CITY COUNCIL APPROVES DISPENSARY ORDINANCE

Takes 'Baby Steps' By Limiting Number of Medical-Marijuana Outlets to
Two

Somehow the Chico City Council's discussion Tuesday night (June 7) of
a medical-marijuana ordinance came down to a debate over "baby steps."

At issue was whether the number of dispensaries should be limited to
two, as several council members preferred, or be determined by the
land-use restrictions governing their location, which could ultimately
allow several dispensaries.

To Councilwoman Mary Flynn, who preferred the former, it was a matter
of taking "baby steps" at first. "This is something we've never done
before," she said. "My inclination is to start small." She said the
council could allow additional dispensaries in the future, if they
were warranted.

Councilman Andy Holcombe, on the other hand, favors letting the
land-use designations be the determining factors. "I'd like to see the
baby take a few more steps," he said.

Later, Chamber of Commerce CEO Jolene Francis gave her own riff on the
"baby steps" theme, telling the council she believed a lot of folks
thought it was "letting the baby take steps toward a cliff."

And so it went. This was the first reading of a revised ordinance
regulating medi-pot dispensaries (the council has already approved an
ordinance regulating residential grows). In the end the council voted,
4-3, with Mayor Ann Schwab and Councilmen Mark Sorensen and Bob Evans
dissenting, to approve the two-dispensary concept. It will return for
adoption on July 5 and take effect Aug. 5.

Schwab's opposition was to the inclusion of a provision in the
ordinance allowing dispensaries to sell product grown off-site. As
Butte County District Attorney Mike Ramsey had testified, the law does
not allow the transportation of marijuana from grow site to
dispensary, and she was loathe to approve an ordinance that seemed to
condone law-breaking.

The ordinance allowed facilities to be up to 10,000 square feet in
size, which is more than large enough to grow plenty of product
on-site, she contended, thereby avoiding the legality issues.

And yet cities all over the state allow off-site growing, Flynn noted,
asking Ramsey how that was possible. District attorneys in other areas
where medical-marijuana was strongly supported had simply made the
political decision to look the other way, he said.

A number of speakers joined Holcombe in advocating for allowing the
land-use designations to be the determining factors. Others,
particularly representatives of the Citizen Collective, a planned
dispensary, pushed for the two-facility concept.

In some ways limiting the number of dispensaries is more complicated
than simply letting the zoning and other land-use restrictions apply.
Now the council must establish a set of criteria to determine which
two businesses will be given permits (it will meet on Aug. 2 to do
so). Oversight and annual-renewal provisions also complicate the picture.

As it stands, the ordinance has a number of restrictions, including
that a cooperative or collective operate the dispensary, that it be at
least 300 feet from residences and day-care centers and 1,000 feet
from schools, and that it keep adequate records and have a security
plan.

Other council stuff: There's good news and bad on the city
infrastructure front. The good news is that the Federal Emergency
Management Agency has determined that the levees along Sycamore and
Mud creeks protecting northeast Chico are sufficient to withstand a
100-year flood event. That means that about 15,000 property owners in
the area with federally insured mortgages won't have to purchase flood
insurance, something the city estimates will save them each as much as
$1,000 annually.

Mayor Ann Schwab praised city staff for working hard to convince FEMA
of the viability of the levees.

The bad news, at least for city residents, is that sewer fees are
going up by 22 percent (or $6 a month) over the next three years.
After a spirited discussion during which several property owners,
including owners of apartment complexes, objected to the steepness of
the hikes, especially during the first year of implementation ($3.69),
the council endorsed them. No vote was taken, as not enough residents
formally protested (1,000 out of 9,000) via the prohibitively complex
system laid out by state law.

The increases are needed because of rising costs and flat revenues,
city officials said.