Sonoma County to decide on future of marijuana growing outside city limits

Sonoma County supervisors are poised Tuesday to break the standoff over whether to allow marijuana cultivation for profit in rural neighborhoods on the outskirts of the county’s nine cities, a closely watched land-use decision that could set the tone for the broader regulatory approach to the emerging legal marijuana trade.

The high-stakes dispute involves residents who live outside city limits concerned about crime and nuisances in their neighborhoods, and cottage-sized cannabis farmers who fear being put out of business or edged out into agricultural zones, where land is more expensive and difficult to come by.

The set of regulations would allow commercial cultivation in agricultural and industrial zones, a historic move that the Board of Supervisors appears to support. But the board appears split on a highly disputed proposal to allow cultivation in rural residential neighborhoods, a practice that has long been underway but remains a gray area under county laws.

Supervisor James Gore, the junior member on the board halfway through his first term, is sharply opposed to commercial cultivation in rural neighborhoods. Supervisor Efren Carrillo, the board chairman who is set to step down next month at the end of his second term, said an outright ban in such areas could cripple the county’s effort to tax and regulate marijuana growers.

“That is where there is going to be the most consternation for the board,” Carrillo said. “I have concerns that if we’re too prohibitive in what we allow in the (rural residential) zones, we may have the unintended consequences of sending folks back underground into the black market again. That, to me, is problematic.”

The package of regulations is up for a formal vote Tuesday, with the disputed proposal focusing on rural residential lots of 2 acres or more. Should the board outlaw growing in rural residential zones, the county runs the risk of undermining its own effort to encourage growers to come out of the legal shadows and agree to be taxed and regulated, said industry representatives and rural pot farmers.

“We want to participate in a safe and legal market, but it’s imperative that the county allow for a transition period for farmers growing in the rural residential neighborhoods,” said Tawnie Logan, executive director of the Sonoma County Growers Alliance. “Neighbors are afraid they’re going to be surrounded by all these pot farms, but we’re not proposing any new development. We’re saying if you are a pre-existing operator in a rural residential zone, let us come in and apply for a permit and prove that we’re good neighbors, too.”

Logan and other growers said allowing cultivation in rural neighborhoods is essential for small-scale growers and county’s cannabis industry overall. Land is less expensive, they note, and many farmers have long-established neighborhood operations - none of them formally approved for commercial purposes. Those properties are essential as the industry transitions to larger agricultural and industrial areas, cannabis representatives said.

But that can’t happen overnight, Logan said.

“We have to support small farmers and allow them to obtain a permit while we work on our transition plan,” Logan said. “We want to develop cooperatives and greenhouses so we can compete in the market with these big operations that are already starting to come in, but we need a couple years to make that transition happen.”

The board’s vote could be pivotal in the stakes for a proposed marijuana tax that will go before voters in the unincorporated areas of the county in March. Revenue from the tax on cultivation - 35 cents to $18.75 per square foot, equating to an estimated $6.3 million in the first year - would fund enforcement of the new regulations.

Should supervisors ban cultivation on rural residential parcels, the cannabis industry could mount a strong campaign against the tax. However, should supervisors allow cultivation on the same properties, rural residents could prove an equally unhappy voting bloc.

“We’re worried about safety … it feels like an alien force has moved in,” said Anne Seeley, a rural resident who lives outside Santa Rosa. “There’s been violence and thefts and guns. Accommodations have to be made for marijuana because it’s here, but it doesn’t have to be in our neighborhoods.”

There are an estimated 3,000 cannabis farmers operating outside city limits and more than 81,000 people living on land designated for rural residential use.

The proposed marijuana regulations and the proposed tax measure and enforcement are closely entwined, officials acknowledged.

“The board has made it clear that without the tax measure, you have no ordinance and then you have no permitting process and without a permitting process, you have the status quo, and that’s not working,” Carrillo said. “We’re not starting from a blank slate. We have thousands of operators, some of them good and some of them bad; my goal is to find that balance that will convince them to come out of the shadows and at the same time, adopt an ordinance that addresses community concerns.

“This is going to be a very tough call for this board to make,” Carrillo said.

Gore said he supports medical marijuana and he voted in favor of legalizing recreational use, but he views commercial growing in areas zoned rural residential as incompatible with existing neighborhoods.

“If you allow growing in rural residential, you’re opening up a lot of properties to being sold and converted into grow operations. That’s housing stock. That’s our neighbors,” said Gore, who lives outside Healdsburg. “I have a grow within 300 feet of my house and it smells like a skunk. My kids run around our residential neighborhood and that causes me concern.”

The conflicts have surfaced in greater number over the past year as the county developed its proposed regulations. Significant concerns remain about crime, traffic and the impact on water supplies.

“The odors are completely intolerable and we have family members who can’t bring their children over,” said Renee Owen, a rural resident who declined to say where in the county she lives out of fear for her safety. “Cultivation brings crime.”

Local growers said they, too, are concerned about curbing crime and nuisances for neighbors.

“I run a peaceful organic medicine farm. But the way the gray market is right now can be dangerous because people don’t feel like they can go to law enforcement when a dangerous situation comes up,” said David Scott, a rural grower who runs a local cannabis cooperative, speaking generally about the industry. “We see law enforcement as an asset in terms of safety, just like anyone else.”

Logan and others said the local ordinance can help protect local pot farmers who are trying to do the right thing.

“These aren’t locals shooting and stabbing each other. Those are people coming in from out of town robbing vulnerable farmers,” she said.

She referenced an October shooting tied to a marijuana deal outside Sebastopol that left two people dead. The two suspects, yet to be apprehended, are believed to be from Philadelphia or New Jersey, according to Sonoma County sheriff’s officials.

Scott and other growers said they want to run legal businesses and comply with the county’s proposed regulations, but immediately relocating to larger properties zoned for agriculture is not financially feasible.

“I understand the concerns, but we are part of these neighborhoods, too, and this is our livelihood,” Scott said. “Last year I was really excited. I thought finally, it’s not going to be this gray market. But as things have progressed, that reality seems less and less likely. We just want to be able to apply for a permit … We’re looking for common ground.”

Debra Tsouprake, a medical marijuana grower and distributor, said the proposal to allow cultivation on parcels more than 2 acres in size in rural neighborhoods is critical for the success of smaller growers in the cottage industry.

“I hope they do not ban rural residential growing,” she said. “It will mean many of us are out of compliance and force us back underground in the black market when we are trying to come out and comply with the law.”

Supervisors David Rabbitt and Shirlee Zane expressed significant concerns about allowing growing in rural neighborhoods.

“It’s not good land-use planning to legalize everyone whose operating today. The argument that they’re already doing it doesn’t fly,” he said. “Either way, I believe people are going to remain underground, or have feet in both. There’s always going to be a large percentage of black market activity and the ordinance is not going to change that.”

Supervisor Susan Gorin said she is open to both sides.

“We want neighborhoods to have some assurance, but I do think if we are too restrictive, convincing people to come out of the darkness will be fraught with challenges,” she said.

The proposed ordinance would require growers to apply for permits, which include paying hefty fees to fund additional code enforcement officers to oversee new regulations. The ordinance also includes strong measures requiring growers to address issues raised by neighbors.

Growers would be required to live full time on the property where they are operating. They’d have to consent to regular inspections, equip their operations with their own sustainable water source and be run on entirely renewable energy, with the exception for purchasing carbon offsets. The ordinance would also ban growers from keeping firearms or any weapon on their premises.

A county spokeswoman, Rebecca Wachsberg, called the permit standards “unbelievably robust.”

“They were developed to meet every single concern raised by neighbors,” said Wachsberg, a deputy county administrator. “Agreeing to get a permit is agreeing to follow certain rules and we feel that with what we developed, all risks can be mitigated.”

You can reach Staff Writer Angela Hart at 707-526-8503 or angela.hart@pressdemocrat.com. On Twitter @ahartreports.