- 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
Santa Barbara City Council Adopts Moratorium on Marijuana Distribution
After a full day of public meetings, the Santa Barbara City Council on Tuesday unanimously approved and adopted a suspension ordinance — or moratorium — for medical marijuana distribution.
The storefront distribution locations that already have been approved may continue to operate, but all others are stopped in their tracks until a new ordinance is adopted.
A provision that was included in the moratorium allows the processing of pending and future applications for completeness, but the city staff will not approve or deny any projects under the moratorium.
This affects those awaiting appeal or an initial hearing. The moratorium is effective for 45 days, but can — and most likely will be — extended for up to a year. It will end once a new ordinance is in place.
There are three approved locations, two awaiting appeal, five pending, and several nonconforming, illegal or disputed locations. The city attorney has sent cease-and-desist letters to dispensaries on State, Parker, East Haley and De la Vina streets. Most are suspected of being closed for 30 days or more, which violates the ordinance.
Most members of the public who attended Tuesday’s meeting spoke in favor of the moratorium but were wary about the future of the ordinance given the issue’s legal standing statewide.
Court cases are likely to bring changes and better clarity to the issue within the next few months, said David Hughes, a retired attorney and Housing Authority commissioner.
It has been difficult for Planning Department staff to evaluate applications under the current ordinance since they knew changes were coming, and a moratorium helps alleviate the dilemma, Community Development Director Paul Casey said.
Several current medical-marijuana storefront owners were present Tuesday. Some agreed with the need for a moratorium, but some worried about the situation after it is lifted. It could give priority to those who have already filed paperwork and further delay the progress of who, legally, have followed all of the rules under the current ordinance.
Sharon Byrne supported the moratorium, but said the provision could allow out-of-town applicants to hold their places in line. “These aren’t people invested in our community,” she said.
Many groups, including representatives from the Fighting Back Coalition and Santa Barbara Rescue Mission president Rolf Geyling, support the moratorium and spoke in support of limiting the availability of marijuana to nonmedical uses.
Councilmembers Dale Francisco and Iya Falcone, who brought the issue of revising the medical marijuana ordinance to the council, were absent Tuesday.
The revisions proposed by the Ordinance Committee will go before the Planning Commission later this week and end up back with the City Council in early 2010. The decision to extend the moratorium will also be on the agenda next year.
— 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 12.08.09 @ 11:40 PM
I win.
» on 12.09.09 @ 12:27 AM
What I said was, why are we putting in a provision to the moratorium to hold LA profiteers’ places in line? These aren’t people invested in our community. Why is the council trying to extend every courtesy to them? We have one dispensary (and I am not keen on dispensaries) but they’ve been here for 8 years, long before people started screaming about needing all this ‘access’, they’re local, and I don’t get why we’re bending over backwards for the LA-based-seeking-to-open-their-next-chain-store-here-cause-we’re-so-friendly set. There are operators from Berkeley opening here too! Gina, I have high regards for you. Quote accurately next time! I am FOR the moratorium, just not for holding a handout for people who are looking to profit off of recreational sales to our town.
» on 12.09.09 @ 08:41 AM
Don’t get your panties in such a bunch.
Thanks, Giana, for sparing us verbose quotes and rhetorical questions.
» on 12.09.09 @ 08:45 AM
How interesting is it that the only idea the City Council can come up with is a moratorium. They seem to have no proactive or considered thoughts beyond throwing this issue into other hands. Who are they representing? Are they afraid of of being responsible for having an honest and rational discussion with proposed solutions?
Yet more interesting is Dale Francisco and Iya Falcone missing in action.
» on 12.09.09 @ 08:50 AM
Not very compassionate!
» on 12.09.09 @ 09:31 AM
Sharon, I believe the reporter you chastised for a lack of accuracy is named Giana, not Gina as you have noted in your comment.
» on 12.09.09 @ 10:05 AM
I’m not really up to date on this issue, but perhaps someone could explain . . . don’t you need a prescription to receive this “drug”? If so, then why can’t it be provided through a druggist like other drugs? Problem solved?
» on 12.09.09 @ 10:44 AM
I, too, do not understand why, if it is for medicinal purposes and requires a prescription, it cannot be provided through a pharmacy, just like any other prescription drug.
» on 12.09.09 @ 11:05 AM
I’m not really up to date on this issue, but perhaps someone could explain . . . don’t you need a prescription to receive this “drug”? If so, then why can’t it be provided through a druggist like other drugs? Problem solved?
» on 12.09.09 @ 11:07 AM
Problem is it’s illegal at federal level, so no doctor can prescribe it, and pharmacies can’t touch it. That’s why we have this weird no-man’s land of dr. recommendations (a piece of paper which can be copied easily, and are) and storefronts who sell pot. Storefront sales actually are illegal. State law allowed for patients with a dr. recommendation to grow it themselves, or their caregiver can grow it for them if they’re too ill. That’s all we have on the books.
» on 12.09.09 @ 01:04 PM
The gangs will not be able to sell there goods—and the war on drugs which cost billion every year could be spent on sober living—the inmates who go in on drug offenses come out mean and angry—war on drugs is a failure—treat it like beer and wine—
» on 12.09.09 @ 03:16 PM
Who runs this town? The local voters or Pedro Nava? The locals expressed their preferences re marijuana several years ago. Blum managed to ignore it until pressured to act in accordance with the voters’ wishes. Aren’t we all glad she’ll be gone soon? But what of the rest of the council? These are supposed to be the progressives? I thought all good progressives were in favor of marijuana use and just the big bad evil Republicans were against it….
» on 12.09.09 @ 04:25 PM
The cartels aren’t going away. Its madness is to think that the distribution will stop at the California border, or that cartels would pay tax, or that they would quit growing in our national forests using banned pesticides and guarding their grows with weapons.
To provide medical marijuana for free to patients whose doctors recommend it for palliative care would be compassion. Retail pot sales under the guise of medicine is simply condoning medical fraud.
For the recreational users, please be honest and admit that you just want your pot. This “medicine” hoax is an insult to the patients who already have legal access.
» on 12.10.09 @ 02:12 PM
Once again the politicians find themselves in the center of a conflict that has no merit and completely created by “hearsay” with no elements of reality.
If the voters in California want marijuana to be legally dispensed, then what is the problem?
What happened to majority rule?
Why are so many sickos involved with whether or not there is a profit to be made or whether or not it is morally right?
I thought this was capitalism. We sell everything anyway - right?.
Conservatives remind us daily of the breaches of the “supply and demand” mechanics by liberals unless it is a “moral” issue cleverly veiled as an “ordinance” issue.
Did you notice that: “Councilmembers Dale Francisco and Iya Falcone, who brought the issue of revising the medical marijuana ordinance to the council, were absent Tuesday.”
This is politics at its best and worst.
I am proud to predict that this issue will slowly dissipate with the passage of time. The eventual closet smokers will finally admit their usage - with no apparent medical qualifications needed at all.
Dispensaries will become distribution centers. And you can tell your grandchildren what a hypocritical society we were back then.
Until then - keep the weed smoking private.
More Local News »
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
Santa Barbara Developer Fess Parker Dies at Age 85
The local actor was also the namesake of Fess Parker DoubleTree Resort and Fess Parker Winery
Santa Barbara’s Water Has a Rich History, a Complex Future
Despite modern science and technology, basic challenges of delivery and storage transcend eras
Weather: Fog 54.0º
Search Noozhawk »
