PD Editorial: Why the rush on adoption of cannabis rules, Sonoma County?

It’s not often that we call government to task for moving too quickly. But we’ll make an exception in this case.

Why is the Board of Supervisors in such a hurry to adopt the county’s comprehensive cannabis regulations by today?

Hardly a month has passed since California voters approved Proposition 64, legalizing the recreational use of marijuana. And it’s only been about 10 days since Sonoma County residents had their first look at the complex rules the county has in mind for regulating the cultivation and sale of marijuana throughout the area. Yes, these technically started out as rules for regulating medicinal marijuana, but the passage of Proposition 64 has changed all of that. This is the framework that will be in place for all cannabis activity for a long time to come.

Given that, this marks a monumental shift not only in law but in land-use - a shift with the potential for significant impacts on everything from property values to county finances to the quality of life of rural residents. It’s important to get this right.

After having received public testimony last week and approving plans to go to voters on March 7 with a tax measure on marijuana sales, the supervisors appear ready to cut off public debate today and take a final vote. We see little need to hurry this all-important ordinance.

That’s not to suggest that these regulations have been put together on the fly or that we disagree with where the county is headed. On the contrary, it represents months of work by county workers, efforts triggered by Gov. Jerry Brown signing the Medical Marijuana Regulation and Safety Act 14 months ago, creating a legal framework for medical cannabis cultivation, manufacturing, distribution and sales.

At first, cities and counties faced a deadline of March 1 to come up with their own rules. But that deadline was lifted by the Legislature and now local jurisdictions have an indefinite amount of time to develop their own regulations.

The ordinance proposed by the county would allow commercial cultivation in agricultural and industrial zones and possibly in rural residential areas as well. It would require growers to apply for permits, which include sizeable fees to help pay for code enforcement officers to oversee new regulations. (The tax measure is intended to fund most of it.) Growers would be required to live full time on the property where they are growing, be responsive to concerns raised by neighbors, agree to regular inspections and abide by a host of other regulations.

But the big question concerns whether and how much commercial cultivation the supervisors will allow in rural residential areas.

Residents have legitimate concerns about the impacts, from the pungent aroma to the increased risk of crime. It’s one reason why a number of cities including Sonoma, Windsor and Healdsburg have banned the growing of nonmedical marijuana in outdoor gardens. The county appears headed to allowing some operations in rural residential zones, possibly on lots of 2 acres or more. The bigger the better in our view.

Wherever that line is drawn, supervisors should keep in mind that it will be easier to make regulations looser than tighter later. They also should keep in mind that efficiency - and creativity, at least in finding compromises - should not come at the expense of expediency. The county has time to get this right. If supervisors need it, they should use it.