- Home
- News Grid
- Local News
- Green Hawk
- Politics
- School Zone
- Youth Camps
- Nonprofits
- Missing Pets
- Multimedia
- Arts
- Movies
- Outdoors
- Sports
- News Releases
- Columnists
- Blogs
- Opinions
- Classifieds
- Advertise
- Donate
- Partners
Planning Commission Revokes Permit for Mission Street Pot Dispensary
The Santa Barbara Planning Commission on Thursday revoked a medical-marijuana dispensary permit for 2 W. Mission St. after deciding that a nearby Santa Barbara County Education Office community-based program is considered a school under the ordinance definition.
The facility, referred to as Mission Community School by parents and county administrators who attended Thursday’s meeting, is located rather inconspicuously in an office building near the corner of Mission and State streets.
Hans Edwards, the applicant whose permit was approved Sept. 9 by the staff hearing officer, said he was never aware of the facility, despite neighborhood outreach.
City staff members responsible for the application process also were unaware of the facility until the education office came forward with the information a week after the permit was approved. Commissioners voted 3-2 on Thursday to consider the facility a school and, therefore, declare the permit approval invalid and revoke it.
The school caters to special-needs students transitioning to the community from K-12 education. Students are ages 16 to 22, and presentations showed fewer than 10 students a year since 2006. It’s not on the list of public schools on the county’s Web site.
Edwards’ counsel, Steven Amerikaner, said the applicant has made commitments for the dispensary and argued that the facility couldn’t be considered a “school.” Its mostly over-18 population, the lack of signage in the area and the absence of school crosswalks made it operate outside the ordinance definition, he said.
The nature of the population served — special-needs students — made it unlikely that they would travel to and from the facility unsupervised, so the 500-foot barrier required for K-12 schools isn’t applicable, he said.
Edwards brought up the neighborhood outreach and 800-signature-strong petition for his proposed dispensary and said there were no official appeals to the permit approval (which are different than this public hearing).
Education office administrators, parents and community members spoke against the permit, saying the facility’s students shouldn’t be discriminated against because of their disabilities. Their developmental age is younger than their chronological age, and deserve the same rights and protections as the K-12 schools, they said.
The program’s goal is independence, and most students end up walking around the area to public transportation hubs or restaurants, said Florene Bednersh, the county assistant superintendent for special education.
Those who supported the applicant stressed that the school was unknown, and that it would be unfair to punish Edwards for failures in communication.
“The medical marijuana dispensary will not negatively impact the young people there,” said Sue McKnight, a special-education teacher.
Commissioners expressed frustration that the application went so far without the issue of the school being raised, but agreed with staff that the permit was invalid.
“I am dismayed that the application got this far down the road and got ambushed at this point,” said Commissioner Bendy White, who was elected Tuesday to the Santa Barbara City Council.
Commissioners Bruce Bartlett and John Jostes voted against revoking the permit, saying it was unfair to Edwards and outside the ordinance’s definition of a school.
County administrators said they weren’t aware of the dispensary when confronted by chairman Addison Thompson, who asked why they didn’t come forward as the application went through the permit process.
“Any other stealth schools in the city we should know about?” he asked.
He also asked about the right to protection that parents said the students rightly deserved. “From what?” he asked.
One mother explained that her son could independently travel about town, including visiting nearby bookstores, saying hello to the liquor store manager and taking public transportation.
“Why doesn’t he need protection from a liquor store?” Thompson asked.
The decision can not be appealed, and most likely will end Edwards’ plan to have a dispensary in the city. The revised ordinance is on its way to the City Council and includes a cap of seven for the city.
Currently, there is one permitted, operating dispensary, in addition to three that are approved, seven pending, four nonconforming and several deemed illegal. With the pipeline of applications, all of which are site- and owner-specific, Amerikaner said there’s probably no way Edwards can apply again in Santa Barbara in the near future.
Assistant City Attorney Scott Vincent said there’s no evidence that the school is in any way illegal, or that city or school staff acted in bad faith or a negligent manner.
— 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.
- No abusive, defamatory or libelous attacks. In plain English: No personal attacks.
- No vulgar or discriminatory language.
- If you do not follow these rules, don't be surprised if your comment is removed.
- Please use the Report Abuse button on offensive comments.
- Share what you know, ask about what you don't. Give us your eyewitness accounts, observations, background and history. Tell us what else you want to know about the story.
- Stay on the topic, PLEASE TURN OFF YOUR CAPS LOCK, and forgive people their spelling errors.
Noozhawk's intent is not to limit the discussion of our stories but to elevate it. Thank you for your respectful participation. Click here for our complete Terms of Use.
Comments are moderated, and will not appear until they've been approved.
» on 11.05.09 @ 11:01 PM
Apparently its OK to have a gun shop next to a school, but not a dispensary??
» on 11.06.09 @ 12:23 AM
The City of SB administrative players continue their independent agenda to undermine those whom follow the legal prescribed path to obtain a permit under the guidance of city staff no less. From watching the proceeding today, one can only conclude that the city led this applicant into a mouse trap. Having examined the potential impacts this dropped ball by the city is more like a sinker that had been greased.
As I understand it the proported school’s proximity is the crux of the issue and the fact the school is not ADA accessible and there are no legal conforming changes to this structure only reinforces the stealth nature in which the city planned to curtain this business in this location. The Assistant city attorney’s remarks regarding
why the planning commission was to hear and vote on the issue was telling.He said that because the city sought accountability, it would not be left up to the city administrators, which have already shown a conflict of interest in projects like La Entrada in which the decision is being handled in this unaccountable way.
Unfortunately it was brought to the planning commission with such narrow focus that it was more of an attempt to absolve city administrators role in masterminding the play.Forcing the planning commission to obey the laws of logic with respect to the definition of city school is pretty clear, to see those commissioners whom disagreed with the definition of a school be the voice of reason with respect to the deference experience by the applicant was convincing yet humorous, it almost seems complicit in its empathy.
» on 11.06.09 @ 07:39 AM
Amerikaner is defending pot dispensaries now? Dissapointing. They must have some big bucks.
» on 11.06.09 @ 09:27 AM
NO such thing as a done deal with the City. Don’t the Commisioners do their homework before granting a permit?
» on 11.06.09 @ 09:41 AM
Right, because the special ed. students are going to be rushing over to buy their medical marijuana every day…
» on 11.06.09 @ 11:37 AM
Shame on Hans Edwards for wanting to lead our children into chemical dependency, and shame on Steve Amerikaner for wallowing in this gutter. I guess all the lawyer jokes are true.
» on 11.06.09 @ 11:43 AM
We have a tattoo shop, a smoke shop and a gun shop almost directly across the street from the school. I do not understand why people freak out about this. Are we going to stop allowing liquor stores near schools too?
» on 11.06.09 @ 11:58 AM
I’m sure there is a dispensary nearby that will pick up the slack. At the rate they are being approved and even without everyone doing due diligence, there’ll probably be one in your neighborhood soon.
» on 11.06.09 @ 01:12 PM
“The facility ... is located rather conspicuously in an office building near the corner of Mission and State streets.”
Don’t you mean “... rather INconspicuously ...”? If it was “conspicuous, everyone would have known it was there and this mess would not have happened.
[Noozhawk note: Yes. Thank you.]
» on 11.06.09 @ 10:52 PM
Do you realize there is a tattoo shop, smoke shop, and gun shop within a half of block. We don’t need anymore recreational businesses nearby. What other community is surrounded by these types of businesses and pay million plus for a few bedrooms. We will have more pot stores than health clinics. The community outreach is bs..maybe he talked to the smoke shop to set up combos where pipes are included…because it sure wasn’t with people who live in the neighborhood. Then Gil Garcia is his architect and his wife was in charge of community relations. Wow I am in the wrong business..screw higher education just learn how to weigh weed.
» on 11.07.09 @ 08:04 AM
I saw it on tv for the second time in two days..it seems like they are playing this one more than others..sympathy?
» on 11.07.09 @ 10:15 AM
I live right around the corner from the Mission x State intersection. There are very few if any negative impacts from the gun shop, tattoo shop, smoke shop, corner greasy spoon restaurant, or the AM/PM (beer & wine) / gas station. It’s hard for me to believe that allowing a dispensary at 2 W Mission would’ve done anything to change the character of the neighborhood/intersection at all. I think this retroactive pulling of the permit is slimey, and calling a small office building a “school”, especially when it has what, 10 students since 2006 and most of those over 18, is really stretching things. Actions like this are what cause people to lose faith in their government officials, and then flaunt the law.
» on 11.07.09 @ 12:14 PM
We welcome entrepreneurs in Santa Barbara or do we? There has always been a political posturing on the city behalf to preserve the unique geographical setting of Santa Barbara no one would argue that.Its history of discretionary review board system are one of the oldest in the country. And the result is perhaps the most beautiful city in the county.
World renown Santa barbarians can not afford to regress to era in which the city administrators view themselves more a kin to vatican city elitists, rather than civil servant,the transparent reasonable difficult officials that Shepard the process, not sacrifice it at the applicants expense.
It could be any project for any reason, its a got-ya rather than mis-communication.
Ask yourself whom could have known about the schools presence, perhaps a spouse or relationship between the sphere of influence of the planning commissioners and expatiate conversations in concert with city administrators.
In this city nothing of this order happens by accident.
» on 11.08.09 @ 12:22 AM
It’s good that Steve Americaner stood up for these peoples’ rights. I watched this twice and I could see how affected Edwards was. Its sad to see how the city did not protect their rights. The parents of those disabled children should be focusing on the lack of protection the school is providing by neglecting the safety of their own building, while their claiming to be looking for equal rights of all children. Shouldn’t that be more important than the dispensary? The hearing was a cruel joke. The City attorney’s functions was to insure that the permit would be revoked no matter what. Shame on the CEO, and shame on those parents that let themselves be used like puppets.
» on 11.08.09 @ 11:19 AM
Should be an open and shut case - business licenses - ought to be a database that lists ALL businesses, nonprofit or not, they are paid to teach, they have tax records, there should be a database for the city to track any nonresidential use. It is only stupidity’s fault that it almost opened, no need to allow it be there because of an oversight. If there is a law against being near a school, enforce it, whenever it becomes known, but take steps to know it sooner!!!!
» on 11.08.09 @ 06:25 PM
Just watched this after my neighbor told me about it. Is the City make people pay for the mistakes the county makes? The county did not follow the rules that is why this is happening. They did not report this school to the city because they did not want to spend money on earthquake protection. If the ordinance does not allow dispensaries 500 feet from a school (if you can even considered this a school) have the county pay for the losses of the Edwards and find them a new place.
By the way, this is not about supporting or not supporting cannabis. It is about our city not punishing people who did the right thing according to the rules.
There are many teachers being laid off by the county education dept where they should be putting their money instead of paying attorneys for fighting politically motivated causes.
» on 11.08.09 @ 09:03 PM
Just watched this after my neighbor told me about it. Is the City make people pay for the mistakes the county makes? The county did not follow the rules that is why this is happening. They did not report this school to the city because they did not want to spend money on earthquake protection. If the ordinance does not allow dispensaries 500 feet from a school (if you can even considered this a school) have the county pay for the losses of the Edwards and find them a new place.
By the way, this is not about supporting or not supporting cannabis. It is about our city not punishing people who did the right thing according to the rules.
There are many teachers being laid off by the county education dept where they should be putting their money instead of paying attorneys for fighting politically motivated causes.
» on 11.08.09 @ 09:27 PM
Honestly…another bureaucratic nightmare. Does the left hand ever know what the right is doing in government? In the middle of the worst recession in 70 years the government is intent on unfairly shutting down a very viable business (that they originally ok’d!!) that could provide jobs and care to those who are really in need. And while I sympathize with the special needs school, is there really a threat here? More so from the alcohol being sold just doors down? More so than the gun store??
The hypocrisy here is just unfathomable. Get it together already and let’s try and get into the 21st century, shall we?
» on 11.09.09 @ 08:50 AM
By the comments here, it’s clear that folks don’t know what really occurred. The ordinance is badly written, that’s the first problem. You get notice that a dispensary is moving in if you are 300 ft or less away. The school was more than 300 ft., so they did not get a notice. No dispensary is supposed to be located within 500 ft of a school, per the ordinance. The school is within 500 ft of the dispensary. City staff advised the dispensary there were no schools nearby - the city’s mistake. The building owner where the school resides got a letter from someone that a dispensary was moving in, and then the county responded, as they should have. But it is the city that is at fault for not knowing the location of the county schools. Under the ordinance, they had to revoke the permit. They provided a hearing in accordance with due process under the law. The city attorney gave the correct advice. I do not wish to defend the Planning Commission in any way because in my opinion, it’s always a crap shoot with these people. They might turn down a great project because they don’t like the drain spouts. They might approve a terrible project because they happen to like it. There’s no logic to their process. But in this case, they tried to overstep their purview and compensate the dispensary owner for his time and troubles because the city screwed up. The city attorney correctly advised them that this was not their place. Their only decision was to determine whether or not this was a school under the ordinance, and it is. Thus, the decision.
You may not agree with it, but it was the only decision that could be made due to staff’s error.
» on 11.09.09 @ 09:42 AM
The lack of logic seems to amaze me at times. We have an invisible school, with student unfortunately disabled but realistically incapable of being affected by the dispensary. There is a gun shop, a tattoo place, a lack of fear for liquor
stores, when problems like DUI’s only seem to grow, all which seem to place no worries upon the parents and staff of the school. We have a larger part of the mission street community being elderly, wanting to have a dispensary, but yet this is all thrown out the window because of the misconceptions of a handful of people. Who feel that they must bully their beliefs on to the majority of us. People are moving forward now, we are not living in the past, with false stigmas and misconceptions, medical marijuana is something that is needed and become a part of our society. I think it is very, very sad, that people use these poor children as a device try to prevent this.
» on 11.10.09 @ 06:05 PM
Many ordinances are poorly written and should be fixed, and unfortunately citizens pay the price for poor performance of our goverment. If the ordinance does not allow disp’s within 500 feet of schools, then 500 feet should be the noticing distance. The ordinance was probably written to stifle dissent by having the smallest possible noticing radius.
» on 11.11.09 @ 03:23 AM
What happened with the right cause? I understand people’s fears about our children being exposed prematurely to marijuana, and they should not be.
But we have all lived in a past with drug dealers who sell to our kids, illegal on the streets, in highschool etc with no control, when no dispensaries existed. This has been the pattern for generations.
Now we have a new method constructed by our goverment with people like the Edward’s willing to obey the ordinance and do everything correctly, and we push them away. After talking with friends, I watched the video and I can clearly see people with sincere motivations and the right cause. This iswhat we need to move forward to provide a safe and legal manner to dispense marijuana for people who need it.
What makes me afraid is seeing my city government in a kangaroo court room, with biased bureaucrats, unwilling to find a compromise, but just with a motivation to quickly sweep up their mistakes. I think this is a clear example of good people being unfairly punished by political agendas. Sad, sad sad….
» on 11.12.09 @ 10:21 AM
What I find most interesting is that there are more applicants and/or actual dispensaries (I believe the number is 17 now, but I may be incorrect) for medical marijuana than we have licensed medical pharmacies or coffee houses within the city limits of Santa Barbara. I had no idea we had so many individuals requiring medical marijuana for their glaucoma, malignancies, wasting syndromes or similar disorders and maladies. I have nothing against legalizing marijuana, but I’m not sure the individuals applying for or already having dispensaries are as altruistic as they might appear to be when speaking or acting for the public good. I recommend and refer all readers to Mr. Steve Lopez’s LA Times series on this subject.
More Local News »
Phil Wyatt Builds High-Tech Company with Low-Key Approach
Wyatt Technology's founder and CEO serves as a steady guide for his staff in pinpointing a niche in laser-based instruments
Santa Barbara Airbus Picks Up and Moves to New Location
The company will have more legroom at its new home on Technology Way in Goleta
Residents Get Look at Master Plan for Santa Barbara
An open house kicks off a public-comment period designed to help shape the future of the city
Ninth Circuit Court to Rehear Goleta Rent-Control Case
The appeal on 'regulatory taking' could determine the constitutionality of the city's ordinance
Bob Wilcher: Guaranteed Weight Loss
Eat 500 fewer calories and exercise for one hour each day and enjoy the results
Weather: Fog/Mist 51.0º
Search Noozhawk »
