Rural residents, marijuana growers clash over Sonoma County pot ordinance

Sonoma County marijuana growers and rural residents made it clear Thursday they do not always see eye to eye about how best to sanction medical pot cultivation in their neighborhoods.

Before a standing-room-only gathering at the Board of Supervisors’ hearing chambers in Santa Rosa, tension arose as growers, neighbors and others aired concerns for nearly three hours with county planning commissioners about a recently proposed marijuana land use ordinance.

On one side, rural residents expressed fear of inappropriately large marijuana operations flourishing near their homes, threatening the stability and security of their communities and creating potential environmental problems. On the other, growers argued that restricting their industry too much would drive more of it into the black market.

The divergent views highlighted the tricky task ahead for the Planning Commission and other county officials, who must weigh the benefits of regulating marijuana land use against what residents say is best for their quality of life.

“I think we can’t completely blow up the idea of having grow operations in rural residential (areas), because if you over regulate, then you tend to create the black market you’re trying to stop,” said Planning Commissioner Komron Shahhosseini after the hearing’s public comment portion.

“That being said, to get the security requirements that we have in rural residential areas ... they’re antithetical to what makes a neighborhood a neighborhood. It’s going to be a tough one.”?After hearing comments from the public, the Planning Commission worked its way through specific policy issues related to the medical marijuana ordinance, taking “straw votes” but not making any final decisions. The commission is preparing to send recommendations to the Board of Supervisors, which will consider the ordinance in December - just after California voters may have approved marijuana for recreational use.?The biggest debate voiced to the Planning Commission regarded the type of commercial medical marijuana uses the ordinance would allow in areas of the unincorporated county zoned “rural residential.” Staff recommended allowing those zones to house “cottage” growing operations, which could include 25 plants outdoors, 500 square feet of cultivation indoors and 2,500 square feet in a greenhouse.

To show their dissatisfaction about living near any commercial growing operations, some rural residents attending the commission meeting wore signs including the message “Grow away!/this is our home.”

Linda Ortiz, a Montecito Avenue resident in northwest Santa Rosa, said she currently lives near some 40 marijuana plants - too many for that area, in her view. Ortiz was concerned about the safety risk plants posed, particularly after a marijuana-related triple shooting with two fatalities at a rural Sebastopol home earlier this month.

“It’s a real threat to our safety, and we fear what can happen if this continues to be allowed in our neighborhoods,” Ortiz said.

But the Sonoma County Growers Alliance warned that barring any kind of commercial cultivation in rural residential areas could unintentionally make residents’ concerns worse.

Local cultivator David Scott, speaking on behalf of the alliance, said growers may continue to operate on the black market instead of shutting down and argued instead for allowing rural residential grows to become part of a regulated “white market industry.”

“We all need to remember that this is everybody’s home and there is a right way to do this. I just don’t think it’s right to throw the baby out with the bathwater,” Scott said, relaying his personal view to the commission.

Still, resident Karen Gunderson presented the Planning Commission with a petition calling for a ban on commercial cultivation in rural residential areas. Gunderson said after her comments the petition had nearly ?245 signatures.

She also voiced concern about pesticides from pot grows. Yet west county resident Laura Damone told the Planning Commission worries about pesticides should not be aimed so strongly at marijuana when other crops - including grapes - also used them.

The Planning Commission has another hearing set for Nov. 3 and may also meet again Nov. 2 and 7. A public workshop is set for Dec. 2, while the Board of Supervisors has a hearing set for Dec. 6 ahead of potentially adopting the ordinance Dec. 13.

You can reach Staff Writer J.D. Morris at 707-521-5337 or jd.morris@pressdemocrat.com. ?On Twitter @thejdmorris.