South San Francisco Extends Medical Pot Dispensary Ban

A moratorium on the establishment of medical marijuana dispensaries is being extended so city leaders have more time to study and possibly draw up stricter rules for such operations.

"I support medical marijuana," City Councilmember Karyl Matsumoto said, "but we don't want to become a mecca for marijuana collectives. If our neighbors ban these collectives, everyone will be coming to South San Francisco."

On Wednesday night, Matsumoto and her council colleagues approved extending the temporary ban another 10 months after they agreed in late October on the original 45-day moratorium on issuing permits to dispensaries.

The extended moratorium puts the opening of the newly formed medical marijuana collective Island of Health in limbo. The collective would be the first in the city.

"We believe we need more time," Mayor Mark Addiego said. "We really want to look at everything before we make a commitment."

The council consensus seems to be not to ban dispensaries outright but to work in additional restrictions on them.

The current ordinance adopted in 2006 requires collectives to be in an industrial zone at least 500 feet away from residences, to treat only qualified patients, to have a list of patients available and to meet other conditions.

The ordinance was a response to the 1996 state initiative Proposition 215, which legalized medical marijuana.

A beefed-up ordinance could include a limit on the number of collectives, a requirement to install outside surveillance cameras and additional background checks, city leaders said.

Councilman Pedro Gonzalez, however, would prefer a complete ban.

"I'd like to have another type of business that's less risky," Gonzalez said, arguing that the presence of a collective would contribute to increased crime.

Under local and state rules, Island of Health won a permit from the city Planning Commission to operate at 175 Utah Ave. But neighboring businesses filed an appeal, contending that allowing the collective would go against federal law and lead to other problems.

The council tabled the appeal case until city staff returns with a recommendation about a possible revised medical-marijuana ordinance.

Scot Candell, a San Rafael-based attorney representing Island of Health, could not be reached for comment.

But Candell previously argued that the council should exempt the collective from a moratorium because his client secured its permit a few weeks before the ban.

"This collective did everything by the rules and already spent $40,000 on this process," Candell had said. "It doesn't seem fair that they shouldn't be able to operate."

Candell also has pointed out that the courts allow for collectives and dismissed arguments that dispensaries result in a rise in crime.

But the council voted for the moratorium in light of a recent appellate court case upholding such a ban in the Southern California city of Claremont.

South San Francisco has interpreted that ruling to mean cities don't have to permit dispensaries as part of their land-use planning, Assistant City Manager Marty Van Duyn said.

City leaders have incorporated the medical pot issues in their effort to update zoning laws. The city may be able to resolve those issues long before the moratorium expires because the zoning work could be finalized in the spring, Van Duyn said.


News Hawk- Ganjarden 420 MAGAZINE ® - Medical Marijuana Publication & Social Networking
Source: Inside Bay Area
Author: Neil Gonzales
Contact: Inside Bay Area
Copyright: 2009 Bay Area News Group
Website: South San Francisco Extends Medical Pot Dispensary Ban
 
Councilman Pedro Gonzalez, however, would prefer a complete ban.

"I'd like to have another type of business that's less risky," Gonzalez said, arguing that the presence of a collective would contribute to increased crime.

Under local and state rules, Island of Health won a permit from the city Planning Commission to operate at 175 Utah Ave. But neighboring businesses filed an appeal, contending that allowing the collective would go against federal law and lead to other problems.

If a giant retailer (I mean huge) wanted to come into South San Francisco, I am wondering if they would realize that business establishment would cause an increase of crime.

The type of business really does not matter for measuring whether there is an increase in crime or not.

ps Hopefully everyone knows that South SF is not part of the city/county of San Francisco. South SF is part of San Matoe County where there are a great deal of problems for collectives. Need I say more.
 
Back
Top Bottom