Pubdate: Wed, 30 Oct 2013 Source: Santa Cruz Sentinel (CA) Copyright: 2013 Santa Cruz Sentinel Contact: http://www.santacruzsentinel.com/submitletters Website: http://www.santacruzsentinel.com/ Details: http://www.mapinc.org/media/394 Author: Jason Hoppin AFTER YEARS OF DELAYS, SANTA CRUZ COUNTY BOARD FINALLY PASSES POT RULES SANTA CRUZ -- A divided Santa Cruz County Board of Supervisors on Tuesday approved a suite of new medical pot rules, adding the county's name to a small roster of California governments to effectively sanction a gray area of green commerce. The 3-2 vote puts into place new restrictions on the operations, location and staff of the approximately dozen dispensaries in unincorporated areas of the county, an effort to encourage good business practices in an industry still viewed as illegal by federal law. Eventually, the new rules will ban any new clubs. "I think this is a good ordinance for creating a good set of rules that give limited immunity (to medical marijuana dispensaries), but allow access to this medicine, which has been prescribed by a doctor who has to put their license on the line," Supervisor John Leopold said. An early supporter, Supervisor Zach Friend became the strongest opponent of the regulations, saying changes that developed during the past month seem more about protecting the industry than patients. Not only were novel cultivation rules sidetracked to a to-be determined task force, but a 600-foot buffer around parks was removed, which Friend estimated roughly quadruples the allowable space for pot clubs. "We're doing it in the name of commerce, not safety and access, and it's just not something I can support," Friend said. Supervisor Greg Caput, who is seeking a prohibition on growing marijuana outdoors or in residences near parks, also voted against the rules. First discussed seriously in 2010, the rules are aimed at professionalizing an industry for which Santa Cruz has earned some repute. The debate was fringed by federal raids elsewhere and a case on municipal dispensary regulations that went all the way to the state Supreme Court, all of which served to slow progress on the rules. The law is expected to go into effect Dec. 6, and pot clubs will be required to not only hire security, but run their employees, who must be at least 21 years old, through a LiveScan background check. Hours will be restricted to between 8 a.m. and 10 p.m., and clubs must be sited in commercial areas and not within 600 feet of a school or each other. Supervisor Bruce McPherson also included a 300-foot buffer around residential neighborhoods, a rule that does not apply to existing clubs. Once the law goes into effect, new clubs would have 60 days to obtain a seller's permit from the state Board of Equalization. The board also clarified that state permits without an identified location that complies with the new rules would be disallowed, a move that appears aimed at trying to head off a potential "green rush" of prospective business owners obtaining seller's permits in the hope of one day opening a dispensary. Medicinal or not, marijuana is embedded in Santa Cruz culture. But the means of supplying that demand is a source of growing concern, with houses being turned into marijuana grows and concern that large outdoor gardens are causing severe environmental damage. Neighbors, board members and many in the medical marijuana industry have sought to regulate cultivation -- potentially an even more gray confluence of federal, state and local law. But after late objections from pot growers -- including through a newly formed professional group, the Association of Standardized Cannabis -- the Board of Supervisors last week voted to kick the issue of cultivation to a task force, which has not been formed. While the board wanted a set of recommendations quickly, it is not clear how long the task force process will take. Supervisors who voted in favor of the rules Tuesday bristled at Friend's suggestion that the county had handed over regulation of the industry to those being regulated, a move he said undoubtedly would result in weaker cultivation rules. "I can't imagine that my looking at this and trying to regulate this was dictated by anybody outside," Board Chair Neal Coonerty said. "I think that's hyperbole to say that the residential restrictions are gone," said Leopold, who hopes to address the task force at the next county board meeting. "We haven't come to any conclusion on the cultivation." - --- MAP posted-by: Jay Bergstrom