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.
UPDATED: Please read and follow our commenting policy: