Pubdate: Fri, 02 Nov 2012
Source: Coast News, The (CA)
Copyright: 2012 Coast News Group
Contact:  http://thecoastnews.com/
Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/5280
Author: Bianca Kaplanek

VOTERS TO DECIDE ON DISPENSARIES, DEVELOPMENT PLAN

COAST CITIES -- While residents in Del Mar and Solana Beach will
choose whether to allow medical marijuana dispensaries in the county's
two smallest cities, council action to place the nearly identical
measures on the Nov. 6 ballot was not by choice.

Proposition H in Del Mar and W in Solana Beach made their way to the
ballot after the Patient Care Association of California, a nonprofit
organization of medical cannabis collectives, gathered enough
signatures to qualify the initiatives for the upcoming election.

Because enough residents in each city indicated, by way of their
signatures, that they wanted the dispensaries, Patient Care created an
ordinance and presented it to each council earlier this year.

Council members in both cities had three choices.

They could have adopted the potential new law or agreed to place the
measure on the fall ballot. In either case, they could not legally
change the wording.

The third option, which Del Mar took but Solana Beach did not, was to
order a report on, among other things, the legality of the proposed
ordinance, an analysis of the taxing authority and clarification of
physicians who can prescribe the drug and under what
circumstances.

Solana Beach skipped that step but used the information garnered by
the Del Mar report.

Once the report was received, Del Mar was still faced with the same
two original options.

According to its authors, the goal of the proposed ordinance is to
"ensure safe access to medical cannabis in the (c)ity ... for
qualified patients and their primary caregivers."

It includes regulations that limit operating hours and require at
least one security guard on duty when the shops are open.

Security cameras, an alarm system and proper lighting would also be
required. Marijuana and any food containing it could not be consumed
onsite. Alcohol would not be allowed on the premises.

No one younger than 18 could be given medical marijuana unless that
person is a qualified patient accompanied by a parent or legal
guardian who provides proof of guardianship and signs a statement
confirming that status.

Dispensaries cannot be within 1,000 feet of each other and must be in
nonresidential zones. They cannot operate within a 600-foot radius of
a kindergarten through 12th-grade school or playground unless those
facilities begin operating after the dispensary has received its
business license.

The city would receive cost-recovery fees and a 2.5 percent sales tax
in addition to other state and local taxes. That amount will be
reduced to 1 percent if the state ever begins imposing a tax on
medical marijuana.

Proponents claim regulating the compassionate use dispensaries will
provide safe access to medical marijuana for qualified patients. They
say research has shown the drug helps reduce the effects of cancer
radiation therapy, debilitating arthritis and other pain conditions.

In their argument in favor of the initiative, they say it includes
safety precautions and will ensure the dispensaries are located in
proper areas.

Opponents dispute those claims, noting that while use of medical
marijuana is legal in California, it is illegal under federal law.
They say the initiative is about "selling marijuana for profit."

There are also concerns the dispensaries will make the drug more
accessible to young people.

Officials in both cities have called the initiative poorly written and
flawed. Some have said they anticipate a legal battle if the measure
passes.

In Del Mar, voters will also be deciding on Proposition J, a
decades-long project aimed at revitalizing the downtown area.

The plan will reduce Camino del Mar from four lanes to two and add
roundabouts at three intersections. Building heights on the west side
of the city's main street could increase to 26 feet, parking and
mixed-use development will be added and sidewalks would be improved.

Proponents claim the project, at no cost to residents, will decrease
traffic, create a more pedestrian-oriented, bicycle-friendly corridor,
increase parking, decrease pollution and improve the village's
economic viability.

They say zoning changes will improve the look of downtown because they
will provide incentives for owners to upgrade their aging properties.
Proponents note many buildings don't comply with current zoning laws,
which make improvements cost prohibitive.

Opponents say the village specific plan, as it is called, will worsen
traffic, forcing cars to cut through residential streets and reducing
the quality of life in those neighborhoods.

They also claim taxpayers could end up footing the bill and the
project will increase pollution, result in overdevelopment that will
destroy the village charm and lower property values.

Arguments for and against all three initiatives can be found on each
city's website.
- ---
MAP posted-by: Matt