Jim Finnel
Fallen Cannabis Warrior & Ex News Moderator
Public comment on Tuesday overwhelmed the Santa Barbara Ordinance Committee’s first meeting to begin hashing out revisions to the city’s medical marijuana ordinance.
After a presentation by the Planning Division, more than 30 speakers addressed concerns about the growing number of dispensaries, which include legal, nonconforming and illegal facilities.
The ordinance took effect April 24, 2008, and established restrictions for new dispensaries. Community concerns with the location, impact to residential areas and the application process have contributed to the City Council’s order to give it another look.
One speaker on Tuesday said the city must consider the question of “enough.” What is considered safe enough, regulated enough or far enough from an at-risk area? If the city were to cap the number of dispensaries, how many would be enough to serve the community’s needs?
The county and city of Santa Barbara are the only local areas allowing dispensaries, with surrounding jurisdictions enforcing a ban, temporary moratorium or interim ordinance. With this review, Santa Barbara may join that long list.
Location
Concern about the dispensaries comes down to location. It’s a “where do you put them” vs. “where can’t you put them” debate.
The ordinance doesn’t allow dispensaries in certain zones or within 500 feet of K-12 schools or parks. If that definition is expanded — to include youth-related programs and recovery areas, for instance — and/or the distance is increased, the ordinance could all but ban dispensaries.
“Tell us where you want to put them, or tell us where you want to ban them,” committee chairman and Councilman Das Williams said.
An alternative to the 500-foot bubble approach was offered in the form of creating commercial strips in which dispensaries would be allowed. Example areas include parts of Milpas Street and the shopping center in the Mesa.
Attorney Joe Allen, who represents some local dispensary owners, supported the idea and stressed that increasing barriers to entry would attract out-of-town investors.
He said the dispensaries have the “tightest” requirements of any applications and have far fewer calls for service than bars or liquor stores. “There’s a fear that something bad that hasn’t happened may happen,” he said to applause.
One of the biggest concerns brought up to the City Council in previous meetings has been concentration. With current zoning restrictions, there have been certain areas — the Eastside and Upper State Street mostly — housing the majority of the dispensaries.
A cap on the total number — which many residents supported at the meeting — wouldn’t prevent a high concentration in one place unless specific neighborhood or area caps also were issued.
The Application Process
Since the ordinance went into effect last year, no application has been denied. Applications go through the Planning Division’s staff hearing officer and can be appealed to the Planning Commission but not the City Council. There is some discretion left up to the hearing officer, as some criteria are subjective — such as determining whether “no significant nuisance issues or problems are anticipated,” senior planner Danny Kato said during his presentation.
More community involvement, such as creating a citizen advisory council, also was suggested by speakers. That part of the review already has begun. A Citizen Revised Ordinance, created by members of neighborhood and other community groups, adds and deletes language from the current city ordinance.
Some of the new ideas include complete cost recovery for the city; background checks for dispensary owners, managers and investors; including youth-related programs since they serve the K-12 demographic; and reverting to a franchise, request-for-proposal approach.
Having applicants compete for a limited number of spots may weed out less-desirable applicants, Kato said.
“It’ll turn the evaluation process inside out,” said David Pritchett, a City Council candidate who contributed to the Citizen Revised Ordinance.
The Planning Division charges $200 an hour to process applications, and it usually takes 10 to 12 hours, Kato said. Applicants also need to pay fees and charges for permits and a business tax certificate.
The ordinance’s uncertain future makes the legality of each dispensary questionable. While all of them are illegal under federal law, those that are in compliance with the ordinance — only one so far — are legal as far as the city is concerned.
If the ordinance changes significantly, decisions would have to be made regarding existing and approved dispensaries.
The Planning Division is not allowed to hold off on application processing unless there a moratorium is passed, Kato said. It will continue evaluating applications based on the current ordinance for now.
The committee will continue its discussion Sept. 29.
NewsHawk: User: 420 MAGAZINE ® - Medical Marijuana Publication & Social Networking
Source: noozhawk.com
Author: Giana Magnoli
Copyright: 2009 Malamute Ventures LLC
Contact: Noozhawk.com - local news and information for Santa Barbara County
Website: Committee Hears from Public on Revisions to Medical Marijuana Ordinance - Noozhawk.com
After a presentation by the Planning Division, more than 30 speakers addressed concerns about the growing number of dispensaries, which include legal, nonconforming and illegal facilities.
The ordinance took effect April 24, 2008, and established restrictions for new dispensaries. Community concerns with the location, impact to residential areas and the application process have contributed to the City Council’s order to give it another look.
One speaker on Tuesday said the city must consider the question of “enough.” What is considered safe enough, regulated enough or far enough from an at-risk area? If the city were to cap the number of dispensaries, how many would be enough to serve the community’s needs?
The county and city of Santa Barbara are the only local areas allowing dispensaries, with surrounding jurisdictions enforcing a ban, temporary moratorium or interim ordinance. With this review, Santa Barbara may join that long list.
Location
Concern about the dispensaries comes down to location. It’s a “where do you put them” vs. “where can’t you put them” debate.
The ordinance doesn’t allow dispensaries in certain zones or within 500 feet of K-12 schools or parks. If that definition is expanded — to include youth-related programs and recovery areas, for instance — and/or the distance is increased, the ordinance could all but ban dispensaries.
“Tell us where you want to put them, or tell us where you want to ban them,” committee chairman and Councilman Das Williams said.
An alternative to the 500-foot bubble approach was offered in the form of creating commercial strips in which dispensaries would be allowed. Example areas include parts of Milpas Street and the shopping center in the Mesa.
Attorney Joe Allen, who represents some local dispensary owners, supported the idea and stressed that increasing barriers to entry would attract out-of-town investors.
He said the dispensaries have the “tightest” requirements of any applications and have far fewer calls for service than bars or liquor stores. “There’s a fear that something bad that hasn’t happened may happen,” he said to applause.
One of the biggest concerns brought up to the City Council in previous meetings has been concentration. With current zoning restrictions, there have been certain areas — the Eastside and Upper State Street mostly — housing the majority of the dispensaries.
A cap on the total number — which many residents supported at the meeting — wouldn’t prevent a high concentration in one place unless specific neighborhood or area caps also were issued.
The Application Process
Since the ordinance went into effect last year, no application has been denied. Applications go through the Planning Division’s staff hearing officer and can be appealed to the Planning Commission but not the City Council. There is some discretion left up to the hearing officer, as some criteria are subjective — such as determining whether “no significant nuisance issues or problems are anticipated,” senior planner Danny Kato said during his presentation.
More community involvement, such as creating a citizen advisory council, also was suggested by speakers. That part of the review already has begun. A Citizen Revised Ordinance, created by members of neighborhood and other community groups, adds and deletes language from the current city ordinance.
Some of the new ideas include complete cost recovery for the city; background checks for dispensary owners, managers and investors; including youth-related programs since they serve the K-12 demographic; and reverting to a franchise, request-for-proposal approach.
Having applicants compete for a limited number of spots may weed out less-desirable applicants, Kato said.
“It’ll turn the evaluation process inside out,” said David Pritchett, a City Council candidate who contributed to the Citizen Revised Ordinance.
The Planning Division charges $200 an hour to process applications, and it usually takes 10 to 12 hours, Kato said. Applicants also need to pay fees and charges for permits and a business tax certificate.
The ordinance’s uncertain future makes the legality of each dispensary questionable. While all of them are illegal under federal law, those that are in compliance with the ordinance — only one so far — are legal as far as the city is concerned.
If the ordinance changes significantly, decisions would have to be made regarding existing and approved dispensaries.
The Planning Division is not allowed to hold off on application processing unless there a moratorium is passed, Kato said. It will continue evaluating applications based on the current ordinance for now.
The committee will continue its discussion Sept. 29.
NewsHawk: User: 420 MAGAZINE ® - Medical Marijuana Publication & Social Networking
Source: noozhawk.com
Author: Giana Magnoli
Copyright: 2009 Malamute Ventures LLC
Contact: Noozhawk.com - local news and information for Santa Barbara County
Website: Committee Hears from Public on Revisions to Medical Marijuana Ordinance - Noozhawk.com
