- Home
- News Grid
- Local News
- Green Hawk
- Business
- Politics
- School Zone
- Youth Camps
- Nonprofits
- Missing Pets
- Multimedia
- Arts
- Movies
- Outdoors
- Sports
- News Releases
- Columnists
- Blogs
- Opinions
- Classifieds
- Advertise
- Donate
- Partners
Committee Votes to Proceed with Revised Pot Ordinance
Tuesday marked the fifth time since July that the medical marijuana issue has come before the city of Santa Barbara Ordinance Committee, which voted unanimously to move ahead with changes to the city’s ordinance, including the prohibition of dispensaries within 1,000 feet of Casa Esperanza and in existing mixed-used buildings that have residential condominiums.
The Santa Barbara City Council last week directed the Ordinance Committee to continue the work it has been doing on an existing ordinance and to begin revising the language to restrict medical marijuana distribution outlets to those that comply with state law.
On Tuesday, committee members agreed on a citywide cap on dispensaries. There would be seven total, one in each of the neighborhoods, including outer State Street, De La Vina Street, Mission Street, downtown east of State Street, downtown west of State, Milpas Street and the Mesa. The dividing line bisecting the west and east downtown neighborhoods, formerly State Street, was moved farther east, to Anacapa Street.
The committee also approved a change that would require security officers of the buildings to get a background check from a state-licensed, private-party operator security company.
The committee also approved a prohibition on dispensaries in existing mixed-use buildings where the residential units are condominiums and within 1,000 feet of Casa Esperanza.
Most of the dialogue among committee members, staff and the city attorney centered on the cap that would be enforced among each of the city’s seven zones. Of particular interest was what to do with two dispensaries that are slated to be in the same west downtown zone, the Farmacy at Paseo Chapala and another at 2 W. Mission.
Committee member Grant House and chairman Das Williams were in support of creating a system to guarantee their permits while they looked for other locations to operate, ensuring they don’t lose their status in processing.
City staff took issue with that idea, however.
The Farmacy was approved but is under appeal. “Which means it’s not approved,” senior planner Danny Kato said.
The other location, at 2 W. Mission, did get a permit, but it was revoked. “That is unfortunate,” Kato said, “but to let them stay in line because of the cap doesn’t seem fair.”
Williams took issue with that because he felt the city was changing the rules “midstream.”
“I just think this is the cleanest way to handle a very messy situation,” he said.
House agreed, saying people who have made it through the planning process shouldn’t be made to start over.
“Of all the kinds of dispensaries that there could be, that would be the kind that has gone through our process and rigorously abided by all this stuff,” he said. “They’re going to completely go back to the beginning of the process. That’s the rub right there.”
When committee member Dale Francisco was asked about the idea, he said he felt like it was “opening up a can of worms.”
Williams suggested that the city stop processing applications from those two zones until the first applicant has an opportunity to change the application and have a vote on its merits, prompting city attorney Steve Wiley to speak up.
Drafting a zoning ordinance to a specific project wouldn’t work, he said, and that “legally, that’s very suspect.”
Both dispensaries were suspended after the staff hearing officer’s decision, he said, and approval had not been finalized. “I don’t support the idea that we owe someone something when they didn’t get through the entire process,” Wiley said.
One dispensary per zone was agreed upon, and a reduced amortization period of six months for existing and nonconforming dispensaries would begin when the revisions are adopted by the City Council.
Last Tuesday, the City Council talked about the issues facing for-profit dispensaries as opposed to nonprofit collectives and a moratorium on pending and approved dispensaries. The council will look at the moratorium issue in December.
Tuesday’s item will go to the Planning Commission in January, and then to the City Council.
— Noozhawk staff writer Lara Cooper 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 11.24.09 @ 09:38 PM
I have never seen a public attorney as exasperated with two elected officials as Steve Wiley was today during the ordinance committee hearing, with Councilmembers House and Williams. Das Williams insistence upon advocating for two “dispensaries” that had already been DENIED a permit, despite the planner and City attorney trying to explain that it is INAPPROPRIATE [illegal?] to establish zoning law based upon the desire to afford preferential treatment to one applicant——well, truly stunning. One would think these two—and especially Das—- with all his smug sarcasm and self-righteous pontificating—- see their role as providing as much and as easy access to marijuana as possible. They are not even willing to restrict “dispensaries”: around RECOVERY HOMES. amazing.
» on 11.25.09 @ 12:09 AM
Highlights from today’s ordinance committee meeting:
Dispensaries aren’t good for tourists, so let’s keep them off State St. But the citizens, kids, and vulnerable populations must sure need them because we’ve made sure they’ll be drowned in dispensaries…
Dispensaries aren’t good for Casa Esperanza, so let’s protect them. Put it in the ordinance by address, in case Casa Esperanza goes out of business in the recession. But Salvation Army, Transition House, Rescue Mission, and any other sober-living facilities downtown – you’re on your own. Protecting the vulnerable doesn’t extend to your populations.
According to Grant, dispensing pot and providing referrals to yoga or acupuncture = healthcare. A pot dealer, er, medical marijuana provider must therefore = primary care provider. He ought to call Lois Capps and see if she could work his neat theory into the healthcare bill.
Are you a sweet dispensary that filed your paperwork and did everything right? And you got screwed over by the city? Poor thing! Are you the Farmacy or the people at 2 W Mission? Don’t you worry - we’ll instruct Wiley to make sure you don’t lose your place in line, even if it means some other dispensaries get shafted. We’ll make special rules for you to jump the queue. Don’t fret – you’ll beat that cap and that dratted proposed moratorium! We’re here to help!
1000 ft from schools? Oh, that’s too much. We aren’t into protecting vulnerable populations, if you didn’t catch that before. We’re liberal, but we don’t intend to extend liberally protections to vulnerable populations. We’re only liberal when it comes to pushing pot…
But wait, we better protect Coast Village Road. Don’t want any dispensaries there, oh no. That would be bad.
Better not put any in over at Cottage, either. The sick people might find them.
Let’s play with maps! Look at all the pretty maps! Too bad Danny Kato drew them on his own, and they don’t match the new ordinance, which we didn’t bother publishing to the wider public. Better make them match the ordinance - wouldn’t want to confuse the Planning Commission. Everyone knows they can’t think straight when ‘dispensary’ and ‘zone’ are mentioned in the same sentence.
Das: let’s move the “West Downtown zone” to end east of State at Santa Barbara St. That’s much better. (Bet the gangs don’t get that logic any more than residents and business owners do) That way, we don’t zone them all on to Chapala. Anacapa can have their share of dispensaries, too. Wouldn’t want to deprive them. But remember, keep them hidden from the tourists, so none on State St.
» on 11.25.09 @ 05:58 AM
Poor Wiley, Poor Dale, having to put up with those two. And Grant just got re-elected, and Das is running around Ventura touting his Santa Barbara accomplishments so he can get elected to statewide office. Is everybody around here just too stoned to notice?
» on 11.25.09 @ 05:59 AM
Let’s keep these Medical Marijuana Retail Centers out of the core of our City. The two proposed projects in question should NOT be approved nor be given special treatment. Dale Francisco, Steve Wiley and Danny Kato are right, Das Williams and Grant House are clearly wrong on this issue! Let the new Council stand up for what is the best for our community.
» on 11.25.09 @ 08:50 AM
If anyone is interested in an education about how NOT to make public policy—-watch this replay (or you can find it on the city’s website). Especially watch and listen to Das Williams and Grant House spend two hours basically serving as advocates for the pot industry. frustrating and annoying the patient city attorney,Wiley, and the usually compliant planner, Kato.
Stunning displays of arrogance, dismissiveness and “we can make up laws” attitude.
» on 11.25.09 @ 09:05 AM
Simple solution. Make sure these are non profit collectives as outlined in prop 215. Don’t limit the number within the zones, it will only increase illegal distribution. Market conditions will “weed” out the weak. By implementing all these restrictions, fee’s and taxes on the approved dispensaries it will increase the price of the medication to the patients and they will get their med’s another way. As it stands these stores are too expensive already. Someone has to pay for the Austin Martin’s, non-profit? The idea of the collective is to reduce the cost of the medication, with the profits going back to the members, either in dollars or medications. I don’t see this is happening. Also, collectives are supposed to get their product from their members “locally” not from out of town “brokers” from No Cal. The council first needs to understand the co-op, collective concept and apply it as conceived and get on to “real” city business. The present path the council is on will be tested in court. P.S. If Dale had any respect for us as citizens he would quit with the faces and rolling of the eyes and look attentive or should just put a bag over his head, unprofessional!
» on 11.25.09 @ 09:10 AM
if one didn’t know one might think Das Williams’ role up there was to advocate for the “rights” of marijuana retail operators (aka: “medical marijuana dispensaries”). With the exception of his nod to “Casa Esperanza” Das spent the entire meeting finding ways to expand available opportunities for pot selling stores. truly remarkable and no wonder the city attorney looked like he wanted to quit right on the spot or scream “ARE YOU NUTS?”
» on 11.25.09 @ 11:47 AM
I never knew Steve Wiley was elected to the city council!
» on 11.25.09 @ 03:56 PM
No dispensary within 1000’ of Casa Esparanza?! How many alcohol outlets are in that zone right now? The bizarre implication of this rule is somehow that the and near homeless can’t be trusted around the demon weed. Anyone with any experience in this field would assure you that we would all be better off if marijuana was freely dispensed to these folks and alcohol was completely banned.
» on 11.30.09 @ 01:29 PM
Reading the story was interesting. Reading the comments is for the most part, truly alarming. The level of hysteria, sarcasm and general refusal to even consider the merits of legally dispensing marijuana to those in need of the relief it provides, amazes me. I count legitimate patients among our vulnerable, with needs and rights as important as those of recovering drug addicts and others deemed susceptible to substance abuse. Why the rush to add secrecy and shame to the medical struggles these people deal with on a daily basis? And why, in this day and this age, are so many sounding in this forum sounding as if “Reefer Madness” is their gospel? When it comes to individual, family and societal damages, file your indignation under A for Alcohol, P for Pharmaceuticals or H for Homecooked Hell like meth.
More Local News »
City, County of Santa Barbara Likely to Feel Effects of Scandal-Related Legislation
Statewide bills passed this week aim to rein in salaries and pension benefits for public employees
Goleta Council to Weigh Whether to Shoulder Its Share of Jail Sales Tax
A city report issued ahead of next week's meeting raises concerns about costs and levels of service
Teen Male Shot in Arm on Santa Barbara’s Lower Eastside
Police are investigating and have not yet determined whether the incident was gang-related
Redevelopment Agency, School District Wrangle Over Property
Santa Barbara officials balk at giving away property on South Calle Cesar Chavez for new school maintenance and operations facilities
Neighborhood Clinics Program Working to Fill Gap in Mental Health Care
The Neighborhood Counseling Program in Santa Barbara treats patients formerly served by the county ADMHS
Weather: Fog/Mist 56.0º
Search Noozhawk »
