Fertile Sonoma town hall on cannabis cultivation, regulation

Marijuana is a growth industry, and it’s time to bring it out of the closet.

That was the message of the first town hall gathering of the county’s Medical Marijuana Ad Hoc Committee, held Monday evening at the Sonoma Valley Veterans Memorial Hall, and chaired by one of the two County Supervisors on that committee, the first district’s Susan Gorin.

“We’ve been working on how the county might organize itself to consider various aspects of the cultivation and regulation of medical cannabis, as well as preparing for the potential for the legalization of recreational marijuana,” said Gorin.

Her first collaborator on the Ad Hoc committee, David Rabbitt, was replaced by Efren Carrillo earlier this year because, among other reasons, there’s probably more cannabis cultivation in Carrillo’s district than in Rabbitt’s. The committee hopes to bring policy recommendations before the Board of Supervisors before Carrillo’s term ends later this year.

Over 100 people attended the town hall, most coming to lend their voices and ideas to the process of defining the county’s responsibilities and regulations in managing what is by all accounts a huge, albeit largely underground economy.

“We knew that we needed to create a safe environment for people to comment,” said Gorin, citing not only the series of five town hall meetings, but an anonymous online survey now underway asking for input on where and how much cultivation should be allowed.

But if anyone felt unsafe about discussing marijuana cultivation, they didn’t show up at the meeting anyway. Comments were written by marker pens on long sheets of butcher paper that covered five tables, each addressing specific areas of concern about the regulation of medicinal, if not recreational marijuana.

Some of the comments were gobsmackingly obvious, but needed to be stated anyway: “Tons of new jobs and revenue from taxes from the removal of the black market,” wrote one.

Some were plaintive: “Give existing cultivators ‘safe harbor’ when applying for permits.”

Others were self-serving: “Build experts in the county that can train growers organic pesticide techniques and practices. I’m for hire.”

Representatives from each county agency tasked with managing areas of county regulation were present, including Tony Linegar, chairing a table on the Agricultural and Environment issues; Tim Ricard of the Economic Development Board on jobs and economic development; the issues of taxation and revenue fell naturally to Robert Lawton of the County Administrator’s office; concerns about health and human services were represented by the assistant director of the Human Services Department, Karen Fies.

Code enforcement fell to Tennis Wick, director of the Permit and Resource Management Department, though Sonoma Police Chief Brett Sacket was also there in a less formal role. Greg Martin of Sonoma County Fire and Emergency Services was also on hand, in uniform, since commercial or residential processing can easily become a public safety issue, as multiple hash oil fires attest.

The effort to reassess the county’s marijuana cultivation and enforcement policies is driven by the new state Medical Marijuana Regulation and Safety Act, a three-part codification of the medical cannabis industry in California. Two key components of the act were written by North Bay state legislators Jim Wood of the state assembly and state Sen. Mike McGuire, a former Sonoma County supervisor.

“It is within that context that just about all the county departments have come together in a number of different working groups to consider the ramifications of county regulation,” said Gorin, “and begin to work with the cities on trying to craft something so that we are as uniform as possible.”

Still, there was room for Valley residents to complain about the wildfire growth of cannabis cultivation, especially as it infiltrates residential neighborhoods with walled-off and possibly unoccupied residences that serve as “grow-houses” – and weaken quality of life.

“The stink is horrible,” said Sharon Church of Glen Ellen. She was concerned not just about the smell, or any illegality of the operation, but the security of having such a business next door. That, and the fact that the house next door was no longer a home to neighbors.

“If it’s a commercial endeavor, it belongs in a commercial zone,” said Church.

Others echoed that frustration, including one comment scribbler who wrote succinctly, “It’s a neighborhood, it’s not a business. People are paying a price.”

But the tantalizing smell of revenue was in the air, too. “I totally support a tax on marijuana,” composed one. “It is a big business with huge revenue with no accountability to its impacts on our community. The tax is needed to pay the costs to regulate it safely. Why would medical vs. recreational be taxed separately? It’s all revenue to the growers.”

Another voice had an answer: “Medical vs. recreational should be taxed differently. My child’s current bill for oils for seizures is $800/mo. This is without taxation – you can imagine the burden on parents and families if the tax rate is too high.”

Where the prospective revenue from taxation and licensing would go, aside from administering the regulation itself, also drew some interesting ideas.

“Please spend taxes on schools and homeless issues,” penned one.

“The candidates in the West County supervisorial race are talking about ‘pot for potholes’ so it could generate funding for some of our roads,” said Supervisor Gorin.

Though there were clear differences in direction and priority, overall the town hall showed remarkable unanimity: marijuana is here, it’s here to stay, and it brings with it both good and bad. The paranoia and renegade attitudes of the past were largely gone, up in smoke as it were – reduced to ashes by the widespread perceived inevitability of legalization.

Contact Christian at christian.kallen@sonomanews.com.