- Home
- News Grid
- Local News
- Green Hawk
- Business
- Politics
- School Zone
- Nonprofits
- Missing Pets
- Multimedia
- Arts
- Movies
- Outdoors
- Sports
- News Releases
- Columnists
- Blogs
- Opinions
- Classifieds
- Advertise
- Donate
- Partners
Committee Moves to Craft Revised Medical-Marijuana Ordinance
Tangible progress was made at Tuesday’s Ordinance Committee meeting regarding the city’s medical-marijuana dispensary ordinance.
Councilmen Das Williams, Dale Francisco and Grant House directed staff to craft a revised ordinance with their new recommendations, which have been discussed during the past few months. City Attorney Stephen Wiley said a draft most likely would be ready in two to three weeks.
The committee has had difficulty with its task, given the legal status of medical marijuana and the interpretation of state laws.
Earlier this week, the Obama administration announced that the federal government would leave medical-marijuana decisions up to the states, and that properly operated storefront-type collectives might be legal.
The interpretation of California’s laws, including the storefront vs. collective model, will be one of the items up for discussion when the ordinance is tackled by the City Council. For now, the committee’s task was to revise the ordinance, which allows dispensaries under city law.
Francisco and the Council on Alcoholism and Drug Abuse are among those in the community who support an outright ban on dispensaries.
“The dispensary model just grew up on its own,” he said. “We’re under no compulsion to go against state law; in fact, it’s just the opposite. Dispensaries violate state law, in my opinion.”
For Santa Barbara residents, main concerns regarding dispensaries have been location, proliferation and the misuse of products.
Recommendations included a citywide cap of seven dispensaries, with one per specified region. The option to expand zoning availability to C-0 and C-1 zones was not included.
“Before we expand, we want to constrain until we get it right,” Williams said.
Including a 1,000-foot dispensary-free zone around Casa Esperanza was included, acknowledging the area as special needs, though the proposed Milpas Recovery Zone doesn’t yet exist.
“At least in the immediate vicinity, there will be no temptation there,” Francisco said.
The regulation of dispensaries and enforcement of those that are illegal or nonconforming was addressed in the form of increased security requirements.
Committee members suggested providing dispensaries with a banned list of known resellers, and having the option to shut down the facility if people sell to those on the list. The Santa Barbara School District has been vocal about concerns with patients reselling or dispensaries directly providing products to students.
An added tool for enforcing operational requirements would be yearly reviews, conducted jointly by the Santa Barbara Police Department and the Planning Division’s staff hearing officer.
Armando Martel of the police department said its new computer system flags dispensary-related incidents now, in order to get better statistics and see if crime problems are real or perceived.
The amount of time existing nonconforming dispensaries have to comply or close down may change to six months from the date of the ordinance’s adoption. In addition, it has been recommended that the staff hearing officer, who reviews applications, get more discretion in deciding the possible negative effects of a dispensary.
Committee members also recommended that appeals continue to go through the Planning Commission, and that applications provide full cost recovery for the city.
“If we create the ordinance correctly, we should provide better guidance and shouldn’t need to make it a policy decision every time,” Williams said.
While dispensary owners may breathe easier knowing that the federal government won’t be as interested in their facilities, they’re facing more challenges as Santa Barbara’s ordinance gets tighter.
A ban on dispensaries in existing mixed-use buildings has been one of the most talked about issues during the meetings.
The conditionally approved dispensary at Paseo Chapala has been the lightening rod for the debate, as it would reside below dozens of condominiums.
Applicant JoAnna LaForce of The Farmacy could be denied her permit, as the Planning Commission appeal hearing isn’t scheduled until December.
Residents of West Hollywood, where another Farmacy is located, spoke on behalf of the facility and its problem-free past.
Existing mixed-use buildings with condominiums for sale, as of the adoption date, would be off-limits, making The Farmacy nonconforming. As of now, it’s the only dispensary, approved or in the process, in danger of being affected by the requirement.
The rationale behind it is that the building’s covenants, conditions and restrictions have been long established and didn’t plan for dispensaries being a possible commercial tenant. Paseo Chapala residents have turned out to every meeting opposing The Farmacy.
“I think it’s pretty clear people don’t want to live where dispensaries are,” resident Jeff Roland said.
— Noozhawk staff writer Giana Magnoli can be reached at .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address).
Comments
Noozhawk's comments are moderated, but by posting here you accept your responsibility to follow our rules as part of Noozhawk's shared online community. Please keep your comments civil and helpful. Don't attack other readers personally, and do not use vulgar, abusive or discriminatory language. Use the "Report Abuse" link if a comment violates these standards or our Terms of Use.
» on 10.21.09 @ 05:54 AM
Seems like the Farmacy is getting an unfair deal. From what I’ve heard everything they have done is by the book and have had a lot of support from the community. Seems strange to change the law for one developer and a few home owners when there are many more supporters out there. I heard a rumour that the staff removed the ban on multi-use buildings on a prior draft of the ordinance. I hope the upcoming elections don’t have an affect on council and ordinance members decisions, maybe this will lose them votes of the supporters.
You don't have permission to flag this entry.
» on 10.21.09 @ 06:47 AM
Why do the residents not want it there when the The Farmacy is willing to put in extra security cameras or actual security guards? That would make their condominium safer than without The Farmacy being there.
You don't have permission to flag this entry.
» on 10.21.09 @ 07:04 AM
While I disagree with Dale Francisco on most things, yesterday he got it right on this pot issue. An outright BAN on these types of pot shop facilities is the right thing to do for downtown SB, especially in ALL MIXED USE PROJECTS.
Let the Farmacy go out to the farm to set up shop, not right downtown underneath private residences and next to adjacent legitimate businesses. If Paseo Chapala wants to become the vibrant center of safe / secure / pedestrian oriented family activity that should be the focus of downtown…. the Farmacy is a certain death knell to that vision. Dale don’t give up your fight for what I clearly right, we don’t need to encourage or allow drug dealers to turn our downtown into a DRUG HAVEN. Come on City leaders stand up for what is right!
You don't have permission to flag this entry.
» on 10.21.09 @ 08:42 AM
We need to either ban these things, or make them closed-loop collectives with no sale allowed. I can’t believe LA is being tougher on this than bumpkinville Santa Barbara. The Farmacy is getting a very fair deal - all the neighbors in that area, except the owner of Esau’s, don’t want the dispensary going in. She just wants to make millions selling pot to Santa Barbara. We don’t need it, thanks. It was supposed to be MEDICINAL use, not recreational, in colas and snacks, like she retails it. That’s just pandering to the recreational crowd, and nothing in our state law authorizes that.
You don't have permission to flag this entry.
» on 10.21.09 @ 10:00 AM
A step in the right direction, but this downtown voter won’t be satisfied until the dispensaries are all gone.
You don't have permission to flag this entry.
» on 10.21.09 @ 02:13 PM
I think they should model this after the system in Oakland. They have one district that allows dispensaries. All sales are taxed at a higher than sales tax rate and the industry is more easily regulated.
You don't have permission to flag this entry.
» on 10.21.09 @ 02:30 PM
Who is watching out for our kids these days?? I certainly would never drop my teenager off at Paseo Nuevo to shop, eat or go to the theater knowing that across the street is a dispensary where marijuana is being sold. There is enough for a parent of a teenager to have to worry about already without having to worry about Santa Barbara “safe” areas and Santa Barbara “drug free” areas! I don’t blame the families who live upstairs for being concerned and not wanting this kind of activity in what they are proud to call their “home”! I certainly wouldn’t want it in my neighborhood.
You don't have permission to flag this entry.
» on 10.21.09 @ 04:24 PM
You all treat the dispensaries like they are some sort of crack house. Do any of you know anything about how the dispensaries in this town work other than what you read on the internet? Go stand out of Hortipharm on upper State st and look at they kind of people going in and out. I guarantee you’ll be in for a surprise, or maybe not, depends on if ordinary comes as a surprise to you. And for you parents worried about dropping your kids off at the mall while the Farmacy is there, i know for a fact they’ll have a better chance of getting some bud at any one of our city’s many junior highs and high schools. Trust me i know these schools are what introduced me to drugs. Oh and you have to be 18+ and have a medical card to gain access to a dispensary, which i doubt your little teenager will have. SO DONT WORRY ABOUT IT
You don't have permission to flag this entry.
» on 10.21.09 @ 05:45 PM
Dale Francisco just lost my vote. He was happy to allow dispensaries before and is now taking a super -conservative view as the Federal government continues to loosen up and allow states to regulate.
What is the collective model everyone talks about? It’s a fantasy. Its a step backwards. No storefront, No taxes, No regulation = back to the black market. I applaud SB for continuing to purse it’s regulated dispensaries!
You don't have permission to flag this entry.
» on 10.21.09 @ 06:57 PM
The Department of Justice guidelines make it clear that federal prosecutors will still go after commercial enterprises that sell marijuana for profit so anyone opening up had better get the collective, non-profit model figured out:
http://blogs.usdoj.gov/blog/archives/192
You don't have permission to flag this entry.
More Local News »
SBCC Receives But Won’t Release Draft of Findings from State Oversight Commission
The college has 30 days to respond, after which the ACCJC is expected to issue a public decision
County Supervisors Approve First Reading of Oil Pipeline Agreement for Venoco
Next week's public meeting the last step before the company can begin operations
Goleta Seeks Public Input on Law Enforcement Services
Participants are needed for two focus groups scheduled for Feb. 15
City Council Authorizes Design Contract for Redevelopment of Cliff Drive Intersection
Tuesday's meeting is dedicated to Santa Barbara filmmaker Mike deGruy, who died in a helicopter crash; a memorial service is planned for Sunday
Goleta Woman Accused of Having Sex with Teen Boy
Sheriff's Department says victim recently came forward about 2008 relationship
Weather: Fair 44.0º
Search Noozhawk »
