Santa Rosa Planning Commission rejects ban on commercial growing of medical pot

A temporary ban on the commercial cultivation of medical marijuana was rejected Thursday by the Santa Rosa Planning Commission over concerns about criminalizing an activity that is rapidly gaining wide acceptance and is headed toward legalization.

Commissioners agreed that the ban, which was proposed to help the city preserve local control of marijuana cultivation, made little sense given a council subcommittee’s recent decision to go in a different direction.

A City Council marijuana subcommittee voted unanimously earlier this week to recommend a more permissive set of land-use-based regulations. That direction seemed to resonate with planning commissioners.

“I don’t want to turn anybody into a criminal overnight,” Vice Chairman Peter Stanley said.

A crowd of about 40 medical marijuana supporters burst into applause after the commission unanimously rejected the ban.

City Attorney Caroline Fowler had recommended that the city ban commercial marijuana cultivation temporarily as a simple way to ensure there was some type of local regulation in place by March 1. Cities that don’t have such rules in place by then risk forfeiting that right under the Medical Marijuana Regulation and Safety Act, last year’s landmark state legislation aimed at comprehensive regulation of the medical marijuana industry.

Assemblyman Jim Wood, D-Healdsburg, has said the March 1 date was an error and he has introduced legislation to remove it, but it remains unclear if that will happen.

Fowler argued last month that absent certainty that the deadline would be lifted, the city should assume it wouldn’t be and act to protect its local regulatory rights. Instead of racing to craft its own cultivation rules by the deadline or adopting another community’s, Fowler suggested the city just ban commercial cultivation temporarily and then get to work crafting local guidelines to replace the ban.

The ban would not have applied to personal cultivation, which is exempt under state law.

The proposal nevertheless sparked concern and intense debate in the local medical marijuana industry about what ban would mean for growers in the community.

“Cultivation of cannabis in Sonoma County is rivaled only by winemaking as an agricultural enterprise,” said Robert Jacob, executive director of Peace in Medicine, a dispensary with locations in Sebastopol and Santa Rosa.

Jacob said Santa Rosa had “tens of thousands of citizens who thrive and live off of the medical cannabis economy” and that they did so legally.

He said he was worried that a ban would have “adverse consequences” on patients and growers.

“By banning this activity, you will immediately push members of your community into the black market and out of compliance,” Jacob said

In voting down the ban, the commission urged the City Council to pass the temporary set of regulations recommended by the subcommittee, and to get to work crafting appropriate long-term zoning regulations governing where such activities can take place.

The temporary regulations would allow commercial cultivation only in general commercial, light industrial, or general industrial zoning districts of the city with a special permit.

The city has broad discretion over the regulations it can impose on businesses that apply for what are known as conditional use permits. They typically take several months, require public hearings and cost more than $10,000.

Stanley and others expressed concern that growers who go in for a permit under the temporary rules may win approval under different rules than those later enacted by the city.

Personal cultivation limits would default to the existing state rules. Under current state law, patients can have six mature or 12 immature plants, plus 8 ounces of processed cannabis per patient.

Several cities in Sonoma County have been scrambling to update their local marijuana growing regulations in advance of the deadline, including Cloverdale and Petaluma, both of which imposed limits on outdoor growing.

Santa Rosa’s proposal will go to the City Council on Tuesday, and if passed would come back to the Planning Commission for approval. But because the deadline still looms, in order to get it passed in time, the City Council would need to take the unusual actions of approving the regulations as what is known as an urgency ordinance. These go into effect immediately and require five of seven votes to approve.

You can reach Staff Writer Kevin McCallum at 521-5207 or kevin.mccallum@pressdemocrat.com. On Twitter @srcitybeat.