Also serving the communities of De Luz, Rainbow, Camp Pendleton, Pala and Pauma

Rainbow CPG informed about planning group Zoom meeting on proposed marijuana ordinance

A Feb.11 Zoom meeting with County of San Diego staff and representatives of various community planning groups and community sponsor groups addressed the proposed marijuana dispensary and cultivation ordinance. Greg Doud represented the Rainbow Community Planning Group and reported on the Zoom meeting during the Feb. 17 Rainbow Community Planning Group meeting.

The planning group did not make a recommendation on the proposed ordinance that evening but supported a special meeting when a County of San Diego staff member could participate. The planning group could make a recommendation at that special meeting.

On Jan. 27, the San Diego County Board of Supervisors voted 4-1, with Jim Desmond opposed, to direct the development of Zoning Ordinance and Regulatory Code amendments which would repeal the existing ordinance restrictions.

The supervisors also directed that county staff report back to the board within 90 days with an update including any regulatory changes which could be implemented during that time and return to the board with a draft ordinance and policies within 180 days.

The Jan. 27 Board of Supervisors hearing included planning group members expressing their dissatisfaction with the lack of prior community input. County staff invited planning and sponsor group representatives to participate in the Feb. 11 Zoom meeting.

"Almost unanimously everyone was in opposition to this," Doud said.

A summary of the Zoom meeting comments will be prepared for distribution for the planning and sponsor groups. "The group is putting together a tabulated list of all the feedback," Doud said.

The two county supervisors who introduced the proposed revision to the marijuana zoning ordinance cited social equity, including economic benefits to members of historically disadvantaged groups, as a reason for dispensaries in the unincorporated county. "I'm not sure that a lot of people buy into the notion that this is really going to solve the problem," Doud said.

Doud noted that most members of the disadvantaged groups live in urban areas rather than in the unincorporated community, that the unincorporated areas lack frequent public transportation, and that the capital needs for a dispensary or a cultivation facility are beyond the financial means of the economically disadvantaged.

Social equity is also the cited reason that those previously arrested for drug offenses will be given priority to operate dispensaries. "That really was a red flag to many," Doud said.

The lack of frequent evening and weekend public transportation in any unincorporated community other than Spring Valley would require dispensary staff and customers to utilize their own vehicles and would increase vehicle miles traveled, so the ordinance might not be defensible against a California Environmental Quality Act challenge which omits mitigation measures.

Doud noted that addressing CEQA requirements could be done either prior to the passage of the ordinance or with the application for individual dispensaries or cultivation facilities.

"If we wait until the applicant is done it may be too late to do anything about it," Doud said.

Addressing CEQA impacts beforehand could delay approval of the final ordinance. "It would really drag out the timeline," Doud said.

The medical marijuana zoning ordinance adopted by the county supervisors in June 2010 restricted dispensaries to land with industrial M50, M52, M54, and M58 zoning and required separation of at least 1,000 feet from another dispensary, a church, a school, a public park, or a residential area.

Three separate building permits for dispensaries in Ramona caused Ramona citizens to seek remediation about the concentration of dispensaries, an application for a Valley Center dispensary was more than 1,000 feet from residentially-zoned land but within 1,000 feet of agriculturally-zoned land which allows for a residence, and an application for a Julian dispensary was on land which had been rezoned from agricultural to industrial but which grandfathered residential use. Board of Supervisors and county Planning Commission hearings were held in 2016 and 2017, and the Feb. 11 Zoom meeting noted planning and sponsor group letters from that time.

The planning group members who spoke Jan. 27 spoke as individuals since the planning groups had not been given the opportunity to take a position. "There has been zero input from the different planning groups on this," Doud said. "This is a land use change and we really should have some buy-in."

The Feb. 11 discussion included subcommittees to address various issues, and another meeting of community group representatives was agreed upon although the specific date is to be determined.

"They will be trying to contact us soon because time is of the essence," Doud said. "If you only have 90 days that's not much time."

The subsequent meeting will incorporate planning and sponsor group input including input from those who address the community advisory groups. "I think it's important that we get the community input on this," Doud said.

"We would like to hear directly from people also," said Rainbow Community Planning Group chair Paul Georgantas. "I'd like to see if we can get some more input from the community."

"I think we need to hear from the public," said planning group member Lynne Malinowski.

"People need to think about it," said Malinowski. "The public outcry should be sooner rather than later."

Two members of the public, Becky Rapp and Kathleen Lippitt, spoke to the planning group members Feb. 17. Rapp noted that the ordinance will allow edible cannabis products which can be marketed for taste. "It was only a few months ago that Supervisor Fletcher campaigned against the sale of flavored tobacco products," she said.

Nathan Fletcher is one of the two county supervisors who introduced the proposed ordinance revision.

Lippitt noted that beneficiaries of the ordinance would be dispensary operators rather than members of the community. "I don't think most people enjoy the smell of marijuana plants," she said.

Author Bio

Joe Naiman, Writer

Joe Naiman has been writing for the Village News since 2001

 

Reader Comments(0)

 
 
Rendered 03/27/2024 06:21