannabis storefront now and directed staff to revisit the topic only if it becomes a council priority (e.g., during goal setting).
The Sonoma City Council voted unanimously Sept. 17 to withhold issuing an RFP for additional cannabis business permits and directed staff not to spend time developing updated fees, application guidelines or an RFP at this time.
City Manager David Guin and Community Development Director Jennifer Gates presented background: the council amended local code in 2021 to allow a second storefront retailer but no RFP was launched in 2023. Staff said issuing a new RFP would require staff time to update ordinance language, ensure consistency with state law, draft application materials and possibly hire consultant support to review applications. Staff also noted state tax data showing retail dollar sales are falling, which could affect whether a second shop creates net new tax revenue for Sonoma.
Public comment was split. Spark (the city’s existing licensed dispensary) and its representatives urged caution, arguing statewide price compression and lower sales mean a second storefront could merely divide existing demand and reduce revenue per store. Spark representatives said transactions have risen since opening but per‑transaction sales and prices have fallen, reducing gross receipts.
Opponents of monopoly and local proponents — including the Sonoma Valley Cannabis Group and several prospective operators — urged the council to release an RFP to increase consumer choice, reduce illicit market activity and create local jobs. Speakers cited examples (Healdsburg, Sebastopol) where multiple operators coexist.
Council discussion focused on timing, staff capacity and local market size. Several members said they support the policy goal of fair competition or greater access, but they did not want to divert staff away from higher priorities such as housing and general plan work. The motion carried unanimously to defer issuing an RFP and to bring the question back only if it is added to future council goal‑setting.
What this means: No new local process to license an additional storefront will begin now. Staff will not draft or circulate an RFP or update fee schedules until the council directs otherwise (for example, by including it in the next goals review).
