Planning Commission rebuffs supervisors' call for marijuana dispensary ban

Although the San Diego County Board of Supervisors directed county staff to develop an ordinance banning marijuana dispensaries in unincorporated San Diego County, including cultivation-only facilities and existing facilities which will be given a five-year amortization period, the county's Planning Commission refused to recommend that ban.

A 5-0 Planning Commission vote Feb. 10, with Doug Barnhart and David Pallinger absent, approved a recommendation against the proposed total ban with a statement that a ban would be counterproductive due to the lack of regulation of a black-market alternative, including pesticide restrictions, the risk that a citizens' initiative would create more lenient zoning, and increased travel for medical marijuana patients.

The Planning Commission's proposal is that the two existing medical marijuana dispensaries in unincorporated San Diego County, along with the three facilities which had been deemed vested, should be allowed to operate without an amortization period. A 4-1 vote, with Michael Seiler opposed, recommended the allowance of those five dispensaries with a ban on all other dispensaries and a ban on outdoor signage and advertising.

The final motions did not include an initial proposal that during 2018 the Planning Commission consider guidelines for cultivation of medical marijuana on land with A72 General Agriculture zoning, so the final Planning Commission action did not address cultivation.

"To bring something into conformance in five years strikes me as a little bit tight," said commissioner Peder Norby.

In November 1996, the state's voters passed Proposition 215, which allows for the cultivation, possession, and use of marijuana for medicinal purposes.

In June 2010, the Board of Supervisors adopted regulations to the county's Zoning Ordinance to address medical marijuana dispensaries while also approving a regulatory ordinance for licensing and operating requirements. Medical marijuana dispensaries are restricted to parcels with M50, M52, M54, or M58 industrial zoning and must be at least 1,000 feet away from each other, a church, a school, a public park, or a residential area.

The supervisors' 2010 zoning stipulations preceded a court decision that jurisdictions could ban dispensaries completely. Seventeen of the county's 18 incorporated cities enacted bans on dispensaries with the City of San Diego being the exception.

In March 2016, the Board of Supervisors placed a 45-day moratorium on new dispensaries while directing county staff to provide potential modification measures, including changing the 1,000-foot separation requirement from parcels with residential zoning to parcels with residential use, increasing the buffer distance from residences and other sensitive land sites, adding incorporated cities to the 1,000-foot separation requirement, requiring a Major Use Permit which would include public review, increased civil penalties for violators of the ordinance, and exploring increased enforcement.

In April 2016, the county supervisors voted 5-0 to extend the moratorium by an additional 10 months and 15 days while confirming the direction to staff to provide potential modifications. The moratorium allowed existing applications to move forward.

The case-by-case review of existing applications determined whether substantial work had taken place for the project to be vested. Two licensed dispensaries currently operate in the unincorporated county: one in unincorporated El Cajon near the Gillespie Field airport, and one in Ramona near Ramona Airport.

Four additional dispensaries have been issued building permits: two in Ramona, one in unincorporated El Cajon, and one on Nelson Way on the Valley Center-Escondido border. Licenses but not building permits have been approved for four additional facilities consisting of two in Lakeside, one in Ramona, and one in Julian.

The two Ramona facilities which had been issued building permits were deemed vested along with the Nelson Way dispensary, while vesting was denied for the El Cajon application and for the four proposed dispensaries with licenses but not building permits.

The potential modifications were discussed by the Planning Commission Nov. 4. A 6-0 vote with Doug Barnhart absent recommended a limit of four dispensaries in any supervisorial district and two in any community planning area, a requirement for a Minor Use Permit, increasing the minimum purchase age from 18 to 21, limiting dispensary hours to between 10 a.m. and 8 p.m., requiring security cameras and security guards, and increased fine amounts for repeat violators. The recommendation retained the 1,000-foot buffer from sensitive areas and did not separate sales from cultivation.

The limitation on the number of dispensaries in any community or supervisorial district along with the purchase age increase was referred to as Option 8.

"I do like the idea of what we did in Option 8, but I like the idea of the suggestion today on no outdoor signage and advertising added to that," said commissioner Bryan Woods.

On Nov. 8, California's voters approved Proposition 64, which legalized the recreational use of marijuana. Although Proposition 64 prohibits local governments from banning the transportation of marijuana on roads within their jurisdiction, city or county governments can still regulate sales facilities.

When the Board of Supervisors considered the Planning Commission's recommendation at a Jan. 25 hearing, the supervisors voted 3-2 for a complete ban.

Because the option of a ban had not been discussed at the Nov. 4 Planning Commission meeting, that zoning regulation was required to be heard by the Planning Commission and the commissioners were not obligated to recommend in favor of the proposed ordinance banning facilities entirely.

"We are all disappointed at the board's decision," said Chris Brown, who represented the San Diego County Trade Association of Medical Marijuana Collectives. "A ban is wrong and bad for the community."

"We policed ourselves," said Dino Berardino, whose Ramona facility was deemed vested.

Several residents of unincorporated San Diego County urged the Planning Commission to support the county supervisors' call for a ban.

"I do not want medical dispensaries in my community," said Lakeside resident Terry Burke-Eiserling. "We cannot keep medical marijuana out of the hands of young people."

The Nov. 4 Planning Commission recommendation did not address the issue of residential zoning versus residential use, nor did it address the difference between sales and cultivation.

The San Diego County Farm Bureau has not taken a position on dispensaries or cultivation but would like farmers' options to remain open.

"Right now marijuana production is recognized as an agricultural crop in the State of California," said Farm Bureau executive director Eric Larson.

Larson noted that cannabis could still be grown outside of unincorporated San Diego County if the county banned cultivation.

"You will not have any impact on sale or production," said Larson. "Banning commercial cannabis production is both short-sighted and not in the best interest of local farmers."

Jon Jessee lives in unincorporated Vista and is a member of a medical marijuana cooperative.

"Sick people don't grow marijuana," said Jessee. "You can't just put a seed in the ground and put water on it."

Jessee called for enforcement measures to address the problem of youth access.

"Anybody who gives marijuana to youth should be punished with a felony and go to prison," said Jessee.