Wading into uncharted waters, the Woodland City Council is taking a cautious approach when it comes to crafting rules for commercial cannabis.
Apart from cultivation, the once illegal industry brings with it many others — from processing operations and testing labs to retail storefronts, there is a lot to consider once Proposition 64 takes full effect starting Jan. 1, 2018. The statewide measure has caused many local jurisdictions to dive into the topic, tasked with creating regulations for their respective areas so that statewide rules don’t kick in without any local say.
The City of Woodland is no exception. Council members took another step Tuesday night, giving further direction to staff on what might work best for Woodland specifically. Like other governing bodies, council members have been keeping their eyes on their neighbors. For instance, city staff have watched as Yolo County supervisors chipped away at a countywide ordinance. In several largely attended meetings regarding the cannabis ordinance, supervisors have installed interim policy that will likely cement by the January 2018 deadline.
Current county policy requires growers to occupy limited amounts of space, though growers can create small cooperatives under that hold only one set of proper licenses and permits. Moreover, residents may cultivate and care for up to six living cannabis plants on their property for the sake of personal use — they may not sell that cannabis. The county has struggled to find an appropriate place for cannabis. With a thriving agricultural focus, Yolo could make some serious green, placing it in private and public coffers. Conversely, Yolo must still support traditional crops and long-time farming operations that have set the area apart from neighboring counties. The county’s agriculture commissioner John Young has worked closely with growers — there are 64 in the county with proper licensure — to create infrastructure for the crop.
Track-and-trace programs now document the journey of every single bud of cannabis grown on Yolo soil. Likewise, third-party testing and inspections have been conducted to reveal clean, healthy plants. As a whole, many growers have commended Young for his efforts to bridge the cannabis industry to the agricultural economy.
However, what works for a county may not fit for a city. “We need to determine what the appropriate menu of uses is for the city of Woodland,” explained Cindy Norris, a principal city planner who briefed the council on the status of the cannabis ordinance Tuesday night. The “check in” served as a way for staff to gauge the council’s feelings on items such as where cannabis cultivation should take place in Woodland, what their thoughts were on dispensaries and storefronts, and what other related industries, such as testing labs, should be encompassed in future regulations. While many of these questions remain unanswered, the council seemed to be in agreement that outdoor cultivation within city limits should be prohibited.
However, the group was open to the idea of indoor grows — and other facilities such as testing labs — most likely set up in the industrial part of town to allow a buffer between cannabis operations and places like residences or schools. “As we learn more and as the industry matures we can potentially expand a lot of those regulations in the future so this initial framework should not be viewed as the city’s final decision on how we want to regulate commercial cannabis,” Community Development Director Ken Hiatt clarified. “This is really our initial approach on how we want to navigate these waters.”
Much of their discussion focused on whether the city should embrace the retail side of cannabis, including storefronts and dispensaries. During the public comment session, a few representatives from the latter explained the necessity of dispensaries for medical marijuana patients, likening the establishments to pharmacies.
One speaker, who represented a dispensary in Sacramento, said it would be ridiculous to expect Woodlanders to drive 30 minutes to go to a pharmacy. Their words gave council members something to think about when talks turned to retail. Councilman Tom Stallard said he was open to the idea of retail, just not right away.
“I think what is being proposed for now is right for now,” he said. “We can always expand, it’s harder to contract.” Councilwoman Xóchitl Rodriguez echoed these sentiments. She would also like to “hold back” on the retail side, focusing on commercial facilities, such as indoor grows, instead. “We are taking baby steps because we don’t know what’s going to work for our community at the moment,” Rodriguez said.
For Mayor Angel Barajas, he was on board with the idea of dispensaries, but wanted to think about the number to avoid “opening the floodgates” with them. “We need to see what the market is in Woodland,” he said, noting he sees cannabis as “an opportunity for economic development” including more jobs. Barajas also supported the inclusion of testing labs and research facilities within the city’s industrial district.
Meanwhile, Councilman Enrique Fernandez wanted more information about the ripple effects — property values, local economy, etc. — before making any concrete decisions. This thought process extended to retail aspects as well. “This is something I am honestly on the fence about,” he said. “I am not sure exactly where I stand.”
Councilman Skip Davies took a similar stance, posing some questions of his own for staff to investigate. Mainly, however, he wanted to know what the economic benefits would be for the city and “does the liability chew up” these benefits. “There are still a lot of unknowns,” Stallard concluded. “We are going to have to tiptoe through this.”
(1189)
Leave A Reply