Sonoma City Council to revisit dispensary licensing

Cannabis is rising from the ashes in Sonoma.

That much was clear at the end of the Sonoma City Council meeting on Nov. 16, when council members voted to bring back a pair of controversial cannabis matters for consideration at a future meeting.

The first item will be to reconsider granting the Sparc cannabis company a conditional permit to operate a storefront dispensary at 19315 Sonoma Highway. Sparc was narrowly denied approval of an operating permit in a 2-2 vote by the council on Oct. 5.

Second, the council will eye amending the existing city cannabis ordinance in order to allow for a second walk-in retail pot shop in the city limits.

Revisiting the city commercial cannabis ordinance was music to the ears of Sonoma Valley resident Josette Brose Eichar, who lamented during the public comment portion of the meeting that she has to commute to Cotati for her medicinal marijuana.

“I do think the idea of two dispensaries would be great,” said Brose-Eichar, while urging the council to act. “Get a dispensary up and running, and then revisit and amend (the ordinance).”

The council in 2018 established the city’s cannabis ordinance, which allows for a single storefront commercial dispensary in town. But earlier this fall, just as the city seemed ready to award the coveted single license to Sparc, allegations of city council conflict of interest brought the process to a screeching halt.

After a months-long permitting process over the course of the summer in which several dispensary applicants were whittled down to four finalists, the council in October was on the verge of awarding the lone business license to the Santa Rosa-based cannabis company, Sparc.

But prior to an Oct. 5 final vote on the license, City Councilmember Rachel Hundley’s husband, political consultant Sean Hamlin, approached Sparc about managing a campaign to defeat Measure Y, a November ballot initiative that called for multiple cannabis dispensaries to operate in Sonoma.

Hamlin was eventually contracted as the campaign manager for the planned opposition group, Sonoma Residents for Sensible Cannabis Access, but when outcry arose about a potential financial conflict of interest for his councilmember spouse, Hamlin told the Index-Tribune he bowed out of the contract and said the opposition committee never came to fruition.

Despite refuting the allegation of a conflict of interest, Hundley recused herself from the Oct. 5 vote, which led to the 2-2 deadlock, and no approval of a dispensary business license.

At the council’s meeting this week, Hundley called for giving Sparc a second chance.

“I was shocked to watch what happened Oct. 5,” Hundley said, referring to the meeting in which the tie vote came about from her recusal, brought about by what she described as “shenanigans.” “I don’t really understand why it happened, but I am glad we might have an opportunity to revisit this process the city has spent a substantial amount of time completing.”

The four council members in attendance were unanimous in their willingness to bring the Sparc permit back for discussion, but Hundley’s reluctance to consider adding a second commercial dispensary license to the ordinance became a sticking point among the council members. Hundley has previously called for allowing two dispensaries, but at the meeting said she would “not support having that conversation.”

Mayor Logan Harvey described it as “unfortunate” that Hundley was now withdrawing her support for a second dispensary.

“It’s very interesting this sudden change when it’s something that you supported before,” said Harvey. “Now there’s an opportunity to do (a second dispensary), but now you won’t do it, now you don’t support it any longer. It’s interesting.”

Harvey continued to describe Hundley’s reversal on a second dispensary as “interesting,” emphasizing the word twice more in his comments.

Councilmember Amy Harrington also raised concern about only allowing one dispensary to have a license, alleging there was a “doubling down” on granting Sparc a commercial cannabis monopoly.

“It is the definition of a state-sponsored monopoly to say there is one license and one person can have it, selected by the state,” said Harrington. “I understand that super clearly now and I am disturbed that there’s so much going to make sure that Sparc, and Sparc alone, gets the one license.”

Added Harrington: “I’m really uncomfortable with this.”

Harrington had raised similar concerns at the Oct. 5 meeting, describing the single dispensary license as a monopoly and the city’s model for awarding it as “not a good process.” She also referred to “(learning) of relationships that existed” between stakeholders that she felt had influenced the process.

Hundley, however, wouldn’t budge on supporting a discussion of a second dispensary.

“I’m only sticking to the process that we have adopted that we have embarked on and I want to finish it,” said Hundley.

As per city guidelines, council members must first vote to agendize an item for an upcoming meeting, before the item can be discussed by the council in a public. Revisiting the Sparc permit was approved in 4-0-1 vote, while agendizing a second dispensary was approved 3-1-1, with Councilmember Rachel Hundley against.

Councilmember David Cook was not in attendance at the meeting; it was the second meeting he’s missed since being arrested on charges of child molestation. Cook has yet to make a public statement about his ongoing status on the council. Cook didn’t seek reelection to a third term this year and his seat will be taken up by Sonoma resident Jack Ding in mid-December.

The two cannabis-related issues will be agendized for a meeting following Ding’s seating on the council.

Email Jason at Jason.walsh@sonomanews.com.